# Is Music the Creation of Divinity?



## michael walsh

*Is Music the Creation of Divinity? *

Many great musicians truly believed that their pens, as they composed, were guided by a divine spirit. Beethoven typically refused to take the credit for his music. For those of a mystical frame of mind there is much to ponder on. How do you describe something you cannot see? How did Ludwig van Beethoven create the most beautiful orchestrations of his music whilst unable to hear it?

Beethoven's death, in common with several other great composers, is threaded with mystery. As the Grim Reaper embraced this shabbily dressed irascible genius there broke over the Viennese night the most violent and terrifying electrical storm. The city cowered as thunder and lightning split the heavens. Beethoven, lying semi-conscious on his bed, was heard to murmur, 'I shall hear in heaven'. He raised his arm as though to salute the afterlife and departed. The storm immediately began to abate.

His funeral cortege brought this great European city to a halt. Schools and businesses closed; life held its breath and upwards of 30,000 people lined the streets to pay homage. Among the throngs the great Franz Schubert who was to follow the great master to the grave just 12-months later.

Nearly two-hundred years on and the renowned flautist James Galway is adamant that the edge to his virtuosity is sharpened by God's intrusion. When discussing his ambitions Galway agreed that they were limited: "They are merely that I should leave good memories behind me; that people should feel when they recall my name, that in some odd inexplicable way, they have at sometime heard the voice of the Infinite through me."

*LUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN*

Ludwig van Beethoven was just twelve years old when his virtuosity inspired his kindly mentor, Christian Gottlob Neefe, to present the talented child to the Elector of Cologne, Maximilian Franz: "He is, I believe, touched with genius."
"Quite a word to use of one so young,' said the Elector: 'You must not let this go to your head, young man,' he added looking directly at Ludwig.
Ludwig spoke in a firm, clear voice: 'Sir. I have a gift that people say comes from God. I believe that to be true.'

"The Lord and I are on speaking terms, and our bickering most often gets penned onto a piece of parchment." - Beethoven.

*AMADEUS MOZART *

The tremendous storm that consumed Vienna at the time of Beethoven's spirit readying to leave his form may be dismissed as coincidence. Yet a similar freak of Nature occurred as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's hearse was being trundled to his final resting place: "The hearse, with the few mourners, then proceeded to St Mark's churchyard, but before the burial place was reached a terrific storm of snow and rain burst overhead, and with one accord the mourners turned back, and left the hearse to proceed alone. And thus the master, of whom it was prophesied that he would cause all others (composers) to be forgotten … was left to be buried by the hands of strangers in a pauper's grave, without even a stone to mark where he was laid." - Francis Jameson Rowbotham.

When a little older he (Beethoven) arrived in Vienna for the first time, he looked forward to meeting yet another great musician; Wolfgang Mozart. Music, he thought, the highest art, coming directly from God. How many men have such a calling? In Bonn one alone. In Vienna one alone. And now I will meet him. At last! - The Last Master. John Suchet.

"When Mozart was inspired to write Idomeneo or The Magic Flute, he was in touch with God." - James Galway, Flautist.

*FRANZ SCHUBERT*

Of Franz Schubert Beethoven surmised: "Truly, the spark of Divine genius resides in this Schubert". / " .. the composer nearest to God". - Artur Schnabel

*JOSEPH HAYDN*

"It seems as though God gave me a cheerful heart, so I'm sure He'll forgive me if I serve Him cheerfully."

"Whenever I think of God I can only conceive of Him as a being infinitely great and infinitely good. This last quality of the divine nature inspires me with such confidence and joy that I could have written even a miserere in tempo allegro."

*GIACOMO PUCCINI*

"God touched me with his finger and said 'write for the theatre, mind you - only for the theatre'... and I've been faithful to this supreme command." 
*
GEORGE FREDERIC HANDEL*

"A Lady being very musical, was invited by him (Handel) to a private Rehearsal of the Messiah, and being struck with the Exceeding dignity of expression in the Choruses, and other parts of ye oratorio so inimitably set to the sacred works, after the musick was over she asked him how it was possible for him, who understood the English Language but imperfectly, to enter so fully into the sublime spirit of the Words. His answer is I think a lesson to all composers, at least of Sacred Musick;
"Madam, I thank God I have a little religion."

On composing Messiah, Handel is said to have remarked (1741):"I did think I did see all Heaven before me and the great God Himself." On another occasion, Handel whilst writing the Messiah, when speaking to a servant at the hotel in which he was staying: "Once he had finished the hallelujah chorus he spoke to the servant, 'The lord spoke to me and hath said 'twas not I who wrote this but on accord of Him.'
*
RICHARD WAGNER*

"I am being used as the instrument for something higher than my own warrants. I am in the hands of the Immortal Genius I serve for the span of my life and his intention that I complete only what I can achieve."

"An atheistic upbringing is fatal. No atheist has ever created anything of great and lasting value." - Richard Wagner in conversation with Engelbert Humperdnck in 1880: quoted in Arthur M. Abell, 'Talks with Great Composers' (1955)

*CHARLES FRANCOIS GOUNOD*

"How do you think of those lovely melodies?" asked a female admirer of Charles Gounod: The master replied: "God, Madame, sends me down some of his angels and they whisper sweet melodies in my ear." - James Harding, Gounod (1973).

*JOHANNES BRAHMS*

"I know several young composers who are atheists. I have read their scores, and I assure you, Joseph, that they are doomed to speedy oblivion, because they are utterly lacking in inspiration. Their works are purely cerebral. No atheist has ever been or ever will be a great composer." - Johannes Brahms in conversation with the violinist Joseph Joachim (1831 - 1907). Quoted in Arthur M. Abell: Talks with Great Composers. (1955).

*DINU LIPATTI*

Half an hour before he died he (Dinu Lipatti) was listening to records of Beethoven's F minor Quartet. To his wife he said: "You see, it is not enough to be a great composer. To write music like that you must be a chosen instrument of God."

Walter Legge, the impresario was later to remark of Dinu Lipatti: "By the same light we may say it is not enough to be a great pianist: To play as Lipatti played you must be a chosen instrument of God. God lent the world His chosen instrument whom we called Dini Lipatti for too brief a space."
*
ANTONIN DVORAK*

'Life was a very uncomplicated thing to him. Instead of turmoil or neuroticism or dark brooding, we encounter a simple and sincere piety, such as only the deeply religious man is capable of.' - A writer's observation of the Czech composer.

*JAMES GALWAY *

James Galway is an internationally acclaimed flautist. He says: "Nothing pleases me more today than when somebody says to me: 'You know, Jimmy. You can hear God in your playing.' It delights me to think that in some small way I am a link between God and whoever is listening."

"What I had to do instead, I decided, was to make sure I represented the composer properly to the world. Or to go and bit deeper, the composer's inspiration, which obviously came from God." 
AMALIA RODRIGUEZ, Iconic Portugues Fado Singer.

"Even if he doesn't exist, I believe in Him." 
*
HERBERT VON KARAJAN *

When asked where did his talent come from? Herbert von Karajan, the formidable Austrian-German musician and conductor was equally forthright: "I was given special tools, special talents. I never had any doubts that my talents came from the Creator. My duty to Him is to exploit them to the fullest. My ambition is to make music as perfectly as possible and reach as many people as possible."

"You don't need faith to believe in God, because there are plenty of signs available of His existence. Mozart wrote a symphony as a child. Heredity cannot account for this. There is only one explanation: the Creator chooses people as His instruments to produce some beauty in a world that is all too ugly. "

*MICHAELANGELI*

The renowned Italian Classical Pianist: "I'm nothing but a priest of god's music."
*
ANTON BRUCKNER*

That Bruckner felt inspired by God is to state the obvious. In addition to the vocal religious works, he dedicated his 9th Symphony "To our Beloved God" (although it's said that he modestly appended 'if He'll accept it'). Anton Bruckner did make it clear that he also considered his view of the Day of Judgement as part of his perspective. Another of his quotes: "When God calls me to Him and asks me: 'Where is the talent which I have given you?' Then shall I hold out the rolled-up manuscript of my Te Deum and I know He will be a compassionate judge."

"They want me to write differently. Certainly I could, but I must not. God has chosen me from thousands and given me, of all people, this talent. It is to Him that I must give account. How then would I stand there before Almighty God, if I followed the others and not Him?" - Anton Bruckner.

The debate over whether these great men of music were swayed by their religious convictions or by a deity will be hotly debated without of course anyone knowing the intriguing answer. Until then perhaps it is just best to ponder on that which isn't as yet ours to know. ©


----------



## Lukecash12

I think this dead horse has been beaten enough, my friend.


----------



## Johnny

Whether or not somebody thought their composing was guided by something supernatural, it's still not true. Or at least, there is no evidence to support their claim. And therefore such a claim is outrageous.


----------



## Polednice

I'm still frustrated that you paid no attention to my comments on the Brahms quotation! He may have been condemning his antiquated notion of what an 'atheist' is, but this certainly did _not_ mean that he was endorsing theism!


----------



## Edward Elgar

I get my inspiration from the devil. He comes to me in dreams and plays me awesome melodies on a guitar made from Hitler's skeleton. I don't know where I'd be as a composer without the devil. I owe everything to him. Thank you. Thank you.


----------



## Johnny

The bible is so mundane.

The Lord Of The Rings is much better!


----------



## michael walsh

It's only an article, already doing the world media. The boards editor did ask for articles and I obliged. As long as it makes people think; it evidently does so. It certainly aroused some pretty strong emotions.


----------



## Guest

And while I am not unsympathetic to this notion, some of these anecdotes, particularly on the deaths of Beethoven and Mozart, seem a bit to melodramatic, and I would not be surprised in the least to find that they have been greatly embellished. For some strange reason, we don't consider the great people throughout history to be able to stand on their own merits, so we tend to mythologize them, as if fantastical stories somehow increase their stature. To me, there is greater evidence for divine inspiration in Beethoven in his 9th symphony than in whatever meteorological phenomena were present at his passing. I don't need an incredible story to tell me more than what his own creations tell me.


----------



## Guest

Johnny said:


> Whether or not somebody thought their composing was guided by something supernatural, it's still not true. Or at least, there is no evidence to support their claim. And therefore such a claim is outrageous.


"no evidence to support their claim" does not equal "not true." I would argue that there is no evidence to disprove the claim. If these quotes are indeed real, then what these people felt was on a personal level, and while that may not be convincing to you, it would be the height of arrogance to claim them untrue and outrageous.


----------



## Aramis

> As long as it makes people think;


Come on, does it? There is nothing to think about - if one belives in God then he belives that everything that exists is his creation. If one doesn't belive in God then he doesn't belive that he created music or anything.


----------



## michael walsh

The greatest classical Spanish guitarist of all time, Andres Segovia had said of (John) Williams:

"A Prince of the Guitar has arrived in the musical world. *God has laid a finger on his brow, *and it will not be long before his name becomes a byword in England and abroad, thus contributing to the spiritual domain of his race."


----------



## Guest

Johnny said:


> The bible is so mundane.
> 
> The Lord Of The Rings is much better!


Um, to quote the great Inigo Montoya (The Princess Bride): I do not think it [mundane] means what you think it means.

Do you know the definition of mundane? Here are a few, just culled from www.dictionary.com:
1. of or pertaining to this world or earth as contrasted with heaven; worldly; earthly: mundane affairs.
2. common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative.
3. of or pertaining to the world, universe, or earth.

The bible is mundane? Really? It pertains only to this earth, and gives no though to heaven? It is common, ordinary, banal, and unimaginative? I would submit that people who don't in fact accept it as a divinely inspired book would call it the height of imagination.
Whether or not you accept it as a divinely inspired book, it is widely regarded that much of it, if not all, is very skillfully written, rife with beautiful imagery, symbolism, and poetry.

Tolkien himself would take issue with your comparison of his work with the bible. He was a devout Roman Catholic, and was instrumental in C. S. Lewis' conversion from atheism to Christianity.


----------



## michael walsh

*AMALIA RODRIGUEZ, Iconic Portuguese Fado Singer.*

_"Even if he doesn't exist, I believe in Him." _


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

In a broadly Christian society, it's not surprising that a substantial proportion of its members would have Christian beliefs. You could have produced another list, citing all the famous bricklayers in Europe who also held religious views. In neither case does the fact that a lot of people believe something make it true.

Time was, most people believed the earth is flat. Now, vanishingly few people do. What happened? If the earth really was flat in the old days when - and because - most people believed it was, did it suddenly change form a two dimensional object to a three dimensional one between then and now? 

Was a simple majority of people believing the world is round sufficient for it suddenly to pop into its new shape, or was a two thirds majority needed? Or maybe it gradually changed from two to three dimensions as the numbers of believers in roundness grew.

Or perhaps it really was two dimensional when it was being perceived by someone who believed it was, but simultaneously three dimensional when perceived by someone else of the opposite faith - sorry, belief.


----------



## Johnny

michael walsh said:


> *AMALIA RODRIGUEZ, Iconic Portuguese Fado Singer.*
> 
> _"Even if he doesn't exist, I believe in Him." _


Says it all really. 

I was expecting the "you can't disprove it!" defence! Awesome! And the accusation of being arrogant for thinking it ludicrous somebody believes in some mythology! Somebody is going to play the "getting offended" card. I have a gut feeling of it!

This is almost certainly a waste of time, but what the hell. You cannot possibly think the fact there is no way of disproving the existence of god, as a good reason for believing him to exist. First of all, you can say that about ALL religions that have ever been made up. Ancient ones that people have grown out of, and modern ones. They cannot all be true. Also, you can not disprove the claim that my left shoe is the reincarnation of Elvis. - Hardly a convincing reason to take the idea seriously.

I'll probably leave it at that, because I struggle to think of anything more futile than trying to reason with people who choose to ignore reason.


----------



## SPR

....the word is 'inspiration' for a reason... it comes from 'spirit'... and anyone that has ever been struck all at once by sudden understanding, a new perspective - an unlooked for solution, I suspect can understand it. Someone who has been in, for lack of a better term... a trance like state while absorbed in the creation of - well anything really, and then looked at it with wonder after the fact can understand. Solving a problem, sculpting something that has a trace of beauty in it, there are million examples I suppose. Its only happened to me a couple of times... when I used to draw... and again later on when I was doing something fairly technical.

anyway... I digress...

I think to belittle the notion is near sighted and silly. To ridicule it is juvenile. It doesnt matter in the slightest if you do or do not believe in a divine being. I certainly do not. However, I believe that humans (universally) have the capacity to experience - or perceive (real or imagined, again it matters little) considerable awe at being transported to a place where inspiration and solutions strike with otherworldly impact. Life changing impact. _religious_ impact.

And as far as the rest of the world perceiving it? Who here has not been awestruck by a piece of music (since this is a music forum) and thought that there is something more going on than mere craftsmanship.... I would say more than not. Ever seen the sistine chapel? Ever seen some of Leonardos pencil sketches?

and yes... the lord of the rings is simply pregnant with christian symbolism... sam and frodos trudge up mt doom with Frodo bearing the ring (cross), gandalf as wielder of the 'secret fire'.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Fire ) etc... there is too much to go into... but I find it hilarious that story is being held up as it was in this thread.

In short - I wouldnt be too hasty to discount (or indeed validate) artists beliefs - what matters are the gifts that they give us. Enjoy them, and perhaps spend more time doing so than calculating the validity of divine inspiration or lack thereof.


----------



## michael walsh

I don't believe in atheists ... therefore they do not exist!


----------



## Lukecash12

Johnny said:


> Whether or not somebody thought their composing was guided by something supernatural, it's still not true. Or at least, there is no evidence to support their claim. And therefore such a claim is outrageous.


In your opinion. God is not the Easter bunny, he isn't Santy Claus. "I know that my redeemer liveth." The scriptures we revere, and the Jehovah we attribute them to, have presented supremely all-encompassing philosophy, psychology, and logic in general. Get back to me when you have read the scriptures end to end, understood through both scriptural and historical context, and applied it to your life to test it's relevance.

If you had a kernel of faith in you, you could move a mountain. If you were to maturely and logically consider the bible, and the the bible alone (none of this jargon from Dante's inferno, popular theology, utterly pointless arguments about the trinity, etc.), you would inherit the well being promised to every prodigal son and daughter.


----------



## David58117

michael walsh said:


> *Is Music the Creation of Divinity? *
> 
> HERBERT VON KARAJAN [/B]
> 
> ...the Creator chooses people as His instruments to produce some beauty in a world that is all too ugly. "
> 
> [


Maybe then instead of Beethoven and Brahms, Gods idea of "beautiful" is something more like this:

,,,or is it just the tiny populated genre of Classical music where he "speaks?" I notice Backstreet boys are also on that list...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_States


----------



## Guest

Johnny said:


> Says it all really.
> 
> I was expecting the "you can't disprove it!" defence! Awesome! And the accusation of being arrogant for thinking it ludicrous somebody believes in some mythology! Somebody is going to play the "getting offended" card. I have a gut feeling of it!
> 
> This is almost certainly a waste of time, but what the hell. You cannot possibly think the fact there is no way of disproving the existence of god, as a good reason for believing him to exist. First of all, you can say that about ALL religions that have ever been made up. Ancient ones that people have grown out of, and modern ones. They cannot all be true. Also, you can not disprove the claim that my left shoe is the reincarnation of Elvis. - Hardly a convincing reason to take the idea seriously.
> 
> I'll probably leave it at that, because I struggle to think of anything more futile than trying to reason with people who choose to ignore reason.


If your arguments are the pinnacle of reason, then I'll gladly choose my "mythology." I like how you anticipate the argument that isn't coming. I cannot prove the existence of God to you, nor would I try. Most people of faith will tell you that nobody proved it to them - they found it for themselves. I am not offended in the least by your comments - I see nothing that even closely approaches the point where I should even take it seriously. By the way, did your "left shoe is the reincarnation of Elvis" comment take you that long to think up? Is that the reason that I am choosing to ignore?

Bottom line - I believe in God, and I believe these composers when they claim they felt the hand of God, or some higher power, directing them in their works. That you think such ideas are ridiculous does not surprise me, nor does it bother me in the least. It certainly presents me with no attractive alternative to my belief system. Quite honestly, you have shown not only a disdain for faith, but also a frank disregard for reason in your various comments - particularly in the musical period discussion. Reasonable explanations were provided to you there based on actual evidence, and you chose to ignore them. So I'm not really sure that anything would actually reach your threshold of believability.


----------



## jurianbai

_Is Music the Creation of Divinity? _

who cares?

btw, please don't say bible is mundane, as well as atheist is devil. it is not GOOD, boy!


----------



## GraemeG

I've never been much of a fan of the 'argument from personal incredulity', but when I sit with a score in my hand and examine it closely, it staggers me that it could have come from the mind of a man. I feel this less with art, or literature, or architecture, but somehow with music it seems to pass all understanding. I wrote programme notes for a performance of Bruckner 6 two years ago, and spent many a bus ride making notes with Bruckner's score in my hand. How a man can hold that in his head and then get it onto paper leaves me bewildered and amazed.
It wouldn't surprise me if occasionally the composer himself (even one with the ego of Wagner) stood back and thought 'Bugger me, how did I do that?'
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Sid James

jurianbai said:


> _Is Music the Creation of Divinity? _
> 
> who cares?...


Exactly.........


----------



## Guest

GraemeG said:


> I've never been much of a fan of the 'argument from personal incredulity', but when I sit with a score in my hand and examine it closely, it staggers me that it could have come from the mind of a man. I feel this less with art, or literature, or architecture, but somehow with music it seems to pass all understanding. I wrote programme notes for a performance of Bruckner 6 two years ago, and spent many a bus ride making notes with Bruckner's score in my hand. How a man can hold that in his head and then get it onto paper leaves me bewildered and amazed.
> *It wouldn't surprise me if occasionally the composer himself (even one with the ego of Wagner) stood back and thought 'Bugger me, how did I do that?'*
> cheers,
> Graeme


 Best line of this entire thread! It got an instant grin from me.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

The only thing we can say for certain is that much sublime music by the masters were _inspired_ by their God, composed to glorify their religion. It's interesting, that's all I can say, but if one composer wrote something great becasue he was inspired by a block of wood instead or by simply breathing in oxygen, then so be it.


----------



## jhar26

michael walsh said:


> Many great musicians truly believed that their pens, as they composed, were guided by a divine spirit.


Why then were the pens of many lesser composers who may have been just as (or more) religious as the greats not guided by that same divine spirit?


----------



## Jaime77

the assumption that we believe in God in this thread is something... not just God but someone's idea of what God should be


----------



## Polednice

I just want to say how jarringly arrogant it sounds (especially for contemporary artists) to claim the hand of divinity in anything. On the one hand, it may seem like a humble thing to say - 'such creations transcend the human capacity and so must be given to us by a higher being' - but it simultaneously suggests that these creations by mortals are so wonderful, so mind-bogglingly glorious, that they simply _must_ be divine!

Besides, if God does exist, surely every attribute ever dished out to any human being that has ever walked the earth - be it Mozart or Hitler - has been given his lot by God, so surely it doesn't matter in the least if a composer is touched by Him. Is that not just stating the obvious? No, of course not, it's the reiteration of something illogical to boost the ego...


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I just want to say how jarringly arrogant it sounds (especially for contemporary artists) to claim the hand of divinity in anything. On the one hand, it may seem like a humble thing to say - 'such creations transcend the human capacity and so must be given to us by a higher being' - but it simultaneously suggests that these creations by mortals are so wonderful, so mind-bogglingly glorious, that they simply _must_ be divine!
> 
> Besides, if God does exist, surely every attribute ever dished out to any human being that has ever walked the earth - be it Mozart or Hitler - has been given his lot by God, so surely it doesn't matter in the least if a composer is touched by Him. Is that not just stating the obvious? No, of course not, it's the reiteration of something illogical to boost the ego...


No - and here I don't want to get into a religious debate, so I hope you don't misconstrue what I am about to say - but most people who claim a belief in some higher power - be it the Judeo-Christian God, or whatever - will tell you that various people are given diverse talents, and those we characterize as geniuses in their fields are typically those who very successfully identified, and fully utilized, the talents instilled in them. I, for one, do not believe that I was granted any special musical or artistic talents, and so while I might try my hand in these areas, while technically you could say that if I am truly one of God's creations, his hand directed me in my actions for good, that doesn't give my output greater bearing than someone with true talent in that area.

I acknowledge that those who do not believe in the existence of a higher power will not accept such explanations - I'm not trying to persuade one way or another. I am just presenting my perspective, as one who does. Some people have been given greater talents in certain areas, and if they fully utilize them, accomplish amazing things, above and beyond the ordinary.

I don't think it is arrogance. It is akin to a child taking immense pride in accomplishing something with the help of a parent - something the child alone was not capable of producing, but with the help of another, was amazed at what they had done.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

This is the third time this same topic has come up, each time by the same person. The two previous threads are:

http://www.talkclassical.com/6543-great-musicians-gods-voice.html

and

http://www.talkclassical.com/7851-pen-hand-divine-spirit.html

What, therefore, is the point of this one, other than to stir up anti-religious controversy all over again?


----------



## Guest

Andy Loochazee said:


> This is the third time this same topic has come up, each time by the same person. The two previous threads are:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/6543-great-musicians-gods-voice.html
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/7851-pen-hand-divine-spirit.html
> 
> What, therefore, is the point of this one, other than to stir up anti-religious controversy all over again?


Ah, I actually hadn't made that connection.
Although, as anybody who has read my posts in these threads knows, I am a person who does have deep-set religious beliefs, I think that this constantly poking this beast with a stick is starting to look like trolling.

I am divided on this issue. Certainly it is a valid topic, given the vast catalog of religious-themed music in the all-encompassing pantheon of "classical" music. And certainly many of the composers we revere were self-identified men of faith. On the one hand, I think it somewhat petty for non-believers to jump into a discussion for no reason other than to ridicule those beliefs, or to insert extraneous comments that contribute nothing positive to the discussion. Far too many people have lost the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. It is a valid argument to make in saying that you don't in fact believe that any higher power influenced the creation of these musical works. It seems like a ridiculous point, though, to then say that these people had no divine influence, and furthermore such notions are . . . . . (fill in whatever derogatory statement you wish). It seems equally foolish to deny religious influence on the creations of people that were devoutly religious, and credited their faith for their accomplishments. Whether or not there is a higher power, there is significant evidence that having faith in something, whether real or not, can have beneficial results.

At the same time, if we have already discussed a point, debated it to death, gotten into heated arguments over it, and finally walked away, to then repost the exact same thing, in a slightly different manner, seems more like a childish desire to stir up a hornets' nest and watch the reaction. If you have a new idea to post, great. If it is dragging the same dead horse from its grave, over and over, for one more kick, as this thread seems to be, that does nothing to strengthen your argument, and appears childish.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

DrMike said:


> Ah, I actually hadn't made that connection.
> Although, as anybody who has read my posts in these threads knows, I am a person who does have deep-set religious beliefs, I think that this constantly poking this beast with a stick is starting to look like trolling.
> 
> .......
> 
> At the same time, if we have already discussed a point, debated it to death, gotten into heated arguments over it, and finally walked away, to then repost the exact same thing, in a slightly different manner, seems more like a childish desire to stir up a hornets' nest and watch the reaction. If you have a new idea to post, great. If it is dragging the same dead horse from its grave, over and over, for one more kick, as this thread seems to be, that does nothing to strengthen your argument, and appears childish.


There is nothing new in this latest version of the article to justify a new thread. It's a clear case of trying to stir up yet more trouble.


----------



## michael walsh

I repeat: After giving it a worldwide airing, in which it was favourably received, I noticed that CMF was inviting articles and thought, why not post it? It was not intended to wind anyone up. May I suggest, agreeably, that if you react badly to it then it is you who have the problem; not me. Why on earth can't you respect the opinions and beliefs of others without this juvenile bickering over the articles merits or otherwise.


----------



## Guest

michael walsh said:


> I repeat: After giving it a worldwide airing, in which it was favourably received, I noticed that CMF was inviting articles and thought, why not post it? It was not intended to wind anyone up. May I suggest, agreeably, that if you react badly to it then it is you who have the problem; not me. Why on earth can't you respect the opinions and beliefs of others without this juvenile bickering over the articles merits or otherwise.


It just seems kind of pointless to post it again, if it has already been posted here. If your intentions were innocent, I apologize for my comments, but it still seems to not be necessary to create 3 threads on the same article.


----------



## michael walsh

Well, if the mods wish to remove the two other threads I think he or she should feel at liberty to do so. I couldn't agree more; I am surprised at the level of polarised opinions; the anti-Christian comments; the intolerance, the flaming, offensive insults. We have all heard of Islamaphobia but many of the comments could best be described as Christaphobia.


----------



## mueske

michael walsh said:


> Well, if the mods wish to remove the two other threads I think he or she should feel at liberty to do so. I couldn't agree more; I am surprised at the level of polarised opinions; the anti-Christian comments; the intolerance, the flaming, offensive insults. We have all heard of Islamaphobia but many of the comments could best be described as Christaphobia.


Don't worry, I'm sure they hate all religion equally.


----------



## Argus

michael walsh said:


> Well, if the mods wish to remove the two other threads I think he or she should feel at liberty to do so. I couldn't agree more; I am surprised at the level of polarised opinions; the anti-Christian comments; the intolerance, the flaming, offensive insults. We have all heard of Islamaphobia but many of the comments could best be described as Christaphobia.


You were surprised at the level of polarised opinions in a thread about religion? Really?



> Don't worry, I'm sure they hate all religion equally.


I think it might be easier to hate religions that have caused innocent people to be burned at the stake, be stoned to death, uprooted from their homeland and just generally oppressed. I'm not sure, but I don't think Buddhism or Taoism receive as much criticism or garner as much hatred from atheists as other larger religions.


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> You were surprised at the level of polarised opinions in a thread about religion? Really?
> 
> I think it might be easier to hate religions that have caused innocent people to be burned at the stake, be stoned to death, uprooted from their homeland and just generally oppressed. I'm not sure, but I don't think Buddhism or Taoism receive as much criticism or garner as much hatred from atheists as other larger religions.


See, you make your argument look so ridiculous with such statements, and completely undermine your position.

Atheists today hate Christianity because of abuses centuries ago? And here I thought atheists were ruled by reason, not emotion. That type of notion makes about as much sense as me saying that I hate Japanese because Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Actually, my scenario is at least less than 100 years old. Ooooh, I know, I hate Italians because Italians (Romans) stuffed Christians into animals skins and tossed them into arenas to be torn to pieces by wild animals.

Christians persecuted people they shouldn't have over their long history. Muslims persecuted people they shouldn't have over their long history. Pagans persecuted people they shouldn't have throughout history. Atheists persecuted people they shouldn't have throughout history. Catch the common theme here? If Christians could claim exclusivity in unjustified persecution, then you might have a point. It seems more to be a common problem of all mankind, regardless of their faith, or lack thereof, as the case may be.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> Atheists today hate Christianity because of abuses centuries ago?


No, abuses today. I wouldn't say atheists hate Christianity as there is nothing wrong with a differing ideology. It's only when the logical conclusion of that ideology is flying a plane into a building or telling the world condoms spread aids that we have a slight reservation.



DrMike said:


> Pagans persecuted people they shouldn't have throughout history. Atheists persecuted people they shouldn't have throughout history.


Really?! Who have these groups persecuted?


----------



## Lukecash12

Argus said:


> You were surprised at the level of polarised opinions in a thread about religion? Really?
> 
> I think it might be easier to hate religions that have caused innocent people to be burned at the stake, be stoned to death, uprooted from their homeland and just generally oppressed. I'm not sure, but I don't think Buddhism or Taoism receive as much criticism or garner as much hatred from atheists as other larger religions.


How is it that you can responsibly justify condescending to a religion because of what those who have followed it have done? Read the damned book yourself and find it out, I say.


----------



## Lukecash12

Edward Elgar said:


> Really?! Who have these groups persecuted?


The Soviet Union (atheists) murdered religious people in scores, the Germanic Pagans conquered the old Western Rome and sacrificed many of them. Atheists continue to ridicule religious people to this day, and I can't count how many incidents of violence and stark intolerance that has gone on in third world country, and my country alike. It's happened in my town, happened to my step brother in Colorado, etc.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Lukecash12 said:


> The Soviet Union (atheists) murdered religious people in scores,


Indeed. They were motivated by political reasons and targeted anyone who didn't cooperate with the state regardless of their belief system. Pure evil.



Lukecash12 said:


> the Germanic Pagans conquered the old Western Rome and sacrificed many of them.


Getting their own back eh?! Good on 'em! (wasn't Rome pagan at this time?)



Lukecash12 said:


> Atheists continue to ridicule religious people to this day,


Theists shouldn't have such funny belief systems!



Lukecash12 said:


> and I can't count how many incidents of violence and stark intolerance that has gone on in third world country, and my country alike. It's happened in my town, happened to my step brother in Colorado, etc.


First I've heard of this! This is quite shocking, please present me with either more information about how this violence started or any links to news sites documenting the violence.

I suppose you're aware of the religious exploitation of third-world inhabitants through hoax exorcisms. Also, the current Pope told the world condoms spread aids. Do you think this will be beneficial to people of the third-world?


----------



## Johnny

michael walsh said:


> Well, if the mods wish to remove the two other threads I think he or she should feel at liberty to do so. I couldn't agree more; I am surprised at the level of polarised opinions; the anti-Christian comments; the intolerance, the flaming, *offensive *insults. We have all heard of Islamaphobia but many of the comments could best be described as Christaphobia.


I *knew *it!

And would a religious person mind addressing this for me: 
You cannot possibly think the fact there is no way of disproving the existence of god, as a good reason for believing him to exist. First of all, you can say that about ALL religions that have ever been made up. Ancient ones that people have grown out of, and modern ones. They cannot all be true. Also, you can not disprove the claim that my left shoe is the reincarnation of Elvis. - Hardly a convincing reason to take the idea seriously.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Johnny said:


> I *knew *it!
> 
> And would a religious person mind addressing this for me:
> You cannot possibly think the fact there is no way of disproving the existence of god, as a good reason for believing him to exist. First of all, you can say that about ALL religions that have ever been made up. Ancient ones that people have grown out of, and modern ones. They cannot all be true. Also, you can not disprove the claim that my left shoe is the reincarnation of Elvis. - Hardly a convincing reason to take the idea seriously.


Do you have anything even remotely interesting to say or ask about classical music, or is your mission in life to be a regular pain in the bum to everyone here?


----------



## Lukecash12

Edward Elgar said:


> Indeed. They were motivated by political reasons and targeted anyone who didn't cooperate with the state regardless of their belief system. Pure evil.
> 
> Getting their own back eh?! Good on 'em! (wasn't Rome pagan at this time?)
> 
> Theists shouldn't have such funny belief systems!
> 
> First I've heard of this! This is quite shocking, please present me with either more information about how this violence started or any links to news sites documenting the violence.
> 
> I suppose you're aware of the religious exploitation of third-world inhabitants through hoax exorcisms. Also, the current Pope told the world condoms spread aids. Do you think this will be beneficial to people of the third-world?


First, I don't agree with the Pope at all. I don't consider Catholicism any more than a pagan religion (and that is just me, so no offense to anyone else). And the Soviet Union declared itself an atheist country, and did indeed put people in lines and shoot them if they were religious. This is fact, and it was indeed persecution of religious people, not political adversaries.

I'll elaborate more on my own experiences with the problem. My step brother, Andrew Deason, when he started college, was stabbed by Aaron Finck, who had abused his girlfriend in the past, and Aaron was not happy that his ex (who had a restraining order against him) was with a Christian.

On another occasion, my Papa (grandfather) found three young adults beating someone with crow bars and baseball bats. He shouted at them and threw himself at them with his full weight, so that they were startled and ran away. They called the victim a damned Christian, and threw a brick through my Papa's window the next day, because he had reported them to the police.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Edward Elgar said:


> No, abuses today. I wouldn't say atheists hate Christianity as there is nothing wrong with a differing ideology. It's only when the logical conclusion of that ideology is flying a plane into a building or telling the world condoms spread aids that we have a slight reservation.


I'm sure you don't mean that the logical conclusion of Christianity is to fly planes into buildings. You must be referring to Islam and the events of 9/11. I'm no supporter or defender of Islam but even I can see that your comment about "logical conclusion" is simply plain daft and unfair.

As for condoms and the spreading of aids, this has to be seen partly in the context of Roman Catholic Church's position on artificial birth control generally, and the obvious fact that there is bound to be some positive association between STI and the activity which gives rise to it.



> Really?! Who have these groups [atheists and paganists] persecuted?


This has already been answered but it is surprising that an intelligent person like you should ask such a silly question when there are so many easy answers that readily spring to mind, eg Stalin.


----------



## Argus

DrMike said:


> See, you make your argument look so ridiculous with such statements, and completely undermine your position.
> 
> Atheists today hate Christianity because of abuses centuries ago? And here I thought atheists were ruled by reason, not emotion. That type of notion makes about as much sense as me saying that I hate Japanese because Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Actually, my scenario is at least less than 100 years old. Ooooh, I know, I hate Italians because Italians (Romans) stuffed Christians into animals skins and tossed them into arenas to be torn to pieces by wild animals.
> 
> Christians persecuted people they shouldn't have over their long history. Muslims persecuted people they shouldn't have over their long history. Pagans persecuted people they shouldn't have throughout history. Atheists persecuted people they shouldn't have throughout history. Catch the common theme here? If Christians could claim exclusivity in unjustified persecution, then you might have a point. It seems more to be a common problem of all mankind, regardless of their faith, or lack thereof, as the case may be.


Firstly, I never specified any religion, only 'other larger religions'.

Secondly, history better allows us to understand the future. If something has happened in the past, is it not just as likely or even more so, to happen in the future. So people who experienced abuse of ideologies shouldn't hate Fascism or Communism because most of their atrocities were in the past.

Anyway, this is a rather tired path to tread, so I'd rather just let everyone else do some typing.


----------



## Johnny

Andy Loochazee said:


> Do you have anything even remotely interesting to say or ask about classical music, or is your mission in life to be a regular pain in the bum to everyone here?


I didn't bring up the religion discussion. When it came up I said that it is daft to belive in things in the absence of evidence. This was responded to with "there's no evidence god does not exist". I then said this, "You cannot possibly think the fact there is no way of disproving the existence of god, as a good reason for believing him to exist. First of all, you can say that about ALL religions that have ever been made up. Ancient ones that people have grown out of, and modern ones. They cannot all be true. Also, you can not disprove the claim that my left shoe is the reincarnation of Elvis. - Hardly a convincing reason to take the idea seriously." And am curious as to how a religious person would respond. I was hoping for something to actually address what was said, not just name-calling.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Lukecash12 said:


> And the Soviet Union declared itself an atheist country, and did indeed put people in lines and shoot them if they were religious.


It was in the Soviet Union's best political interest, evil as it was. Religion advocates the "divine right of kings" which is the antithesis of communism. Had Russia been an autocracy, religion would have been embraced as a way of keeping the people in their place in society.



Lukecash12 said:


> I'll elaborate more on my own experiences with the problem. My step brother, Andrew Deason, when he started college, was stabbed by Aaron Finck, who had abused his girlfriend in the past, and Aaron was not happy that his ex (who had a restraining order against him) was with a Christian.
> 
> On another occasion, my Papa (grandfather) found three young adults beating someone with crow bars and baseball bats. He shouted at them and threw himself at them with his full weight, so that they were startled and ran away. They called the victim a damned Christian, and threw a brick through my Papa's window the next day, because he had reported them to the police.


First let me give you my sympathies, these are heinous acts and should be approached in a serious manner.

It sounds like your family were victims of people from poor/uneducated backgrounds. There are places near where I live where declaring faith in Yahweh will put you in danger from attack.

As far as I'm concerned, these people's opinions don't matter as they will never amount to anything. They may not believe in a deity but then again I doubt they believe in anything at all. They are sociological non-entities.


----------



## Johnny

Even if it was proven that subscribing to some religion was a somehow a good thing. It's still not true. They're still all a bunch of primitive made up stories with literally no evidence to support them.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Johnny said:


> Even if it was proven that subscribing to some religion was a somehow a good thing. It's still not true. They're still all a bunch of primitive made up stories with literally no evidence to support them.


Subscribing to a (monotheistic) religion is to say; "I submit to total obedience and I have no problem with being watched and judged my whole life".

Sounds a bit like 1984.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Johnny said:


> Even if it was proven that subscribing to some religion was a somehow a good thing. It's still not true. They're still all a bunch of primitive made up stories with literally no evidence to support them.


If subscribing to a religion can be proven to be a "good thing" how do you reconcile this with "it's still not true"? Which "stories" are you saying are made up? Can you offer any proof that they are all made up? What do you mean by "made up", anyway? All of Christian scriptures, including both the OT and NT, are the inspired words of God written by men, so in that sense they are made up but not in the derisory sense you obviously mean.


----------



## David58117

Johnny said:


> Even if it was proven that subscribing to some religion was a somehow a good thing. It's still not true. They're still all a bunch of primitive made up stories with literally no evidence to support them.


One of the most annoying parts about being an Atheist (and I am) is we have geniuses who repeat the same thing over and over, adding insults into the mix and insulting something they clearly don't understand.

I'm sorry, but comments like this is what gives Atheism a bad name, and they are incredibly embarrassing.


----------



## Johnny

Thinking that any religion is true also gives up the main thing which seperates us from other animals. Our capability for reasoning. At least, more advanced reasoning than any other animals. Yet people still believe in things like religions/astrology/homeopathy/etc. There are just no words that I know of that adequately describe how absurd they all are. And we are supposedly the smart species! 

Would people not feel uneasy, for example, if you go to a doctor, (someone you are trusting with your health. You are trusting they have listened to your story, read the research, and come to reasonable recommendations based in reason and evidence), and then find out they believe in the Easter Bunny? Would it not shake your trust that this person is reliable?


----------



## Johnny

David58117 said:


> One of the most annoying parts about being an Atheist (and I am) is we have geniuses who repeat the same thing over and over, adding insults into the mix and insulting something they clearly don't understand.
> 
> I'm sorry, but comments like this is what gives Atheism a bad name, and they are incredibly embarrassing.


Could you explain to me what I said that is not true?


----------



## David58117

Johnny said:


> Thinking that any religion is true also gives up the main thing which seperates us from other animals. Our capability for reasoning. At least, more advanced reasoning than any other animals. Yet people still believe in things like religions/astrology/homeopathy/etc. There are just no words that I know of that adequately describe how absurd they all are. And we are supposedly the smart species!
> 
> Would people not feel uneasy, for example, if you go to a doctor, (someone you are trusting with your health. You are trusting they have listened to your story, read the research, and come to reasonable recommendations based in reason and evidence), and then find out they believe in the Easter Bunny? Would it not shake your trust that this person is reliable?


Ugh, not another Easter Bunny example! Better than that lame flying spaghetti monster, at least.

Surely someone who excels at reason must realize God and the Easter Bunny are two very different entities. The only comparisons are superficial and completely miss the point.



Johnny said:


> Even if it was proven that subscribing to some religion was a somehow a good thing. It's still not true. They're still all a bunch of primitive made up stories with literally no evidence to support them.


You're not understanding that *faith* is *not* about having evidence! Also, you're adding insults into the mix which is totally unnecessary.

Here's a question for you - what good do Atheists do to help the people within their community? How about in comparison to a church? When was the last Atheist "build a house in Mexico" project?


----------



## Johnny

Both are mythological creations.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Lukecash12 said:


> And the Soviet Union declared itself an atheist country, and did indeed put people in lines and shoot them if they were religious. This is fact, and it was indeed persecution of religious people, not political adversaries.


True, but can't the execution of religious persons all be traced back to religion anyway, in the long run? Without the creation of organized religion, there would be no atheists to do the executing and there would be no theists to execute. Without it, literally countless lives would have been saved throughout history. Of course the creation of organized religion was inevitable, but this is just hypothetically speaking.

P.S.: The U.S.S.R. undoubtedly killed its political rivals.


----------



## Lukecash12

Edward Elgar said:


> It was in the Soviet Union's best political interest, evil as it was. Religion advocates the "divine right of kings" which is the antithesis of communism. Had Russia been an autocracy, religion would have been embraced as a way of keeping the people in their place in society.
> 
> First let me give you my sympathies, these are heinous acts and should be approached in a serious manner.
> 
> It sounds like your family were victims of people from poor/uneducated backgrounds. There are places near where I live where declaring faith in Yahweh will put you in danger from attack.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, these people's opinions don't matter as they will never amount to anything. They may not believe in a deity but then again I doubt they believe in anything at all. They are sociological non-entities.


Right you are. So why do people inflect such opinions on religions such as Christianity, when some of these misinterpretations have apparently been made by non-entities?


----------



## Guest

Andy Loochazee said:


> Do you have anything even remotely interesting to say or ask about classical music, or is your mission in life to be a regular pain in the bum to everyone here?


I think a considered study of all Johnny's posts would answer your question very easily - Johnny's his name, trolling is his game.


----------



## Johnny

You made a point. I responded. Just because you haven't got an argument doesn't make me a troll.


----------



## Guest

Johnny said:


> Thinking that any religion is true also gives up the main thing which seperates us from other animals. Our capability for reasoning. At least, more advanced reasoning than any other animals. Yet people still believe in things like religions/astrology/homeopathy/etc. There are just no words that I know of that adequately describe how absurd they all are. And we are supposedly the smart species!
> 
> Would people not feel uneasy, for example, if you go to a doctor, (someone you are trusting with your health. You are trusting they have listened to your story, read the research, and come to reasonable recommendations based in reason and evidence), and then find out they believe in the Easter Bunny? Would it not shake your trust that this person is reliable?


Okay, so you believe a belief in God is just as ridiculous as belief in the Easter Bunny. And by your brilliantly reasoned analogy of the doctor, I am assuming you would be just as afraid of being treated by a doctor that believed in God as one who believed in the Easter Bunny. So . . . do you quiz your doctors on their religious beliefs? Do you verify that your doctor is an atheist, or do you just look for a diploma and the M.D. behind his name? Is there some kind of database where we can locate atheist doctors? Because obviously a belief in God guarantees medical incompetence. Nevermind the fact that so many brilliant minds throughout history were also religious. Bach must have been an idiot - he believed in God. We are all fooling ourselves in seeing genius in his works. Sir Isaac Newton was clearly a complete moron, and we should all stop giving Newtonian physics any credence whatsoever, because clearly a man that said, "God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done," should not be believed.

But your superior rational mind, so unfettered by religious mythology, is so brilliant. By your reasoning, people like Bach and Newton are really comparable to lower animals. By the way, that seems like a ridiculous statement in and of itself. Animals create and pass along mythology? Really? Even if all religion is nothing more than mythology, it still strikes me as higher level thinking than anything we have discovered in any other species on this planet. This line of reasoning sounds about as thoroughly considered as your thoughts on how musical periods should be categorized. Or is it that you think that the system for categorizing all species in the animal kingdom is rather arbitrary?

Yes, you certainly are a credit to all those who call themselves atheists. Luckily, I understand that there are all kinds of atheists. There are smart atheists, and then there is you, claiming that Christians can't possibly be relied upon with your health care.


----------



## Lukecash12

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> True, but can't the execution of religious persons all be traced back to religion anyway, in the long run? Without the creation of organized religion, there would be no atheists to do the executing and there would be no theists to execute. Without it, literally countless lives would have been saved throughout history. Of course the creation of organized religion was inevitable, but this is just hypothetically speaking.
> 
> P.S.: The U.S.S.R. undoubtedly killed its political rivals.


And what is wrong with organized religion? Wouldn't we have found something else to misinterpret, and go off on an out of context, presumptuous tangent with? What about gangs, niches, cults? They started off with good intentions, and then they got out of hand. Currency, politics, society in general. So many good intentions misinterpreted and abused, yet we make out perfectly wonderful things to be the problem, rather than those individuals who have obviously misinterpreted the message, and need enlightenment and mental sustenance.

How responsible is it, for people to go about choosing ideologies as scapegoats, when they don't know their head from a hole in the ground when it comes to said ideology?


----------



## Sid James

Oh dear, we have opened a can of worms, haven't we?

All I can say is that though some composers may have felt that they were inspired by a sense of the divine, and even wrote religious works, the listener does not have to be part of that religion to enjoy their music. Music is truly a universal thing, not locked into a certain ideology. It's part of a global life force, if you will, which in today's context need not be connected with things religious (although in the past, in (say) J. S. Bach's time, there was a strong connection). Things have changed, we are now more secular in the way we do things, but that doesn't mean one can't be spiritual & music can still fulfill those needs...


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Okay, so you believe a belief in God is just as ridiculous as belief in the Easter Bunny.
> ...
> There are smart atheists, and then there is you, claiming that Christians can't possibly be relied upon with your health care.


While I haven't exactly shown myself in these discussions to be a huge supporter of organised religion (!), I just wanted to reiterate DrMike's fair criticisms of the kinds of comments that he discussed. Although I truly believe that agnostic atheism is the most rational position for humans to take with their current state of knowledge and experience, this in no way means that the general intelligence and competence of believers should be brought into question.

Of course we should trust and respect God-fearing doctors, so long as that belief does not result in actual malpractice (like trying to force faith-healing on people at the expense of a patient's health - but that's a different matter entirely because it is not true of all believing doctors!). Even more personally than that, I trust my (sometimes devout) religious friends and acknowledge their intelligence because their belief has little or no impact on their competence and humanity - we just end up having heated arguments on the matter!

The horrific logical flaws that fundamentally undermine faith and which are open to exploitation by those who wish to discriminate, oppress and kill in the name of their particular Lord are truly damaging to all societies, but we mustn't confuse our disgust with such ways of thought with the individuals who adhere to them for reasons we might not be fully aware of (however unjustifiable they still are ). After all, religion is home to a curious area of cognitive dissonance - it is supported by a kind terrible logic that its followers actually do not utilise in their day-to-day life with secular matters. It's a frustrating inconsistency that makes the whole problem seem woefully ineradicable, but it's something we need to remember.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I would go so far as to say that no supernatural force has inspired any composer. The composer may have believed their pen was being guided by their personal deity, but this was (and is) just not the case. If this were so, why spend so much time studying when you can simply pray for good music to enter your brain? Anyone with faith would be able to be the next Beethoven. This is impossible. A deity has not contacted or influenced any human being in our history. Inspiration comes from education or the environment.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> I would go so far as to say that no supernatural force has inspired any composer. The composer may have believed their pen was being guided by their personal deity, but this was (and is) just not the case. If this were so, why spend so much time studying when you can simply pray for good music to enter your brain? Anyone with faith would be able to be the next Beethoven. This is impossible. A deity has not contacted or influenced any human being in our history. Inspiration comes from education or the environment.


Ah, well that settles it in my mind then. You treat this idea that there is no deity as an established, proven fact, when at best you can only claim that it is not backed up by scientific evidence and impossible to validate through scientific methods.

For a bunch of people who seem to enjoy telling me how ridiculous my beliefs are, you all seem to make a lot of ridiculous characterizations of belief systems that reveal just how little you actually understand of the belief and religious systems you seek to discredit.

No, belief that a deity can guide our actions does not imply that we could go out and use that faith for anything and everything. In this particular discussion, the implication was that God worked through these great composers and enhanced their abilities beyond what they alone could accomplish. It does not imply that their faith could have allowed them to do anything they so wished. Certainly not without a useful purpose.

All of these arguments against religion boil down to the same tired pattern:
First you state your contention that religion is absurd. Then you pick up on one aspect of religion and ridicule it. Then you take that aspect and construct from it some doctrine that you ascribe to religion, when in fact no such doctrine actually exists. Then, based on your manufactured doctrine, which isn't actually accepted by the religion you attribute it to, you hold it up as yet more evidence of just how absurd the religion is. All of it based on specious characterizations of religion that, for all I know, you pulled out of your ***. Were they true, I would agree that it certainly lends weight to your charges. And yet they seem to be, at best, poorly constructed caricatures of actual religious doctrines that, at best, have only tangential resemblances to actual doctrines.


----------



## Guest

And lest Johnny jump in here again, I will point out that, no, I am not making the argument that God exists because you can't prove he doesn't. That isn't what I am saying at all. Johnny likes to think that is what we believers claim, because it then allows him to spout off his canned responses. 

My contention is that those of us who do have faith in God have come to that point through some evidence in our own lives. I seriously doubt any serious believer decided one day to believe in God simply because nobody could prove he didn't exist, rather they experienced something in their life that gave them personal evidence that he existed. And I don't offer that as proof to any of you. Each believer comes to that point by themselves, not through external proof. I suspect each of these composers had similar experiences.

Claiming my religious belief has any semblance, as well, to whether or not Elvis decided to spend his next incarnation adorning the foot of Johnny is equally absurd. I can tell you, Johnny, that your shoe is not Elvis reincarnated. I know you do not believe it. And even without polling every inhabitant on this planet, I'm willing to bet that nobody else believes it. How do I know you don't believe it? Your own arguments attest to the fact that you would no sooner believe it than believe in the Easter Bunny. Additionally, if you say you do believe it, then by your own arguments, you are just as bad as the rest of us believers in God and the Easter Bunny - no better than the lower species of animals. In which case we shouldn't take anything you say seriously (not that I really do in the first place), so therefore it follows that even were I to believe you, you have argued that you shouldn't be believed. Or, to spell it out more clearly, using Johnny's brand of logic:

Johnny claims that his shoe is Elvis reincarnated. Reincarnation is not a rational idea, and there is no scientific proof for it. Because reincarnation is not rational and cannot be proven by scientific methods, it must be false and irrational. The inability to distinguish between truth and irrational beliefs, and discarding irrational beliefs, is what separates humans from animals. Because Johnny believes in reincarnation, he is accepting an irrational belief, and therefore more animal than human. It would be ridiculous to accept as true the assertion of an animal. Therefore I must believe that Johnny's claim that his shoe is the reincarnation of Elvis is false, and that Johnny is either an irrational animal or a liar.

That is where Johnny's logic leads us. Fortunately for us (and him), too many ridiculous assumptions are required for this tortured logic. His first assumption that he has no justification for is the claim that anything that science cannot prove must be false. That is absurd. Not proven does not mean false. It means just what it says. Now, you can choose to not believe something for which there is no proof, but that doesn't mean it is false. True and false may be opposites, but they both are absolute statements, and require proof. His second glaringly false assumption is that the distinction between man and other animals is based on whether we believe in things that lack scientific proof. Apparently our genetic makeup plays less of a role. Apparently a primitive tribe in some remote jungle that knows nothing of science is more closely related to other non-human primates than to humans. Additionally, most of medieval Europe was not, in fact, inhabited by humans, rather by humanoid creatures that shared that characteristic of all non-human animal life - the ability to create imaginary deities and establish complex religious systems around them. We see this quite commonly in the lower orders of the animal kingdom. It is a well known fact that the belief in the feathered serpent deity Quetzcoatl by ancient Meso-Americans was actually the chief deity of anacondas of the Amazon river basin. The Egyptians god Anubis was the chief dog deity, introduced to humans in a swap in exchange for domestication and rights to rummage through their garbage.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> *The horrific logical flaws that fundamentally undermine faith* and which are open to exploitation by those who wish to discriminate, oppress and kill in the name of their particular Lord are truly damaging to all societies, but we mustn't confuse our disgust with such ways of thought with the individuals who adhere to them for reasons we might not be fully aware of (however unjustifiable they still are ). After all, religion is home to a curious area of cognitive dissonance - it is supported by a kind terrible logic that its followers actually do not utilise in their day-to-day life with secular matters. It's a frustrating inconsistency that makes the whole problem seem woefully ineradicable, but it's something we need to remember.


 That first statement is certainly a curious one. On the one hand, you claim that my faith derives from my ignoring logic and reason, and now claim that faith can somehow be undermined fundamentally by logical flaws. Which is it? Virtually everything humans believe, whether through scientific methods or religion, is vulnerable to exploitation. Certainly religious faith has been exploited to pursue objectives that ultimately were at odds with core fundamental beliefs. The same can also be said of science. Whether we wish to admit it or not, the holocaust was an exploitation of ideas like eugenics and social darwinism at the turn of the last century that derived from scientific advances in genetics and evolution. A perverted idea that certain people were more fit than others, and that with careful selective breeding a master race, more evolved than others, could emerge, arose from these ideas - these ideas were then fused with a centuries old anti-semitism, and voila.

I could just as easily argue that many supporters of science adhere to "scientific" principles with just as much blind faith and zealotry as do some people of faith. The issue of global warming is a perfect example. Certain proponents of the idea of anthropogenic global climate change reject any notion that runs contrary to their absolute belief in man-made global warming, regardless of whether there is evidence provided. Or they represent as truth any notion that fits their paradigm, regardless of proof. Case in point - recently reported drastically exaggerated information regarding the melting of Himalayan glaciers. The only "evidence" was anecdotal observations of mountain climbers who performed no scientific study, or even collected any kinds of measurements. Rather, modern mountain climbers believed that the glaciers were smaller than what older mountain climbers thought they were decades previously. This was published in a report accepted by the scientific community.

Both sides have histories of individuals who seek to exploit those followers that are more easily prone to fanatic worship. Thus, we have people who claim to follow science, yet paradoxically reject any data that is rationally and logically derived, if it fails the non-objective criteria of supporting their pre-conceived notions.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> Ah, well that settles it in my mind then. You treat this idea that there is no deity as an established, proven fact, when at best you can only claim that it is not backed up by scientific evidence and impossible to validate through scientific methods.


Not scientific evidence, just evidence! Not just scientific methods, but methods of logic and reason, personal experience, rational thinking. If there is no evidence for the existence of a being or force then we must rationally assume that either it's very unlikely said being or force exists or it has been made up in someone's head.



DrMike said:


> For a bunch of people who seem to enjoy telling me how ridiculous my beliefs are, you all seem to make a lot of ridiculous characterizations of belief systems that reveal just how little you actually understand of the belief and religious systems you seek to discredit.


I know a lot about Christianity because I've read the bible cover to cover. I know nothing of your particular beliefs, probably because they bear little correlation to the teachings of the bible. I mean this as a compliment, because if you obey every word of the bible you end up like the "Westbro Baptist Church"



DrMike said:


> No, belief that a deity can guide our actions does not imply that we could go out and use that faith for anything and everything. In this particular discussion, the implication was that God worked through these great composers and enhanced their abilities beyond what they alone could accomplish. It does not imply that their faith could have allowed them to do anything they so wished. Certainly not without a useful purpose.


So what _does_ it imply? That God does nothing? Another little bit of evidence to prove his non-existence! If you believe a deity can guide our actions that means he allows us to do what we wouldn't have previously been able to do. I.e. compose!!!



DrMike said:


> All of these arguments against religion boil down to the same tired pattern: First you state your contention that religion is absurd. Then you pick up on one aspect of religion and ridicule it. Then you take that aspect and construct from it some doctrine that you ascribe to religion, when in fact no such doctrine actually exists. Then, based on your manufactured doctrine, which isn't actually accepted by the religion you attribute it to, you hold it up as yet more evidence of just how absurd the religion is. All of it based on specious characterizations of religion that, for all I know, you pulled out of your ***. Were they true, I would agree that it certainly lends weight to your charges. And yet they seem to be, at best, poorly constructed caricatures of actual religious doctrines that, at best, have only tangential resemblances to actual doctrines.


1 - Tell me why you think religion is not absurd, then I'll consider whether it is or is not absurd depending on the answer you give, (which should be a quick and simple task given your strong convictions).

2 - What doctrine do you follow? What is religion without doctrine? Nothing!

3 - Give me evidence that shows me religion is not absurd!

4 - You perceive our characterizations of religion as ridiculous as they bear little correlation with your own personal beliefs. Where should we get our characterizations from if not from scripture? After all, it is the word of God!


----------



## Lukecash12

Edward Elgar said:


> I would go so far as to say that no supernatural force has inspired any composer. The composer may have believed their pen was being guided by their personal deity, but this was (and is) just not the case. If this were so, why spend so much time studying when you can simply pray for good music to enter your brain? Anyone with faith would be able to be the next Beethoven. This is impossible. A deity has not contacted or influenced any human being in our history. Inspiration comes from education or the environment.


And what does religion have to do with just praying for something? Try reading the book of Job.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Lukecash12 said:


> And what does religion have to do with just praying for something? Try reading the book of Job.


What will that tell me? I can't take Job seriously because God makes a pact with Satan to mess with Job's mind. God refers to Satan as his "servant". That's the point at which my sides start to ache from laughter!

You can't deny that prayer is a significant part of any monotheistic religion. People pray to God to change things, (possibly to make them the greatest composer the world has ever known). However, considering God's friendly relationship with Satan, I'd think twice about asking him for anything!


----------



## Lukecash12

Edward Elgar said:


> Not scientific evidence, just evidence! Not just scientific methods, but methods of logic and reason, personal experience, rational thinking. If there is no evidence for the existence of a being or force then we must rationally assume that either it's very unlikely said being or force exists or it has been made up in someone's head.
> 
> I know a lot about Christianity because I've read the bible cover to cover. I know nothing of your particular beliefs, probably because they bear little correlation to the teachings of the bible. I mean this as a compliment, because if you obey every word of the bible you end up like the "Westbro Baptist Church"
> 
> So what _does_ it imply? That God does nothing? Another little bit of evidence to prove his non-existence! If you believe a deity can guide our actions that means he allows us to do what we wouldn't have previously been able to do. I.e. compose!!!
> 
> 1 - Tell me why you think religion is not absurd, then I'll consider whether it is or is not absurd depending on the answer you give, (which should be a quick and simple task given your strong convictions).
> 
> 2 - What doctrine do you follow? What is religion without doctrine? Nothing!
> 
> 3 - Give me evidence that shows me religion is not absurd!
> 
> 4 - You perceive our characterizations of religion as ridiculous as they bear little correlation with your own personal beliefs. Where should we get our characterizations from if not from scripture? After all, it is the word of God!


We end up like the Westboro Baptist Church? In my opinion, those are people who are practicing Judaism, not any semblance of Christianity. They can't walk a few feet without branding someone an apostate. If you had made any well informed study of the bible, you would recognize that it's material isn't to be just taken out of context and used to do something harmful, rather than bearing good fruits. For you even to say that we must be like the Westboro Baptist Church if we are real Christians, is such an assumption that I doubt your ego even lets you do a thing without being tugged by it's leash. What I'm observing is an overly emotional, pestilently insulting roller-coaster (no offense intended) and it doesn't do anyone any good.

If I were less fair, I'd start comparing you to the Westboro Baptist Church, what with the close-minded assumptions, as if you have a degree in psychology and have already had a full session with Dr. Mike.

God does nothing? We don't pray to Him for some insignificant, physically tangible reward. If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword. He presents a state of well being that both makes us successful, and ultimately changes what success means to us.

So you know a lot about Christianity? How did you read the book, making assumptions every two seconds? Other individuals have spent years working with the symbolism and historical contexts therein, yet you know all about it, don't you? If you are so knowledgeable, have you ever had the thought to practice what you have learned, and actually see how/if it changes your perspective on the environment? Tell me, what do you think of the book of Job, the book of Galatians, the Song of Solomon?


----------



## Lukecash12

Edward Elgar said:


> What will that tell me? I can't take Job seriously because God makes a pact with Satan to mess with Job's mind. God refers to Satan as his "servant". That's the point at which my sides start to ache from laughter!
> 
> You can't deny that prayer is a significant part of any monotheistic religion. People pray to God to change things, (possibly to make them the greatest composer the world has ever known). However, considering God's friendly relationship with Satan, I'd think twice about asking him for anything!


And that is the problem. You haven't taken it seriously even for a second. What will it tell you? How would you know? You are completely predisposed as of right now.


----------



## Johnny

1 Could the religious people make it clear what exactly it is that they believe? What idea of god do they have? A supernatural creator who loves us? Something more specific? What?! Please explain what it is that you are claiming.

2 Then please explain your reasoning/evidence for thinking this to be the case. (The burden of proof is with ye).


----------



## Argus

This thread needs some humour.


----------



## jurianbai

I proposed we stop talking religion. My internet forum-ing experience recall this talk cannot be done objectively because one is a believer and the other one is non believer. Also, my religion mentioned more than once here in a way I'm not comfortable with. I will exercise that triangle button on the top right if I see it again!


----------



## Guest

Johnny said:


> 1 Could the religious people make it clear what exactly it is that they believe? What idea of god do they have? A supernatural creator who loves us? Something more specific? What?! Please explain what it is that you are claiming.
> 
> 2 Then please explain your reasoning/evidence for thinking this to be the case. (The burden of proof is with ye).


If I had even the faintest notion that you would do anything other than spit out your typical canned responses, then I'd be slightly inclined to maybe consider providing you with the requested information. But you misunderstand me. I have no desire, or need, for you to educate me on my religious beliefs. I know you have no intention to take any of them seriously, and I have every reason to believe that you will do nothing more than ridicule them.

So you don't understand - I know what I know, I know why I know it, you have no clue of what I believe, or how my beliefs developed, and you have done nothing to deserve hearing of some of my most cherished experiences in my life. I would no sooner share these things with you than give you my social security number - and for the same reason.

So many posts on this topic have brought up claims of past intolerance exhibited in the name of religion. That may be true. Admittedly, though, you could make a pretty good claim that pretty much everybody several centuries ago was pretty intolerant. So what is the excuse for the intolerance exhibited here towards people who profess religious beliefs? What does it matter to you that some major composers of the past were deeply religious? Are you worried that their classification as geniuses in spite of also being religious somehow weakens your side, and so you must discredit this so that you can perpetuate your narrative that religion is anathema to intelligence? In order for you to feel better about your position, you need to tear down other beliefs that don't emulate yours?


----------



## Johnny

Nice. So a polite request asking what you believe, and why you believe it, is conveniently avoided. Please answer my questions. I am willing to consider the fact that I may be wrong on things. When people have opposing views, I ask them their reasoning. Surely that's a sign of an open-minded individual? Please tell us what your beliefs are and walk us through why you think them true. You obviously think they make sense, maybe you'll convince somebody.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Not scientific evidence, just evidence! Not just scientific methods, but methods of logic and reason, personal experience, rational thinking. If there is no evidence for the existence of a being or force then we must rationally assume that either it's very unlikely said being or force exists or it has been made up in someone's head.


 Ah, you have found no evidence, so that settles it? You have some expertise to grant your assertions credibility? Can you explain the methods you used to test this? What actions you took to determine there is no evidence? Can I assume you did anything more than did a thorough search of your house, found no God hiding under your couch cushions, then declared the issue settled?



> I know a lot about Christianity because I've read the bible cover to cover. I know nothing of your particular beliefs, probably because they bear little correlation to the teachings of the bible. I mean this as a compliment, because if you obey every word of the bible you end up like the "Westbro Baptist Church"


 You know so much about Christianity that you think one fringe group that doesn't even have enough members to count as a rounding error in the total global Christian population is the purest embodiment of biblical teachings? That they most completely obey the Bible? Really? They live such teachings as judge not lest ye be judged, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, love your neighbor as yourself, by this shall men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another? Yeah, you have a firm understanding of the bible.



> So what _does_ it imply? That God does nothing? Another little bit of evidence to prove his non-existence! If you believe a deity can guide our actions that means he allows us to do what we wouldn't have previously been able to do. I.e. compose!!!


 Because God does not act in the way that you think he should act if he did exist does not prove he doesn't exist. God is not some magician performing cheap parlor tricks. He doesn't direct people just to wow people with his abilities. As I'm sure you read in the epistle of James, faith without works is dead. If I sit on my butt, don't take any care to learn to compose, and then turn to God and ask him to help me write a musical masterpiece, I should think he wouldn't be too inclined to grant that request. And what purpose would it serve anyway? God's help in our lives is not random pointless acts.



> 1 - Tell me why you think religion is not absurd, then I'll consider whether it is or is not absurd depending on the answer you give, (which should be a quick and simple task given your strong convictions).


 I don't think religion is absurd because of personal experiences I have had that have convinced me that God does exist, that he cares for me, and that he has a plan that will bring me happiness. And as I have tried to follow that plan, I have indeed experienced greater and greater happiness. And when I have strayed from that plan, I have experienced sadness, sometimes even misery. That is why I think religion is not absurd.



> 2 - What doctrine do you follow? What is religion without doctrine? Nothing!


 Not enough space here to describe in enough detail the doctrine I follow. Put simply, I strive to love God, the Eternal Father, with all my heart, might, mind, and strength, and to love my neighbor as my self.



> 3 - Give me evidence that shows me religion is not absurd!


 Nope. Sorry. Not going to do it. Can't do it. Religious beliefs are personal beliefs. I'm not the one that made the claim that religious truths are objectively verifiable. If you are really interested, I can provide you with a way to test for yourself whether they are absurd. But it is up to you. If you're interested, PM me. But I'm not going to air such things here for you to use them to ridicule me. Put simply, and again, you no doubt will know this phrase from your study of the bible, I choose not to cast my pearls before swine.



> 4 - You perceive our characterizations of religion as ridiculous as they bear little correlation with your own personal beliefs. Where should we get our characterizations from if not from scripture? After all, it is the word of God!


 None of your characterizations have born any resemblance to any scripture I have read. If you did in fact read the bible cover to cover, you comprehended very little. And I'm not even talking on a spiritual level, I mean simply understanding what it was trying to convey. Reading and understanding are not one and the same, just as listening and hearing are not.


----------



## Guest

Johnny said:


> Nice. So a polite request asking what you believe, and why you believe it, is conveniently avoided. Please answer my questions. *I am willing to consider the fact that I may be wrong on things.* When people have opposing views, I ask them their reasoning. Surely that's a sign of an open-minded individual? Please tell us what your beliefs are and walk us through why you think them true. You obviously think they make sense, maybe you'll convince somebody.


Please. You refused to consider you were wrong on something as uncontroversial as the division of music into various periods. You really must think I am a moron.

I have actually helped other people develop a similar faith to my own, but it wasn't through anything I did to convince them. I told them what I believed, invited them to put those ideas to the same tests I had, and they received their own witness. But I didn't convince them.

If you really wish to know for purely innocent reasons, then do it privately. Send me a PM with the question, and promise not to post what I tell you in my private message. I will tell you my beliefs and what you can do if you truly and honestly want to find out, as I did, if they are true. It won't be a debate.


----------



## Johnny

I've never refused to consider I was wrong. On anything. 

Why do you have a problem with answering the questions here? Why are you so afraid of being ridiculed for saying what you believe, and your reasons for believing? You obviously think whatever line of reasoning you have makes sense - but yet you won't share it here for fear of being ridiculed? If you think something to be true, and people ask you about it, why wouldn't you explain to them?


----------



## Guest

Johnny said:


> I've never refused to consider I was wrong. On anything.
> 
> Why do you have a problem with answering the questions here? Why are you so afraid of being ridiculed for saying what you believe, and your reasons for believing? You obviously think whatever line of reasoning you have makes sense - but yet you won't share it here for fear of being ridiculed? If you think something to be true, and people ask you about it, why wouldn't you explain to them?


If I believed you honestly and sincerely wanted to know, I would share. If you were seriously interested, you would PM me to find out. If you only want me to air it in public, that tells me more that you want a public forum to somehow prove your intellectual superiority by attempting to refute my personal beliefs. Prove me wrong. I said I have no problem sharing these things with you privately if you give your word not to make public anything I share by private message. Or do you only care about the spectacle of it all? Strike another victory for rational people everywhere? Sorry, I'm not going to feed your ego. Anybody else here who honestly is interested in what I believe for reasons other than to hold them up to ridicule is more than welcome to PM me. Same deal applies. I'm betting, though, that if you don't get to ridicule me publicly for my beliefs, you really couldn't care less.


----------



## Johnny

You do realise how weak that sounds? If you make a case for something, people will listen. Surely if an idea/line of reasoning is sound, it should be able to withstand people playing devil's advocate. Isn't that what sound reasoning is?! A line of reasoning that people cannot fault!? How is exposing your ideas to people who are skeptical, not a good thing? They are exactly the kind of people you should be trying to get poke holes in your reasoning. If people were able to point out any flaw in your reasoning, would that not be a good thing? Would you not want to know if you are mistaken? If they can point out to you a problem, you will have learned something. If they cannot, they will have learned something. If you really are truly confident what you think makes sense, then why are you afraid of being ridiculed for it? If you don't think there is any valid problem anyone could have with your reasoning, then what possible reason could you have for not sharing it here?


----------



## Lukecash12

Johnny said:


> You do realise how weak that sounds? If you make a case for something, people will listen. Surely if an idea/line of reasoning is sound, it should be able to withstand people playing devil's advocate. Isn't that what sound reasoning is?! A line of reasoning that people cannot fault!? How is exposing your ideas to people who are skeptical, not a good thing? They are exactly the kind of people you should be trying to get poke holes in your reasoning. If people were able to point out any flaw in your reasoning, would that not be a good thing? Would you not want to know if you are mistaken? If they can point out to you a problem, you will have learned something. If they cannot, they will have learned something. If you really are truly confident what you think makes sense, then why are you afraid of being ridiculed for it? If you don't think there is any valid problem anyone could have with your reasoning, then what possible reason could you have for not sharing it here?


Ye Gods! Just send a damned PM already!


----------



## jurianbai

Johnny, that DrMike already said he only willing to do it his way. Why you keep bugging the same issue?


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Johnny said:


> You do realise how weak that sounds? If you make a case for something, people will listen.


No, it doesn't sound weak. On the contrary, you sound very weak and naive if you expect someone like DrMike to take the trouble to provide you with a basic education on issues that the vast majority of people work out for themselves. It is perfectly clear that you are simply out to ridicule or refute whatever is said to you on whatever topic you stick your nose in. Why don't you learn it for yourself, and then come back once you have something useful to say or ask.


----------



## Edward Elgar

We are not getting anywhere with this thread. The assertions I make are being selectively responded to or misinterpreted as vicious attacks. I feel that the Christians don't want to respond to some of the just criticisms I make of their beliefs because it might undermine them. I also feel that the Christians have a fear of finding out there is no-one there, (given the lack of contact time they get with their almighty), which goes some way in explaining why they are so defensive. I have asserted my own opinions with regards to the question raised in this thread, but I've got nothing in return but abuse. Being told I don't understand scripture when I've taken the time to familiarise myself with it, (just because you may interpret it in a metaphorical way), is slightly insulting. At least I've bothered. If anyone wants to reply to my answer to the thread's topic, please do and I will gladly respond. It's no good telling me I'm wrong and you're right because we've experienced the same reality on this earth. It's also no good telling you that you're wrong and I'm right because you simply wouldn't listen.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Edward Elgar said:


> We are not getting anywhere with this thread.


Right, but I could have told you that this would be the case at the beginning of this thread. You above all people ought to know from previous experience on other threads where religion has cropped up that no progress is likely to be made in resolving differences of view as fundamentally opposed to each other as this.

As for your claim that you have been the victim of insult, the reverse is a far more plausible interpretation. For the life of me, I cannot understand the mentality of people who want to make a big anti-religion statement based on the simple premise that some famous composers felt that their endeavours were partly inspired by factors beyond their own unaided abilities. Why use that as vehicle to smear religion and people who hold a faith? You must be looking for a job, if that's all you can find to do with your time.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Just criticism is abuse is it? What are Christians, babies? Don't presume what I do with my time except post on this forum.


----------



## Johnny

Will any of the religious people here will explain what exactly their beliefs are, and their reasoning for those beliefs?


----------



## jurianbai

I am Christian and what DrMike explained about his personal experiences as one of the reason is exactly similar to mine. DrMike already pointed this out a lot of times. 

And also Edward Elgar, no fear for criticism, indeed I take critics as a good exercise, especially if coming from educated people like you. At one point you critic about Job as something laughable and at the other point you said read the bible cover to cover, this is contradicted for me. The explanation is more deep than what you stated above. My very limited Bible knowledge told me that the Job story is story about how God what human to surrender their fate upon God's grace. And also about how Job's faith despite in trouble time will always replied with good end by God. As DrMike said, no point to tells all of this in a classical forum.


----------



## mueske

Johnny said:


> Will any of the religious people here will explain what exactly their beliefs are, and their reasoning for those beliefs?


There is no reasoning. Let religious people be, let them believe what they want to believe, what's it to you?


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Johnny said:


> Will any of the religious people here will explain what exactly their beliefs are, and their reasoning for those beliefs?


I would imagine the following should give you a pretty good idea for starters, at least from a Christian viewpoint:

_We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. _

........

If you have problems with any of it, may I suggest you consult THIS source for some interesting articles by way of clarification.

Good luck with it.


----------



## Lukecash12

Andy Loochazee said:


> I would imagine the following should give you a pretty good idea for starters, at least from a Christian viewpoint:
> 
> _We believe in one God,
> the Father, the Almighty,
> of all that is, seen and unseen.
> We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
> the only Son of God,
> eternally begotten of the Father,
> God from God, Light from Light,
> true God from true God,
> begotten, not made,
> of one Being with the Father.
> Through him all things were made.
> For us and for our salvation
> he came down from heaven:
> by the power of the Holy Spirit
> he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
> and was made man.
> For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> he suffered death and was buried.
> On the third day he rose again
> in accordance with the Scriptures;
> he ascended into heaven
> and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
> He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
> and his kingdom will have no end.
> We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
> who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
> With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
> He has spoken through the Prophets.
> We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
> We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
> We look for the resurrection of the dead,
> and the life of the world to come. _
> 
> ........
> 
> If you have problems with any of it, may I suggest you consult THIS source for some interesting articles by way of clarification.
> 
> Good luck with it.


Just for clarification- I believe in one church in heaven, but I certainly don't believe that only one denomination has produced people who follow the "narrow path". Along with that, baptism is simply symbolism of a believer's rebirth through Christ, not officially necessary or something anyone should do without the consent of the baptized. In my opinion, to be baptized is a conscious decision.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Lukecash12 said:


> Just for clarification- I believe in one church in heaven, but I certainly don't believe that only one denomination has produced people who follow the "narrow path". Along with that, baptism is simply symbolism of a believer's rebirth through Christ, not officially necessary or something anyone should do without the consent of the baptized. In my opinion, to be baptized is a conscious decision.


Thanks but I reckon Johnny has quite a lot on his plate right now to deal with regards the Nicene Creed, so perhaps we should wait until he has absorbed all this before confronting him with minor variations of emphasis here and there.

Nay, on second thoughts, maybe I have jumped the gun a bit? Crikey, I don't know what's come over me. I forgot to mention the "filioque" dispute in the 11th Century, which gave rise to the East-West Schism of 1054.

Hold your horses, Johnny. You won't get the full drift of the Nicene Creed until you have mastered the "Filioque"dispute. I suggest you read that first. It shouldn't hold you up for more than a few days, and then you can proceed to work your way thorough the Nicene Creed, using as necessary any of the further links I provided.

I trust you will find it very interesting. I don't expect to see you reporting back until around June 2010. If you do, I'll have a teeny weeny suspicion you haven't done a proper study.


----------



## Lukecash12

Andy Loochazee said:


> Thanks but I reckon Johnny has quite a lot on his plate right now to deal with regards the Nicene Creed, so perhaps we should wait until he has absorbed all this before confronting him with minor variations of emphasis here and there.
> 
> Nay, on second thoughts, maybe I have jumped the gun a bit? Crikey, I don't know what's come over me. I forgot to mention the "filioque" dispute in the 11th Century, which gave rise to the East-West Schism of 1054.
> 
> Hold your horses, Johnny. You won't get the full drift of the Nicene Creed until you have mastered the "Filioque"dispute. I suggest you read that first. It shouldn't hold you up for more than a few days, and then you can proceed to work your way thorough the Nicene Creed, using as necessary any of the further links I provided.
> 
> I trust you will find it very interesting. I don't expect to see you reporting back until around June 2010. If you do, I'll have a teeny weeny suspicion you haven't done a proper study.


Silly, isn't it?  How a massive schism can come about, just because of a dispute about the Trinity?


----------



## Edward Elgar

Just another way of saying; "logic tells me there is no afterlife, but I'm scared of dying, let's cling to a set of ideas written 2000 years ago in the hope that we can live forever".


----------



## Edward Elgar

Andy Loochazee said:


> I would imagine the following should give you a pretty good idea for starters, at least from a Christian viewpoint:
> 
> _We believe in one God,
> the Father, the Almighty,
> of all that is, seen and unseen.
> We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
> the only Son of God,
> eternally begotten of the Father,
> God from God, Light from Light,
> true God from true God,
> begotten, not made,
> of one Being with the Father.
> Through him all things were made.
> For us and for our salvation
> he came down from heaven:
> by the power of the Holy Spirit
> he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
> and was made man.
> For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
> he suffered death and was buried.
> On the third day he rose again
> in accordance with the Scriptures;
> he ascended into heaven
> and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
> He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
> and his kingdom will have no end.
> We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
> who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
> With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
> He has spoken through the Prophets.
> We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
> We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
> We look for the resurrection of the dead,
> and the life of the world to come. _
> 
> ........
> 
> If you have problems with any of it, may I suggest you consult THIS source for some interesting articles by way of clarification.
> 
> Good luck with it.


God! You've got some time on your hands! Remember to attend to your presence in the real world too!


----------



## Lukecash12

Edward Elgar said:


> God! You've got some time on your hands! Remember to attend to your presence in the real world too!


And remember that we consider that the real world. This mass hysteria of an existence is a placid illusion of emotions we conquer through God's grace, and ultimately appreciate.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I thought that I'd like to make positive mention of this post before adding anything further...


David58117 said:


> One of the most annoying parts about being an Atheist (and I am) is we have geniuses who repeat the same thing over and over, adding insults into the mix and insulting something they clearly don't understand.
> 
> I'm sorry, but comments like this is what gives Atheism a bad name, and they are incredibly embarrassing.


Yes, then- it's possible to be an Atheist and approach the topic with the measured calm of a Rand, rather than the sneering attempts at sarcasm that typify the most repulsive nether-reaches of the RD-forum.

A common-enough hypothetical question is "would you rather have a Christian for a neighbor, or an Atheist?" I think that generally speaking I'd rather have the Christian neighbor... but based on David's comments, I expect that we'd get along as neighbors, as well.


----------



## The Cosmos

Pertaining to the original post, I would say, "music is the creation of" (whatever the person describes it). Almost every single definition makes sense and is alive in its own way. Whether 'god' inspired an idea or likewise - the absence of, both seems plausible to me. Robert Anton Wilson in his book 'prometheus rising' explains that everyone has a reality tunnel through which they perceive the world. And I tend to agree with that book. Every single person is religious in one way or the other, whether we know it or not. We've all got our imaginary friends and beliefs, which eventually alters reality in itself to fit our own map of the world. To say that music is inspired via only one source is idiotic.


----------



## munirao2001

Any creative output is the result of Supra Consciousness-intututive, brilliant, exceptional and unique, distinctly different from the results out of Consciousness(outward/physical) and Sub-consciousness (inward/mental). To fathom the unique experience and without cognition, it becomes easiest to attribute this occurrence to super natural element, beyond the self, i.e. GOD for the believer. It can also be a act of pre meditated to secure the work and ensuring posterity for the work, by linking with religion and GOD. If GOD is derived out of *G*ood *O*rderlines *D*octrine, YES the creative pieces are the work of GOD, no doubt!


----------



## Edward Elgar

munirao2001 said:


> Any creative output is the result of Supra Consciousness-intututive, brilliant, exceptional and unique, distinctly different from the results out of Consciousness(outward/physical) and Sub-consciousness (inward/mental). To fathom the unique experience and without cognition, it becomes easiest to attribute this occurrence to super natural element, beyond the self, i.e. GOD for the believer. It can also be a act of pre meditated to secure the work and ensuring posterity for the work, by linking with religion and GOD. If GOD is derived out of *G*ood *O*rderlines *D*octrine, YES the creative pieces are the work of GOD, no doubt!


Really? Isn't art simply the pinnacle of human expression? We may use adjectives like "divine" to describe art, but that still doesn't mean they are the result of divine intervention. In my experience as a composer, art is brought about by study and imagination, not begging an invisible man for a tune!

Some of the best music didn't arise from "Good" situations, but rather from human suffering. Some of the best music, especially of recent years, can't possibly be described as "Orderly" Some of the best music did not rely on "Doctrine" for inspiration, but rather human inspiration.

*A*rt
*T*hat
*H*eightens
*E*motion
*I*s
*S*uperb
*M*usic!


----------



## Guest

Anybody else care to beat this dead horse before we put it to rest again?

I think we came to a pretty solid conclusions already on this topic - those who are religious tend to attribute creations of beauty to some kind of divine "spark" depending on their own particular religious beliefs, and those who are not religious do not see such influences. How you fall in this debate is relative to your belief in a God/higher power. If anybody thinks that the conversation will somehow stumble into some new profound realization on the part of either party that hasn't already been debated to death, I'd like to hear about it. I think, though, you'd more easily come to a complete consensus on the greatest piece of composed music than a consensus on this question.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I'm sure you could analyse the skill/spirituality ratio of each composer to get a better idea of how music is conceived.

I have never seen or witnessed a divine spark and I'm sure nobody else has. If someone has, then the debate for me is still open because I'm more than happy to accept the notion of any supernatural force given sufficient evidence.

The reason DrMike sees this debate as a dead horse is because he is totally unwilling to even contemplate a world with no supernatural forces. Shame.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> I'm sure you could analyse the skill/spirituality ratio of each composer to get a better idea of how music is conceived.
> 
> I have never seen or witnessed a divine spark and I'm sure nobody else has. If someone has, then the debate for me is still open because I'm more than happy to accept the notion of any supernatural force given sufficient evidence.
> 
> The reason DrMike sees this debate as a dead horse is because he is totally unwilling to even contemplate a world with no supernatural forces. Shame.


No, it is a dead horse because it ends up turning more into a debate over who has the better belief system. The musical question becomes secondary.

But regarding your assumption as to my motives for my last statement, your assertion seems rather absurd to me. Despite how sure you are, many people of faith have seen evidence of a divine spark. To someone who has seen it, it seems rather absurd to convince them that they must then contemplate a world without it. Were every person in the world save one blind, and that one person walked out at noon and saw sunlight, should he then contemplate a world without light simply because others around him have not seen it, and believe that nobody else has?

Once a person has had such an experience, it seems rather absurd to then call them close-minded because they then choose to not ignore it and rather view the world from the perspective of one who hasn't.

Ultimately, the question becomes irrelevant. If the atheist position is the correct one, and there is no God/higher power, then the answer is no, regardless of opinions. If there is a God, then he may very well inspire music, regardless of whether people believe in him or not.

Finally, I'd like to point out the delicious irony in your statement, "I have never seen or witnessed a divine spark and I'm sure nobody else has." In your rejection of what people claim to believe with certainty, you use language equally strong to assert something that I would suggest you could have no possible way of knowing for certain. In fact, one might say that you have quite a bit of "faith" that our faith is false.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> many people of faith have seen evidence of a divine spark. To someone who has seen it, it seems rather absurd to convince them that they must then contemplate a world without it. Were every person in the world save one blind, and that one person walked out at noon and saw sunlight, should he then contemplate a world without light simply because others around him have not seen it, and believe that nobody else has?


This analogy doesn't quite work because the true nature of what "divine" is, is very much up for grabs. It's not something readily definable as sunlight, of which we have direct physical experience. So when you say, "many people of faith have seen evidence of a divine spark," what is that divine spark? And how would you know that it is something supernatural as opposed to something natural, something explainable, no matter how confusingly so?


----------



## Guest

Jeff N said:


> *This analogy doesn't quite work because the true nature of what "divine" is, is very much up for grabs.* It's not something readily definable as sunlight, of which we have direct physical experience. So when you say, "many people of faith have seen evidence of a divine spark," what is that divine spark? And how would you know that it is something supernatural as opposed to something natural, something explainable, no matter how confusingly so?


Granted, but then virtually every analogy has some flaw. But on a personal basis, it holds up. To ask someone who has experienced such a thing to then try and view the world without it seems to them like asking them to assume a world without light. They could try to imagine it so, but for what purpose? And trying to distill into simple words what that experience was and explain it to someone who has not had a similar experience would be just as difficult as trying to explain light to someone who has only known darkness.

My point has always been that faith and belief in God is not something that can be transmitted from one person to the next. The best we can do is to transmit to people the means by which they can also come to know it, and then it is up to them. How each person comes to this discovery is different from person to person. Sometimes it is something quite profound, sometimes something more subtle. And just because science purports to "discover" explanations to explain away such experiences, ultimately all it does is offer up an alternate hypothesis, untestable.

We know what we know. It comes down to that.


----------



## Aramis

If the answer to question in this thread is "yes", then I can't wait to hear this release by Heavenly Grammophon:


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> We know what we know. It comes down to that.


We _think_ we know what we know. Often times people will experience something, draw a conclusion, and be dead wrong. If someone says they hear a voice in their head and announce it as god, maybe they're just suffering from some form of paracusia (auditory hallucinations)? People can see things too, and not have some mental disorder or chemical imbalance. All I'm saying is, be careful about what you deem "divine." 


DrMike said:


> And just because science purports to "discover" explanations to explain away such experiences, ultimately all it does is offer up an alternate hypothesis, untestable.


A lot of the time, those examples are testable (examples above). The fact that there are so many alternate possibilities speaks to the uncertain nature of supernatural things; there may not be much evidence to support it, but that in itself isn't enough to disprove it. The "argument from ignorance" is also a very weak defense, however, so people who purport to experience something "divine" are better off avoiding it.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike, I get the feeling you feel as though your belief system is under attack. I'm not arguing that atheism is the best system. When a loved one dies is can be a cold unfeeling system. However, your evidence of the personal experience of others would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Have you ever had an experience of the super natural, and thinking back, could it not be attributable to natural phenomena.

However, this is beside the point as you rightly point out. The music should firstly be discussed. The atheist/rational view is simple. Composers reached the pinnacle of their expression through their own intellect and imagination.

As to the theist/supernatural view, my biggest concern is this. How much is the work of god and how much is the work of the composer? Did god merely plant the seed of inspiration in the composers brain or did he write the dots himself? And, if god did throw his two cents into Beethoven's 9th, by what means can we measure the god/composer ratio to get a realistic view of how much influence he truly has?

The atheist view closes the door on the subject of divine intervention, but the theist view raises more questions than it answers, of which I am interested to hear thoughts on.


----------



## Earthling

Giving credit to a god for a composer's hard work on a composition is just as unfounded as giving credit to a doctor for saving a patient. And I guess Shostakovich and Vaughan Williams did their work under duress? And what about gay composers, who would be an "abomination" according to centuries of Christian belief? What about the music of Ravi Shankar, or honkyoku (Zen shakuhachi music)-- religious, but not centred around the god of the Christian west? 

The whole thing is silly and irrelevant. No ideology (religious or aesthetic) is a guarantee for musical beauty or "inspiration." Only the imagination of the composer and his/her hard work matters. Thank THEM, not a god.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I value God more that music, because music isn't everything. It doesn't completely satisfy me all the time. Music is not life, although it's very close.


----------



## Earthling

"Without Bach, God would be a second-rate figure." (E.M. Cioran)


----------



## Guest

On the question of Brahms: it is almost certain that he was a freethinker. Many of the claims that he was religious (mainly from Arthur Abell) are unconfirmed and more than likely mis-attributed to the composer. The supposition that Brahms would openly admit deep religiosity to a stranger (when we know that he was highly introverted regarding his closest feelings) is absurd. Even Dvorak once said of Brahms, "Such a man, such a fine soul—and he believes in nothing! He believes in nothing!" Plus, check out the quote in my signature, from Brahms.


----------



## munirao2001

Edward Elgar

"Really? Isn't art simply the pinnacle of human expression? We may use adjectives like "divine" to describe art, but that still doesn't mean they are the result of divine intervention. In my experience as a composer, art is brought about by study and imagination, not begging an invisible man for a tune!

Some of the best music didn't arise from "Good" situations, but rather from human suffering. Some of the best music, especially of recent years, can't possibly be described as "Orderly" Some of the best music did not rely on "Doctrine" for inspiration, but rather human inspiration."

You have got me wrong. Factually, the Art is the pinnacle of expression. Music/creative work becomes 'divine', when the Self becomes Universal, not by attributing to the 'invisible man'. Art is brought about by 95%perspiration(study) and 5% inspiration(imagination-intutive). All the three levels of consciousness-Supra-conscious, Sub-conscious and Conscious are human experiences.
The coinage of GOD is the result of conscious decisions and motivated actions to bring about and achieve good orderliness in the society and as most potent tool for POWER(religious, the ultimate-other tools of power are physical, money and political).


----------



## Lukecash12

Earthling said:


> Giving credit to a god for a composer's hard work on a composition is just as unfounded as giving credit to a doctor for saving a patient. And I guess Shostakovich and Vaughan Williams did their work under duress? And what about gay composers, who would be an "abomination" according to centuries of Christian belief? What about the music of Ravi Shankar, or honkyoku (Zen shakuhachi music)-- religious, but not centred around the god of the Christian west?
> 
> The whole thing is silly and irrelevant. No ideology (religious or aesthetic) is a guarantee for musical beauty or "inspiration." Only the imagination of the composer and his/her hard work matters. Thank THEM, not a god.


And who ever said that Shosty composed under duress? _You are reading way too much into this._ If a religion considers a certain act negative, that doesn't mean that they universally assume a homosexual individual's composition to be less than that of a pious individual.


----------



## Lukecash12

munirao2001 said:


> The coinage of GOD is the result of conscious decisions and motivated actions to bring about and achieve good orderliness in the society and as most potent tool for POWER(religious, the ultimate-other tools of power are physical, money and political).


Actually, it seems more like you are coining an apparent lack of human perception into religion, which is (in and of itself), independent of religion. To demean religion like that is the same as saying a tree isn't full of fruit because it was politically important to ancient peoples.


----------



## starry

Religion can be used politically as a means of control but the impulse to actually believe in religion probably doesn't relate to a desire to be controlled politically.


----------



## Earthling

Lukecash12 said:


> And who ever said that Shosty composed under duress? _You are reading way too much into this._ If a religion considers a certain act negative, that doesn't mean that they universally assume a homosexual individual's composition to be less than that of a pious individual.


I'm joking about Shostakovich and RVW, but my point is it doesn't make sense that music is inspired by a god that a composer doesn't even believe exists-- or a god other than the Christian one.

As far as gay composers go, "abomination" is a pretty strong word, but that is what the "Good Book" deems them-- no harps in heaven for those guys! However, it does not clearly state if the product of an abomination's creativity is likewise an abomination, true. Can an abomination give birth to something beautiful? If they can, then apparently gay composers aren't abominations-- and maybe the Bible isn't so inspired after all.


----------



## Guest

Earthling said:


> and maybe the Bible isn't so inspired after all.


The bible _clearly_ isn't inspired. It's full of murder, adultery, child abuse, and female subjugation, not to mention it's an obvious forgery of the Egyptian Book of the Dead and other Mediterranean myths. Even the life and events of Jesus are a blatant counterfeit of Horus.


----------



## Guest

To say that music is the creation of divinity does not require the belief that God does all the work, or takes away the freedom of the composer, rather you can look at it from the perspective that the talents and abilities that some of these great composers possessed came from God. The argument is not that God forced Bach to write what he wrote, but rather that Bach was blessed by God with the talents he had, and that he was inspired to write what he wrote. That isn't to say that all music is inspired by God. Certainly there is free will, and a person could choose how and what they wrote - but some may have sought out that divine inspiration.

I don't feel that God micromanages - he provides us with tools and inspiration, and then allows us to choose how we will act upon them.


----------



## Lukecash12

Earthling said:


> As far as gay composers go, "abomination" is a pretty strong word, but that is what the "Good Book" deems them-- no harps in heaven for those guys! However, it does not clearly state if the product of an abomination's creativity is likewise an abomination, true. Can an abomination give birth to something beautiful? If they can, then apparently gay composers aren't abominations-- and maybe the Bible isn't so inspired after all.


Hogwash! The bible considers the act an abomination. Any and every other sin is referred to as an abomination as well. If everything went by the standard you just set, there would be no "harps in heaven" for any of us. The bible has called no individual an abomination, aside from the Anti-Christ(s).


----------



## Guest

Earthling said:


> I'm joking about Shostakovich and RVW, but my point is it doesn't make sense that music is inspired by a god that a composer doesn't even believe exists-- or a god other than the Christian one.
> 
> As far as gay composers go, "abomination" is a pretty strong word, but that is what the "Good Book" deems them-- no harps in heaven for those guys! However, it does not clearly state if the product of an abomination's creativity is likewise an abomination, true. Can an abomination give birth to something beautiful? If they can, then apparently gay composers aren't abominations-- and maybe the Bible isn't so inspired after all.


As the issue of abomination has already been covered, I'll address your first point. If God does, in fact, exist, then whether a person believes in him is irrelevant to his influence on that person. His existence would be independent of a belief in him. As to whether he would exert an influence, or inspire, a person that does not believe in his existence - how would that be so hard to fathom? If one believes that God desires individuals to come to have faith in him, why wouldn't he act especially on those who don't believe in him?

Individuals who do not obey the commandments of God are not abominations. They are human. Everybody falls short of complete obedience.


----------



## Guest

Jeff N said:


> The bible _clearly_ isn't inspired. It's full of murder, adultery, child abuse, and female subjugation, not to mention it's an obvious forgery of the Egyptian Book of the Dead and other Mediterranean myths. Even the life and events of Jesus are a blatant counterfeit of Horus.


You seem quite sure of your assertions. You mistake doctrine in the Bible for the actions of imperfect humans. Does the Bible charge individuals to commit murder, adultery, child abuse, and female subjugation? Or are descriptions of such events rather precautionary tales of those who failed to live up to the standards that God had set? I fail to see how the inclusion of those events in the Bible renders it uninspired. In addition to being a transmission of the doctrine and commandments of God, it also happens to be a history of a people.

As to claims of it being a forgery, and merely another version of Mediterranean myths, perhaps you are putting the chicken before the egg. What if those were derived from the messages of the Bible - the age of texts found tells us nothing of how old the contents are, as we know that much of what was handed down was transmitted, for a great while, orally, before it was written down. Even after the creation of writing tools such as papyrus, etc. Even in Roman times, and following the death of Jesus, much of the New Testament was believed to have been transmitted orally before it was written down. So quite possibly any similarities between Christian theology and other Mediterranean myths is due to their appropriating parts from it and altering them.

At any rate, your assertion that the Bible is an obvious forgery is highly questionable.


----------



## Lukecash12

Jeff N said:


> The bible _clearly_ isn't inspired. It's full of murder, adultery, child abuse, and female subjugation, not to mention it's an obvious forgery of the Egyptian Book of the Dead and other Mediterranean myths. Even the life and events of Jesus are a blatant counterfeit of Horus.


Quite the set of potshots! You feel as if you can stand on your own two feet and declare wrong the works of people that were studying Hebrew, and confirming history through archaeology, before you were born.

So Jesus was a blatant counterfeit of Horus? Then why is it that the Roman people actually had record of His crucifixion? Why is it that the message He preached has withstood the test of time, just as He said it would? I haven't ever seen any Horus worship, but there is a church just a block from where I live.

As for female subjugation, try reading the book of Esther to get a taste for how much the Bible glorifies females. One cannot rightfully just assume away that since something happened in the Bible, the Bible is condoning the act. Jesus chose a Samaritan woman as one of His most important witnesses, let a prostitute anoint Him with oil (and in public), and displayed a reverence for women that was uncommon in those times. It wasn't any one of the disciples, but Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene who in the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Gospel of Luke, were the first witnesses of the resurrected Christ.

Child abuse? Jesus (on several occasions) welcomed children into His presence, and told us that we need to be just like a child to enter His Father's kingdom.

And lastly, the entire Bible was counterfeit, plagiarized, entirely fake? Why is it then, that many of these events are confirmed in the poems, tales, and historical annals of neighboring countries? The sole archaeological problem has even been fixed: In Exodus, when it states that Moses crossed the Red Sea, it has been translated correctly now in the Sea of Reeds, which has a low tide sufficient enough for it to be quickly crossed.


----------



## starry

The Bible was written quite a while after the events happened some would argue and therefore they may have used earlier myths to help give structure to the whole story. Legends can spread across countries I suppose particularly when there are already similar ones already in place and stories about various messiahs. I think it's hard to use archaeological evidence to prove things in this area. History itself may not have been the modern objective occupation it is nowadays either, it may have been used as much for other purposes like instruction on morals. So I think there may be genuine questions that are brought up in this area. People of course will choose to believe what they want, which is their right.


----------



## Earthling

In another day, Samuel Barber would've been stoned to death. Doesn't sound like "love the sinner, hate the sin" to me (I say "another day" though in actuality, Musilim countries with Sharia law still do this very thing today).

Whereas the Christian god thinks Samuel Barber is worthy of divine punishment, I don't think it is any of his bloody business-- no more than it is any of my business.

But what else does the Christian god command?



> *Thus saith the LORD of hosts, *I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and *utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; *but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***. (I Samuel)


Here he is showing some lenience:



> When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite *every *male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, *shalt thou take unto thyself; *and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, *thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; *namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 20)


That's only two passages of the Christian god commanding such things. They are many more quite gruesome commanded by this particular god. Not exactly the sort of thing you'd find in the Geneva Convention.



> Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; *not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. *For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. (I Peter)


Fredrick Douglass, Harriet Tubman and over four million US black slaves beg to differ.

Got child abuse?



> Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. (Proverbs 23:13)


And I guess if that doesn't work, you've got this divinely ordained solution to the problem:



> If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. *And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: *so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. (Deuteronomy 21)


I could go on and on, but what would be the point? Anyone can pick up a Bible and find many other horrifying passages, and many of them directly instructed by this god himself.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> I fail to see how the inclusion of those events in the Bible renders it uninspired.


It's not necessarily the inclusion of those "events" that makes the Bible uninspired, but very strong evidence that it was copied from numerous sources and simply retold.



DrMike said:


> Does the Bible charge individuals to commit murder, adultery, child abuse, and female subjugation? Or are descriptions of such events rather precautionary tales of those who failed to live up to the standards that God had set?


Have you even read the bible? Have you at all studied religion? Yes, the bible and god (and Jesus) explicitly require and sometimes demand murder, rape, and such. Just a few examples of murder: Exodus 12:29, 32:27-29, Ezekiel 9:4-6, Matthew 10:21. All of these are examples of god or Jesus directly commanding murder. There are countless other examples. As far as female subjugation: Genesis 3:16, Timothy 2:12, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I won't sit here all day and feed you examples of the horrors that fill the bible. Read it for yourself. Also, the oral tradition is incredibly unreliable. And, as starry pointed out, the events in the bible were written down well after they occurred.


----------



## Earthling

> If God does, in fact, exist, then whether a person believes in him is irrelevant to his influence on that person. His existence would be independent of a belief in him. As to whether he would exert an influence, or inspire, a person that does not believe in his existence - how would that be so hard to fathom? If one believes that God desires individuals to come to have faith in him, why wouldn't he act especially on those who don't believe in him?


Of course, a whole lot sure hinges on that "If." And not only that, but which god exactly is doing the inspiring anyway? There is more than one that people over millennia have claimed to have existed.

But even all those questions aside, why would such a god get credit for all those awesome pleasing things but not for some things that aren't so pleasant? As the Bible does say "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV) Well, I suppose you've got Palestrina on the one hand and Amy Grant on the other, so maybe the Bible is right LOL

So where does one draw the line regarding inspiration? Is Varese inspired? Is Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music (an hour of shrieking guitar feedback) inspired? Is Stockhausen's Helicopter Quartet inspired?

If they aren't inspired, why? Because it is is unpleasant and grating to the ear? But then we're dealing with subjectivity-- stuff that is pleasant is "inspired" but everything else is just rubbish? Or perhaps even Lou Reed was inspired too? Can such a god inspire pure cacophany too?

Any way you look at it, the claim of divine inspiration leads to a bunch of questions that makes it all absurd. It all really comes down to "Stuff I like, my god likes"-- the aesthetic equivalent of "Gott mit uns."


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I wish to preface this by stating that it's not my intention to start a debate concerning same sex-orientation... 
I just want to clarify the wording, here...


Earthling said:


> As far as gay composers go, "abomination" is a pretty strong word, but that is what the "Good Book" deems them-- no harps in heaven for those guys!


The Pentateuch doesn't say "they" (or 'those guys') here, it says 'it.' 
The Old Testament judgement concerns the activity, not the persons engaging in it.


----------



## Earthling

Just filling in the variables from Romans, chapter 1:

_Wherefore God also gave *Samuel Barber, Leonard Bernstein, Benjamin Britten, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Michael Tilson Thomas *up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave *Samuel Barber, Leonard Bernstein, Benjamin Britten, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Michael Tilson Thomas *up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet...

Who knowing the judgment of God, that *Samuel Barber, Leonard Bernstein, Benjamin Britten, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Michael Tilson Thomas, *who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
_
------

And what is Paul referring to when he says "worthy of death"? Oh yeah:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall *surely be put to death*; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Sounds like the OT is *very *much concerned with the people, not merely the activity.


----------



## jurianbai

People before the bible had their long memory of how thing going on in Genesis time. Therefore it is no surprise to see many Mesopotamia / Greek /Chinese references to a situation similar to the Bible. By pointing this I believe more in Bible. 

Old Testament God of nature command punishment to Sodom, Philistine etc. that's because of their own fault. Read the context. For this I fell even more believe because it show justice.

New Testament Jesus come with forgiveness doctrine, he said who ever had no sin can be the first to throw the stone, so this can apply totoday's issue, like the same sex marital. For this I gladly feel His grace.

Out of topic but the last pages asked for it.


----------



## jurianbai

Earthling said:


> "If a man also *lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman*, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)
> 
> Sounds like the OT is *very *much concerned with the people, not merely the activity.


Lie is a crime at those time (and also today) and death is common punishment at that time. (gladly not now).

In today reading it to be read : Who ever cheat on tax will go to jail.
So it is something wrong?

Learn more about contextual reading or hermeneutics, a commoner like me can understand it straight away.


----------



## Lukecash12

jurianbai said:


> Lie is a crime at those time (and also today) and death is common punishment at that time. (gladly not now).
> 
> In today reading it to be read : Who ever cheat on tax will go to jail.
> So it is something wrong?
> 
> Learn more about contextual reading or hermeneutics, a commoner like me can understand it straight away.


And there you have it, straight from the words of someone humble (and wise) enough to call himself a commoner.


----------



## munirao2001

Lukecash12
"Actually, it seems more like you are coining an apparent lack of human perception into religion". I owe you an explanation. Initially, with developing intelligence, observing and experiencing both bounty and destruction in nature, watching the death-cessation of life(human), with desire to overcome the fear and insecurity of loss of life and for perpetuation of life, humans developed God-centric religion. Later, realized the potency of power, as a factor for enjoyment-both physical and mental and as means for subjugation and leadership. First, power took the form of physical, second money, third political resources as best tools. The religious power, the ultimate power was developed with heightened human perception.


----------



## munirao2001

starry
The impulse to actually believe in God centric religion arises out of insecurity, fear and desire. A mind unconditioned and free takes different form of religion-both self-love and universal love(for humanity).


----------



## Mozartgirl92

I don´t think music is the creation of divinity, I only think it´s about talent and hard work, so no matter how much I like one or two composers I won´t call their music the creation of a god, it´s simply just talent and hard work.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand. (Judges 12:6).

God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. (Nahum 1:2).

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10:14-15).

And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea. (Mark 5:13).


So this is the word of the lord? The lord who is supposed to inspire great composers? How can a jealous, vengeful, furious god inspire beauty? If you look at the history of Christianity, it's not surprising there was so much war and bloodshed. The author of these lines does not place any value on human life, not to mention pig ignorant. If someone can justify these quotes and tell me why a god who thinks thus would want happiness for us on earth (let alone inspire art), then my acceptance of a divine creator does not go past the ethical level, let alone the metaphysical level.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Earthling said:


> And what is Paul referring to when he says "worthy of death"? Oh yeah: (followed by OT quote several hundred pages before this passage)


Wow- if you're going to quote scripture in juxtaposition, why not at least reference the same chapter?! E.g.:

_There are none that are righteous, no- not one.

For the wages of sin are death, for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God._

Christian teaching is that *I* deserve death... 
but for those who are Christian, there is an "however" to that proviso.


----------



## Lukecash12

munirao2001 said:


> starry
> The impulse to actually believe in God centric religion arises out of insecurity, fear and desire. A mind unconditioned and free takes different form of religion-both self-love and universal love(for humanity).


Which is the ultimate goal of Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism.


----------



## Lukecash12

Edward Elgar said:


> Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand. (Judges 12:6).
> 
> God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. (Nahum 1:2).
> 
> And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10:14-15).
> 
> And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea. (Mark 5:13).
> 
> So this is the word of the lord? The lord who is supposed to inspire great composers? How can a jealous, vengeful, furious god inspire beauty? If you look at the history of Christianity, it's not surprising there was so much war and bloodshed. The author of these lines does not place any value on human life, not to mention pig ignorant. If someone can justify these quotes and tell me why a god who thinks thus would want happiness for us on earth (let alone inspire art), then my acceptance of a divine creator does not go past the ethical level, let alone the metaphysical level.


It's the strict kind of God that we earned. He had to hold our hands until the Messiah came, and still they scoffed at Him when He came into our presence. If you want a true and full explanation of the harsh measures, read the book of Job, and moreover the book of Ezekiel. He both had to preserve His people and His ethics, so that the Messiah could make an example of them for all of us.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Lukecash12 said:


> It's the strict kind of God that we earned. He had to hold our hands until the Messiah came, and still they scoffed at Him when He came into our presence. If you want a true and full explanation of the harsh measures, read the book of Job, and moreover the book of Ezekiel. He both had to preserve His people and His ethics, so that the Messiah could make an example of them for all of us.


Interesting how these stories do not require a shred of proof. I'd be terrified if I knew god could force me to kill my son or turn me into a pillar of salt. The ancients certainly knew the usefulness of fear.

Also, are you seriously endorsing this behaviour? Killing thousands? Filling the bodies of swine with evil spirits and forcing them off cliffs?


----------



## Aramis

> Also, are you seriously endorsing this behaviour? Killing thousands? Filling the bodies of swine with evil spirits and forcing them off cliffs?


I did the latter myself and I don't feel guilty!


----------



## Edward Elgar

Aramis said:


> I did the latter myself and I don't feel guilty!


Are you seriously saying you performed an exorcism whereby you used the body of a pig to trap an evil spirit and then pushed the pig off a cliff?

You wouldn't get away with something like that nowadays. Jesus would have been arrested for animal cruelty.


----------



## Lukecash12

Edward Elgar said:


> Interesting how these stories do not require a shred of proof. I'd be terrified if I knew god could force me to kill my son or turn me into a pillar of salt. The ancients certainly knew the usefulness of fear.
> 
> Also, are you seriously endorsing this behaviour? Killing thousands? Filling the bodies of swine with evil spirits and forcing them off cliffs?


Read between the lines. There are reasons for this kind of behavior. Israel needs a play to lie it's head and rest. The countries neighboring Canaan would have put God's message in peril, I wouldn't hesitate to be executed to make sure the Messiah had a tribe of Benjamin to be born into.

If you know your bible well enough, you should probably know as well that the soldiers were to meditate for a long period of time after killing, to remove the stain of blood from themselves. War wasn't an action done out of spite. It wasn't a savage action, and it wasn't done by a savage people. The Levites had to reassure the soldiers time and time again.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Lukecash12 said:


> I wouldn't hesitate to be executed to make sure the Messiah had a tribe of Benjamin to be born into.


That would be a waste of a life if your stories turned out to be false. Plus, the conversation on this forum would be a lot less stimulating!


----------



## Lukecash12

Edward Elgar said:


> That would be a waste of a life if your stories turned out to be false. Plus, the conversation on this forum would be a lot less stimulating!


Any stimulation here wouldn't compare to the marriage supper of the lamb. If the disciples fabricated the resurrection, why is it that each of them died a martyr's death. Why was John the Baptist beheaded, and Steven stoned? Paul imprisoned, ridiculed, and saved only by the fact that he was a Roman citizen? All of the Apostles humiliated, accosted, and mostly executed.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Lukecash12 said:


> Any stimulation here wouldn't compare to the marriage supper of the lamb. If the disciples fabricated the resurrection, why is it that each of them died a martyr's death. Why was John the Baptist beheaded, and Steven stoned? Paul imprisoned, ridiculed, and saved only by the fact that he was a Roman citizen? All of the Apostles humiliated, accosted, and mostly executed.


Whoa! You're dedicated! Tbh, Christians have done their fare share of killing, violence and abuse. The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, witch hunts, violent exorcisms, child rape. What about those who have died and are still dying in the name of religion? Are they enjoying the supper of the lamb?


----------



## Guest

Ireland still has terrible religious violence, between the Catholics and Protestants. Africa also suffers immensely thanks to Christianity (who don't like condoms, thus the spread of AIDS).


----------



## Guest

I guess I am unclear - because God is not a pacifist, he must therefore be bad? Yes, the Israelites were commanded to wage war on various peoples as they took possession of the promised land. Those people had by and large turned away from God's commandments, and had been warned of the consequences. Many of their practices in worshipping idols were unacceptable - up to and including the practice of human sacrifice. Additionally, when the Israelites turned away from the commandments, they were also punished in a severe manner. A God of love and a God of consequences are not mutually exclusive. War is sometimes justified, despite the various bumper stickers you may read. Clearly it was necessary to wage war against Nazi Germany.

As to God being for animal cruelty - you make the case yourself that TODAY he would be charged with such a crime. I doubt that even as little as 100 years ago such an action would be punishable. Besides, such a thing would be nothing new - Christ violated things in his day that were considered wrong, like healing on the Sabbath, or his disciples picking up food on the Sabbath. Besides, if you re-read that story, it seems quite clear that his intent was not to slaughter a lot of animals, but to free an individual from the possession.


----------



## Guest

Jeff N said:


> Ireland still has terrible religious violence, between the Catholics and Protestants. Africa also suffers immensely thanks to Christianity (who don't like condoms, thus the spread of AIDS).


The issue of Ireland goes deeper than merely Catholics vs. Protestants. Catholicism and Protestantism represent something more in that situation - Irish remained mostly Catholic when Henry VIII made his split with the Rome, founding the Protestant Church of England, and many of the British nobility that were then given grants of land and control over Ireland were Protestant. It's nice to boil it down to something as simplistic as a religious dispute, but the violence there has really little, or nothing, to do with whether you believe the Pope is God's mouthpiece on earth, and is more of an issue of independence from English control.

Africa suffers from Christianity? Africa suffers from a great many things. Poverty, corrupt governments, centuries of exploitation by European countries seeking to expand their empires, tribal conflicts, Islam, etc. AIDS is spreading for reasons that go beyond the Catholic church opposing the use of condoms - and note that that is a Catholic doctrine, not a Christian doctrine. AIDS is spread in sub-saharan Africa due to the large amount of prostitution that occurs there, as well as various other reasons. Some groups believe that having sex with a virgin girl will cure you of AIDS. Additionally, access to clean medical equipment, such as needles and syringes, is sadly lacking. To say that AIDS is rampant there because of a Catholic doctrine betrays your utter lack of understanding of the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Besides, the Christian teaching of abstinence prior to marriage would go a long way to alleviating this problem.


----------



## Guest

So two wrongs make a right? DrMike, there a plenty of instances where god kills or demands the killing of innocents (even women and children). If a group of people are practicing human sacrifice, is it really necessary to murder them, cut their heads off and hang them where everyone can see?


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Whoa! You're dedicated! Tbh, Christians have done their fare share of killing, violence and abuse. The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, witch hunts, violent exorcisms, child rape. What about those who have died and are still dying in the name of religion? Are they enjoying the supper of the lamb?


Do not make the mistake of equating Christianity with the actions of those who claim to be following it. Christians have done horrible things. Atheists have done horrible things. Pagans have done horrible things. Humans have done horrible things. Some people like to use things such as religion to exert power over others, but that does not mean that the religion is responsible for such things. Why do you not, then, in fairness list those good things that Christianity has done? How many people worldwide have been taught, fed, and clothed by Christians? The actions of Mother Teresa alone stand as a more representation of the true teachings of Christ than all of your examples, and yet you ignore her. You ignore Christians living in Nazi Germany who obeyed their God more than their government and sheltered Jews that might otherwise have been executed. You ignore Christian organizations like the Salvation Army that work to feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and homeless. You will find those individuals and groups more representative of the teachings of Christ than your examples of people using Christianity, rather than following it.


----------



## Guest

Jeff N said:


> So two wrongs make a right? DrMike, there a plenty of instances where god kills or demands the killing of innocents (even women and children). If a group of people are practicing human sacrifice, is it really necessary to murder them, cut their heads off and hang them where everyone can see?


I suspect that you might also consider capital punishment equivalent to murder.

There is a difference between the killing of an innocent and the meting out of a punishment on an individual or group that violated a law or commandment.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> There is a difference between the killing of an innocent and the meting out of a punishment on an individual or group that violated a law or commandment.


Can you name the 10 commandments? I believe there are at most only 3 or 4 that are really practical, aside from being commonsense. Also, the Old Testament has some 600 rules that are mostly absurd, such as killing disobedient children and, my favorite, stoning a virgin on her wedding night to death.


----------



## Guest

Jeff N said:


> So two wrongs make a right? DrMike, there a plenty of instances where god kills or demands the killing of innocents (even women and children). If a group of people are practicing human sacrifice, is it really necessary to murder them, cut their heads off and hang them where everyone can see?


Would you consider the actions of the Allies during World War II the moral equivalent of those of Nazi Germany? Both were responsible for killing people. Or can we agree that, although superficially there are similarities, the actions of both are not morally equivalent?


----------



## Guest

Hmm, let's see, the US dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan that together killed at least a quarter-million innocent civilians. The US also forcibly relocated and interned over 100,000 innocent and harmless Japanese-Americans in camps. Also, US soldiers raped many Japanese woman after we occupied the country at the end of the war. And the atrocities of the USSR (an Allied nation) are just awful. Do you want me to compare that to what Hitler did with the Holocaust or what the Japanese did the Chinese? That's asking to take the slightly lesser of two evils. Both were bad and you can't justify either.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

As long as we've fully embraced the digression, I thought this point merited expansion...


Lukecash12 said:


> If the disciples fabricated the resurrection, why is it that each of them died a martyr's death?


I always thought that this would be a good topic for a Sunday School class, i.e.:

*Headlines you'll never see...*

*The Roman Tribune*

JESUS CULT INSIDER REVEALS ALL!
Says "miracles" were actually magic tricks!
Reveals that "resurrection" was a grand hoax!
(Insider's death-sentence commuted for bringing evidence to the benefit of the Empire to light.)
*Read All About It!!*

D'ya think the Romans (or the Pharisees) would have done something like this, if they could??

Oh, and by the way, for an artful treatment of a tangential topic, 
I refer interested parties to the Thomas Costain novel _The Silver Chalice_.


----------



## Earthling

DrMike said:


> Yes, the Israelites were commanded to wage war on various peoples as they took possession of the promised land. Those people had by and large turned away from God's commandments, and had been warned of the consequences. Many of their practices in worshipping idols were unacceptable - up to and including the practice of human sacrifice.


This was the same line of reasoning behind the US notion of "Manifest Destiny." And it was just as wrong.

Many countries have waged war and expansion "in the name of God" or with his endorsement (at least according to political and religious leaders). Its a convenient excuse and justification for warmongering and greed. Ancient Israel was no exception to this very human behaviour.

Set up a grand ideology as cover for greed and warmongering-- it always feels better and provides a stronger motivation. It works every time.


----------



## Guest

Jeff N said:


> Hmm, let's see, the US dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan that together killed at least a quarter-million innocent civilians. The US also forcibly relocated and interned over 100,000 innocent and harmless Japanese-Americans in camps. Also, US soldiers raped many Japanese woman after we occupied the country at the end of the war. And the atrocities of the USSR (an Allied nation) are just awful. Do you want me to compare that to what Hitler did with the Holocaust or what the Japanese did the Chinese? That's asking to take the slightly lesser of two evils. Both were bad and you can't justify either.


The internment of Japanese-Americans was wrong. But that had nothing to do with why we went to war - we didn't go to war so that we could inter those people. Was the raping of Japanese women the official action of the U.S. military? Is the U.S. military an official rape squad? Are soldiers caught raping women prosecuted? Russia did commit atrocities as well. The alliance with them was primarily one of necessity. The atomic bombs were horrific - yet justified. Even conservative estimates put estimated deaths, both military and civilian, much higher than what resulted from the dropping of those bombs. That anybody had to die was horrible, but given their willingness to fight to the last, the U.S. knew that any invasion of the homeland would result in horrendous casualties on both sides.

So would you argue, then, that the U.S. and Great Britain should not have gone to war with the Axis? You really can't see a difference between the two sides? Russia was only ever an alliance of convenience - necessary to defeat Hitler.

I think you take moral relativism to its extreme, and so you see everything in very one-dimensional terms related to this issue of religion. You see no distinction between any kind of loss of life. And you also see, I assume, no justifiable reason for it to ever occur, and so you will always see evil in these scriptures you reference.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> So would you argue, then, that the U.S. and Great Britain should not have gone to war with the Axis? You really can't see a difference between the two sides?


Oh no, we most certainly had to go to war against the aggressors. The question is whether the two sides are morally equivalent, which I still firmly stand by my argument that they are.



DrMike said:


> The atomic bombs were horrific - yet justified. Even conservative estimates put estimated deaths, both military and civilian, much higher than what resulted from the dropping of those bombs. That anybody had to die was horrible, but given their willingness to fight to the last, the U.S. knew that any invasion of the homeland would result in horrendous casualties on both sides.


Yes, but did we have to drop them on cities with so many civilians? Did we even really need to drop them on cities at all? I don't see why a demonstration on empty land outside a major Japanese city was out of the question. That so many innocent people had to die on a whim is inexcusable.


----------



## Aramis

Edward Elgar said:


> Are you seriously saying you performed an exorcism whereby you used the body of a pig to trap an evil spirit and then pushed the pig off a cliff?


Sure, I thought that we all do that. You don't? What a stragne person.


----------



## Guest

Earthling said:


> This was the same line of reasoning behind the US notion of "Manifest Destiny." And it was just as wrong.
> 
> Many countries have waged war and expansion "in the name of God" or with his endorsement (at least according to political and religious leaders). Its a convenient excuse and justification for warmongering and greed. Ancient Israel was no exception to this very human behaviour.
> 
> Set up a grand ideology as cover for greed and warmongering-- it always feels better and provides a stronger motivation. It works every time.


I agree - ambitious individuals and groups have always been eager to seize upon principles that they can manipulate to advance their own interests. This does not mean that the underlying principle is wrong, merely that people can manipulate others using their beliefs. That is not proof, though, that the principle is inherently wrong. Just as with everything else you can imagine, religion is just as prone to being manipulated and abused.

Take evolution (which, I will assume, given your lack of belief in God or religion, you are accepting of). Darwin proposed a series of hypotheses to explain the development of life on this earth. Without going into depth, various influences in our environment selects for traits that confer upon an organism a survival advantage, and thus we arrive at the very simplistic concept of "survival of the fittest." Using these ideas, programs such as eugenics, forced sterilization, euthenasia, the concept of "superior" races, and other ideas of social Darwinism have co-opted or manipulated Darwin's ideas for the advancement of various agendas that have caused significant suffering. So, because people have manipulated Darwin's ideas for their own aggrandizement at the expense of others, do we dismiss evolution as a sham devised by people seeking to manipulate others for their gain? No. Because how an idea has been manipulated by others has no bearing on the correctness of that idea.


----------



## Earthling

DrMike said:


> I agree - ambitious individuals and groups have always been eager to seize upon principles that they can manipulate to advance their own interests. This does not mean that the underlying principle is wrong, merely that people can manipulate others using their beliefs. That is not proof, though, that the principle is inherently wrong. Just as with everything else you can imagine, religion is just as prone to being manipulated and abused.


Yes, and my point is what makes ancient Israel a special exception to this rule?



> Take evolution (which, I will assume, given your lack of belief in God or religion, you are accepting of). Darwin proposed a series of hypotheses to explain the development of life on this earth. Without going into depth, various influences in our environment selects for traits that confer upon an organism a survival advantage, and thus we arrive at the very simplistic concept of "survival of the fittest." Using these ideas, programs such as eugenics, forced sterilization, euthenasia, the concept of "superior" races, and other ideas of social Darwinism have co-opted or manipulated Darwin's ideas for the advancement of various agendas that have caused significant suffering. So, because people have manipulated Darwin's ideas for their own aggrandizement at the expense of others, do we dismiss evolution as a sham devised by people seeking to manipulate others for their gain? No. Because how an idea has been manipulated by others has no bearing on the correctness of that idea.


Biological Darwinism (which has to do with observations of what is), and Herbert's "social darwinism" (which have to do with how he thought things ought to be) are two very different things. One is science, the other is a social ideology. Incidentally, the phrase "survival of the fittest" is Herbert's, not Darwin's. Natural selection is not "survival of the fittest."

The Israelites on the other hand, did not _co-opt _anything-- this was _part and parcel _of their own religious and political ideology. Yahweh didn't command the Israelites to do anything. Moses and other religious/political leaders SAID that Yahweh commanded them to wage war. _Plus ça change..._


----------



## Guest

Jeff N said:


> Oh no, we most certainly had to go to war against the aggressors. The question is whether the two sides are morally equivalent, which I still firmly stand by my argument that they are.
> 
> Yes, but did we have to drop them on cities with so many civilians? Did we even really need to drop them on cities at all? I don't see why a demonstration on empty land outside a major Japanese city was out of the question. That so many innocent people had to die on a whim is inexcusable.


So even though it was necessary that we go to war, we are no better than the Nazis? Wow, where do you come by that conclusion. If a man enters my house, shoots my family, then turns the gun on me, and I shoot him dead, are his actions and mine morally equivalent?

Or, if a man kills several people for his own sadistic purposes, is caught, found guilty, and sentenced to death, is his death as much a moral wrong as those deaths he caused? Is there no distinction, in your mind, between the punishment of an individual for an act that they commit contrary to laws, and the unnecessary punishment of an individual for no reason?

As to the choice of cities for the bombs, it is debatable whether bombing an uninhabited area would have sent the same message, and Hiroshima was also chosen as a strategic target - it was a key shipping city, the headquarters of two Japanese armies as well as their Army Marine headquarters, and a military depot. This was not purely a civilian target.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> So even though it was necessary that we go to war, we are no better than the Nazis? Wow, where do you come by that conclusion. If a man enters my house, shoots my family, then turns the gun on me, and I shoot him dead, are his actions and mine morally equivalent?


That's not the point I made. Killing him is a matter of self-defense and completely granted, but my point was that the Allies went above and beyond self-defense to do very cruel things. By your analogy, the Allies would have killed the man and then gone on to murder nearly everyone he knows or has had contact with.



DrMike said:


> Or, if a man kills several people for his own sadistic purposes, is caught, found guilty, and sentenced to death, is his death as much a moral wrong as those deaths he caused? Is there no distinction, in your mind, between the punishment of an individual for an act that they commit contrary to laws, and the unnecessary punishment of an individual for no reason?


See above.



DrMike said:


> As to the choice of cities for the bombs, it is debatable whether bombing an uninhabited area would have sent the same message, and Hiroshima was also chosen as a strategic target - it was a key shipping city, the headquarters of two Japanese armies as well as their Army Marine headquarters, and a military depot. This was not purely a civilian target.


Even still, over 150,000 civilians died in Hiroshima. Just because it wasn't purely a civilian target doesn't justify the use of the atomic bomb on it. Plus, the US waited only 3 days till dropping the next bomb on Nagasaki, not giving the Japanese government much of a chance to respond to what happened at Hiroshima.


----------



## Aramis

> This was not purely a civilian target.


Yeah, great argument - Stalin was nice fellow too, I'm sure that among those milions of people he killed in various ways there was at least few conspirators. He is totally justified.


----------



## Earthling

You got to at least give credit to the Japanese: at least they bombed a bona fide _military _target.


----------



## Guest

Aramis said:


> Yeah, great argument - Stalin was nice fellow too, I'm sure that among those milions of people he killed in various ways there was at least few conspirators. He is totally justified.


Poor comparison - Stalin's executions were to eliminate political opponents and solidify his hold on power. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to bring an end to a war that the Japanese had declared on us.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> Poor comparison - Stalin's executions were to eliminate political opponents and solidify his hold on power.


Stalin absolutely did not just "eliminate" political opponents. His purges also included the repression and murder of peasants, and it is estimated that at least 1,000 executions took place daily during the 2 years of the Great Purge.


----------



## Guest

Earthling said:


> You got to at least give credit to the Japanese: at least they bombed a bona fide _military _target.


Yes, give them credit for an unprovoked sneak attack. They attacked a strategic target. The fact that it was not located closer to large groups of civilians was not intentional - that is simply where the bulk of the U.S. Pacific fleet was.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bona fide military targets. That they choose to place key military groups and installations in areas where there were also large numbers of civilians should not give them immunity from attack. I already discussed above the attractiveness of Hiroshima as a military target.


----------



## Guest

Jeff N said:


> Stalin absolutely did not just "eliminate" political opponents. His purges also included the repression and murder of peasants, and it is estimated that at least 1,000 executions took place daily during the 2 years of the Great Purge.


Exactly, and his attacks on his own citizens, or those under Russian control, served no justifiable military purpose, and can have no justification in that sense, just as the Holocaust had no military justification for Hitler. In contrast, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did serve a military purpose - they compelled Japan to surrender, thus ending the need for U.S. military forces to invade the home islands, bringing an estimated 1 million U.S. casualties, and Japanese casualties in the millions. They prevented an even greater loss of life. Stalin's executions and purges served no such purpose.


----------



## Guest

That still doesn't justify the use of the atomic bombs. They could have easily sent dive bombers to single out any military installations instead of wiping out the entire city. In this regard, the US was much more brutal than the Japanese.


----------



## Guest

But you just said that Stalins' actions held a political motive: "Poor comparison - Stalin's executions were to eliminate political opponents and solidify his hold on power."


----------



## Guest

Jeff N said:


> But you just said that Stalins' actions held a political motive: "Poor comparison - Stalin's executions were to eliminate political opponents and solidify his hold on power."


I was saying that was his only justification in it. But it is also fair to say that many of those groups that he had executed were those he felt might pose a threat to him - however twisted his logic was behind it. Just as Hitler felt that the elimination of the Jews was critical for success of the Aryan people, as he felt that the Jews had been key to so many of Germany's problems.


----------



## Aramis

> Poor comparison - Stalin's executions were to eliminate political opponents and solidify his hold on power. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to bring an end to a war that the Japanese had declared on us.


And did it? No. Besied, other war crimes also were mainly about war purposes. Does it justify anything? No. When you kill unarmed civils in such great numbers it is a war crime. Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are one of most vile war crimes committed during Word War II. It was genocide and now it is hypocrisy and mendacious propaganda, when one does deny it.


----------



## Argus

If all the time and effort some people put into reading and scrutinising the Bible would have been invested in more useful pursuits, I would either a) be reading this thread in some kind of Moonbase or b) be substantially less bored by this thread.

EDIT: Actually this thread seems to have taken a bizarre turn. What does the atomic bombing of Japan have to do with divine inspiration in musicians again?


----------



## Earthling

Here's a question (more on topic): The question is not whether you LIKE a particular piece of music or that you think (by whatever aesthetic standards) that it is "good." Rather the question is: Is ALL music inspired by a god (don't worry about which god) or is only _certain _pieces (or certain composers)? Are some pieces more inspired by a god than others? If so, how can listeners tell the difference?

Here are some musical compositions, for example:

*John Cage: 4'33"
The Beatles: Revolution
Lou Reed: Metal Machine Music (one hour of only guitar feedback)
Edgard Varese: Hyperprism
Samuel Barber: Knoxville, Summer of 1915
Bach: Cello Suite No. 3
Anonymous: Kyorei (traditional Japanese piece for solo shakuhachi)
Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan: Taa Deem (a Muslim singer)
Britney Spears: Break the Ice
Dmitri Shostakovich: String Quartet No. 8 
Philip Glass: Satyagraha
W.A.S.P.: Animal (F--- Like a Beast) (a metal band)
Charles Mingus: Haitian Fight Song
Eugène Pottier / Pierre De Geyter: The Internationale
Bob Dylan: Blowin' in the Wind
*
Inspired a little? Inspired a lot? Not inspired at all? And how can one make the distinction? What specific criterion is there to determine that a god inspired one piece, but not another? Or do only "great" (by traditional western European standards) musicians get this so-called inspiration?

The whole notion of music "inspired" by a god opens up more confusing cans of worms and offers no clarity, either on music or on any gods that may or may not even exist.


----------



## Earthling

Oh and I should like to add *The Star-Spangled Banner *as well, the melody of which was originally a British drinking song. Inspired perhaps, but not by a god! LOL


----------



## jurianbai

Earthling said:


> Oh and I should like to add *The Star-Spangled Banner *as well, the melody of which was originally a British drinking song. Inspired perhaps, but not by a god! LOL


Lol,ok ok, I'll go with you. Not all music inspired by God that's what you like to point out right? You are correct then, it will be a conflict of nature where after God inspired Star Spangled Banner He also inspired the very inspirational music *American Idiot *, Green Day. LOL.


----------



## jurianbai

Most of last page discussed about rules/moments in Bible's time vs in today's time, which is not discussed with correct interpretation. I like to ask this just for sake of illustration:

Why the Admins banned people who just posted a couple of advertisements? Is it because they break a rules about spamming? And who write these rules :

_Members may not advertise any commercial or non-commercial products or websites outside the designated area(s): The »Classifieds« forum, unless given express permission by the owners of Talk Classical._

and so ever in posting guidelines page. Doesn't it sound contradicted to the freedom of speech? The person who posted some ads overhere maybe a poor guy from third world (stereotype on) that need money to feed his sick father. Don't we supposed to ask about it and give him chances to defend his act?

The admin is the most powerful person in this community, he is like God and we are in his planet, but it is sound very cruel to ban someone who need money just for the sake that we can enjoy chit chat here peacefully. very selfish for us and exclusive. Banning is like ex-communicated him, like sending him to hell. And the worse is while we discussed about animal cruelty, war, we even not defend this poor spammer and ask for his background.

Is this because we agree it is done under a rule?

(memo, this is for illustration only I know you understand my point)


----------



## Guest

Aramis said:


> And did it? No. Besied, other war crimes also were mainly about war purposes. Does it justify anything? No. When you kill unarmed civils in such great numbers it is a war crime. Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are one of most vile war crimes committed during Word War II. It was genocide and now it is hypocrisy and mendacious propaganda, when one does deny it.


Seriously, you don't think it ended the war? The Japanese surrendered 6 days after the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Was there something else that compelled them to surrender at that point.

Estimates of total deaths, both immediate and from long-term effects of the bombs, is somewhere around 250,000. Bombings of German cities that were part of the war effort that, among other things, liberated concentration camps and your own country (Poland) killed a minimum of 300,000 people, with nearly 800,000 more injured. Was that also a war crime? Genocide? Calling it such is to ignore all other factors that were occurring at the time. Yes, 250,000 were killed, but in comparison to the conservative estimates of millions of both Americans and Japanese dying in an invasion, it gives the choice a context.


----------



## munirao2001

Lukecash12
To your question "Which is the ultimate goal of Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism?", my humble answer is:
1) Hinduism - SAT-CHIT-ANANDA - Attainment of - SAT-Clear and truthful perception and realization of Reality; CHIT- Unconditioned, questioning, acquisitive and creative mind and mental state; ANANDA- True happiness and contentment arising out of peace and bliss for one self and universal self.
2) Buddhism - Non-violence; love for all living beings;Free and open mind and universal peace
3) Christianity-Love for all living beings; Charity-sharing and caring and self-actualization.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Earthling said:


> Are some pieces more inspired by a god than others? If so, how can listeners tell the difference?
> 
> The whole notion of music "inspired" by a god opens up more confusing cans of worms and offers no clarity, either on music or on any gods that may or may not even exist.


This is why I propose the creator/composer ratio to determine how these compositions were conceived. If the conception for any given music has 10 inspiration units, let's try to figure out how they balance out, (starting with god and ending with the composer).

For example:

John Cage: 4'33" *1:9*
The Beatles: Revolution *4:6*
Lou Reed: Metal Machine Music (one hour of only guitar feedback) *2:9*
Edgard Varese: Hyperprism *4:6*
Samuel Barber: Knoxville, Summer of 1915 *5:5*
Bach: Cello Suite No. 3 *8:2*
Anonymous: Kyorei (traditional Japanese piece for solo shakuhachi) *9:1*
Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan: Taa Deem (a Muslim singer) *10:0*
Britney Spears: Break the Ice *7:3*
Dmitri Shostakovich: String Quartet No. 8 *6:4*
Philip Glass: Satyagraha *3:7*
W.A.S.P.: Animal (F--- Like a Beast) (a metal band) *4:6*
Charles Mingus: Haitian Fight Song *3:7*
Eugène Pottier / Pierre De Geyter: The Internationale *5:5*
Bob Dylan: Blowin' in the Wind *8:2*


----------



## Aramis

> Seriously, you don't think it ended the war? The Japanese surrendered 6 days after the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Was there something else that compelled them to surrender at that point.


From the military point of view it didn't end anything. Japan would not capitulate if would lost military objects in two bombed cities in normal way. But when they used atomic bomb and destroyed the whole city and then, despite believing that Americans have only one bomb, dropped another one with same effect what could happen? If they had more bombs they could easily do what Hitler did to jews. Clear Japan of people. Two bombings that took place clearly shows that they were ruthless enough.



> Estimates of total deaths, both immediate and from long-term effects of the bombs, is somewhere around 250,000. Bombings of German cities that were part of the war effort that, among other things, liberated concentration camps and your own country (Poland) killed a minimum of 300,000 people, with nearly 800,000 more injured. Was that also a war crime? Genocide? Calling it such is to ignore all other factors that were occurring at the time. Yes, 250,000 were killed, but in comparison to the conservative estimates of millions of both Americans and Japanese dying in an invasion, it gives the choice a context.


It doesn't. It was like terrorism - they couldn't win in conventional way so they performed attack that destroyed not military power of Japan, but it's people. They planned to drop third bomb - why's that? If the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing was such military succes? Shouldn't they perform assault if they achieved so much with bombing those two cities? The answer is simple: they didin't achieve anything important in terms of war, they decided to destroy people in case to break the authorities and althought they succeeded it still remains vile deed worthy of condemnation and beratetation.
.


----------



## Guest

Aramis said:


> From the military point of view it didn't end anything. Japan would not capitulate if would lost military objects in two bombed cities in normal way. But when they used atomic bomb and destroyed the whole city and then, despite believing that Americans have only one bomb, dropped another one with same effect what could happen? If they had more bombs they could easily do what Hitler did to jews. Clear Japan of people. Two bombings that took place clearly shows that they were ruthless enough.


Yes, clearly that was the objective. Except they gave Japan the opportunity to surrender before the first bomb (Potsdam Declaration) and before the second bomb.

Yes, there is a definite degree of ruthlessness in war - no matter how you slice it, it is killing people and blowing things up. The Japanese were willing to fight to the last person, and even send their young men on suicide missions in planes. I still don't understand your assertion that the bombs didn't accomplish anything militarily. The ultimate military goal is to force the other side to surrender - prior to the two bombings, the Japanese refused to do that. Just 6 days after the bombings, they surrendered unconditionally. And then we proceeded to help them rebuild their country - hardly the hallmarks of a country bent on annihilating the other.

How about this scenario - the Japanese planned on making a last stand on the home islands, where every man, woman, and child would be expected to fight and give their lives in the service of the emperor to drive off an invasion. They hoped that this battle of attrition, having to fight for every square inch and incurring huge casualties (just as occurred on Iwo Jima and Okinawa) would discourage an attack. By dropping the two bombs, the message was clear - it was hopeless for the Japanese to continue. The U.S. could destroy them with only minimal loss of life, if they chose to continue the war - the U.S. would not have to fight a war of attrition. The Japanese leaders finally realized that against such weapons, they couldn't hope to win, so they surrendered. They had no possible way of fighting the U.S. to a draw. If they truly hoped to commit genocide, why Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why not more populated cities? Why not the capitol?



> It doesn't. It was like terrorism - they couldn't win in conventional way so they performed attack that destroyed not military power of Japan, but it's people. They planned to drop third bomb - why's that? If the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing was such military succes? Shouldn't they perform assault if they achieved so much with bombing those two cities? The answer is simple: they didin't achieve anything important in terms of war, they decided to destroy people in case to break the authorities and althought they succeeded it still remains vile deed worthy of condemnation and beratetation.
> .


Okay, so you think that without these bombings, we couldn't have won. So in your view, we should have surrendered and grant them the victory? Given that a victorious Japan would likely have continued the savage butchery in places like China and Korea. We already know the brutal way they treated our prisoners of war - forced death marches, even cannibalism. They were the aggressors - they attacked us first. We retaliated. Even though we had pushed them back to their home islands, they still refused to surrender. To invade the home islands to force their surrender, it was estimated that American casualties would number around 1 million (4 times the number of people that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined), and Japanese casualties would have been in the millions (with civilians dying as well, as happened in Europe). I'm glad that you think that millions of people dying, as opposed to only 250,000, would be preferable in this situation, and would have been the morally superior decision. Instead of 2 cities destroyed, most likely all major cities would have been destroyed. Just look at the level of destruction of cities in Europe, where no atomic weapons were used. You are saying that would have been the preferred solution?


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> This is why I propose the creator/composer ratio to determine how these compositions were conceived. If the conception for any given music has 10 inspiration units, let's try to figure out how they balance out, (starting with god and ending with the composer).
> 
> For example:
> 
> John Cage: 4'33" *1:9*
> The Beatles: Revolution *4:6*
> Lou Reed: Metal Machine Music (one hour of only guitar feedback) *2:9*
> Edgard Varese: Hyperprism *4:6*
> Samuel Barber: Knoxville, Summer of 1915 *5:5*
> Bach: Cello Suite No. 3 *8:2*
> Anonymous: Kyorei (traditional Japanese piece for solo shakuhachi) *9:1*
> Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan: Taa Deem (a Muslim singer) *10:0*
> Britney Spears: Break the Ice *7:3*
> Dmitri Shostakovich: String Quartet No. 8 *6:4*
> Philip Glass: Satyagraha *3:7*
> W.A.S.P.: Animal (F--- Like a Beast) (a metal band) *4:6*
> Charles Mingus: Haitian Fight Song *3:7*
> Eugène Pottier / Pierre De Geyter: The Internationale *5:5*
> Bob Dylan: Blowin' in the Wind *8:2*


Understand that I fully realize that much of this is tongue in cheek.

The original question of this thread is poorly worded. Really, what those who replied in the positive clearly are trying to communicate is that, yes, God can in fact inspire people to create works of beauty, including within the music world. That doesn't mean that everything even remotely related to music is divine. You propose a rating system, but clearly even you wouldn't have a hard time with many of these in divining whether, were you inclined to believe in God, His hand played a role in these.

In fact, it is even possible that someone blessed with an incredible musical talent from God might then take that talent and use it in opposition to what one would consider holy or divine. I personally believe that God does bless certain people with the gift of musical talent. That doesn't mean all that they write is divine. Nobody is going to compile a list, but certain things certainly stand out as obvious choices.

But in terms of this discussion, I am more than willing to let atheists take credit for 4:33, Metal Music Machine, and Animal (F--- Like a Beast).


----------



## Aramis

> Yes, clearly that was the objective. Except they gave Japan the opportunity to surrender before the first bomb (Potsdam Declaration) and before the second bomb.


Everyone asks his enemy to surrendes before he attacks, that's what Hitler did too before he entered many places with force and then slaugtered people. Now we call those events his war crimes and just because US contributed in fighting "bad guys" of WWII it doesn't mean that everything they did was right and we can't blame them for anything since they are "good guys" of WWII.



> Yes, there is a definite degree of ruthlessness in war - no matter how you slice it, it is killing people and blowing things up.


War is between armies. When some civil people accidentally get hurt on front line it is often war as well. And when one intentionally slays so many civils it is war crime.



> Okay, so you think that without these bombings, we couldn't have won.


No, what I think is that US would have much more difficult job with defeating Japan since they did surrender not because of military objects lost in bombing but because of danger of getting half of Japan slaughtered in attacks that was more of extermination than war.



> They were the aggressors - they attacked us first. We retaliated


Och, you're right, it explains everything, in case of such justice I hope that Iraq has some nuclear bombs that will soon be dropped on Boston and San Francisco - the US will surrender and justice shall be done. Don't you think?


----------



## Guest

Aramis said:


> Everyone asks his enemy to surrendes before he attacks, that's what Hitler did too before he entered many places with force and then slaugtered people. Now we call those events his war crimes and just because US contributed in fighting "bad guys" of WWII it doesn't mean that everything they did was right and we can't blame them for anything since they are "good guys" of WWII.
> 
> War is between armies. When some civil people accidentally get hurt on front line it is often war as well. And when one intentionally slays so many civils it is war crime.
> 
> No, what I think is that US would have much more difficult job with defeating Japan since they did surrender not because of military objects lost in bombing but because of danger of getting half of Japan slaughtered in attacks that was more of extermination than war.
> 
> Och, you're right, it explains everything, in case of such justice I hope that Iraq has some nuclear bombs that will soon be dropped on Boston and San Francisco - the US will surrender and justice shall be done. Don't you think?


No, war is between countries or groups. Battles are no longer fought with the two opposing armies lining up on opposite sides of a field and taking turns firing. They are fought around strategic points - sometimes a geographical location, sometimes a city. And when a country stages part of its military and military infrastructure within cities, it does so with the realization that their presence there makes that city a valid military target.

And your exaggeration of things really seems quite absurd - extermination? Like I said, if the goal was extermination, why not attack Tokyo? Or Osaka? Why help to rebuild afterwards? And besides, if extermination was the goal, firebombing would have been more effective - many Japanese buildings were made of wood and paper, and fire bombings there were even more destructive than in European cities.


----------



## Aramis

> And when a country stages part of its military and military infrastructure within cities, it does so with the realization that their presence there makes that city a valid military target.


Almost any important city not only in Japan but all around the world has some military infrastructure. If tomorrow you will die because of bomb that was ment for some factory making (among other things) metal objects for US army and by the way blazed half of city and killed almost half of people living there, would you die shouting to the airplane "have nice flight guys, it's alright, my fault, shouldn't live so close to this damn factory!" ?



> And your exaggeration of things really seems quite absurd - extermination? Like I said, if the goal was extermination, why not attack Tokyo? Or Osaka? Why help to rebuild afterwards? And besides, if extermination was the goal, firebombing would have been more effective - many Japanese buildings were made of wood and paper, and fire bombings there were even more destructive than in European cities.


I don't know what was the goal, I know what took place and it's the only thing that matters.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> Understand that I fully realize that much of this is tongue in cheek.
> 
> The original question of this thread is poorly worded. Really, what those who replied in the positive clearly are trying to communicate is that, yes, God can in fact inspire people to create works of beauty, including within the music world. That doesn't mean that everything even remotely related to music is divine. You propose a rating system, but clearly even you wouldn't have a hard time with many of these in divining whether, were you inclined to believe in God, His hand played a role in these.
> 
> In fact, it is even possible that someone blessed with an incredible musical talent from God might then take that talent and use it in opposition to what one would consider holy or divine. I personally believe that God does bless certain people with the gift of musical talent. That doesn't mean all that they write is divine. Nobody is going to compile a list, but certain things certainly stand out as obvious choices.
> 
> But in terms of this discussion, I am more than willing to let atheists take credit for 4:33, Metal Music Machine, and Animal (F--- Like a Beast).


I want you to give a creator/composer ratio rating for the following works:

Cage 4'33"
Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto
Stravinsky's Rite of Spring
Beethoven's 9th
Bach's St. Matthew Passion
"Amazing Grace"
The Muslim "Call to Prayer"

I'm being very serious here as this lies at the heart of my objections attributing human work to that of a supernatural power.


----------



## Argus

Aramis said:


> I don't know what was the goal, I know what took place and it's the only thing that matters.


The goal was the get Japan to surrender. To end the war. The leaders of the American war effort thought that the use of atomic weaponry would be the quickest solution available to them. You've got to see things from America's perspective. It's main interest is to protect it's _own citizens_. Invading Japan would have increased casualties on both sides dramatically and further extended the war. Also, you've got to remember they had invested a massive amount of money in the Manhattan Project and to totally neglect the results of that wouldn't have made sense at the time.

So imagine your Truman your options are basically:

a) use the bomb, kill lots of Japanese innocent civilians and pretty much certainly end the war.

b) invade Japan, risk the lives of many American and Japanese soldiers as well as innocent Japanese civilians, extend the war for an indeterminate amount of time and not only neglect the investment in developing the bombs but continue spending to fund the invasion.

I think America was right to drop the bomb on Hiroshima in this situation but I will concede that bombing Nagasaki just three days later was unneccessary force. America had been in the war with Japan for nearly 4 years, why they couldn't wait a bit longer to see if the Japanese were willing to surrender eludes me.

Also, I agree with DrMike that firebombing cities would have had a worse effect on the civilian population of the target cities had the war gone on. The Americans in 45 could fly over Japan with ease and firebombing would have been more frequent.

Plus, without the bombings the aftermath of the war might have been very different. The Cold War might not have been so cold. Whether for good or bad, America became the superpower after WW2 and partly due to it's nuclear capabilities.


----------



## jurianbai

the Japanese occupation in Coastal China city and SE Asia take millions of innocent life also.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> I want you to give a creator/composer ratio rating for the following works:
> 
> Cage 4'33"
> Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto
> Stravinsky's Rite of Spring
> Beethoven's 9th
> Bach's St. Matthew Passion
> "Amazing Grace"
> The Muslim "Call to Prayer"
> 
> I'm being very serious here as this lies at the heart of my objections attributing human work to that of a supernatural power.


That isn't possible. You can't make such a subjective grading. As I said, God's influence on a piece may be something as subtle as having given someone a unique talent that enabled them to make such a work, or directly inspiring. My belief here stems from my belief that mankind is God's creation, and his influence over us is real. My approach is to seek out things that are virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy. Such things elevate me, and enrich my life, thus bringing me closer to God. Those things that do the opposite, I try to avoid.


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> So imagine your Truman your options are basically:
> 
> a) use the bomb, kill lots of Japanese innocent civilians and pretty much certainly end the war.
> 
> b) invade Japan, risk the lives of many American and Japanese soldiers as well as innocent Japanese civilians, extend the war for an indeterminate amount of time and not only neglect the investment in developing the bombs but continue spending to fund the invasion.


This is a false dichotomy. I've already mentioned other alternatives, such as demonstrating to the Japanese the power of the a-bomb without harming so many (if any) people.



DrMike said:


> Except they gave Japan the opportunity to surrender before the first bomb (Potsdam Declaration) and before the second bomb.


lol, the Potsdam Declaration made no mention of the a-bomb, so why should the Japanese take it seriously? It's clear they weren't going to surrender so easily, but seemingly-empty threats like the Potsdam Declaration could hardly be taken seriously by the Japanese. Plus, the US did not give the Japs enough time between the two bombings (only 3 days) to surrender. During this time, they were debating the conditions of their surrender.


----------



## Guest

Jeff N said:


> This is a false dichotomy. I've already mentioned other alternatives, such as demonstrating to the Japanese the power of the a-bomb without harming so many (if any) people.
> 
> lol, the Potsdam Declaration made no mention of the a-bomb, so why should the Japanese take it seriously? It's clear they weren't going to surrender so easily, but seemingly-empty threats like the Potsdam Declaration could hardly be taken seriously by the Japanese. Plus, the US did not give the Japs enough time between the two bombings (only 3 days) to surrender. During this time, they were debating the conditions of their surrender.


Really, you happen to know that the detonation of a bomb in a sparsely populated area would have convinced the Japanese to surrender? By your statement, the bombing of Hiroshima had them thinking they could still negotiate some kind of surrender terms. Can you offer any kind of example in history where a country at war was convinced to surrender based on a demonstration of some military superiority, as opposed to an actual attack that demonstrated the superiority?

No, the Potsdam Declaration didn't mention the bomb, but the Japanese should have taken it seriously. Hiroshima did not turn the tide of the war - it had turned against Japan long before that. Their military was in retreat - it had been pushed back to the home islands. We had control of Iwo Jima, which gave us airfields within easy striking distance of Japan. Japan was going to lose - the only question was how many more people had to die before they surrendered. 250,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or millions with an invasion.

And honestly, when you enemy eliminates an entire city with a single plane and a single bomb, how long do you really need to decide?

Because of an unprovoked attack, the youth of the U.S. had to go out and fight and die. American boys were drafted to fight in the war in the Pacific because Japan initiated a war with us. The only obligation the U.S. government had was to end the war successfully, as quickly as possible, with as little loss of American lives as possible. They had an opportunity to save an estimated 1 million American lives, as well as millions of Japanese. They took it. And then they helped rebuild Japan.


----------



## tahnak

A superb compilation. You have hit the light. Good music that becomes great is given By God and is decorated as an offering back to Him. I firmly believe this.


----------



## tahnak

Lukecash12 said:


> I think this dead horse has been beaten enough, my friend.


This topic cannot be a dead horse. People who consider music as a medium of entertainment would smell the stench of a dead horse and consider flogging it!


----------



## tahnak

Johnny said:


> Whether or not somebody thought their composing was guided by something supernatural, it's still not true. Or at least, there is no evidence to support their claim. And therefore such a claim is outrageous.


What evidence are you looking for?.... Do you want to see God and show others? These currents pass through the heart and mind and it is not for the world to see. What evidence do you desire to prove that God exists in the first place and then follow on to inpiration by him?


----------



## Aramis

> What evidence do you desire to prove that God exists


There is way to know for sure if the God exists or not, to learn it with your own senses and reason. You have to decide to sell your soul to the devil and name the price - seeing him. If he will answer your call and you will meet him, then you will know that he and therefore God too exist. If he doesn't appear then you shall know that they don't, since tradition teachs us that devil never refuses to buy one's soul.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Aramis said:


> ...tradition teaches us that devil never refuses to buy one's soul.


Here's my perspective-

The devil is powerful, and _hyper_-intelligent... however, he is not omnipotent-
and as a result recognizes the benefits of economy-of-effort...

Devil's not gonna buy someone's soul if someone's on the path of offering it up to him for free...


----------



## Aramis

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Here's my perspective-
> 
> The devil is powerful, and _hyper_-intelligent... however, he is not omnipotent-
> and as a result recognizes the benefits of economy-of-effort...
> 
> Devil's not gonna buy someone's soul if someone's on the path of offering it up to him for free...


You're saying that he would find it pointless because if he doesn't appear to the "contractor" he would belive that there is no God and go the same way as he would by selling his soul? I thought about it too, it's not the same - one would have time for conversion. Besides, wouldn't devil be interested in sealing the fate by definitively posessing the soul, even if it would be already corrupt to some extent? He did such thing with Faust - oops, sorry - Faust is romantic drama, not Canonical story.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Here's my perspective-
> 
> The devil is powerful, and _hyper_-intelligent... however, he is not omnipotent-
> and as a result recognizes the benefits of economy-of-effort...
> 
> Devil's not gonna buy someone's soul if someone's on the path of offering it up to him for free...


Is the devil actually an evil force or is he a just mythical being invented to scare people into blind obedience?

I'd sell my soul to be able to play the Chopin Etudes!


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Is the devil actually an evil force or is he a just mythical being invented to scare people into blind obedience?
> 
> I'd sell my soul to be able to play the Chopin Etudes!


And I'd sell mine to be able to play a Bach fugue...! 

As for your first remark, you're absolutely right and that is the point that needs to be focused on: instead of assuming the existence of said deities and talking as if they're real, we should try to establish any sort of grounding for supernatural belief first. And that is a mighty difficult, if impossible, task.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Jeff N said:


> As for your first remark, you're absolutely right and that is the point that needs to be focused on: instead of assuming the existence of said deities and talking as if they're real, we should try to establish any sort of grounding for supernatural belief first. And that is a mighty difficult, if impossible, task.


We first need to understand *WHY* humans would be drawn to believe in such stuff. Then we get a clearer (although not definite) picture of whether these supernatural forces exist.

If I may throw in my two cents regarding this matter:

Firstly, humans like to feel in control of their environment, even that which they cannot possibly control. (I'd like control over my printer but my printer has other plans!) Superstition like 'don't walk under ladders' or 'don't put shoes on the table' are explicit attempts to change something humans cannot control. The main thing humans feel the need to control is death. Death leaves humans feeling helpless, alone and food for worms. If you were told that putting shoes on the table would lead to death or the eternal fires of hell you would avoid doing so. Similarly, if you were told 'only through Jesus can you enter the kingdom of heaven' you might be inclined to believe in him, (depending on how gullible you are).

Secondly, the rich clergy and aristocracy of the early years of monotheism would have needed religion to threaten the peasants and serfs to stop them revolting. Napoleon famously said, 'religion is the only thing stopping the poor from killing the rich'. God is the Big Brother of 1984, always watching you, hearing your thoughts and feelings. With that information the ignorant would surely behave!

These are two important reasons why humans would believe in a supernatural force, and as everyone can hopefully see, they are not grounded in any scientific fact, but rather in wishful thinking and politics. (Why anyone would wish upon them an omnipotent tyrant is beyond me!) Can anyone think of any more reasons why someone might choose religion? If it's based on evidence I'll eat my bible!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

The following is a common-enough gambit in the atheist community...


Edward Elgar said:


> God is the Big Brother of 1984, always watching you, hearing your thoughts and feelings. With that information the ignorant would surely behave!


The more well-circulated expression of this nature is something along the lines of 
"God cannot exist because of all the evil and suffering that's allowed to suffuse this world."

These are examples of statements based on a pre-supposed _nature_ of God, 
and not a commentary on the _existence_ (or lack thereof) of a Supreme Being.

Careful thinkers are advised not to confuse the two...


----------



## jhar26

Edward Elgar said:


> Can anyone think of any more reasons why someone might choose religion?


Because we find it hard to accept our own mortality. And of course religion has always been a great tool for the powers that be to keep the masses under their tumbs and make them do whatever they want them to do. Cliche's - I know, but hard to argue against.

As for if there really is such a thing as 'God' or a supernatural creature, who knows? Life on Earth is a miracle itself which we have come to accept as normal because we're used to it. The big mystery for me is why the human species are the only creatures on the planet who can actually think and who have something that we call a concience, even though many choose to ignore theirs.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> We first need to understand *WHY* humans would be drawn to believe in such stuff. Then we get a clearer (although not definite) picture of whether these supernatural forces exist.
> 
> If I may throw in my two cents regarding this matter:
> 
> Firstly, humans like to feel in control of their environment, even that which they cannot possibly control. (I'd like control over my printer but my printer has other plans!) Superstition like 'don't walk under ladders' or 'don't put shoes on the table' are explicit attempts to change something humans cannot control. The main thing humans feel the need to control is death. Death leaves humans feeling helpless, alone and food for worms. If you were told that putting shoes on the table would lead to death or the eternal fires of hell you would avoid doing so. Similarly, if you were told 'only through Jesus can you enter the kingdom of heaven' you might be inclined to believe in him, (depending on how gullible you are).
> 
> *Secondly, the rich clergy and aristocracy of the early years of monotheism* would have needed religion to threaten the peasants and serfs to stop them revolting. Napoleon famously said, 'religion is the only thing stopping the poor from killing the rich'. God is the Big Brother of 1984, always watching you, hearing your thoughts and feelings. With that information the ignorant would surely behave!
> 
> These are two important reasons why humans would believe in a supernatural force, and as everyone can hopefully see, they are not grounded in any scientific fact, but rather in wishful thinking and politics. (Why anyone would wish upon them an omnipotent tyrant is beyond me!) Can anyone think of any more reasons why someone might choose religion? If it's based on evidence I'll eat my bible!


Huh?
Early years of monotheism? If we are to consider just one particular brand of monotheism - Judaism/Christianity - this existed long before the systems you refer to. Judaism pre-dated Moses. Abraham and his posterity, until their entrance into Egypt, were not powerful overlords seeking control over more and more people. Prior to Saul, the Israelites were exhorted to not take upon themselves a king, in order to prevent the exact things you refer to. It was after the foundation of these basic beliefs that they were exploited to oppress people. The rich clergy and aristocracy came after the religion was well established. That has to be one of your weakest arguments yet against the validity of religion. So by your reasoning here, anything that can be exploited to oppress others must be false?

Your arguments seem quite persuasive - if all of your pre-conceived notions regarding God were valid. You rely on your caricature of God - as some all-powerful tyrant - to further your claims. That is not the case.

Mankind may like to be consoled about their future, but they are hardly eager to heap upon themselves more and more rules - if anything they seek more liberty to do as they please. There are periods where they will agree to limit some of those liberties for greater peace and security, but in the grand scheme of things, those periods are relatively fleeting. And typically it is only with great effort of force that they last more than a century - this can include police, military, etc. The Judeo-Christian brand of monotheism, in contrast has continued to grow. Yes, in some periods that growth was forced, but those times are past, and yet it still grows. It is estimated to include some 13 billion individuals today. There is not some great oppressive regime scouring the globe and forcing people into this belief system - they willingly accept it. Your preconceived notions of how humans behave just really doesn't account for this.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Chi_townPhilly said:


> The following is a common-enough gambit in the atheist community...The more well-circulated expression of this nature is something along the lines of
> "God cannot exist because of all the evil and suffering that's allowed to suffuse this world."
> 
> These are examples of statements based on a pre-supposed _nature_ of God,
> and not a commentary on the _existence_ (or lack thereof) of a Supreme Being.
> 
> Careful thinkers are advised not to confuse the two...


What???!!! I don't think I mentioned the notion that god allows suffering at all! That's when the Christians come in with their pre-packaged retorts and automatic responses that we were given free will. (Totally ignoring the notion that we could have evolved into free thinking beings.)

Of course there is a pre-supposed nature of god! I can't leave my house without some crackpot in the street telling me about his or her own pre-suppositions about god! They are usually holding their scripture and waving it around when touching upon important issues. It's from this scripture that we can find out the pre-supposed nature of these gods.

You didn't try to falsify any of my claims, you just told me I should not get confused. Thanks for the advice!


----------



## Edward Elgar

jhar26 said:


> Because we find it hard to accept our own mortality. And of course religion has always been a great tool for the powers that be to keep the masses under their tumbs and make them do whatever they want them to do. Cliche's - I know, but hard to argue against.


I think I mentioned these themes in my earlier post



jhar26 said:


> As for if there really is such a thing as 'God' or a supernatural creature, who knows? Life on Earth is a miracle itself which we have come to accept as normal because we're used to it. The big mystery for me is why the human species are the only creatures on the planet who can actually think and who have something that we call a concience, even though many choose to ignore theirs.


The great apes have quite astute conscience and show intelligence and the ability to use tools.
Curious that we share 95% of our genes with them.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> Huh?
> Early years of monotheism? If we are to consider just one particular brand of monotheism - Judaism/Christianity - this existed long before the systems you refer to.


I'm sorry, what systems I referred to are you referring to?



DrMike said:


> So by your reasoning here, anything that can be exploited to oppress others must be false?


Oh dear. 



DrMike said:


> Your arguments seem quite persuasive - if all of your pre-conceived notions regarding God were valid. You rely on your caricature of God - as some all-powerful tyrant - to further your claims. That is not the case.


Then tell me what is the case, enlighten me. If what I say about god is false I've obviously been reading the wrong scripture and been harassed in the street by the wrong people!



DrMike said:


> There is not some great oppressive regime scouring the globe and forcing people into this belief system - they willingly accept it. Your preconceived notions of how humans behave just really doesn't account for this.


Yes, and have you noticed that the people who do accept it are often illiterate and in a developing country? Your words insult everyone dying of aids in Africa because the Pope told them not to wear condoms.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> I'm sorry, what systems I referred to are you referring to?
> 
> Oh dear.
> 
> Then tell me what is the case, enlighten me. If what I say about god is false I've obviously been reading the wrong scripture and been harassed in the street by the wrong people!
> 
> Yes, and have you noticed that the people who do accept it are often illiterate and in a developing country? Your words insult everyone dying of aids in Africa because the Pope told them not to wear condoms.


This is the second time in this thread that someone has tried to tie the AIDS epidemic in Africa to the Catholic prohibition of prophylactics. That simply doesn't hold water. HIV originated in Africa - most likely by a species jump from primates like chimpanzees, and possibly through handling contaminated meat with open wounds, allowing blood-to-blood contact. Person-to-person spread was likely spread in a variety of ways, from unprotected sex (you'll notice that it has spread quite well in other places by sexual contact, even where Catholicism is not even dominant), as well as through contaminated medical equipment, such as needles (in many developing countries in Africa, there is not ready access to disposable medical equipment, and things like needles and syringes can be frequently reused). To lay the blame with Catholicism (and just to be clear, I am not Catholic, and do not prescribe to this particular teaching), is blatant demagoguery without any standing. Have some acquired it due to not wearing contraception, because of their faith? Probably. Is this a major contributor to the spread of HIV? Please. Access to condoms is probably low, even were people to want to use them.

The facts don't support your assertion (viral diseases just happens to be my area of employment).


----------



## Earthling

DrMike said:


> This is the second time in this thread that someone has tried to tie the AIDS epidemic in Africa to the Catholic prohibition of prophylactics. That simply doesn't hold water.


True, the blame can't be simply laid at their feet-- but the CC certainly isn't helping matters any, is it? Anything to help the prevention of death and disease should trump any religious ideology.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Condoms help stop the spread of AIDS.

The Pope said, "condoms spread AIDS".

Africa has an AIDS problem.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Edward Elgar said:


> Your words insult everyone dying of aids in Africa because the Pope told them not to wear condoms.


Naaah- I don't think you'll find the insults on _our_ side of the scoreboard.

You were, perhaps, under the impression that DrMike was Catholic. Having read his posts carefully, I can assure you he's not. For the record, neither am I. So here's an example of a line of reasoning that Ann Coulter refers to as "Olbermannic." It has two characteristics:

a) It's beside the point, and
b) Even if it were on-point, it would be refutable.

So taking this by turns, 1) the "Guilt-by-Association with Catholic teaching" cards are something like deuce-seven off-suit, since neither of us are Catholic- and...
2) Let's look at the prophylactic-birth-control issue in its full context. Catholic advice (and advice from more than a few other Christian denominations) is abstinence until marriage, and monogamy when married. Follow that advice, and you don't acquire a disease through sexual transmission. Effectiveness- 100%, when practiced as instructed.

Of course, we have the free-will (or free-thinking, if you prefer) to do otherwise. 
But then, we'll have to settle for less-than-100% effectiveness, if we do...


----------



## Argus

GOD IS GOOD

GOOD IS GOD

DOG IS GOOD


----------



## Earthling

Good is dog.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Condoms help stop the spread of AIDS.
> 
> The Pope said, "condoms spread AIDS".
> 
> Africa has an AIDS problem.


For your statement to have any merit, you first have to show that a significant people who have contracted HIV in Africa are A) Catholic and B) following the Catholic teaching regarding condoms.

And the teaching is a Catholic doctrine, not a universal Christian doctrine.

South Africa has one of the highest rates of HIV+ people in Africa at, yet Catholicism only accounts for 7.1% of the population. And condom usage is increasing. Incidentally, tens of thousands of children are born each year in South Africa infected with HIV, which they contracted from their mothers.

Nigeria is second only to South Africa in the total number of HIV+ people in Africa, and yet only 13.7% of the population is Catholic.

A far larger cause is the spread of sex workers in sub-Saharan Africa, as well as sex with multiple partners - practices that are generally condemned by Christian teaching.

Your statement is ridiculous. The pope made that statement in 2009. HIV/AIDS has been a problem in Africa for decades.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Ha! It's so amusing that I briefly mention AIDS and you all focus on that particular issue because it's not the responsibility of your particular denomination.

I find it sickening that you have such little condemnation for what the Catholic church do. So no Chi_townPhilly, I'm not an ethical saint but at least I give a damn about the value of human life.

I've made more substantial claims in previous posts which I'm disappointed nobody has attempted to refute. I can only interpret this desperate grasping at one small issue as a sign that you simply can't.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Edward Elgar said:


> Ha! It's so amusing that I briefly mention AIDS and you all focus on that particular issue because it's not the responsibility of your particular denomination.


Amusing... yes- I guess we agree there. 
It _was_ amusing to pass through the gates where the portcullises were left open for us...

Remember- here's what started us down this road:


Edward Elgar said:


> Your words insult everyone dying of AIDS in Africa because the Pope told them not to wear condoms.


This made things VERY personal, VERY fast. Oughtn't be surprised this drew a sharp reaction...


----------



## Toccata

Chi_townPhilly said:


> You were, perhaps, under the impression that DrMike was Catholic. Having read his posts carefully, I can assure you he's not.


http://www.talkclassical.com/7881-what-belief-system-do.html#post83550


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Ha! It's so amusing that I briefly mention AIDS and you all focus on that particular issue because it's not the responsibility of your particular denomination.
> 
> I find it sickening that you have such little condemnation for what the Catholic church do. So no Chi_townPhilly, I'm not an ethical saint but at least I give a damn about the value of human life.
> 
> I've made more substantial claims in previous posts which I'm disappointed nobody has attempted to refute. I can only interpret this desperate grasping at one small issue as a sign that you simply can't.


Oh, don't get me wrong. I there are many Catholic doctrines that I don't agree with, and several practices. I just think this particular area is you making a mountain out of less than a mole hill. Your argument against religion is that there is no evidence or way of scientifically verifying the existence of a God, and yet you throw out dispersions against Catholicism with no evidence to substantiate it. If you want to criticize a particular religion, at least use valid arguments, like the failure to confront the issue of sexual abuse by priests. But to claim that the pope's pronouncements on condom use is a significant factor in the AIDS epidemic in Africa just is not supported by any objective analysis.

Your substantial claims merely amount to the same argument, that religious people can't offer physical proof/evidence, and that feelings/experiences of a religious nature can be explained away by a psychological insecurity when confronted with death, and other such explanations. I have already stated in this thread, and elsewhere, that you cannot "prove" the existence of God by these methods. Each individual must experience it personally, it cannot be shown to you. But then you further try to bolster your arguments against the validity of religion by pointing out examples of abuse and hypocrisy.

My point is that those examples, real or not, have absolutely no bearing on whether God exists, and do nothing for your argument. All it says is that individuals claiming to be part of a particular church have done bad things, or possibly one particular church is guilty. But that does not disprove the existence of God. As I pointed out before. And for all of those examples of abuse, I can point out to you positive things that have been done by religious people acting on their faith.

Another person made a comment about the genetic similarities between us and other primates. That is true. In fact, chimpanzees, our closest genetic relative, are 96% similar to us genetically. We are more closely related than mice are to rats. And yet, whereas mice and rats are very similar, not only in appearance, but also in behavior, there are vast differences between humans and chimps. Granted, the key is where the differences lie, but still, with only 6 million years separating us (it may seem like a lot, but in the grand scheme of things, it really isn't), these differences must be significant indeed.


----------



## djpeters

After some Experience and Meditation these issues all become clearer.

We dont just think of these things in order to enjoy a good argument. Behaving nihilistically in that way is petulant and disrespectful, a sure sign that Life is not being enjoyed fully. Such people are bound to be the targets of those who wisely wish to save their "souls" for the Divine Wonder of Life.

There are many Evangelicals that get very upset for the cynicism of those who cannot understand the Transcendent nature of Holistic Perspectives.
How do you feel when you look at a Beautiful Sunset? In your daily life do you not find a reason to say "thank you" If it is all a "freak accident", why say thank you to anyone, for anything?

It is true that a great work of art is a "Creation" so there is obviously a Creator. If you have any respect for your parents you would be grateful they gave you life and good character as they were by their parents. Knowing that all life is interconnected, thanks can be given to many beings and expressions of Creation. I reckon if you are able to enjoy a full experience of the great musical works composed, why not take such an attitude to the world itself?

The composition of such works is an expression of the Joy recieved from the world that keeps being passed around. Participate and faith will flow with you.

Obviously there is more to be said, I Pray that proper consideration, Grace and Joy will be part of our continuing inspirations when contributing here, as in our other Creative Endevours.


----------



## Lukecash12

Edward Elgar said:


> Condoms help stop the spread of AIDS.
> 
> The Pope said, "condoms spread AIDS".
> 
> Africa has an AIDS problem.


The Pope is not the consummate Christian. Therefore if he is wrong, his misconceptions shouldn't be used as a smear tactic.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike, you don't understand my main assertion at all.

If we are to attempt to arrive at the more probable conclusion as to whether god is the creator of man (and the obligatory musical inspiration this entails) or that man is the creator of god, we must balance out the evidence in favour of a supernatural force with the reasons that mankind would want a god. Look at post #207 for my thoughts on the latter.

As the evidence in support of a supernatural force is zero (for proof denies faith and without faith god is nothing), and the reasons for mankind to invent a god are so great, the objective thinker would soon come to the conclusion that god is an invention of man and not the other way around.

Try to look at the world through the eyes of an independent observer. What conclusions would you then come to?


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> DrMike, you don't understand my main assertion at all.
> 
> If we are to attempt to arrive at the more probable conclusion as to whether god is the creator of man (and the obligatory musical inspiration this entails) or that man is the creator of god, we must balance out the evidence in favour of a supernatural force with the reasons that mankind would want a god. Look at post #207 for my thoughts on the latter.
> 
> As the evidence in support of a supernatural force is zero (for proof denies faith and without faith god is nothing), and the reasons for mankind to invent a god are so great, the objective thinker would soon come to the conclusion that god is an invention of man and not the other way around.
> 
> Try to look at the world through the eyes of an independent observer. What conclusions would you then come to?


But, you see, God exists independent of faith. Were nobody on this planet to believe in him, that would have no bearing on his existence.

Most people accept that not everything can be proven. To live a life accepting only what can be unequivocally proven is unrealistic. Science continues to search out the causes for everything that we experience, but we have not yet scratched the surface of all there is to know. Certainly they come up with plausible explanations for many things, but they are based on pre-conceived notions. Your arguments regarding why humans would invent God are based on certain assertions that are only that. Where has it been proven that man needs some grand theology to comfort him regarding death? And why not, then, devise religions that are less demanding, if it is all merely to help us feel better about where we are going?

What would have made humans react this way towards death? What made us aware, in the first place, of this condition? How can such things be explained by different combinations of proteins and chemicals interacting with one another? You can offer up alternative explanations, but ultimately they are just as provable as is religion.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Jeff N said:


> I've already mentioned other alternatives, *such as demonstrating to the Japanese the power of the a-bomb without harming so many (if any) people.*


No chance. The Americans dropped the bombs where it landed for three good reasons:-

(1) to end the war as quickly as possible without further loss of American lives,
(2) to get back at the Japanese for Pearl Harbour and
(3) to completely prove to the Soviet Union they have developed a working bomb (which sparked the real race and the Soviets accelerated their programmes).


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> (1) to end the war as quickly as possible without further loss of American lives


You're still assuming that the only way to end the war was to drop the bombs on Japanese cities. And you still haven't shown why any other alternatives wouldn't have ended the war as quickly. This has been debated for a while now and has no need to continue.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> (2) to get back at the Japanese for Pearl Harbour


So two wrongs make a right? And at least Pearl Harbor was a pure military facility. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from that, and we went far and beyond what the Japanese did.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> (3) to completely prove to the Soviet Union they have developed a working bomb (which sparked the real race and the Soviets accelerated their programmes).


This is not accurate in the least. We made the bombs because top scientists feared that the Germans were already making them, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the USSR. And trying to prove to the Soviets that we had the bombs is in no way a reason for dropping them on Japanese cities.


----------



## Lukecash12

A lecture on the historical confirmation of Jesus Christ of Nazareth as an actual person:



> *It is the case that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure*
> 
> _*Introduction*_
> 
> Over the course of this debate I shall be presenting the case for the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is based on what was a single historical figure and religious leader who existed in first century Jerusalem as a preacher and was executed by the Roman authorities of the era. There are many strands of evidence to which I will appeal throughout the debate which I lay out the opening case for now. However, I believe it to be the case that from what ancient authors have explicitly told us and from what can be inferred of what authors have said and the existence of certain circumstances it is beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus existed.
> 
> What I believe to be the key area of this debate is the concept of reasonable doubt and what it implies. There are varying standards of evidence expected for varying cases and so not only must evidence be provided to support the existence of Jesus, the standard of evidence which is expected to historically affirm him must also be ascertained. After all there can mountains of evidence pointing towards a historical event or person. But if its bar for reasonable doubt is still higher than the level of evidence provided it can still be happily doubted as at the least an unknown and unverified fact. As such I expect this concept of a reasonable historical doubt will also come out as the debate proceeds. Indeed I believe it such a central topic that I will start the main body of my argument discussing it.
> 
> The format of this opening statement shall be as follows:
> 
> Finding a bar of reasonable doubt for Jesus' existence
> The evidence from biblical sources
> The evidence from the sayings Gospel of Thomas in particular
> The evidence from extra-biblical sources
> Inferred evidence from circumstance
> Conclusion
> 
> I feel this an ample introduction so onward with the core of my argument.
> *
> Finding a bar of reasonable doubt for Jesus' existence*
> 
> As I stated in the introduction before we can get anywhere we must examine the level of evidence necessary to prove what I'm claiming. I certainly agree it would be a far higher bar of evidence were I trying to prove that the Jesus who did miracles and genuinely went round raising the dead, walking on water and being thronged in the streets as a celebrity. As it is, I'm not. I'm arguing that the historical Jesus on which that celebrity was based existed, thus the bar is much lower. In a similar way it is an indisputable fact that Joseph Smith existed as a historical personage. It is very disputable that he had discussions with the angel Mormoni about the location of the book of Mormon. Thus I aim to prove a figure behind the myth existed, bear that in mind during the rest of the case.
> 
> Rather than trying to form a bar completely independently of what standard of evidence is acceptable I shall proceed by creating a series of comparisons of historical figures doubted and those taken as an absolute given.
> 
> Firstly I will give an example of an individual whose existence is very doubtable. Lycurgus of Sparta the mythological lawgiver. He is referenced by numerous historians (Herodotus, Xenophon, Plutarch etc.) and yet still his existence is doubted. We must ask the question why? Because all the sources (including the earliest) create some sense of doubt about the veracity of facts around him. While many are in agreement they are seldom on minute issues of importance and indeed by the first century AD it is apparent that all information is suspect even then as Plutarch says in his preamble to describing the life of Lycurgus:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plutarch's life of Lycurgus 1
> There is so much uncertainty in the accounts which historians have left us of Lycurgus, the lawgiver of Sparta, that scarcely anything is asserted by one of them which is not called into question or contradicted by the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plutarch
> They cannot, by any means, be brought to an agreement as to the very age in which he [Lycurgus] lived
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of these problems exists with Jesus to any sort of similar degree. While there are numerous Gnostic texts that seem at the face contradictory to the synoptic story, almost all differences are additions or omissions or in the interpretation of things from a theological perspective. All the early sources on Jesus' life are largely in agreement on the major events and unfolding story (this will be expanded upon later). Indeed there is next to no confusion in terms of dates except perhaps in the nativity story, which can happily be called embellishment due to the fact that no living writers would have been witness to his birth and mythological embellishment on important figures was commonplace in the era (for example Augustus was supposedly borne of Atia and Apollo in the form of a snake [Suetonius "Divius Augustus" 94]). As such things we know that none of the writers can have been party to and are unlikely to have been party to anyone who did know what was going on we can discount such things as myths growing up round a pre-existent figure rather than a figure in of himself. That so specific dates as to be within the decade of which he lived and to know exactly who was in control when with accuracy in his later life is a testament to how specific the knowledge gospel writers seem to have is.
> 
> Our second comparison shall be not a man but an event. This is because we know without a doubt that the event happened and yet have very little textual evidence for it (which is the only sort of early evidence we are liable to get for Jesus). The event is the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum. The eruption in 79CE has just one reliable eye-witness. It is undoubtable that the event happened; we have two towns to prove it. And yet only one man in two letters to Tacitus describing how his uncle died thought to mention the volcano's eruption and still had his writings survive. There is no doubt that the utter destruction of two reasonably sized towns in the heartland of Italy would have been a significant event and yet there are very few surviving documents from the era. As such it is unreasonable to expect vast quantities of ancient writers with surviving documents to write about any event, much less relatively minor events and personages at the time. Thus the bar here cannot be particularly high in terms of evidence quantity.
> 
> Our third and final point of importance is the date between the supposed events and their writing down. Obviously a firsthand account is going to be more reliable from the same person than if his account is told again by someone else and someone else etc. etc. For a final comparison we shall have a look at the historicity of Socrates. The only surviving contemporary sources are from his students (Most notably Plato) in the form of Socratic dialogues. These are generally considered sufficient evidence to affirm Socrates existence as a wandering figure, debating the wisdom of others. While the specific details may not necessarily be true due to embellishment for philosophical purposes, that is not what we are arguing for in Jesus either, we are debating his basis as a historical figure.
> 
> So to briefly conclude this segment there are three main issues in whether the bar should be reached:
> 
> 1. Precision of accounts with and by large consistency
> 2. Wealth of resources to act as a comparison and corroboration
> 3. The date and purpose of the resources available
> 
> There are both events and people taken as a given in the historical field as no doubt you know that flout all three simply because it doesn't make any sense for them to not exist. Jesus by contrast performs relatively well on all three tests as we shall see as I move on.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lukecash12

..........



> *The evidence from biblical sources*
> 
> It is undoubtable that the biblical evidence contained within the later cannon of the bible is some of the best corroboration of Jesus' existence we have. They smash all three criteria and would be alone, IMO, sufficient evidence to affirm a historical Jesus figure. In it we have 27 books dating from at best the 50s and 60s CE to at worst before the turn of the first century in the case of the gospel of John. These are dates that affirm we have at least 2nd or 3rd hand sources rather than far later, less reliable creations.
> 
> Let's have a look at just what it is we have in the biblical books, as a generic divide we have gospels and epistles. Both constitute good evidence of Jesus
> 
> Firstly let's look at the gospels. These are 4 detailed biographies of Jesus' life. 3 of them agree on numerous events, locations and even sometimes speech. We know they are at least partially independent as they all have at least a different take on the things going on and contain contradictions in peripheral detail (were there one or two angels present at the tomb of Jesus for example). The events however are the same.
> 
> Secondly we have the epistles. Possibly the earliest surviving Christian writings. These writings, despite what Jesus mythists have tried to imply take the existence of a physical Jesus on earth as a given. There is simply no controversy and much of what some of them say makes little to no sense if Jesus does not exist. For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 1
> 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David
> 
> 
> 
> One must have a physical existence on earth to be a descendant of David would you not agree? Estimated date for Romans, 50-60CE Two decades after the events themselves, a second-hand source. Paul claims to have met eye-witnesses. The focus of the text is not to assert Jesus' existence and divinity but to preach his message instead. If Jesus was a fabricated figure we would expect the former from the first texts in existence not the latter. As such it is reasonable to believe Jesus existed.
> 
> The biblical texts are early, reasonably consistent and independent and written for motives that make it appear Jesus is taken as a given. Not only that but we have a significant amount of them. 27 different texts by up to 8 different authors, a wealth of information by ancient standards.
> 
> *
> The evidence from the sayings Gospel of Thomas in particular*
> 
> The sayings Gospel of Thomas is, in my opinion one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. I am of this opinion as it can be dated early, very possibly to an eye-witness and is far from susceptible to later bias. It is a text very often underplayed in this debate relative to its importance which is why I'm making such a big deal of it.
> 
> The contents of the Gospel of Thomas are a series of sayings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth the Christ. In the preliminary of the text we have from it, it contains the attribution to Thomas. This is corroborated by our earliest references to it in which this attestation is not questioned. Indeed there is no questioning (and when there is they present no evidence beyond its heretical content) until the 4th and 5th centuries. Some 300 years later.
> 
> Hippolytus of Rome makes reference to it like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Hippolytus of Rome Refutation of All Heresies 5.7.20
> They transmit a tradition concerning this in the Gospel entitled "According to Thomas,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note he does not question its authorship by Thomas, and this is only the earliest unquestionable reference we have. There are earlier references to a gospel of Thomas but there is ambiguity in other references other whether the infancy or sayings gospel is being referenced.
> 
> What's more saying 12 of the gospel states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gospel of Thomas saying 12
> 12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
> 
> 2Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are, you are to go to James the just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This seems to be Jesus giving authority to the church not to Peter but to James. This would only really make sense in the first century as the church began to take shape and form as were it a later composition it would try to make it appear that they had the credibility from the early leaders rather than question that the early leaders in fact were. This is another reason to put it at least first century if not mid-first century.
> 
> So? What do we have here; we have an early, eye-witness source to Jesus with a full text still in existence. It is at least independent of the synoptic gospels and is nowhere near developed enough in terms of Gnostic doctrine to be reliant upon any of them. Thus it is most reasonable to conclude that is exactly what we have, an early eye-witness source to Jesus of Nazareth documenting his sayings and preaching. Many of these overlap with synoptic text quotes of Jesus, thus lending them credibility as reliable sources as well on grounds of independent consistency.
> 
> *The evidence from extra-biblical sources*
> 
> But, of course, while we have a substantial amount of biblical sources that are more than enough corroboration of Jesus alone. A brief list of some of the earliest names only gives us on the secular side Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the younger and Lucian
> 
> Then non-biblical sources that are still Christian further extends this list to include Justin martyr, Athenagoras, Origen, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp etc. etc. By any ones account an absolute wealth of sources that mention Jesus as an explicitly existent figure. If there is to be a credible attack on the existence of Jesus this wide-spread unquestioned belief in his existence must be explained away. As it is I do not think there can be any such explanation more reasonable than that he existed as a historical figure.
> 
> Now to go in to a little more detail on the controversial issues of this. Most of the controversy is in the secular sources so I'll start with them. Firstly, what does Josephus have to say on the matter?
> 
> 
> 
> Antiquities on the Jews 18.63-64
> 3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the time Josephus is discussing civil disobedience and problems facing the Jews under Pilate in Jerusalem. So the Testimonium Flavium is hardly out of place, particularly if, as Tacitus suggests when describing the fire of Rome the Christians were being persecuted in the era. It would have been a point of curiosity as to the origin of those Christians and so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that this passage is at least by and large authentic. Josephus was a credible historian and close to the date Jesus was alleged to have lived. As such can be considered fairly conclusive evidence.
> 
> The next reference is that of Tacitus:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tacitus Annals 15.44
> But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is again only a passing reference and would make little sense to altogether fabricate at a later date. Not only because it does not reference with any emphasis on Jesus but because there was no controversy which a passage like this would lend any side credibility. It's just a note on who the Christians are that they follow a fellow called the Christ and that they were blamed for the fire of Rome. This is again a credible source that is not Christian backing up a common belief in Jesus' existence
> 
> This for now will do, in the next section I will expand upon the Christian authors as it is clear they all referenced Jesus with little controversy. What's more important is what they did not say as you will see.
> 
> So to conclude this segment we have literally dozens of sources within 200 years of the alleged events. It is unprecedented for something survive at all from the era, all of which seems to point in favour of an existent Jesus. We have Tacitus and Josephus on a non-Christian side as well. The overwhelming weight of evidence (and there is A LOT of evidence) is in favour of the existence of a historical Jesus. Thus I find it hard to believe that all this could happily be a fabrication on a non-existent or amalgamation man.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lukecash12

..........



> *Inferred evidence from circumstance*
> 
> As in all of history we are not told everything explicitly. Certainly as I hope I have already proven there are a great deal of people who DID explicitly mention Jesus. But that, is not all we have. One can also infer from the early development of Christianity in the first century and early second a great deal of information relevant to this debate. Not only from what those who mention Jesus say elsewhere about him but the from the mere existence of Christianity and the manner in which it grew.
> 
> I have at least hinted at most of the things in this section throughout the rest of the post however I am now going to explicitly discuss them in detail. The three main points to be inferred are the lack of controversy over Jesus' existence and the lack of desperation in his early followers in trying to affirm his existence. The third point is the early division over the principles and leadership of Christianity that would not exist if he were a fabricated figure
> 
> Firstly though, the lack of controversy in Jesus' existence. Let us examine the origin of the Jesus myth theory, its first known proponent was in the 18th century. How very very odd. There were eye witnesses around still alive while the first texts are being written and yet critics such as Celsus the late second century polemicist. Far from claiming Jesus did not exist he conjured numerous excuses as to why Jesus was not God for example his famous claim that Mary committed adultery with a Roman soldier who was Jesus' father. We know that he was not the only critic. And there were early critics. For example we have Justin Martyr in the first half of the century responding to them. In all these sources however not once do we hear even the slightest question of Jesus' factual existence as a man. We hear all sorts of other claims from "his miracles were unoriginal" to "he was a sorcerer" and yet not one apologist had to deal with the Jesus myth until the 18th century.
> 
> One would think it very queer that these people were able to just make up a man who lived in the public eye constantly within living memory and certainly within the children's living memory of numerous inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time Jesus was supposed to have been there and not one person ever thought it odd that they'd never heard of Jesus before. In fact it's not just queer it's simply absurd to suggest you could have arguments over whether a to all extents and purposes celebrity was all he's cracked up to be when there was no celebrity in the first place and NOT have someone get just a bit confused by the fact he never existed. The chances of us having simply lost any polemics on grounds of existence are equally absurd given the vast quantities of apologetics we have in response to them. We would know about it if we'd lost any major assault on Jesus' existence and yet there just isn't one. Why is it that no one thought until the 18th century that he might not exist, this belief in his existence must be explained away either through accident or fabrication. Fabrication I will go on to dispel in the next two points. Accident is ridiculous due to the sheer volume of attestation.
> 
> The second major point for this section is that his followers do not seem particularly focussed on creating evidence for his existence but rather affirming his divinity instead. This is a rather odd thing to do if you've just made that person up. You want to make it look as full proof as possible that you've got evidence this guy was here, you know exactly what he did and when he did it. You don't leave holes in his life story (Like most of his teenage-ministry which aren't described in any text). And you certainly check your facts far better to make sure everyone's story agrees 100% rather than differs on minor details. This simply didn't happen. On the contrary the earliest canonical texts are letters that barely mention him at all. They clearly uphold him as important but most of what they discuss is matters of doctrine rather than life story. This is a frankly bizarre thing to happen if Jesus was being deliberately created.
> 
> Furthermore what's the point of creating Jesus? So what they start a cult? By 70CE they were being persecuted this is still the first generation Christians and yet not one of them ends up saying "only joking guys, we made it all up, now please don't kill me" They were forced on to the edge of society following an illegal cult having to meet in secret and having those around them convinced they were performing ritual cannibalism and plotting the downfall of the Roman empire. I fail to see the upside in creating Jesus and the religion for the first Christians, why would they do it? This is another question that must be answered before Jesus' existence can be successfully questioned.
> 
> The third point I shall make here is of how divided early Christianity was thus conclusively ruling out a plot to create a Jesus movement with a fictional figurehead. Within the first century it appears we have two branches of Christianity already, Magdalene supporters and Paul supporters. The gospel of Mary presents her as one of the dominant figures in the early church. The synoptic by contrast diminish her to of only a minor role and numerous misogynistic sentiments can be found in Paul's letters in terms of women having control over men. Case in point this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 14
> 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
> 
> 
> 
> We also have the gospel of Thomas cited early stating that James the just was in charge of the church. One would think a conspiracy of this magnitude would have at least some coherence about who its living leaders were. The entire scenario reeks of a power vacuum after the fall of a previous leader, it makes no sense whatsoever for that leader to have not existed in the first place.
> 
> Then we have huge fundamental divides on what he taught. The most obvious being the Gnostic synoptic divide. But other sects included Marcionites, Canaanites early Antinomianism. We see all sorts of early church fathers bending over backwards to defend their particular view of what Jesus had taught. Irenaeus is a wonderful example of this writing in the latter half of the second century against heresies already developed. Once again the picture of Christianity is of a divided movement with each strand fighting for dominance after a power vacuum is created by the fall of their leader. Certainly not of some conspiracy to create a figure and a movement that supposedly followed him.
> 
> My final point for this section is a relatively minor one. It is that if there was a particularly famous rabble-rouser in Jerusalem, so what? It is apparent from the writings of the likes of Josephus that the Jews believed in an imminent return of their saviour
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> I should hope by now I have made my case abundantly clear. The level of evidence is far far above what we would need to affirm the existence of Jesus. We have dozens of early, reliable texts, and much inferred acceptance of the existence of Jesus from other writers of the era when discussing him.
> 
> Not only that but we have only two ways in which the belief in Jesus could exist. Firstly by accident, which makes no sense due to the large agreement on life events and the lack of questioning as to his historicity given he is claimed by the early Christians to have been a high profile character. The second potential method of the creation of a belief in him is conspiracy. But this makes no sense due to once again the lack of scepticism in to his existence expressed by the early church fathers contemporaries. What's more it is unbelievable due to the lack of coordination in the movement and the attestation of non-Christians as to his existence such as Josephus and Tacitus.
> 
> Thus by all accounts it has been proved by all reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure.
> 
> N.B. All dates of biblical text dates are from this source and translated with NIV:
> http://earlychristianwritings.com/
Click to expand...


----------



## Lukecash12

And now that Jesus of Nazareth has been confirmed to exist, here are some questions for any atheists out there:

*What happened to His body? Who lifted the rock, and how? How is it that He injected the kind of faith in people that could overcome the persecution of the Roman Empire? If His divinity was a sham made up by a group of people, why did every single one of His disciples go forth into martyrdom for it (whether it be death or extreme persecution)? Why did Paul suffer in prison rather than reject Christ? Why did Paul bend over on himself and turn from a purebred Pharisee, a venerated citizen of Rome, into a no holds barred Evangelist? Why did Steven say what he said and just let himself be stoned? Why was John the Baptist beheaded?

All of this is on account of His divinity.*


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Jeff N said:


> You're still assuming that the only way to end the war was to drop the bombs on Japanese cities. And you still haven't shown why any other alternatives wouldn't have ended the war as quickly. This has been debated for a while now and has no need to continue.
> 
> So two wrongs make a right? And at least Pearl Harbor was a pure military facility. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from that, and we went far and beyond what the Japanese did.


I am not assuming it. I personally believe it was the right and effective action. None other. Remember, it took two bombs for the coward emperor of Japan to surrender. *He didn't give in after the first bomb*, so please don't naively assume there was a lighter/friendlier solution.



Jeff N said:


> This is not accurate in the least. We made the bombs because top scientists feared that the Germans were already making them, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the USSR. And trying to prove to the Soviets that we had the bombs is in no way a reason for dropping them on Japanese cities.


I think you must have been reading history textbooks designed for high school/college levels.

The allies knew World War II was at a turning point in their favour when Hitler wanted wars on both western and eastern (Soviet Union) fronts (_Operation Barbarossa_, 1941). Even many of the top Nazis were privately opposed to war with the Soviet Union concurrently (hence many failed assaination attempts on Hitler, internally). Churchill/UK and the US, with good foresight, knew the emerging new thread to world peace, during the late phases of WWII, was in fact communism/Stalinism of the Soviet Union.


----------



## Earthling

Many people will do all sorts of things in the name of an ideology or a person. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on people going to great lengths in the name of their belief-- Buddhism, Islam and Judaism to name three very obvious examples. One could add various communists and anarchists in terms of absolutist political ideologies as well. People will die (or kill) in the name of plenty of religions and ideologies and make all sorts of extreme sacrifices-- their deaths or sufferings does not make their beliefs true. It only indicates that such individuals had strong convictions (to put it in neutral terms). 

Christianity is one religion among many. The Christian god is one god among many. Its not surprising one particular religion gained predominance over others in the west. Having political power also certainly helps as well.


----------



## Earthling

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Remember, it took two bombs for the coward emperor of Japan to surrender. *He didn't give in after the first bomb*...


Right, _three days_ in between Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## David58117

Lukecash12 said:


> And now that Jesus of Nazareth has been confirmed to exist, here are some questions for any atheists out there:


Luke - I can understand religion in terms of faith and emotion (I'm an atheist), but when people begin trying to "prove" their belief, it greatly diminishes it for me.

Articles full of bias, cherrypicking, and loose logic tend to hurt cases, not help it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Earthling said:


> Right, _three days_ in between Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Note quite sure whether you agree or you were being sarcastic. In case of the latter, this should fix you up:- after Hiroshima but before Nagasaki, Truman issued:-

_If they do not *now* accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware_

The Japanese were not reacting, as they did not with the Potsdam Declaration.


----------



## Earthling

No, that does not "fix me up." First of all, they weren't "reacting" is they were in a state of shock trying to figure out just what the hell happened. Secondly, the Japanese government was trying to suss out just what the consequences of the surrender would entail precisely. The US said "Jump!" and the Japanese government did not _immediately _say "How high?" No, the US already had the upper hand and they knew it-- it was bad enough bombing Hiroshima, but to do it again three days later (and more atomic bombings were already being planned for the next weeks ahead) on what were mostly civilians is plainly barbaric in a way never seen before.

It would've been just as wrong if a US city like Akron, Ohio were A-bombed-- a city with predominantly civilians, but with plenty of munitions and aircraft plants during WWII. But when the "bad guys" do that, we call that "human shielding."


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Earthling said:


> No, that does not "fix me up." First of all, they weren't "reacting" is they were in a state of shock trying to figure out just what the hell happened. Secondly, the Japanese government was trying to suss out just what the consequences of the surrender would entail precisely. The US said "Jump!" and the Japanese government did not _immediately _say "How high?" No, the US already had the upper hand and they knew it-- it was bad enough bombing Hiroshima, but to do it again three days later (and more atomic bombings were already being planned for the next weeks ahead) on what were mostly civilians is plainly barbaric in a way never seen before.
> 
> It would've been just as wrong if a US city like Akron, Ohio were A-bombed-- a city with predominantly civilians, but with plenty of munitions and aircraft plants during WWII. But when the "bad guys" do that, we call that "human shielding."


I see where you are coming from. You are basically (and subjectively) against the dropping of bombs on defenceless civilian populations. That's your moral agenda. Your first and second points are just general arguments, not necessarily in the context of historical facts.

You ought to know however, in the context of history, that Japan had no real government in the democratic sense of the word during WWII. It was imperial Japan run by that dog Hirohito/Japanese imperial family, who vetoed democractic cabinet formation since 1900. During WWII, Hirohito was Japan's God; his army and navy were fanatical and extremely disciplined. The emperor of Japan was officially the "supreme commander" of both the army and the navy. Decision to invade and to surrender would only come from him, not from any "government". (Think Hitler and his Germany, now you know why Germany and Japan (and fascist Italy) were official WWII allies, calling themselves "Axis Powers").

And funny you mentioned barbarism. The Japanese massacred their neighbour; Nanking, China, raping her women, killing the locals according to their fancy. And that's just in their part of the world. To penalise a war criminal, you got to be kidding if you think that they deserve time "to try to suss out just what the consequences of the surrender would entail precisely". No, that was the point of the Potsdam Declaration, which of course and not surprisingly, Hirohito ignored.


----------



## Lukecash12

David58117 said:


> Luke - I can understand religion in terms of faith and emotion (I'm an atheist), but when people begin trying to "prove" their belief, it greatly diminishes it for me.
> 
> Articles full of bias, cherrypicking, and loose logic tend to hurt cases, not help it.


How is that "cherrypicking"? Several eyewitness accounts from more than one party have been displayed. He did indeed exist. And his disciples did indeed go forth into martyrdom. They didn't try to get their story straight and feed it to weak-minded people, because they passed down different accounts from different perspectives (and the Gospel of John was eventually written), and used different methods of conversion. A group of intelligent, for the most part educated (not to mention Paul was educated extremely well), people would make up a political scandal and faithfully die for it? I should think not.


----------



## David58117

Lukecash12 said:


> How is that "cherrypicking"?


Yeah, how in the world is selectively choosing passages and figures in history that supposedly back up your claim, when there would be many other examples that go against it, cherry picking...

I especially like how the author states his bias on the second posting:

"It is undoubtable that the biblical evidence contained within the later cannon of the bible is some of the best corroboration of Jesus' existence we have. They smash all three criteria and would be alone, IMO, sufficient evidence to affirm a historical Jesus figure."

Another gold tidbit comes before that, in the first post I believe, where he delves into inconsistencies with another historical figure, then blankly gives us this sentence:

"Neither of these problems exists with Jesus to any sort of similar degree."

Well - that settles it then!

Cherrypicking - check.
Loose logic - check. 
Biased author - check.
Worthy of wasting time with - no.

Time to listen to some more Mahler.


----------



## Lukecash12

> "It is undoubtable that the biblical evidence contained within the later cannon of the bible is some of the best corroboration of Jesus' existence we have. They smash all three criteria and would be alone, IMO, sufficient evidence to affirm a historical Jesus figure."


He presented logical criteria and concluded that the historical Jesus met that criteria. Sufficient evidence has been presented. I don't detect any bias.



> Another gold tidbit comes before that, in the first post I believe, where he delves into inconsistencies with another historical figure, then blankly gives us this sentence:
> 
> "Neither of these problems exists with Jesus to any sort of similar degree."


Was he wrong? The how he biased? Towards the truth? Then I guess I'm guilty of preferring reality over fiction when it comes to reliability.



> Loose logic - check.


If you present a claim, the burden of proof is on you. Prove that there is loose logic, and I will concede to that.


----------



## David58117

Sorry Luke, but I've wasted enough of my life doing internet debates. I'd rather focus the remainder of my time on this earth doing something more productive. I just wanted to point out how poor those articles are - they're biased, have loose logic, and cherry pick. 

Loose logic: The author cherrypicking a historical figure, deciding that (my words, his idea): "because there are some inconsistencies with this figure, it's likely that he didn't exist - but we don't have any of those inconsistencies with Jesus, so he must of existed!" 

Also, why does he take the bible as historical fact? If so - doesn't it also claim that the earth is 6,000 years old? Earth created in 6 days? That cattle and birds are the oldest animals - not the dinosaurs and other extinct animals?


----------



## jurianbai

the dinosaurs (as reconstructed via fossils and theory) maybe part of God's plan to provide Earth with sustainable resources, oil. it included in the creation, but already as a fossil.


----------



## Edward Elgar

jurianbai said:


> the dinosaurs (as reconstructed via fossils and theory) maybe part of God's plan to provide Earth with sustainable resources, oil. it included in the creation, but already as a fossil.


Yes, he specifically made dead animals so that we could drive our cars! He didn't know that one day humans would dig up these fossils and discover evolutionary patterns in their physiology, therefore further proving Darwin's theory and further refuting the claims of every piece of scripture written up to that point.










Maybe god put dinosaurs here to test our faith. The ignorant and lazy would ascend into heaven, while the academic and diligent would burn forever in the fires of hell as eternal punishment for their curiosities.

Or maybe, _just_ maybe, (and bear with me because this is a very radical theory), _maybe_ dinosaurs did exist, not through creation but through evolution as the evidence would suggest. Maybe modern humans and mammals are not the first dominant species on this planet. I know this could come as a shock to some of you and I hope I haven't shocked anyone's sensibilities beyond repair.


----------



## Earthling

Sad to say some theologians even back in the fourth century were more freethinking than creationists today:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear *a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are*. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, *taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation*." (Augustine)


----------



## jurianbai

God created human in its mature form. when Adam 'exist' he already can picked apples from a mature apple tree , which is at least say 2-3 years to grow. then you should questioned that the creation short about 2-3 years. my silly interpretation is, the earth also created in its mature form, which is included fossils and all those evolution process already in a way. As I mentioned, the fossil produce oil, a big prove that it is part of God's way to give human enough resources to live.The evolution process also need to be put in in the universe because it is also a system to make the living creature can sustained. Looks very easy to understand.

This is to assume that the age of fossil really millions of years, which is nobody can challenged those scientist (yet). But there is a theory that the Noah flood had change the chemistry structured throughout the earth and make discrepancy about its age (through carbon prediction). 

I personally never against scientist and in fact I curious to see what the nature is under the microscope . So far no big challenge to God system yet, therefore unnecessery to superseed what I am thinking now. 

After we solved the mystery about the past, there is still mystery about future, after you die, what happens? If this is solved then everyone will easily dismissed their believe. and then we also need to solved present superstitious phenomenon. For example, the Asians see superstitious everyday overhere. In my neighbourhood , the Taoist 'medium' practise as a legal profession and his 'customers' see the real experience about supernatural daily. They will continued to believe this unless somebody can came up with a 'scientific' explanation. 

Btw, I find it equal 'crazyness' about to believe in God with believe in 'a series of random accident which created dna therefore come up a human in 20million years'. ;P


----------



## Argus

jurianbai said:


> After we solved the mystery about the past, there is still mystery about future, after you die, what happens? If this is solved then everyone will easily dismissed their believe. and then we also need to solved present superstitious phenomenon. For example, the Asians see superstitious everyday overhere. In my neighbourhood , the Taoist 'medium' practise as a legal profession and his 'customers' see the real experience about supernatural daily. They will continued to believe this unless somebody can came up with a 'scientific' explanation.


I'm not sure I fully understood this paragraph but if I did then I think this thread just got an irony overload.


----------



## djpeters

Some people may choose to not live by money, does this mean that money does not exist?
Humanity can have faith in many things as part of a belief system. The faith exists, as does the system/systems. We can choose to understand each other and trade honestly. A publisher may publish a Bible AND "the complete works of Darwin" and still exist. There will be a "Market Value" for both works


----------



## Edward Elgar

Oh faith does exist, that question is not under dispute djpeters. The problem arises when people of faith try to sell their spiritual wares as fact when the probability is their belief system has been invented by an angry desert tribe.

By the way, I'm from Ossett near Wakefield, hi there!


----------



## Earthling

djpeters said:


> Now for some more ridiculous questions...
> Does language really exist? does function really exist? are we all really Molecules, and nothing more?
> Does Humanism really exist, Do atomic bombs exist?


Santa Claus? Leprechauns? Athena? Vishnu?


----------



## Edward Elgar

jurianbai said:


> God created human in its mature form. when Adam 'exist' he already can picked apples from a mature apple tree , which is at least say 2-3 years to grow. then you should questioned that the creation short about 2-3 years. my silly interpretation is, the earth also created in its mature form, which is included fossils and all those evolution process already in a way. As I mentioned, the fossil produce oil, a big prove that it is part of God's way to give human enough resources to live.The evolution process also need to be put in in the universe because it is also a system to make the living creature can sustained. Looks very easy to understand.
> 
> This is to assume that the age of fossil really millions of years, which is nobody can challenged those scientist (yet). But there is a theory that the Noah flood had change the chemistry structured throughout the earth and make discrepancy about its age (through carbon prediction).
> 
> I personally never against scientist and in fact I curious to see what the nature is under the microscope . So far no big challenge to God system yet, therefore unnecessery to superseed what I am thinking now.
> 
> After we solved the mystery about the past, there is still mystery about future, after you die, what happens? If this is solved then everyone will easily dismissed their believe. and then we also need to solved present superstitious phenomenon. For example, the Asians see superstitious everyday overhere. In my neighbourhood , the Taoist 'medium' practise as a legal profession and his 'customers' see the real experience about supernatural daily. They will continued to believe this unless somebody can came up with a 'scientific' explanation.
> 
> Btw, I find it equal 'crazyness' about to believe in God with believe in 'a series of random accident which created dna therefore come up a human in 20million years'. ;P


You strike me as a person who was born and thought "this is the beginning of conciousness and matter". Then you saw other human beings and concluded that the beginning of conciousness and matter began when they first came into existence. Then they told you stories from a 2000 year old book which confirmed your suspicions.

Is this accurate?

Try to take a step back from your immediate existence. Perhaps read a book written by someone who has taken the time to observe the world through eyes of reason and wisdom. The idea that god put dead animals in the ground so we could live in luxury is dangerous, stupid and a mockery of the evidence gathered by brilliant minds.


----------



## Earthling

Do you believe in... Zeus?

LOL


----------



## djpeters

Thanks E.E. for the response. I do feel there is a spectrum of truth and its expression.
Poetry and great works of fiction can deal with Truth and Facts in Codified ways. The power of Parable is one of the great Rhetorical Devices. The terminologies we use are often based on existing Mythologies, but can point quite accurately to Truth. We refer to the planets of Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury etc 

Einstien found that Newton's theory did not account for the behaviour of the planet Mercury (the messenger) and found a new theory of curved space to try to account for it.

E.E. are you enjoying the Yorkshire Summer?


----------



## djpeters

Maybe dinosaurs wrote the bible and knew everything?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

If God didn't exist... I don't think there would be a point to music anyway, except as a means to glorify Man.

"The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul." - J.S. Bach


----------



## djpeters

It's true, Zeus is a horny swan!


----------



## Earthling

Huilunsoittaja said:


> If God didn't exist... I don't think there would be a point to music anyway, except as a means to glorify Man.
> 
> "The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul." - J.S. Bach


"Without Bach, God would be a complete second rate figure." (Emil Cioran)


----------



## Edward Elgar

Huilunsoittaja said:


> If God didn't exist... I don't think there would be a point to music anyway, except as a means to glorify Man.


Not to glorify man, but portray him. His triumphs and failures. That's why I write and compose music.



Huilunsoittaja said:


> "The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul." - J.S. Bach


Because Bach believed that his music would be heard by a perfect being, his music is closer to perfection than any other composer. Doesn't make god true but it sure made Bach compose some good stuff.


----------



## Edward Elgar

In fact, I want to change my response to the thread question!

God doesn't need to exist in order to inspire man. Only the thought of him is necessary to inspire composers that believe that sort of stuff (Bach, Haydn etc..).

It's like being inspired by the labours of Hercules or Aesop's Fables. They don't have to be true and they may well be inventions of the human mind. What matters is that humans can find inspiration in these myths.

Imagination inspired by imagination. Humans are a complex creature! (Complex through evolution I might add!)


----------



## Earthling

"Imagination inspired by imagination." I like that.


----------



## jurianbai

EE. aiya, a few sentences you already can see my past life?? hehe...but don't say I am mockery, I rarely mocked other person's believe in open forum.

I am in architecture, not the best way to describe I know popular modernism philosophy but it is a discipline very near to say where humanism or atheism rules all the time. so quite familiar with topic. I think I remember reading a topic about 'Is Architecture the Creation of Divinity' so I got excited to join in talk. and like Argus say, my english is bad since I speak Singlish here.

in the very first page I'm already not convenience with this thread because like you say, faith should not mixed about scientific fact . we (believer) are underdog in this area. I agree faith not necessery need to be proven, that way it is under the term 'religion'.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

jurianbai said:


> God created human in its mature form. when Adam 'exist' he already can picked apples from a mature apple tree , which is at least say 2-3 years to grow. then you should questioned that the creation short about 2-3 years. my silly interpretation is, the earth also created in its mature form, which is included fossils and all those evolution process already in a way. As I mentioned, the fossil produce oil, a big prove that it is part of God's way to give human enough resources to live.The evolution process also need to be put in in the universe because it is also a system to make the living creature can sustained. Looks very easy to understand.
> 
> This is to assume that the age of fossil really millions of years, which is nobody can challenged those scientist (yet). But there is a theory that the Noah flood had change the chemistry structured throughout the earth and make discrepancy about its age (through carbon prediction).
> 
> I personally never against scientist and in fact I curious to see what the nature is under the microscope . So far no big challenge to God system yet, therefore unnecessery to superseed what I am thinking now.
> 
> After we solved the mystery about the past, there is still mystery about future, after you die, what happens? If this is solved then everyone will easily dismissed their believe. and then we also need to solved present superstitious phenomenon. For example, the Asians see superstitious everyday overhere. In my neighbourhood , the Taoist 'medium' practise as a legal profession and his 'customers' see the real experience about supernatural daily. They will continued to believe this unless somebody can came up with a 'scientific' explanation.
> 
> Btw, I find it equal 'crazyness' about to believe in God with believe in 'a series of random accident which created dna therefore come up a human in 20million years'. ;P


Interesting perspective, and thank you for sharing your belief/faith. It's all very personal.

I cannot say I agree with much of what you wrote. But this is all what we normally associate the term "faith" with - all that cannot be objectively proven scientifically, or at least rationally, such that most/all folks can agree regardless of cultural heritage and education background.

To me, life after death is basically a paradox. I personally think when we die, we die. There is nothing afterwards. But man's need to associate/find meaning to life after death is a basic urge to attach meaning to life itself, especially those who live life in constant hardship - economically, politically and emotionally - the need to comfort man and give himself a point in life. Many find it meaningful to live on knowing there is life afterwards elsewhere after the lost of a loved one, for example. All cultures have sought meanings that way. Our native Aboriginals in Australia believe a _Rainbow Serpent _created all that is around them. But all these different cultural and religious explanations cannot all be correct concurrently from a scientific point of view.

But at the same time, all these different faiths and cultures make life interesting and varied. I love reading about it and trying to understand these different beliefs/faiths. It gives our little planet a lovely blend of differences and makes it so interesting.


----------



## Boccherini

*Speaking as a Jewish I must express doubts...*

First of all, thanks for sharing your perspecting.


HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Interesting perspective, and thank you for sharing your belief/faith. It's all very personal.
> 
> I cannot say I agree with much of what you wrote. But this is all what we normally associate the term "faith" with - all that cannot be objectively proven scientifically, or at least rationally, such that most/all folks can agree regardless of cultural heritage and education background.
> 
> To me, life after death is basically a paradox. *I personally think when we die, we die. There is nothing afterwards.*


Your view doesn't satisfy much since it's pretty pointless to bring us all down here if _we_ don't have a future.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But man's need to associate/find meaning to life after death is a basic urge to attach meaning to life itself, especially those who live life in constant hardship - economically, politically and emotionally - the need to comfort man and give himself a point in life. Many find it meaningful to live on knowing there is life afterwards elsewhere after the lost of a loved one, for example. All cultures have sought meanings that way. Our native Aboriginals in Australia believe a _Rainbow Serpent _created all that is around them. But all these different cultural and religious explanations cannot all be correct concurrently from a scientific point of view.


I agree that those who have hardships might find faith more logical and confortable, but still, faith shouldn't be influenced by moods. Or as C.S Lewis well said: "Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods"



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But at the same time, all these different faiths and cultures make life interesting and varied. I love reading about it and trying to understand these different beliefs/faiths. It gives our little planet a lovely blend of differences and makes it so interesting.


That _is_ an interesting perspective on life/human race. (not being sarcastic)

As a Jewish, I believe we have some kind of life after death (but that's very complicated). However, we don't need to care about those things if, and only if, we do what we've been told by God.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Boccherini said:


> Your view doesn't satisfy much since it's *pretty pointless *to bring us all down here if _we_ don't have a future.


Yes, your single important sentence above is the very reason why religion exists, which was one of my points above; as a means of giving meaning to life and to give meaning to "life after death".

Our future is here and now, while we live. That's my view. And our future is all shaped by our current choices/actions/decisions.


----------



## Boccherini

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Our future is here and now, while we live. That's my view. And our future is all shaped by our current choices/actions/decisions.


Well then, I don't find life much valuable this way, but I have another question, what's the difference if someone is good or bad in your view?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Boccherini said:


> Well then, I don't find life much valuable this way, but I have another question, what's the *difference if someone is good or bad in your view*?


Sorry, I don't fully understand the question. If a person has committed a crime in Australia, the law/legal process will deal with that. As for doing good, there is a simple line "do as one would like to be done by".

But no, I don't believe there is damnation in a horrible place called hell for bad people nor a sublime place called heaven for those who were good after they die; if that was the point of your question.


----------



## djpeters

This has been a fascinating thread.
Thank !?***?! that we can enjoy these discussions.
Western Humanism allows such rights, best for all of us!
I am probably Agnostic but am Grateful for Clear Skeptical Thinking, as well as Faith and Spirituality.
To be honest we would probably be annoyed if everyone agreed on everything!
I personally have obvious reason to believe that prayers are heard and that there are mysterious, miraculous secrets to our existence. 

Do people here think humanity will always argue over this stuff?


----------



## Edward Elgar

djpeters said:


> Do people here think humanity will always argue over this stuff?


Even if it was discovered that god couldn't possibly exist, (which is unlikely given that you can't disprove a negative assertion), the faithful population would probably stay about the same.

If it was discovered that god did exist, most of the human population would associate themselves with a religion. and the arguments would stop.

The problem is, if you are looking for the truth, you will never win the minds of those who profess to have found it. (Even when their brand of truth conveniently requires no evidence.)

Btw, I was enjoying the Yorkshire weather until yesterday! :angry:


----------



## Boccherini

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Sorry, I don't fully understand the question. *If a person has committed a crime in Australia, the law/legal process will deal with that*. As for doing good, there is a simple line "do as one would like to be done by".


What about the ones that aren't getting caught who live happily ever after?



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But no, I don't believe there is damnation in a horrible place called hell for bad people nor a sublime place called heaven for those who were good after they die; if that was the point of your question.


Corrrect me if I'm wrong, but in your perspective there is no point for this world, and when I say "point" I mean something more valuable than a few years to live; God or whoever/whatever brings us here has his/its own decisions and our acts don't seem to bother him/it at all. That's why there's no distinction between the good and the evil since they have the same point, no point.

Time and Space creations are _nothing_ meaningful for us except a few years to live. However, they might be purposeful for the one that created everything, but I'm not sure you intended that way.

By the way, the "damnation" you mentioned isn't eternal, in most cases.


----------



## Serge

Always fascinating to hear an expert opinion on afterlife.

So, god gave Schubert talent, inspiration and … syphilis. What was the divine plan though?


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Even if it was discovered that god couldn't possibly exist, (which is unlikely given that you can't disprove a negative assertion), the faithful population would probably stay about the same.
> 
> *If it was discovered that god did exist, most of the human population would associate themselves with a religion. and the arguments would stop.
> *
> 
> The problem is, if you are looking for the truth, you will never win the minds of those who profess to have found it. (Even when their brand of truth conveniently requires no evidence.)
> 
> Btw, I was enjoying the Yorkshire weather until yesterday! :angry:


I don't agree with this statement. The fact that smoking can cause lung cancer has not brought about the demise of tobacco consumption. The AIDS epidemic has not eliminated unprotected sex with multiple partners (even in the non-Catholic world). Every day, humans do untold numbers of things that completely fly in the face of known, proven facts. And we cannot even attribute most of these actions to individuals in less developed areas that would have less access to this information.

As far as this proof of truth that you talk about, this is a difficult thing. So many people pledge an absolute devotion to science, wielding a faith in the pronouncements of scientists that sometimes borders on a fanaticism, the likes of which are not even found in some of the most extreme of religious beliefs. What we call scientific fact is only as good as the scientists who discover it. Scientists are limited to the instruments available for observation, as well as the degree of knowledge possessed at the time of each discovery. Hypotheses are formulated based on previous knowledge. The history of science is one continual revolution, overthrowing previously "proven" observations. At one point, the great scientific minds thought that the entire physical world could be reduced to only 4 simple elements - earth, air, fire, water. Now we are exploring subatomic particles. Many people once felt that the much larger selection of amino acids that made up proteins provided a more attractive candidate for the genetic code, over the 4 bases of nucleic acids. As recently as the 1970's, climatologists were warning us of the disaster that awaited this planet due to global COOLING, and now we talk of sea levels rising from global WARMING.

Many people so wedded to scientific "truth" also can be just as inflexible to new ideas. And, sadly, periodically we discover that certain scientific "discoveries" were in fact hoaxes. Take, for example, the issue of global warming. Recently, many claims by scientific experts have been called into question as their methodology has been exposed, revealing that inconvenient data has been excluded from analysis, or that claims were based on less than authoritative sources. And yet some have become so converted to these "truths" that they will not accept new evidence that calls into question their beliefs. Even were scientists tomorrow to discover the answer to the grand questions of how all this came to be, other scientists would still devote their lives to exploring alternative hypotheses. The real fact of the matter is that science does not actually deliver truths - only consensus. When a new study comes out of some great new drug that does wonders in treating some disease, the actual data behind it will show that, in fact, the results were what happened in a statistically significant majority of instances, but rarely will you find a definitive, 100% scenario. The sciences and the mathematical field of statistics are intricately intertwined. They have to be, because there is literally no such thing as 100% certainty in science.

I say this as a scientist - a microbiologist. At least weekly, we get together and review a new paper, and look for inconsistencies that might undermine what is being reported, or try to reconcile findings that seemingly contradict our own data - what slight different in methodology might explain both of our results?

So yes, I do look at new discoveries, but I look at them with the skeptical eye of one who knows that the data is only as good as the person collecting it.


----------



## Guest

Serge said:


> Always fascinating to hear an expert opinion on afterlife.
> 
> So, god gave Schubert talent, inspiration and … syphilis. What was the divine plan though?


Nope, God gave Schubert talent, inspiration, and free will to choose how he wanted to spend his life and use those talents. The existence of a Creator does not automatically demand that that Creator then exerts absolute control over His creation. And that the creation might then follow some path that seems at odds with the designs of its creator does not then negate the benevolent designs of the creator.

Clearly the intention of an automaker is to create a machine that will transport individuals and objects from point A to point B. If a person driving the car then, through their own error, crashes the car into a tree and dies, do we call into question the actual motives of the automaker?

Or a more appropriate example - if parents raise their child the best they know how, instruct them as best as possible, send them to the best schools, and then sends the child, now a grown-up, into the world, and that child then proceeds to become a serial killer and throws his life away, do we attribute that to the designs of the parents, or do we view it as the child choosing a different course for their life than the one his parents tried to lead him on? Clearly the child was instilled with the necessary tools to be successful in this life, but chose a different course, despite what he was capable of.

So I would say to you that God's plan with Schubert (hypothetically now, as I can't possibly know the mind of God in this matter) was for him to be a wonderful composer, which he was, but along the way, he made a bad decision that resulted in consequences that significantly impacted his life.

God can both provide us with talents, and allow us to squander them, if we so wish, and this is not inconsistent with a loving God, just as parents can still love their children and yet allow them to make wrong choices. God is not merely a puppet master intent on controlling our every move.


----------



## Argus

Dudes who believe in an 'afterlife', I've got a serious question for you.

Why is there no talk of a 'beforelife'?


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> Dudes who believe in an 'afterlife', I've got a serious question for you.
> 
> Why is there no talk of a 'beforelife'?


I don't claim to speak for other beliefs, but in my own faith, we definitely believe in a "beforelife," or, as we tend to refer to it, a pre-existence (meaning before this earthly existence. We view life as an eternal progression, of which this present one is merely one phase. We existed with God before we came to this earth and acquired physical bodies, and we will exist after this life.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Argus said:


> Dudes who believe in an 'afterlife', I've got a serious question for you.
> 
> Why is there no talk of a 'beforelife'?


This is an excellent question. If we are supposedly concious after we die, why were we not concious before we were born if out souls are eternal? Then there's the issue of the soul which raises more questions than it answers.

I think when people wake up into conciousness they don't want to give it up so they make up stories of an afterlife to give themselves false hope. It's simply wishful thinking. Pity.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> I don't agree with this statement. The fact that smoking can cause lung cancer has not brought about the demise of tobacco consumption. The AIDS epidemic has not eliminated unprotected sex with multiple partners (even in the non-Catholic world). Every day, humans do untold numbers of things that completely fly in the face of known, proven facts. And we cannot even attribute most of these actions to individuals in less developed areas that would have less access to this information.


EXACTLY!!! You have demonstrated perfectly the validity of my first assertion!

Religion is the opiate of the people, said Marx.

Friedrich Nietzsche said religion and beer share the same purpose. To help us forget about our mortality and comfort us from these truths we shy away from.

It's not in man's interest to become atheist.

Atheism gives no comfort, no compassion, no joy. Only truth. Atheism is not drugs and sex, it's vegetables and exercise. An opportunity for self betterment without false hope and wishful thinking.

It's in man's interest to be religious, so if religion were proven, there would be no problem.

Death is the problem. Religion is the quick fix solution.



DrMike said:


> As far as this proof of truth that you talk about, this is a difficult thing. So many people pledge an absolute devotion to science, wielding a faith in the pronouncements of scientists that sometimes borders on a fanaticism,


At least what they believe is founded on evidence.

Plus, why is this not a form of spirituality? Spirituality only becomes bad when people use it as an excuse for murder, bigotry and the protection of ignorance.



DrMike said:


> So yes, I do look at new discoveries, but I look at them with the skeptical eye of one who knows that the data is only as good as the person collecting it.


The people collecting theological evidence in biblical times were angry desert-dwelling tribesman. Would you trust them over your own better judgement?


----------



## Earthling

Edward Elgar said:


> Religion is the opiate of the people, said Marx.


Marx was on the money on this, though his solution was to put the cart before the horse. Basically, Marx thought, get rid of religion and "naturally" people would be better off economically. But in reality it is the other way round: Make vast improvements in economic security (not in the way Marx envisioned) and religion will more and more become simply irrelevant.

In developed nations that have more social safety nets, economic security and a higher standard of living, religion plays less a role in society-- people get on without it and without a desire for it. Whereas the more you are on your own, the more likely people will turn to religion (after all, most people turn to religion in a crisis, personal or whatever). It was funny seeing Oprah in Denmark baffled by so many people living happy, healthy lives without the least desire or interest in religion-- it just didn't compute for her. That's what "evil socialism" will do for you: it renders religion _irrelevant_.

And even within those countries, what religion is there has a tendency to be of the fundamentalist variety, and is a private matter, considered by many to be in bad taste to discuss publicly (perhaps they take Jesus' injunction of Matthew 6:6 more seriously than their US counterparts).

Which explains at least one important reason why the US is the only developed nation where religion plays such a prominent role in its society and its politics, being a much more on the conservative end of the spectrum (again, not just self-proclaimed conservatives, but even its so-called liberals). And, it makes a great distraction to rally voters around what are otherwise vacuous politicians (thank you, Southern Strategy!).

A good book on this topic: Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment by Phil Zuckerman


----------



## Earthling

Here is the Oprah clip I was referring to:


----------



## Guest

Earthling said:


> Marx was on the money on this, though his solution was to put the cart before the horse. Basically, Marx thought, get rid of religion and "naturally" people would be better off economically. But in reality it is the other way round: Make vast improvements in economic security (not in the way Marx envisioned) and religion will more and more become simply irrelevant.
> 
> In developed nations that have more social safety nets, economic security and a higher standard of living, religion plays less a role in society-- people get on without it and without a desire for it. Whereas the more you are on your own, the more likely people will turn to religion (after all, most people turn to religion in a crisis, personal or whatever). It was funny seeing Oprah in Denmark baffled by so many people living happy, healthy lives without the least desire or interest in religion-- it just didn't compute for her. That's what "evil socialism" will do for you: it renders religion _irrelevant_.
> 
> And even within those countries, what religion is there has a tendency to be of the fundamentalist variety, and is a private matter, considered by many to be in bad taste to discuss publicly (perhaps they take Jesus' injunction of Matthew 6:6 more seriously than their US counterparts).
> 
> Which explains at least one important reason why the US is the only developed nation where religion plays such a prominent role in its society and its politics, being a much more on the conservative end of the spectrum (again, not just self-proclaimed conservatives, but even its so-called liberals). And, it makes a great distraction to rally voters around what are otherwise vacuous politicians (thank you, Southern Strategy!).
> 
> A good book on this topic: Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment by Phil Zuckerman


Last time I checked, all these social safety nets that less religious Europeans have substituted for a "need" of religion is leading them to economic ruin, which ultimately will lead to misery. Greece has some of the biggest social safety nets (early retirement for dangerous professions like beauticians), and now they are bankrupt. Are you holding this type of a life up as the anti-religious ideal? A society so lulled into a sense of security that they are actually dying off (in many European nations, the birthrates have dropped below the sustainable level, and the only sectors that are increasing are religious Muslims moving in from the Middle East). Although nobody truly implemented all of Marx' ideals, those that cam closest to the mark suffered horrendous consequences.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> EXACTLY!!! You have demonstrated perfectly the validity of my first assertion!
> 
> Religion is the opiate of the people, said Marx.
> 
> Friedrich Nietzsche said religion and beer share the same purpose. To help us forget about our mortality and comfort us from these truths we shy away from.
> 
> It's not in man's interest to become atheist.
> 
> Atheism gives no comfort, no compassion, no joy. Only truth. Atheism is not drugs and sex, it's vegetables and exercise. An opportunity for self betterment without false hope and wishful thinking.
> 
> It's in man's interest to be religious, so if religion were proven, there would be no problem.
> 
> Death is the problem. Religion is the quick fix solution.
> 
> At least what they believe is founded on evidence.
> 
> Plus, why is this not a form of spirituality? Spirituality only becomes bad when people use it as an excuse for murder, bigotry and the protection of ignorance.
> 
> The people collecting theological evidence in biblical times were angry desert-dwelling tribesman. Would you trust them over your own better judgement?


If all religion were merely the product of fertile ancient imaginations, then why are some of the more enduring religions so demanding in commandments? If they really didn't believe there was a life after death, how would it be in their self interest to impose serious restraints on behavior with no hope of reward?

Religion is not a quick fix solution - having faith and believing in a higher power, for those who truly do believe, is no simple matter. Typically a great deal of persecution is involved (how much suffering have Jews endured? or early Christians? or most religions?). Many of the expected benefits are not expected to come until after this life is over. So they are exchanging easy immediate benefits for future, uncertain ones.

Atheism provides an easier lifestyle. Sure, an atheist is subject to the laws governments impose, but other than that, there is no requirement. What does it matter how much or how little one accomplishes, if in the end death is the absolute end? To make a reputation for yourself? So? What do you care if you have ceased to exist? If Beethoven no longer exists at all, why should he care what fate his works met?

Yes, I agree, if my faith were based only on the writings of nomads centuries ago, it would seem rather thin. But it is not. Because of the faith I have developed, I know that those writings are true, not the other way around. I believe that God didn't stop speaking to man over 1000 years ago. I believe that a person can still learn from God what the truth is, and through him learn of the truthfulness of all things. My faith is not in the words of men, but the words of God.


----------



## Earthling

> Last time I checked, all these social safety nets that less religious Europeans have substituted for a "need" of religion is leading them to economic ruin, which ultimately will lead to misery...


[cue _O FORTUNA!!!!!!!11!!!_ / oh, wait, never mind]

By such logic, the Nordic countries ought to have been ruined decades ago (Iceland's current problem has to do with similar banking _de-regulation _woes as the US). Greece is not a country that comes immediately to my mind when thinking of the world's most liberal democracies. _But, oh! those old world, decadent Europeans!_ etc. etc.

No, I am not "anti-religious," though I am certainly left-leaning (Obama, as I have said before, is hardly "liberal"). However, I was not defending Marx-- I was agreeing with Marx's sentiment that "Religion is the opium of the people" -- and also disagreeing with it as well, insofar as he thought religion was something to be eliminated in order to improve social conditions. Marx was clearly wrong on that. I was merely remarking that a consequence of improved social conditions does naturally lead to less religion. This is not done deliberately by these countries (which do, after all, have "state churches") but rather was a natural consequence. Its not anti-religion, but rather apathy toward it.

It always strikes me as odd that theists don't understand how people who don't have any belief in the supernatural can have any "real purpose" or morals in life, as if only the supernatural can bestow that-- in other words, equating atheism with mere _nihilism_. The thing is, atheists exist, they live, and they find their own personal meanings in life, no more different than theists-- except that it has nothing to do with the supernatural. I don't need an objective metaphysical guarantee to what stirs me, to what motivates me, or what to do with my life. I haven't had any terrible existential angst nor have I gone off to commit suicide. If anything, when, over a decade ago, I let go of the last strands of my Christian beliefs, it was liberating! --you could almost say it was... an epiphany. And here I go, about to put on Bach's B minor mass! LOL


----------



## Guest

Earthling said:


> [cue _O FORTUNA!!!!!!!11!!!_ / oh, wait, never mind]
> 
> By such logic, the Nordic countries ought to have been ruined decades ago (Iceland's current problem has to do with similar banking _de-regulation _woes as the US). Greece is not a country that comes immediately to my mind when thinking of the world's most liberal democracies. _But, oh! those old world, decadent Europeans!_ etc. etc.
> 
> No, I am not "anti-religious," though I am certainly left-leaning (Obama, as I have said before, is hardly "liberal"). However, I was not defending Marx-- I was agreeing with Marx's sentiment that "Religion is the opium of the people" -- and also disagreeing with it as well, insofar as he thought religion was something to be eliminated in order to improve social conditions. Marx was clearly wrong on that. I was merely remarking that a consequence of improved social conditions does naturally lead to less religion. This is not done deliberately by these countries (which do, after all, have "state churches") but rather was a natural consequence. Its not anti-religion, but rather apathy toward it.
> 
> It always strikes me as odd that theists don't understand how people who don't have any belief in the supernatural can have any "real purpose" or morals in life, as if only the supernatural can bestow that-- in other words, equating atheism with mere _nihilism_. The thing is, atheists exist, they live, and they find their own personal meanings in life, no more different than theists-- except that it has nothing to do with the supernatural. I don't need an objective metaphysical guarantee to what stirs me, to what motivates me, or what to do with my life. I haven't had any terrible existential angst nor have I gone off to commit suicide. If anything, when, over a decade ago, I let go of the last strands of my Christian beliefs, it was liberating! --you could almost say it was... an epiphany. And here I go, about to put on Bach's B minor mass! LOL


I'm not equating atheism with nihilism. Quite the contrary. In fact, I believe that most atheists probably aren't suicidal nihilists. I think that no matter how detached from a belief in God they bring themselves, His influence is inescapable. My question is what motivates an atheist? If they truly believe that they are no more than the pinnacle of hundreds of millions of years of chemical reactions, the accumulation of favorable mutations selected for by the environment, what is the motivation to achieve? To do more than survive and create progeny, as is the case for the rest of the animal kingdom? Why does man strive for more than other animal life? In the mere 6 million years since we split off from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, did we really accumulate, so rapidly, not only all of the physical differences that we have, but also the incredible capabilities of the human mind? Yes, it has been shown that lower primates can in fact learn many of these things, including rudimentary communication skills. But they only learn what someone else has already discovered - a human. When a chimpanzee learns to use sign language, it is not because the chimpanzee developed this means of communication, rather learned what had already been developed.

In addition, consider the ultimate goals of science. To unlock the mysteries of life and the universe. How was life created? How did the universe come to be? Are they seeking it out for pure curiosity's sake? No, more than likely, they will try to reproduce these observations as soon as they develop the abilities to match the hypotheses. No sooner had cloning advanced to a sufficient level that scientists were attempting to clone life. Assuming the grand "recipe" for creating life from lifelessness is discovered, scientists will no doubt attempt to reproduce it. And given enough time, perhaps even what it would take to create a solar system. Already we think we know what is needed to control the very climate on this planet. We have been at this whole "human" thing, as I said before, for a little less than 6 million years, and look how far we have come. Consider some hypothetical being who has been at things for a bit longer - say 10 times as long, or 60 million years. Knowledge does not increase linearly - the more we know, the more rapidly we learn. If anything, it increases logarithmically. So a being that has existed 10 times as long as man could possess knowledge that we have no means of even imagining at this point. So why is the idea of a higher being so outlandish an idea for so many? And why should it be a point of ridicule that he would have made himself known to unsophisticated nomads thousands of years ago? Would it not stand to reason that, should such a being exist, his help would be incredibly useful to ancient people? Consider, as one small example, the various aspects of the Mosaic law that instructed Jews on matters of cleanliness, hygiene, and diet? Were they not to have those laws, might they have suffered from the plagues that other Europeans were decimated by, while living among them? Here is an example of "ancient" wisdom have a very real beneficial effect long after its practitioners had abandoned their nomadic lifestyle.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Boccherini said:


> What about the ones that aren't getting caught who live happily ever after?


I see that as a failure of the law/law enforcement (i.e. the criminal got away free). I suspect your perspective is that these folks will be punished by God when they die in a horrible place called hell should they not redeem themselves.



Boccherini said:


> Corrrect me if I'm wrong, but in your perspective there is no point for this world, and when I say "point" I mean something more valuable than a few years to live; God or whoever/whatever brings us here has his/its own decisions and our acts don't seem to bother him/it at all. That's why there's no distinction between the good and the evil since they have the same point, no point.


Your definition of "point" comes from the belief that there is eternal life after death. My belief of point is here and current, while we are alive here on Earth. I don't think about what happens after we die; I work on my life here and now to give it point while I live. That comes a lot from me giving my loved ones a point in their lifes too.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Edward Elgar said:


> Death is the problem. *Religion is the quick fix solution.*


Agree. I suspect so too.

It pisses me off to no end when you hear people (and well educated people too) say: "God gave this person a talent to do XYZ" (e.g. Mozart was God given), but they stay mute when asked if God gave a kid born with an IQ of 10 (despite having perfectly healthy parents).

But it was "God's will" for this kid to have an IQ of 10, some say ...


----------



## jurianbai

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> It pisses me off to no end when you hear people (and well educated people too) say: "God gave this person a talent to do XYZ" (e.g. Mozart was God given), but they stay mute when asked if God gave a kid born with an IQ of 10 (despite having perfectly healthy parents).
> 
> But it was "God's will" for this kid to have an IQ of 10, some say ...


I aware your example maybe not the perfect one,but let's discuss.

I will have no problem with this situation. For this I will say, "God's will" to let this happen is sad for the child, but... maybe there's good side resulting from this situation. Maybe the mum will need to altered her life to suit this boy's need therefore result in more positive connection between them. Of course this will raise critics as why God sacrifice the little child for this purposes, but again, back to the afterlife-orientated perspective, the believer will think this situation (IQ 10 kid) is not entirely sad thing and God allowed this for other purposes.

Another point of view: who say IQ 10 is a bad thing? Are we base good thing on 'somebody get IQ 200, rich , many W.A.G.s etc' , then BAD and GOOD is subjective:

I am not familiar with other believe, but something like Buddhism, Taoism, etc. will quickly see the universe as a whole connected system. An IQ 10 kid is part of the system, by having IQ 10 kid, maybe the world will aware about this phenomenon allowing doctor to take a look and resulting a positive medical achievement, for greater glory. According to this believe, it will quickly see that one bad thing is very SUBJECTIVE and may be not a BAD thing at all. See, very much positive thinking, compare to we just "pissed off" since we are not believe in a system (aka. faith).


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> If all religion were merely the product of fertile ancient imaginations, then why are some of the more enduring religions so demanding in commandments? If they really didn't believe there was a life after death, how would it be in their self interest to impose serious restraints on behavior with no hope of reward?


I think I mentioned in a previous post that religion started out as a system of control over the ignorant, hence the demanding commandments. Plus, if the thought of an afterlife is the only thing stopping you from behaving badly I feel genuinely sorry for you. Behaving well brings pleasure because you are doing humanity a service. Not god.



DrMike said:


> Religion is not a quick fix solution - having faith and believing in a higher power, for those who truly do believe, is no simple matter. Typically a great deal of persecution is involved (how much suffering have Jews endured? or early Christians? or most religions?). Many of the expected benefits are not expected to come until after this life is over. So they are exchanging easy immediate benefits for future, uncertain ones.


Have you ever been persecuted for your faith? Plus, don't you think it's odd how the ones doing the persecuting today are people of faith?

The fact of the matter is that if I say "I believe in Jesus", then because Jesus died for our sins, I'm entitled to a free pass into heaven regardless of what I do on earth. EASY!!!



DrMike said:


> Atheism provides an easier lifestyle. Sure, an atheist is subject to the laws governments impose, but other than that, there is no requirement. What does it matter how much or how little one accomplishes, if in the end death is the absolute end? To make a reputation for yourself? So? What do you care if you have ceased to exist? If Beethoven no longer exists at all, why should he care what fate his works met?


Oh, so you think that when my parents die, it's going to be easy for me knowing they are not getting another life? You think that when I'm on my deathbed contemplating my final moments that I can relax knowing that it's going to be the end of conciousness and matter forever?

So life's meaningless without an afterlife so why bother? How can you suggest this when we have been born into such a fascinating world with such wondrous capabilities? It's a bit greedy of you if you want more! Particularly if it's in an eternal paradise!



DrMike said:


> Yes, I agree, if my faith were based only on the writings of nomads centuries ago, it would seem rather thin. But it is not. Because of the faith I have developed, I know that those writings are true, not the other way around. I believe that God didn't stop speaking to man over 1000 years ago. I believe that a person can still learn from God what the truth is, and through him learn of the truthfulness of all things. My faith is not in the words of men, but the words of God.


You don't believe in god. You believe the person who told you there was a god. If it wasn't for that person you wouldn't have any knowledge of religion. Guess that means you wouldn't get your free bus pass to Elysium!


----------



## Boccherini

Edward Elgar said:


> I think I mentioned in a previous post that religion started out as a system of control over the ignorant, hence the demanding commandments. Plus, if the thought of an afterlife is the only thing stopping you from behaving badly I feel genuinely sorry for you. *Behaving well brings pleasure because you are doing humanity a service. Not god.*


You assume that doing a service to humanity by behaving well is good, probably for ethic reasons, but who said ethic is behaving well? Why murdering people isn't a positive act? I wouldn't exclude God.



Edward Elgar said:


> The fact of the matter is that if I say "I believe in Jesus", then because Jesus died for our sins, I'm entitled to a free pass into heaven regardless of what I do on earth. EASY!!!


True. That _is_ a problem with Christianity.



Edward Elgar said:


> Oh, so you think that when my parents die, *it's going to be easy for me knowing they are not getting another life?* You think that when I'm on my deathbed contemplating my final moments that I can relax knowing that it's going to be the end of conciousness and matter forever?


If you're proclaimed as someone whose life is here and now who doesn't have the capabilities for changing it, why would you care? In that point of view, you're just like the keyboard I'm currently typing on.



Edward Elgar said:


> So life's meaningless without an afterlife so why bother? How can you suggest this when we have been born into such a fascinating world with such wondrous capabilities? It's a bit greedy of you if you want more! Particularly if it's in an eternal paradise!


"Wondrous capabilities" that worth nothing for you, when your here-and-now ends.
At least in my faith, God wants/obligates you to do what you've been told, the "eternal paradise" might be simply a direct result.



Edward Elgar said:


> You don't believe in god. You believe the person who told you there was a god. If it wasn't for that person you wouldn't have any knowledge of religion. Guess that means you wouldn't get your free bus pass to Elysium!


Now you're confusing between religion and tradition. Tradition doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion, but is just a comfortable and logical way to pass it on.
Rationally, it might be the only way, since God doesn't ask someone to be a religious person if they don't know what that means.


----------



## Serge

Well, I am all up for afterlife. Being alive and away from my rotting body should be a blast! I hope they play good music in heaven and not that angelic crap everyone associates it with. Otherwise I’d rather go straight to hell with the heavy metal fans. Celtic Frost has its moments…


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> I think I mentioned in a previous post that religion started out as a system of control over the ignorant, hence the demanding commandments. Plus, if the thought of an afterlife is the only thing stopping you from behaving badly I feel genuinely sorry for you. Behaving well brings pleasure because you are doing humanity a service. Not god.
> 
> Have you ever been persecuted for your faith? Plus, don't you think it's odd how the ones doing the persecuting today are people of faith?
> 
> The fact of the matter is that if I say "I believe in Jesus", then because Jesus died for our sins, I'm entitled to a free pass into heaven regardless of what I do on earth. EASY!!!
> 
> Oh, so you think that when my parents die, it's going to be easy for me knowing they are not getting another life? You think that when I'm on my deathbed contemplating my final moments that I can relax knowing that it's going to be the end of conciousness and matter forever?
> 
> So life's meaningless without an afterlife so why bother? How can you suggest this when we have been born into such a fascinating world with such wondrous capabilities? It's a bit greedy of you if you want more! Particularly if it's in an eternal paradise!
> 
> You don't believe in god. You believe the person who told you there was a god. If it wasn't for that person you wouldn't have any knowledge of religion. Guess that means you wouldn't get your free bus pass to Elysium!


In my religion, personal study is absolutely emphasized, in both religious and secular matters. We believe the glory of God is intelligence, and that the more knowledge we accumulate in this life, the better off we are situated in the next. Hardly the workings of a group trying to keep its members in ignorance.

I don't behave well for a good blessing later on. I behave well because I know it is the right thing to do. That is the true sign of one completely converted to the Gospel of Christ - that they do the right things, not because they want a reward, but because they want to do what is right. The rewards come, certainly, but that shouldn't be the primary motivation.

Religious persecution in the U.S.A., thank goodness, is not what it used to be. My particular religion was persecuted, though - up to and including murder. Today, prejudices continue, and became particularly heated in our last election cycle. But my point was at the point these religions were in their infancy, they were heavily persecuted, so it was hardly, by your characterization, a foolproof plan for domination. If that was the goal of Christianity, then the early leaders must have been particularly selfless, because it took up until the time of Constantine before persecution really started to drop off and they started to gain the type of power you refer to.

I think it will be hard for you to lose a loved one - but you can't give me a good explanation as to why - some evolutionary development that causes us to mourn the loss of a loved one? And what is love? Affection? Loss? Why should you have such feelings? You are merely a bag of chemical reactions with a finite existence. Your logic and reason should tell you that everything dies, so there is no point to mourn the loss that is inevitable.

My belief in an afterlife doesn't cheapen this existence - how I behave in this life determines my fate in the next. So it is in my best interest to live life to the fullest - in a wholesome way. To view oneself in a greater context, and strive to make this life better for not only myself, but for others who come after me, so that we might be together after death. And to not abuse the gift of life that has been given to me, or the gifts of this planet that has been created.

I am not Lutheran - I don't believe that faith alone will save me. A hollow profession of faith, not backed up by keeping the commandments, will not profit me. If anything, we believe that those who know the will of God, and profess a faith in Christ, are under a GREATER obligation to keep His commandments. Were a Christian and an atheist to commit the same sin, the Christian would be under the greater condemnation, because they have the greater spiritual knowledge, and a more acute sense of wrong (spiritual matters - obviously both would know with certain "universal" sins, like murder, etc.). Nor do I believe that repentance is an easy process, and balk at the concept of the deathbed confession, where a person had plenty of time to right their wrongs.

I have faith in God. I was instructed in my religion by parents, religious leaders, family, but my faith was developed independently through my own study, prayer, and answers to my prayers. My faith is from my own experiences. Furthermore, my religion teaches that revelations continue from God, and so, while we do read the Bible as the word of God, we also have God's continuing revelations to us. It is not a static faith, established millenia ago and left to ripen on the shelf. We know the truth of those things from the past because we continually have God's word to us reaffirming what he also taught the ancients, and adding new council applicable to our day.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Agree. I suspect so too.
> 
> It pisses me off to no end when you hear people (and well educated people too) say: "God gave this person a talent to do XYZ" (e.g. Mozart was God given), but they stay mute when asked if God gave a kid born with an IQ of 10 (despite having perfectly healthy parents).
> 
> But it was "God's will" for this kid to have an IQ of 10, some say ...


With my first child, my income was not as nice as it is now. He didn't get as many nice new toys as his younger brother now gets. We bought more of his clothes from second-hand shops, whereas his brother gets many new clothes. But he did get his own room for a few years, whereas his younger brother has always had to share a room.

Because my bestowal of things to my two children has not been equal, does that mean that I am in some way a bad parent? Does it speak to how much I love one versus the other?

Should God make all people geniuses? Should all be experts in every area of life? Should everybody be a virtuoso musician and a master composer? I suspect then that the incredible would be the mundane, and we wouldn't notice it. You speak of one particular measure of a person. Is an IQ the sum total of a person? Are you saying that someone deemed "inferior" by our imperfect means of comparison is less valuable?

Can that person not contribute anything to society? Would you accept the existence of a God if all people were absolutely equal and identical in every single way?


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> *In my religion, personal study is absolutely emphasized, in both religious and secular matters.* We believe the glory of God is intelligence, and that the more knowledge we accumulate in this life, the better off we are situated in the next. Hardly the workings of a group trying to keep its members in ignorance.
> 
> I don't behave well for a good blessing later on. I behave well because I know it is the right thing to do. That is the true sign of one completely converted to the Gospel of Christ - that they do the right things, not because they want a reward, but because they want to do what is right. The rewards come, certainly, but that shouldn't be the primary motivation.
> 
> Religious persecution in the U.S.A., thank goodness, is not what it used to be. My particular religion was persecuted, though - up to and including murder. Today, prejudices continue, and became particularly heated in our last election cycle. But my point was at the point these religions were in their infancy, they were heavily persecuted, so it was hardly, by your characterization, a foolproof plan for domination. If that was the goal of Christianity, then the early leaders must have been particularly selfless, because it took up until the time of Constantine before persecution really started to drop off and they started to gain the type of power you refer to.
> 
> I think it will be hard for you to lose a loved one - but you can't give me a good explanation as to why - some evolutionary development that causes us to mourn the loss of a loved one? And what is love? Affection? Loss? Why should you have such feelings? You are merely a bag of chemical reactions with a finite existence. Your logic and reason should tell you that everything dies, so there is no point to mourn the loss that is inevitable.
> 
> My belief in an afterlife doesn't cheapen this existence - how I behave in this life determines my fate in the next. So it is in my best interest to live life to the fullest - in a wholesome way. To view oneself in a greater context, and strive to make this life better for not only myself, but for others who come after me, so that we might be together after death. And to not abuse the gift of life that has been given to me, or the gifts of this planet that has been created.
> 
> I am not Lutheran - I don't believe that faith alone will save me. A hollow profession of faith, not backed up by keeping the commandments, will not profit me. If anything, we believe that those who know the will of God, and profess a faith in Christ, are under a GREATER obligation to keep His commandments. Were a Christian and an atheist to commit the same sin, the Christian would be under the greater condemnation, because they have the greater spiritual knowledge, and a more acute sense of wrong (spiritual matters - obviously both would know with certain "universal" sins, like murder, etc.). Nor do I believe that repentance is an easy process, and balk at the concept of the deathbed confession, where a person had plenty of time to right their wrongs.
> 
> I have faith in God. I was instructed in my religion by parents, religious leaders, family, but my faith was developed independently through my own study, prayer, and *answers to my prayers.* My faith is from my own experiences. Furthermore, my religion teaches that revelations continue from God, and so, while we do read the Bible as the word of God, we also have God's continuing revelations to us. It is not a static faith, established millenia ago and left to ripen on the shelf. We know the truth of those things from the past because we continually have God's word to us reaffirming what he also taught the ancients, and adding new council applicable to our day.


I'd like to know what does the "personal study" include and how do you get answers to your prayers.
I'm really curious to know what is your faith. May I guess it's the same as your avatar's authentic condition?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

DrMike said:


> I am not Lutheran - I don't believe that faith alone will save me. A hollow profession of faith, not backed up by keeping the commandments, will not profit me.


That could lead us into the digression of defining faith- a digression that wouldn't be particularly fruitful to this discussion. I will add this, though- a hollow profession of faith, I assert, would not be a terribly faithful thing to do. I think that this is in-line with the understanding of most thoughtful Christians, across denominations.

Otherwise, I agree with the vast bulk of your contributions here.


----------



## Guest

Boccherini said:


> I'd like to know what does the "personal study" include and how do you get answers to your prayers.
> I'm really curious to know what is your faith. May I guess it's the same as your avatar's authentic condition?


Personal study is pretty all-encompassing. From a religious aspect, it means that we are encouraged to study the scriptures for ourselves - reading and seeking out understanding of what has been written, and how it can apply in our lives. This is assisted by extensive meetings set up to help in that study. But personal study of the scriptures, as well as the studying of modern day revelation, which we also hold to be scripture (the words of God through his prophets). As for how one receives an answer to prayer, that can vary from person to person. As a general guideline, though, this is the formula to follow:
Study the topic out in your mind, and learn what you can of it.
Pray to God to know the truthfulness of the thing you seek knowledge regarding.
God will make known to you his answer through the power of the Holy Ghost.
We believe that anybody who earnestly asks with honest intent, having faith that he will receive an answer, will receive an answer from God.

From a secular standpoint, the importance of a good education is always stressed, and, where possible, a college education. We are taught to be discerning, seeking out good knowledge, as we all know that information is not always useful. As a simple example, a person would probably be better served in gaining knowledge by reading a history book than by spending the same amount of time watching TV shows. Using myself as an example, I have received a Ph.D. in Microbiology. Not all will desire that level of education, but we believe that it is important to constantly be learning, both our religion and about the world around us.

My personal religion is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka the Mormons, LDS).



Chi_townPhilly said:


> That could lead us into the digression of defining faith- a digression that wouldn't be particularly fruitful to this discussion. I will add this, though- a hollow profession of faith, I assert, would not be a terribly faithful thing to do. I think that this is in-line with the understanding of most thoughtful Christians, across denominations.
> 
> Otherwise, I agree with the vast bulk of your contributions here.


Sorry, didn't mean to make it come off as a cheap shot against Lutheranism. I was more directly addressing my own beliefs, but I can see that my comments were an attack at Lutheran doctrine.

Yes, my personal beliefs vary some with Lutheran doctrine, but from the perspective of an outsider looking in, any Christian that is faithfully following the gospel of Jesus Christ as he understands it will look, at least outwardly, the same as a similar Christian from another denomination. As we know, a true follower will be identified by their fruits.


----------



## Lukecash12

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Agree. I suspect so too.
> 
> It pisses me off to no end when you hear people (and well educated people too) say: "God gave this person a talent to do XYZ" (e.g. Mozart was God given), but they stay mute when asked if God gave a kid born with an IQ of 10 (despite having perfectly healthy parents).
> 
> But it was "God's will" for this kid to have an IQ of 10, some say ...


If not for contrast, nothing would have anything else to determine it by. Isn't every measurement we have just a comparison against something else? Who has a more novel experience, the old drunk hippie whose emotions wash together like watercolors, or the child who actually remembered what it was like to observe something as precocious, pretentious, and inquisitive as a human being, and feel the same feelings before departing so soon? The simplicity of experience in one of an IQ of 10, or the mountainous variety of experience in one whose IQ is 180?

You are stuck getting "pissed off to no end", really just swearing at the rocks, and yet I'm a fool for being as contented as I am?


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Agree. I suspect so too.
> 
> It pisses me off to no end when you hear people (and well educated people too) say: "God gave this person a talent to do XYZ" (e.g. Mozart was God given), but they stay mute when asked if God gave a kid born with an IQ of 10 (despite having perfectly healthy parents).
> 
> But it was "God's will" for this kid to have an IQ of 10, some say ...


Personally, I think that God gives us all individual talents, but doesn't necessarily give us all the same talents. What is IQ, other than a contrivance of man to compare our conception of intelligence from one person to the next? It is a relative term. Maybe your IQ has a bearing on how you might fare among other humans, but who says that that is what God focuses on? I don't believe you will find many religious people who will tell you that your IQ has any bearing whatsoever on your eternal possibilities. Personally, of those people I have known with various mental/developmental disorders, they sure seem to have a higher capacity to love than most geniuses. Surely that can leave just as much of an impact on others, if not more, than the pronouncements of ivory tower intellectuals.

I am also curious as to why this should irritate you so much. Should I say, rather, "Wow, what a wonderful collection of genetic mutations over millenia that resulted in Mozart's seemingly natural talent to create beautiful music?" Or to say, "wow, tough luck for that kid over there! IQ of 10, with normal parents. They must be heterozygous for the low IQ gene, both carrying a recessive allele, and it was this poor kid's luck to hit that 1/4 chance!"


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Lukecash12 said:


> The simplicity of experience in one of an IQ of 10, or the mountainous variety of experience in one whose IQ is 180?





DrMike said:


> Should God make all people geniuses? Should all be experts in every area of life? Should everybody be a virtuoso musician and a master composer? I suspect then that the incredible would be the mundane, and we wouldn't notice it. You speak of one particular measure of a person. Is an IQ the sum total of a person? Are you saying that someone deemed "inferior" by our imperfect means of comparison is less valuable?


OK, forget I mentioned the IQ of 10 example. You guys took it literally. It was an analogy. Let me clear it up then, without using IQ (as you didn't seem to think about what I was trying to get at). (I picked that example in response to Dr.Mike's comment above that God gave Schubert talent).

Let's say your child was born with a terminal disease (pick any disease you fancy to home in the point I was making) and the baby died without seeing his/her first birthday. (This is thus unambigiously undesirble, I would think. Thus ignore the IQ of 10 example). Let me spell it even further: assume you are in America - a developed nation where infant mortality is amongst the lowest in the world and both parents are healthy folks, who bore other children before this baby and they are all healthy.

"Why did God give my baby disease XYZ"? Explain that.

I know you guys will come up with your religious reasoning that it may have been God's will. The baby is now in heaven. If that brings comfort to you, then that's very well and good. But it doesn't jibe with the belief that God is all loving, does it?


----------



## Earthling

Then there's the "I was supposed to be at the WTC on 9/11, but I got a flat tire-- its a miracle from God!" logic.


----------



## Johnny

This thread is still going? 

There is no more evidence to believe god exists than there is to believe leprechauns and unicorns exist. And that's a "god" in the all-knowing, all-powerful, vague, general creator who cares about us and answers our prayers kind of sense. That's ignoring how people get from assuming that such a being exists, to claiming any of the countless different historical notions of a god (each with their countless different stories) are true. 

One could write for days refuting the few "arguments" that all religious folk use to defend themselves. Pointing out the flaws in their reasoning. And posing questions for which they will have no reasonable answer. This is almost certainly to be of no use. These people have ignored reason. They pride themselves on blind faith! How can one explain a problem with someone's argument, if that someone doesn't see illogicality as a bad thing? They actually actively embrace it!? If you need blind faith to believe something, you are admitting that there is not enough evidence to believe it on its own merits. 

I suppose maybe if even one person wakes up, the time won't have been completely wasted.


----------



## Johnny

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> "Why did God give my baby disease XYZ"? Explain that.


But don't you realise? God works in mysterious ways!

Check and _Mate_!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Johnny said:


> But don't you realise? God works in mysterious ways!
> 
> Check and _Mate_!




By the way, while we are all discussing about God and religion. By implication, they would also believe in the existence of the devil/Satan. What about supernatural stuff like demonic possession (like _The Exorcist_, which was one scary **** of a movie). The Catholic Church in Rome permits exorcisms under very special circumstances.

I saw a documentary on TV the other day, about the history of the "devil". It was a fascinating show. Again, the history of the devil was one changing perception according to the fancies of man over time. Originally, the earliest perception of the devil was an archangel who questioned God, not of a horrible looking monster who lived off the misery of others in a dark horrible place called hell. Over time, it seems this archangel became more nasty in appearance (as depicted in historic paintings/works of art etc.), and the perception of sin and punishments too, changed over time; from the Old Testament to the New, and from Saint Peter onwards to today.

If God (and the devil) are constant, because they are super beings, why have the perceptions of them changed? God of the Old Testament was a feared God; a God of punishment, whereas the God of the New Testament was a loving God. Unless of course, it was all a fancy of man over time ...

Not to mention the same God as suggested by the prophet Muhammed (founder of Islam), as per the Qur'an. But that's another whole thread altogether.


----------



## Boccherini

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> OK, forget I mentioned the IQ of 10 example. You guys took it literally. It was an analogy. Let me clear it up then, without using IQ (as you didn't seem to think about what I was trying to get at). (I picked that example in response to Dr.Mike's comment above that God gave Schubert talent).
> 
> Let's say your child was born with a terminal disease (pick any disease you fancy to home in the point I was making) and the baby died without seeing his/her first birthday. (This is thus unambigiously undesirble, I would think. Thus ignore the IQ of 10 example). Let me spell it even further: assume you are in America - a developed nation where infant mortality is amongst the lowest in the world and both parents are healthy folks, who bore other children before this baby and they are all healthy.
> 
> "Why did God give my baby disease XYZ"? Explain that.
> 
> I know you guys will come up with your religious reasoning that it may have been God's will. The baby is now in heaven. If that brings comfort to you, then that's very well and good. But it doesn't jibe with the belief that God is all loving, does it?


A student that has been just gotten a punishment - interpreted, initially, as undesireable by him - by his teacher, has two options to judge this case whereas they can't find the logic behind it; To say that the teacher is probably another imbecile OR to know it's probably for good since punishing for nothing is quite pointless.


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> Personal study is pretty all-encompassing. From a religious aspect, it means that we are encouraged to study the scriptures for ourselves - reading and seeking out understanding of what has been written, and how it can apply in our lives. This is assisted by extensive meetings set up to help in that study. But personal study of the scriptures, as well as the studying of modern day revelation, which we also hold to be scripture (the words of God through his prophets). As for how one receives an answer to prayer, that can vary from person to person. As a general guideline, though, this is the formula to follow:
> Study the topic out in your mind, and learn what you can of it.
> Pray to God to know the truthfulness of the thing you seek knowledge regarding.
> God will make known to you his answer through the power of the Holy Ghost.
> *We believe that anybody who earnestly asks with honest intent, having faith that he will receive an answer, will receive an answer from God.*
> 
> From a secular standpoint, the importance of a good education is always stressed, and, where possible, a college education. We are taught to be discerning, seeking out good knowledge, as we all know that information is not always useful. As a simple example, a person would probably be better served in gaining knowledge by reading a history book than by spending the same amount of time watching TV shows. Using myself as an example, I have received a Ph.D. in Microbiology. Not all will desire that level of education, but we believe that it is important to constantly be learning, both our religion and about the world around us.
> 
> My personal religion is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka the Mormons, LDS).


How/through what do you get these answers? Conscious? Subconscious?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Boccherini said:


> A student that has been just gotten a punishment - interpreted, initially, as undesireable by him - by his teacher, has two options to judge this case whereas they can't find the logic behind it; To say that the teacher is probably another imbecile OR to know it's probably for good since punishing for nothing is quite pointless.


Sorry, can you please kindly re-word/re-structure that (long) sentence? It was rather confusing what you were trying to say.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

The founder of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith Jr., stated he was a prophet, and that God and Jesus, both visited him.

It's always quite fascinating to read how the founders of the various versions of God came about. Muhammad (founder of Islam), another self proclaimed prophet, took down God's teachings via an angel called Gabriel; though Islam regards Jesus as another prophet (not the Son of God), just like Moses was a prophet.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The founder of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith Jr., stated he was a prophet, and that God and Jesus, both visited him.
> 
> It's always quite fascinating to read how the founders of the various versions of God came about. Muhammad (founder of Islam), another self proclaimed prophet, took down God's teachings via an angel called Gabriel; though Islam regards Jesus as another prophet (not the Son of God), just like Moses was a prophet.


You are correct - Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. They called him to be a prophet. Members of the LDS church believe that God continues to function as he did in biblical times, communicating to us through prophets. We then listen to/read the words of the prophets and seek to know their truthfulness through study and prayer.

Boccherini: In answer to your question regarding how specifically prayers are answered, as I said, it varies, from person to person, and from circumstance to circumstance. Sometimes God answers our prayers through others (e.g. sending help when we ask for it); sometimes it is through feelings and impressions; and sometimes people have actually heard their answers.

This repeated criticism being raised here - challenging the existence of a God, let alone a living God, because unfortunate, even tragic, things happen to people - just seems preposterous.

Yes, bad things will happen, even to good people. Sometimes as a consequence of our actions, or the actions of others. Sometimes we don't have a good explanation. But this type of criticism seems to me more like the spoiled child who accuses their parents of not loving them because they won't give them everything they want. Why are some children born with medical problems that may result in their premature death? I don't know. Is it because God loves them less than another baby born healthy? No. But if you consider that God is working with an eternal perspective, and view this life as merely one phase of that, then you come to realize that how long our existence is on this earth is not nearly as important as how we spend it. Additionally, while man is the creation of God, individual creations - a new child being born - are through the actions of man, who is also influenced by his environment. God doesn't remove all potential problems that we might face. A child born with a birth defect isn't born so because God does not love that child, but because the parents of that child carried some genetic traits that, when combined together in that child, resulted in the condition/disease. Would you accuse those parents of not loving that child, even if they may have known, prior to birth, that the child would have that condition? From an eternal perspective, that child is not lost. It's earthly existence may have been short, but it's eternal existence continues.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> By the way, while we are all discussing about God and religion. By implication, they would also believe in the existence of the devil/Satan. What about supernatural stuff like demonic possession (like _The Exorcist_, which was one scary **** of a movie). The Catholic Church in Rome permits exorcisms under very special circumstances.
> 
> I saw a documentary on TV the other day, about the history of the "devil". It was a fascinating show. Again, the history of the devil was one changing perception according to the fancies of man over time. Originally, the earliest perception of the devil was an archangel who questioned God, not of a horrible looking monster who lived off the misery of others in a dark horrible place called hell. Over time, it seems this archangel became more nasty in appearance (as depicted in historic paintings/works of art etc.), and the perception of sin and punishments too, changed over time; from the Old Testament to the New, and from Saint Peter onwards to today.
> 
> If God (and the devil) are constant, because they are super beings, why have the perceptions of them changed? God of the Old Testament was a feared God; a God of punishment, whereas the God of the New Testament was a loving God. Unless of course, it was all a fancy of man over time ...
> 
> Not to mention the same God as suggested by the prophet Muhammed (founder of Islam), as per the Qur'an. But that's another whole thread altogether.


You are correct - my religion does, in fact, believe that the "devil" is a real being, but not the caricature that he has been made out to be, living in some fiery hell with a pitchfork, horns, and a tail.

Our perception of "hell" is also quite different. Hell is more of a condition, rather than a specific location. It is the condition where a person is cut off from God through disobedience to His commandments. Damnation, then, is not the sentencing of a person to a place, such as some eternal prison, rather it is being separated from God, and unable to further progress, due to willful disobedience to God's commandments.

As to perceptions of God changing, the fact is that he hasn't. God has always exercised justice and mercy. Where people have violated God's laws, he has first sent his prophets to call them to repentance and to turn their lives around. If they further choose to rebel, then a punishment does come. If they choose to repent, then mercy is extended. Before he sent the flood, he sent Noah and other prophets to urge the people to repent. Before he destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah, he acknowledged to Abraham that he would not destroy the cities if only 10 righteous people could be found within them.


----------



## Guest

Johnny said:


> This thread is still going?
> 
> There is no more evidence to believe god exists than there is to believe leprechauns and unicorns exist. And that's a "god" in the all-knowing, all-powerful, vague, general creator who cares about us and answers our prayers kind of sense. That's ignoring how people get from assuming that such a being exists, to claiming any of the countless different historical notions of a god (each with their countless different stories) are true.
> 
> One could write for days refuting the few "arguments" that all religious folk use to defend themselves. Pointing out the flaws in their reasoning. And posing questions for which they will have no reasonable answer. This is almost certainly to be of no use. These people have ignored reason. They pride themselves on blind faith! How can one explain a problem with someone's argument, if that someone doesn't see illogicality as a bad thing? They actually actively embrace it!? If you need blind faith to believe something, you are admitting that there is not enough evidence to believe it on its own merits.
> 
> I suppose maybe if even one person wakes up, the time won't have been completely wasted.


I don't pride myself on blind faith. I have experiences that inform my faith. I don't simply believe what I believe because someone told me.

It is quite amusing, though, to hear just how completely you think you understand the workings of the minds of those who do believe. Wow - talk about claims to knowing something you can't possibly know.

Your only argument against God is that you believe there is no evidence of his existence, and that, by what we are now capable of, there is no way to gain such evidence. So since our physical limitations impair our ability to prove or disprove something, it must therefore be untrue?

Did the existence of atoms only become true once man learned that we weren't composed of combinations of earth, air, fire, and water, and could actually study things at an atomic level? Did black holes not exist prior to our ability to search the deep recesses of space?

In fact, at least for Christians, there is the possibility for definitively showing to the world the existence of God and Jesus Christ - the belief in the second coming of Christ, and all the events that will accompany that event, at which point it will be made very clear to all the inhabitants of the earth just how real they are. When that will come, we don't know for certain.


----------



## djpeters

*Myths!*

Myths can have a meaning that may be very perceptive and true!!!

Bible characters, among most of the wolds mythic beings represent aspects of ourselves and the wider world and the journeys,transitions and paths that the characteristics lead.

They are sometimes qualitative abstactions that interplay.

You may claim to not believe in "aphrodite" "athena" or "venus" but if you believe in what they represent, therefore you do believe in them!!!
If you have no understanding of the meaning of bible stories etc, how can you say whether you believe them or not!!!

Ignorance may exist on both sides of the debate.

For this discussion to progress i feel these issues must be adressed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## djpeters

+ Whoever said Human Culture was Logical?


----------



## djpeters

Did you know? Bizet's Carmen is Fiction, It doesn't exist 
By implication Bizet does not Exist!


----------



## Guest

djpeters said:


> Did you know? Bizet's Carmen is Fiction, It doesn't exist
> By implication Bizet does not Exist!


I had always suspected as much! 

Now I know that I can pass over that opera.


----------



## Johnny

DR MIKE,

I've never said that because there is no evidence to believe in god - therefore he is proven to not exist. I've never said that. Nobody can be absolutely 100% sure of anything.

The burden of proof is with the person suggesting the existence of something (ie you).

The "you can't prove he doesn't exist LOL" line is a pathetic cliche. You can't prove that _I_ am not god. Can you? Can prove I am not god? If you doubt me, you will not get into heaven. If you believe any other story, you will not get into heaven. I AM GOD! WORSHIP ME!


----------



## Guest

Johnny said:


> DR MIKE,
> 
> I've never said that because there is no evidence to believe in god - therefore he is proven to not exist. I've never said that. Nobody can be absolutely 100% sure of anything.
> 
> The burden of proof is with the person suggesting the existence of something (ie you).
> 
> The "you can't prove he doesn't exist LOL" line is a pathetic cliche. You can't prove that _I_ am not god. Can you? *Can prove I am not god?* If you doubt me, you will not get into heaven. If you believe any other story, you will not get into heaven. I AM GOD! WORSHIP ME!


Well, I'm fairly certain that God would probably not make any grammatical errors, nor would he repeatedly argue against his existence. So I think it is safe to say that you are not God.

I have never said that you have to believe me that God exists. You are the one who has always demanded evidence. I have not made the "you can't prove he doesn't exist" line to you or anybody else. I have said that I have my own, personal evidence for his existence, and you have provided me with no compelling evidence to the contrary, so I therefore choose to believe what I do. Were I trying to prove to you, then yes, I would need to provide you with evidence. But I am already convinced. You are the one who has been trying to prove the negative to me. You make claims that because you have no such evidence of the existence of God, then my own personal evidence must clearly be completely fabricated. You project onto me arguments that I haven't made. You claim that I reject reason and am illogical for my belief. But I have my own evidence for my beliefs. That you have not seen the same evidence is irrelevant to my beliefs.

I reiterate what I have always said - each individual can find out for themselves. I can help show ways that a person can come to know that God exists, but I cannot give them the evidence. They have to seek it out on their own. I suspect you have never sought for yourself whether God exists, but have merely accepted what others have told you.


----------



## Johnny

How someone can say what you say, and think they are making sense, is beyond me. What a pathetic response.


----------



## Edward Elgar

johnny said:


> the "you can't prove he doesn't exist lol" line is a pathetic cliche. You can't prove that _i_ am not god. Can you? Can prove i am not god? If you doubt me, you will not get into heaven. If you believe any other story, you will not get into heaven. I am god! Worship me!


I believe!!! Oh lordy lordy lordy I have seen the light!!!


----------



## Boccherini

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Sorry, can you please kindly re-word/re-structure that (long) sentence? It was rather confusing what you were trying to say.


A student gets a punishment by his teacher; The prior objective (in this case - subjective) response for this kind of punishment is, more or less, "What the... it's undesirable!"; Now - assuming that the student cannot get any reasons for that punishment from his teacher - he has two options to judge this matter: 1. Proclaiming the punishment as irrational (that option would rise, most likely, initially). 2. Proclaiming the punishment as good and even vital, presuming the teacher is not an idiot and only wants to promote his student.


----------



## Guest

Johnny said:


> How someone can say what you say, and think they are making sense, is beyond me. What a pathetic response.


Ah, the ad hominem attack. The final refuge of the individual who has nothing further of substance to offer.

Why not just stick your tongue out at me?

Wake up to reality. There is a vast array of ideas in this life that do not lend themselves to scientific experimentation. That does not make them any less true. Of course, I always find that those most fanatical regarding the absolute devotion to scientific evidence while rejecting all else are, themselves, rarely scientists. They are often easily swayed by any pronouncement of anybody declaring themselves an expert, and will blindly follow anything they say, because, after all, they have scientific evidence, even though they don't personally understand the evidence. Witness the increase in measles cases these days - a disease that was on its way to eradication, along with smallpox. But somebody purporting to be a scientist, with scientific evidence, proclaimed that the measles vaccine caused autism. Now measles is on the rise, because people believed him. Never mind that his scientific evidence was highly suspect, and has been utterly refuted. Consider also the rejection of genetically modified crops that offer the possibility of reducing famine in third world nations, but are rejected by industrialized nations because some minority of scientists with evidence that defies the majority of data said they would be bad.


----------



## Boccherini

Edward Elgar said:


> I believe!!! Oh lordy lordy lordy I have seen the light!!!


Behold; it's backward! darkness shall cover your soul!

Holy molska, no progression...


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> Boccherini: In answer to your question regarding how specifically prayers are answered, as I said, it varies, from person to person, and from circumstance to circumstance. Sometimes God answers our prayers through others (e.g. sending help when we ask for it); sometimes it is through feelings and impressions; and sometimes people have actually heard their answers.


How do you know whether these feelings/impressions are not fake ones, by your own imaginations, assuming you are one of those who get their answers through those things?
And assistance; what kind of assistance? and again, how do you know if it's not a fake one?
But what I would really want to know is how do the people who hear their answers do it? what kind of people are they? and once again, how do they know whether those answers haven't gotten right away from a Sci-Fi TV show they watched last night?


----------



## Johnny

Edward Elgar said:


> I believe!!! Oh lordy lordy lordy I have seen the light!!!


Come here, my son. Sit on my knee. :wink:

You are the only person who has ever seen the light. After I've sodomised you, you shall go forth and spread the word.


----------



## Lukecash12

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> OK, forget I mentioned the IQ of 10 example. You guys took it literally. It was an analogy. Let me clear it up then, without using IQ (as you didn't seem to think about what I was trying to get at). (I picked that example in response to Dr.Mike's comment above that God gave Schubert talent).
> 
> Let's say your child was born with a terminal disease (pick any disease you fancy to home in the point I was making) and the baby died without seeing his/her first birthday. (This is thus unambigiously undesirble, I would think. Thus ignore the IQ of 10 example). Let me spell it even further: assume you are in America - a developed nation where infant mortality is amongst the lowest in the world and both parents are healthy folks, who bore other children before this baby and they are all healthy.
> 
> "Why did God give my baby disease XYZ"? Explain that.
> 
> I know you guys will come up with your religious reasoning that it may have been God's will. The baby is now in heaven. If that brings comfort to you, then that's very well and good. But it doesn't jibe with the belief that God is all loving, does it?


No, sir. We knew exactly what you were going after. Please try not to make assumptions about us simply because we are religious. Refer back to my points on the purpose of contrast.


----------



## Lukecash12

Johnny said:


> Come here, my son. Sit on my knee. :wink:
> 
> You are the only person who has ever seen the light. After I've sodomised you, you shall go forth and spread the word.


You really expect to win a debate by spitefully debasing the other party like this? Her's a little promise: Try taking one of us seriously for five seconds (we, who have taken time out of our lives to study rather than insult), and I might agree with you on a thing or two.


----------



## Lukecash12

> DR MIKE,
> 
> I've never said that because there is no evidence to believe in god - therefore he is proven to not exist. I've never said that. Nobody can be absolutely 100% sure of anything.
> 
> The burden of proof is with the person suggesting the existence of something (ie you).
> 
> The "you can't prove he doesn't exist LOL" line is a pathetic cliche. You can't prove that I am not god. Can you? Can prove I am not god? If you doubt me, you will not get into heaven. If you believe any other story, you will not get into heaven. I AM GOD! WORSHIP ME!


Proof? Didn't I just provide a lecture on the historicity of Christ? Did I not continue on after that lecture with pointed questions pertaining to His unique influences, and are not His profound teachings (which have shaped philosophy and theology for 2,000 years) proof enough as well?

But no, you will probably pin those teachings somewhere else right? Let's say the Gnostics? http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/was-jesus-the-real-source-of-christianity-and-its-beliefs.html


----------



## Lukecash12

David58117 said:


> Loose logic: The author cherrypicking a historical figure, deciding that (my words, his idea): "because there are some inconsistencies with this figure, it's likely that he didn't exist - but we don't have any of those inconsistencies with Jesus, so he must of existed!"


You are dodging a bullet here. If there are no important inconsistencies in both first hand and secondhand accounts of a person's existence, that person obviously exists/existed. He gave an example of a case in which there are certain inconsistencies which throw doubt at the existence of an individual, and his conclusion was agreeable to the standards of a current day scholar. He then displayed that Christ went above and beyond the requirements for us to logically determine that He did walk this earth.

There is no loose logic. There is simply you throwing your negative perspective out there, and flippantly throwing away the debate because I won't concede according to your vague claims.


----------



## David58117

DrMike said:


> You are correct - Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. They called him to be a prophet. Members of the LDS church believe that God continues to function as he did in biblical times, communicating to us through prophets. We then listen to/read the words of the prophets and seek to know their truthfulness through study and prayer.
> 
> Boccherini: In answer to your question regarding how specifically prayers are answered, as I said, it varies, from person to person, and from circumstance to circumstance. *Sometimes God answers our prayers through others (e.g. sending help when we ask for it);* sometimes it is through feelings and impressions; and sometimes people have actually heard their answers.
> 
> This repeated criticism being raised here - challenging the existence of a God, let alone a living God, because unfortunate, even tragic, things happen to people - just seems preposterous.
> 
> Yes, bad things will happen, even to good people. Sometimes as a consequence of our actions, or the actions of others. Sometimes we don't have a good explanation. But this type of criticism seems to me more like the spoiled child who accuses their parents of not loving them because they won't give them everything they want. Why are some children born with medical problems that may result in their premature death? I don't know. Is it because God loves them less than another baby born healthy? No. But if you consider that God is working with an eternal perspective, and view this life as merely one phase of that, then you come to realize that how long our existence is on this earth is not nearly as important as how we spend it. Additionally, while man is the creation of God, individual creations - a new child being born - are through the actions of man, who is also influenced by his environment. God doesn't remove all potential problems that we might face. A child born with a birth defect isn't born so because God does not love that child, but because the parents of that child carried some genetic traits that, when combined together in that child, resulted in the condition/disease. Would you accuse those parents of not loving that child, even if they may have known, prior to birth, that the child would have that condition? From an eternal perspective, that child is not lost. It's earthly existence may have been short, but it's eternal existence continues.


This interested me. I've been in the situation before where I stop on the side of the road to help someone, or go out of my way to do something that would benefit them - lets say in that situation - would my intervention be considered an "answer to their prayers," (assuming they prayed for help)?

As I said before I'm on the Atheist side of this debate, and my desire to help stems from something else entirely other than following a line of text, or trying to make my way into eternal happiness. I consider myself as much of a vector of Gods will as I do the Easter Bunnies or Santa's - but if that person prayed for help, and I showed up - to you, this would be an example of "God answering prayers?"

What if I was the one stranded on the side of the road, and quickly make a prayer to the Tooth Fairy and five minutes later, BAM - there's a car stopping to help me! Would that be an "answering to a prayer too?" What if it was a Hindu/Muslim/etc/etc?

Now if it was something like a Priest showing up every time a Catholic stranded on the side of the road prayed for help - then I would think you have something there. Otherwise no - trust me, as someone who has never once prayed during a crisis, I've done quite well. If I had the emotional need for religion (I believe it's all just emotion, which is why arguing logically about it is pointless), then I could attribute all sorts of things to God, but I don't. Having others show up to help spontaneously in times of need is a testament to humanity and community, something even lower animals participate in, not the God of Dr. Mike who only a fraction of the 6 billion people on Earth acknowledge.


----------



## Johnny




----------



## Guest

It does strike me funny that those here who profess atheism probably can't explain everything that happens in this world, and chalk it up to the fact that science hasn't discovered those answers yet - and that is perfectly acceptable to them, and in no way diminishes their acceptance of science and natural laws.

Yet if a religious person is unable to answer every potential question based on their beliefs (e.g. low intelligence child born to normal parents, child born with terminal birth defects to normal healthy adults), then clearly that makes it open season to ridicule those beliefs. Those who believe in God, in these peoples opinions, should know everything and explain every scenario, or else it reveals their beliefs as irrational and illogical. But should they not be able to explain those same things with scientific explanations, that's okay.

Quite the double standard.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I've read and participated in these types of discussions before. People who believe in their God have all sorts of explanations about what motivates them in life and what gives them point/answers. It comes down to faith. Faith is their emotional force/belief, and it gives them the comfort they require. Faith also gives many the reason to kill others. Regardless, it is this emotional thing called faith that keeps religion alive.

I guess at the end of the day, it's how we choose to live our daily lifes that matter (let's keep aside the discussion of life after death). Our common ground between those who believe in God and those who question the existence of God (me) are the real daily lifes that we face. Osama bin Laden has enormous faith in his God, while Hitler had no faith in any God, but were man either any good? In other words, it is the actions and decisions of man that matter in the real world, whether or not inspired by faith.


----------



## David58117

Lukecash12 said:


> You are dodging a bullet here. *If there are no important inconsistencies in both first hand and secondhand accounts of a person's existence, that person obviously exists/existed.* He gave an example of a case in which there are certain inconsistencies which throw doubt at the existence of an individual, and his conclusion was agreeable to the standards of a current day scholar. He then displayed that Christ went above and beyond the requirements for us to logically determine that He did walk this earth.
> 
> There is no loose logic. There is simply you throwing your negative perspective out there, and flippantly throwing away the debate because I won't concede according to your vague claims.


Luke - he *assumed* the validity of the bible. *Why* is it an acceptable, *historically accurate* text? If that's the case - what about the bible claiming the earth is 6,000 years old?

So tell me - *why* should I take the bible as a historical text?

Also - *what* is considered an "important inconsistency?" The author dings Lycurgus for having some uncertainty about the specific time he lived in, and provides a quote from a historian regarding the uncertainty surrounding him - but then adds:

"Neither of these problems exists with Jesus to any sort of similar degree. *While there are numerous Gnostic texts that seem at the face contradictory to the synoptic story*, almost all differences are additions or omissions or in the interpretation of things from a theological perspective....Indeed there is next to no confusion in terms of dates *except perhaps in the nativity story, which can happily be called embellishment* due to the fact that no living writers would have been witness to his birth...These are 4 detailed biographies of Jesus' life. 3 of them agree on numerous events, locations and even sometimes speech. We know they are at least partially independent as they all have at least a different take on the things going on *and contain contradictions in peripheral detail (were there one or two angels present at the tomb of Jesus for example)."*

So Lycurgus - deemed fiction due to uncertainty regarding a proper date, followed by a quote that gives no explanation why, then we're provided a "Jesus doesn't have those problems," only to find the author later admitting that there are some contradictions, but if you look at it *this way* they are not that big (such as the "embellishment of the nativity story," or the "at face value contradictory" gnostic texts).

I wonder if Lycurgus got such a sweet deal...

Anyway, if you really want your "If there are no important inconsistencies in both first hand and secondhand accounts of a person's existence, that person obviously exists/existed," deal, then I hope you're not thinking Jesus is the only figure who fits this criteria...

Hello Nordic Gods, hello Hindu gods, hello Allah, hello flying spaghetti monster (literally), hello numerous characters from fiction books, hello tooth fairy, hello bigfoot, hello UFOs, hello Elvis currently living in Florida, hello batboy from the fictitious news publication...


----------



## David58117

DrMike said:


> It does strike me funny that those here who profess atheism probably can't explain everything that happens in this world, and chalk it up to the fact that science hasn't discovered those answers yet - and that is perfectly acceptable to them, and in no way diminishes their acceptance of science and natural laws.
> 
> Yet if a religious person is unable to answer every potential question based on their beliefs (e.g. low intelligence child born to normal parents, child born with terminal birth defects to normal healthy adults), then clearly that makes it open season to ridicule those beliefs. Those who believe in God, in these peoples opinions, should know everything and explain every scenario, or else it reveals their beliefs as irrational and illogical. But should they not be able to explain those same things with scientific explanations, that's okay.
> 
> Quite the double standard.


I don't understand this. I'm not an Atheist because I read some article in Scientific American, or because something I once attributed to God I now understand in a scientific sense - I'm an Atheist because that warm fuzzy feeling inside some people get from sitting in a pew, I get from doing simpler things such as family activity, helping others in my community, or some similar task.

As Harpsichord said, religion is an emotional experience. It exists all over the world, and I find it extremely hard to say that my next door neighbor who packs his kids in his van every Sunday to go to Church, feels any more conviction than a man born on the opposite side of the world, who gets his fix by praying towards Mecca 5 times a day.

I think the problem in the second paragraph is that religious people want to have their cake and eat it too. Sure, they happily attribute the genius granted to Mozart as being from God, but they hesitate when asked if God was the one who gave a child leukemia. Sure, they'll give God credit when the stranger who responded to a prayer was someone helpful, but when the next Jeffrey Dahmer is the person who helps the stranded motorist on the lone dark road...

If grandiose claims are going to be made, why should they be selectively applied? And who decides when to apply it?

Anyway, I apologize for Johnny (I don't know why, I don't know him, I'm just embarrassed by him), and just want to say I think you (Dr. Mike) make a lot of sense and have very good points.


----------



## Johnny

You are even worse than he is.


----------



## Boccherini

David58117 said:


> I don't understand this. I'm not an Atheist because I read some article in Scientific American, or because something I once attributed to God I now understand in a scientific sense - I'm an Atheist because that warm fuzzy feeling inside some people get from sitting in a pew, I get from doing simpler things such as family activity, helping others in my community, or some similar task.
> 
> As Harpsichord said, religion is an emotional experience. It exists all over the world, and I find it extremely hard to say that my next door neighbor who packs his kids in his van every Sunday to go to Church, feels any more conviction than a man born on the opposite side of the world, who gets his fix by praying towards Mecca 5 times a day.
> 
> I think the problem in the second paragraph is that religious people want to have their cake and eat it too. Sure, they happily attribute the genius granted to Mozart as being from God, but they hesitate when asked if God was the one who gave a child leukemia. Sure, they'll give God credit when the stranger who responded to a prayer was someone helpful, but when the next Jeffrey Dahmer is the person who helps the stranded motorist on the lone dark road...
> 
> If grandiose claims are going to be made, why should they be selectively applied? And who decides when to apply it?
> 
> Anyway, I apologize for Johnny (I don't know why, I don't know him, I'm just embarrassed by him), and just want to say I think you (Dr. Mike) make a lot of sense and have very good points.


People who selectively thanking God only for the goodness he had shared with them, and selfishly irate on the seemingly bad things, have some problems with their faith, as well as those who think that seemingly bad things don't come from God, but only goodness; I wouldn't call them religious.

@DrMike: Could you answer my questions I've posted here. I wasn't being sarcastic, if that's what you thought.


----------



## Boccherini

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I've read and participated in these types of discussions before. People who believe in their God have all sorts of explanations about what motivates them in life and what gives them point/answers. It comes down to faith. Faith is their emotional force/belief, and it gives them the comfort they require. Faith also gives many the reason to kill others. Regardless, it is this emotional thing called faith that keeps religion alive.
> 
> I guess at the end of the day, it's how we choose to live our daily lifes that matter (let's keep aside the discussion of life after death). Our common ground between those who believe in God and those who question the existence of God (*me*) are the real daily lifes that we face. Osama bin Laden has enormous faith in his God, while Hitler had no faith in any God, but were man either any good? In other words, it is the actions and decisions of man that matter in the real world, whether or not inspired by faith.


I thought you were just questioning the life-after-death concept; Well, there's always the Who/What-created-you routine for progress.


----------



## Guest

Boccherini said:


> People who selectively thanking God only for the goodness he had shared with them, and selfishly irate on the seemingly bad things, have some problems with their faith, as well as those who think that seemingly bad things don't come from God, but only goodness; I wouldn't call them religious.
> 
> @DrMike: Could you answer my questions I've posted here. I wasn't being sarcastic, if that's what you thought.


As I said before, anybody can receive answers to their prayers, if they ask with earnest intent and faith they will receive an answer. I can't tell you how each person will receive their answer - that would be impossible. Only God decides how a prayer will be answered, since he is the one answering.

As I stated before, my faith guides me, but it doesn't give me every single answer. How do I know that when others receive answers to their prayers it isn't something else? Simple answer - I don't. It doesn't bother me. Unless they claim that their answer is for me, which my faith teaches me is not correct. We can receive answers to our own prayers, but if we have no authority over another person, we cannot receive inspiration or answers to prayers intended for another. That is the role of prophets.

All I can tell you is that I believe my prayers are answered, I know that God lives, that Jesus Christ lives, and that they continue to speak to us today to guide us in the ways that we should live in order to be able to return to them after this life. As for all of the specific details, or regarding what is in another person's heart, I'm afraid I can't give you any kind of satisfying answer, but then nobody can, not even those living a life completely devoted to logic and reason.


----------



## Guest

David58117 said:


> I don't understand this. I'm not an Atheist because I read some article in Scientific American, or because something I once attributed to God I now understand in a scientific sense - I'm an Atheist because that warm fuzzy feeling inside some people get from sitting in a pew, I get from doing simpler things such as family activity, helping others in my community, or some similar task.
> 
> As Harpsichord said, religion is an emotional experience. It exists all over the world, and I find it extremely hard to say that my next door neighbor who packs his kids in his van every Sunday to go to Church, feels any more conviction than a man born on the opposite side of the world, who gets his fix by praying towards Mecca 5 times a day.
> 
> I think the problem in the second paragraph is that religious people want to have their cake and eat it too. Sure, they happily attribute the genius granted to Mozart as being from God, but they hesitate when asked if God was the one who gave a child leukemia. Sure, they'll give God credit when the stranger who responded to a prayer was someone helpful, but when the next Jeffrey Dahmer is the person who helps the stranded motorist on the lone dark road...
> 
> If grandiose claims are going to be made, why should they be selectively applied? And who decides when to apply it?
> 
> Anyway, I apologize for Johnny (I don't know why, I don't know him, I'm just embarrassed by him), and just want to say I think you (Dr. Mike) make a lot of sense and have very good points.


I appreciate your comments as well, which have been very constructive to the discussion, regardless of whether or not we agree.

As to what some see as inconsistencies in what religious people attribute to God, I can only say that I don't know all of the mysteries of God. But, a good deal of what you talk about (the genius of Mozart vs. the sadism of Dahmer), I think comes down more to an issue of agency. As I understand God, his plan for sending us here to earth was for us to gain a physical body, and to learn and progress. In order for this to happen, he granted us free agency to choose for ourselves how we would act. In order for us to truly learn and grow, we needed to be able to choose for ourselves and gain either the rewards of our good choices, or reap the consequences of our bad actions. Just as a child that is constantly attended to by a parent, and never allowed to do anything by themselves will never truly learn and reach its full potential, so it is true for all mankind. God granted each of us unique talents and skills, but whether we use them or grow them is entirely up to us. It is then not inconsistent with the concept of a loving God that both a Mozart and a Dahmer could arise. In the case of Mozart, we have the example of an individual who truly nourished the talents he was given. Did God hold his hand while he wrote each and every work? Again, I don't know, but I suspect not. Rather, he blessed him with the abilities to write what he did. In the case of Dahmer, we have an example of someone who threw their life away and chose to do evil rather than good. Unfortunately, since we do live in a world with others around us, the actions of those around us will impact us, sometimes for good, sometimes for evil. Just as we have had the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, Mother Teresa, whose lives have benefited countless numbers of people because they chose to use their talents to help others, we have also had Hitlers, Dahmers, and Mansons, who chose the other extreme.

Sometimes bad things will happen to good people. That isn't because that person is loved less by God - it is simply the nature of this existence, where we have to learn and grow. You can't learn and grow where you are never challenged.

Whether my answer is satisfying to some or not, seems irrelevant from a standpoint of whether one does or does not believe in God. And I am not trying to convince you with my above answer; rather, I am trying to explain, at least from my religious perspective, what others might see as a contradiction.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I've read and participated in these types of discussions before. People who believe in their God have all sorts of explanations about what motivates them in life and what gives them point/answers. It comes down to faith. Faith is their emotional force/belief, and it gives them the comfort they require. Faith also gives many the reason to kill others. Regardless, it is this emotional thing called faith that keeps religion alive.
> 
> I guess at the end of the day, it's how we choose to live our daily lifes that matter (let's keep aside the discussion of life after death). Our common ground between those who believe in God and those who question the existence of God (me) are the real daily lifes that we face. Osama bin Laden has enormous faith in his God, while Hitler had no faith in any God, but were man either any good? In other words, it is the actions and decisions of man that matter in the real world, whether or not inspired by faith.


Yes, I would agree that faith is not divorced from emotion. And I also agree, although probably coming at it from a different standpoint, that the actions of a person are critical, regardless of what they profess.

Christ gives a parable in the New Testament, which I will paraphrase, where a Lord goes to one servant and asks him to do something - the servant says yes, but then doesn't do it. He then goes to another servant and asks the same thing - the second servant says no, but later goes out and does what is asked. The second servant receives the greater reward, because although he was initially rebellious, he ultimately did what he was supposed to, whereas the other was only obedient in word, not in action. A person who claims to believe in Christ but acts no better than anybody else is not in some better position than a non-believer - if anything, they are under a greater condemnation, having understood better what they should have done.


----------



## Guest

Johnny said:


> You are even worse than he is.


Ahh, did he hurt your feelings?

Seriously, coming from you, I would take this as a compliment.

Incidentally, to the other atheists weighing in on this discussion, I don't count Johnny as representative of atheists in general - rather an arrogant off-shoot who thinks that he alone represents the pinnacle of logical thought and reason - a combination of smug arrogance and pseudo-intellectualism.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I have a question for Dr Mike,

How many gods has humanity invented?


----------



## Serge

DrMike said:


> You are correct - Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. They called him to be a prophet.


Wow, that's rich! (Incidentally, is Joseph Smith himself now rich? Well, "rich" is a relative term of course, but does he still have to work? Not, I imagine. Would be a shame to leave an entrepreneurial spirit as bold as his unrewarded.)


----------



## Argus

I like how this thread has turned into a DrMike Q&A session.

Or possibly Atheism vs. DrMike.


----------



## Guest

Serge said:


> Wow, that's rich! (Incidentally, is Joseph Smith himself now rich? Well, "rich" is a relative term of course, but does he still have to work? Not, I imagine. Would be a shame to leave an entrepreneurial spirit as bold as his unrewarded.)


No.

Joseph Smith was driven out of New York, Ohio, and Missouri by mobs. In Missouri, the governor actually issued an extermination order against Joseph Smith and the Mormons if they didn't leave the state (this after many members of the church were murdered, including the massacre of an entire town). They then moved on to Illinois, founding a city they named Nauvoo. While there, Joseph Smith was arrested on false charges, and while being held in jail awaiting trial (supposedly under the protection of the governor of Illinois), a mob charged the building he was held in and murdered him and his brother. He died in 1844 at the age of 38.


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> I like how this thread has turned into a DrMike Q&A session.
> 
> Or possibly Atheism vs. DrMike.


I don't mind answering questions. It is actually something I am quite used to as a Mormon.

That said, I know full well that I am probably not changing any minds here, nor am I trying to. My goal is more to provide a religious perspective, not debate atheism vs. religion. Where people point out what they perceive as inconsistencies in Christian theology, I give my perspective, and how my faith resolves that issue.

As it ties back to the original topic, whether music is the creation of divinity, or whether the existence of evil people somehow negates this claim, I think my last couple of posts gave my take on this, but to summarize:

God created man in general, although individual births obviously are of a more temporal creation. Physical traits and characteristics are largely the result of inherited genes coming from both parents. However, I believe that God blesses all people with some kind of talent or ability.

Man has free agency to choose how they will live their live, with the stipulation that they must accept the rewards, or consequences, of their actions. One person may choose to live a profitable life, in general good, developing their skills and talents. Another may choose to squander their existence, destructive to himself, or, as happens, to others as well.

That God would allow people to choose their own actions, even if those actions might lead to their own misery, or the misery of others, is essential for mankind to be able to progress. This concept is also at the heart of natural evolution. Without pressures that drive selection, there would be no power that drives change and evolution. Without any kind of selective pressure, life would revert to the simplest possible form required to survive. In the world of viruses, which I study, this is easily seen. The virus seeks to replicate itself. If an outside pressure seeks to halt that, such as a drug or an immune response, mutations arise that allow escape from that pressure. This may even require sacrificing certain beneficial aspects, such as not being able to replicate as quickly. If the pressure is removed, the virus may revert back to the prior state.

It remains true with man. If we want to progress, we must face challenges and learn to overcome them, not constantly have God intervene to prevent bad things from happening, like some overly protective parent. In this way, he allows us to grow.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Argus said:


> I like how this thread has turned into a DrMike Q&A session.
> 
> Or possibly Atheism vs. DrMike.


I don't think I've got a straight answer from him yet. Not from any of my assertions regarding the existence of god at least.


----------



## Argus

DrMike said:


> I don't mind answering questions. It is actually something I am quite used to as a Mormon.


Do Mormons go on tours around the world to convert people? I ask because I have met a few at the bus station and around town, and they're always American. They're always very friendly people and there was even one that was bang tidy, even if they have a kind of robotic quality. I don't mind having theological discussions with them as it soon becomes apparent to both parties that no amount of talking is going to change any minds and it's interesting to see what approach they'll take. But I always think they must have a really low success rate with conversions - like 1 in 2000-5000. Is converting people their full time job or is it just something they've got to do at some point in their life, much like Muslims must visit Mecca.


----------



## Serge

DrMike said:


> No.
> 
> Joseph Smith was driven out of New York, Ohio, and Missouri by mobs. In Missouri, the governor actually issued an extermination order against Joseph Smith and the Mormons if they didn't leave the state (this after many members of the church were murdered, including the massacre of an entire town). They then moved on to Illinois, founding a city they named Nauvoo. While there, Joseph Smith was arrested on false charges, and while being held in jail awaiting trial (supposedly under the protection of the governor of Illinois), a mob charged the building he was held in and murdered him and his brother. He died in 1844 at the age of 38.


Ouch, tough break! Sorry to hear that. Messed up with the wrong crowd I suppose… I take that it wasn't a mob of atheists who slaughtered him? (Are those ever organized anyway? Probably can't even afford it. If so, they almost deserve eternal damnation I'd say. Poor ********.)


----------



## Aramis

> Wow, that's rich! (Incidentally, is Joseph Smith himself now rich? Well, "rich" is a relative term of course, but does he still have to work? Not, I imagine. Would be a shame to leave an entrepreneurial spirit as bold as his unrewarded.)


If you're asking questions like this (like Smith would be still alive) then you shoudn't write in this thread the way you do; I mean pretending to be witty while lacking knowledge and, eventually, brain itself. Only fools laugh at things they don't know nothing about.

Unless you knew that Smith was long-time dead XIXth century figure and you was just kidding. I guess that is what you will write now.


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> As I said before, anybody can receive answers to their prayers, if they ask with earnest intent and faith they will receive an answer. I can't tell you how each person will receive their answer - that would be impossible. Only God decides how a prayer will be answered, since he is the one answering.
> 
> As I stated before, my faith guides me, but it doesn't give me every single answer. How do I know that when *others* receive answers to their prayers it isn't something else? Simple answer - I don't. It doesn't bother me. Unless they claim that their answer is for me, which my faith teaches me is not correct. We can receive answers to our own prayers, but if we have no authority over another person, we cannot receive inspiration or answers to prayers intended for another. That is the role of prophets.
> 
> All I can tell you is that I believe my prayers are answered, *I know that God lives*, that Jesus Christ lives, and that they continue to speak to us today to guide us in the ways that we should live in order to be able to return to them after this life. As for all of the specific details, or regarding what is in another person's heart, I'm afraid I can't give you any kind of satisfying answer, but then nobody can, not even those living a life completely devoted to logic and reason.


I was mainly focused on the individual himself. 1. If an individual gets an answer which makes a contradiction in your doctrine, does he need to change his whole perception for that? What about someone who claims he had a vision which says he needs to kill himself, how can he navigate between illusions and "real answers"? How do _you_ know, no matter the way you get your answers, whether the answer you've got - and even a simple one like reading another story for your children before they go to sleep - is nothing but a result of a psychological-stress process?

In my religion you don't attach positive verbs to God, but only negative, since he's infinite. (e.g. You don't say "God is strong", but "God isn't weak") but that's another thread...

Another question: 2. Why do you need Jesus if you have God? Does the initial and infinite power that created everything have anything to do with Jesus? He was just a human after all, wasn't he? What would have happened if X was Jesus and X didn't know what he was doing while he carried the Christians after him? X was alive 2000 years ago, after all, and 10 years before he was not. Why wouldn't you proclaim him as finite?

3. Why do God and Jesus have to guide you these days if you have a "perfect" (?) doctrine?


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> I don't think I've got a straight answer from him yet. Not from any of my assertions regarding the existence of god at least.


I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I have answered many questions. Your last question was clearly meant as some kind of entrapment. You aren't actually seeking the answer, as you believe all gods are made up, and you know that I am a monotheist. So what exactly were you searching for here?

I have answered your questions. I just haven't given you the answer that you wanted me to give.

As I said, I don't have all of the answers - my religion and my faith don't make me all knowing, and just because I believe in God doesn't mean he has then made me all-knowing. So I appreciate the efforts to try and find the questions that might trip up a religious person so that you can then poke fun at their beliefs. May I know riddle you endlessly with theoretical question after theoretical question regarding this existence from a purely scientific perspective? Could you please inform me what the earliest form of life on earth was? Do you believe that it was some kind of self-replicating protein, or was it perhaps a self-catalyzing RNA molecule? How do you fall on that question - protein vs. nucleic acid? How does natural selection work? From the perspective of form follows function, or form follows failure? Is Richard Dawkins' concept of nature as a blind watchmaker, with a design in mind, the drive of evolution, or do you think it more likely that what now exists on this earth is the latest result of millions of years of failed ideas discarded, without so much of a plan, as nature trying various different random events? How do you suppose, physical differences aside, that the mere 6 million years that has separated us from our closest biological relatives, the chimpanzees, has lead to such drastic differences, particularly in terms of mental capabilities? Is it merely a larger brain size? Could that account for the creation of complex social interactions, highly advanced use of tools, highly evolved ability to think in the abstract?


----------



## Guest

Serge said:


> Ouch, tough break! Sorry to hear that. Messed up with the wrong crowd I suppose… I take that it wasn't a mob of atheists who slaughtered him? (Are those ever organized anyway? Probably can't even afford it. If so, they almost deserve eternal damnation I'd say. Poor ********.)


No, not really. In Ohio, in Missouri, and in Illinois, they actually went out of their way to avoid these other groups. They formed their own towns in Missouri and Illinois - in the case of Illinois, they even picked a swampy malaria-infested bend in the Mississippi River to live.

But it is nice that you like to make light of the murder of a person because they happened to espouse religious beliefs that you find absurd. Joseph Smith once made the comment that he would defend the rights of a Jew, a Muslim, or a Catholic just as quickly as he would his own, because the person who would take away the rights of one of those people would also be willing to take away his rights.

Actually, though, I don't think it was atheists behind his murder. It was a collection of people who wanted him dead for various reasons - among them political. As Mormons were being driven out of their communities, they naturally joined together, founding their own cities. In Missouri, and especially in Illinois, those cities were particularly large, and as a result represented a sizable political block. In Missouri this was particularly troubling, as many of the early members of the church came from New England, or from Europe, and were mostly abolitionists. This didn't sit well in Missouri. Mobs were easily set off by individuals that had previously been members of the church, but had been excommunicated for various reasons, and sought to vindicate themselves.

Ultimately they fled the states after Smith's death and moved to Utah, a barren desert at the time, hoping to remove themselves from the persecutions that they had suffered, sometimes with governments turning a blind eye, sometimes actively supporting the mobs against the Mormons.


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> Do Mormons go on tours around the world to convert people? I ask because I have met a few at the bus station and around town, and they're always American. They're always very friendly people and there was even one that was bang tidy, even if they have a kind of robotic quality. I don't mind having theological discussions with them as it soon becomes apparent to both parties that no amount of talking is going to change any minds and it's interesting to see what approach they'll take. But I always think they must have a really low success rate with conversions - like 1 in 2000-5000. Is converting people their full time job or is it just something they've got to do at some point in their life, much like Muslims must visit Mecca.


Yes, we do have an active missionary program. Most are young men between the ages of 19 and 21, but there are also young women involved, as well as older, retired couples. There are various aspects to the missionary program - the young men and women are typically involved in proselytizing. The senior couples can also be involved in proselytizing, but there are also various educational and service programs the church does around the world that these couples assist with.

Missionaries are sent to whatever countries allow us to send them. In some countries, no proselytizing missionaries are allowed, but sometimes service missionaries are. I don't know where all we aren't allowed at this point, but Muslim countries do not allow missionaries, and there are none in China. Missionaries come from anywhere the church is established, but the majority are probably American, since most members are American (although that is almost no longer the case). It is a commandment for young men to serve these specific 2-year full-time missions. Not all do, though. I served one when I was younger. I took 2 years off after my freshman year in college and served a mission in Switzerland, then returned and finished my undergraduate degree and went on to get my Ph.D. Oddly enough, I'm not that much different in age from non-Mormons I work with that entered college the same time I did (but that is probably more a reflection of the field of biological sciences in this day and age).

I don't know worldwide what the success rate is. The number of missionaries out at any given time is somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000. In general, the highest success rates are, as expected, in countries where the church is relatively new, which, I believe, currently is Africa and Eastern Europe. Western Europe probably doesn't have that high of a success rate now, but when missionaries first went there in the 1800's, they had a lot of success, and many of the converts moved to the United States and settled eventually in Utah - it is a weird mixture of European cultures.


----------



## Guest

Boccherini said:


> I was mainly focused on the individual himself. 1. If an individual gets an answer which makes a contradiction in your doctrine, does he need to change his whole perception for that? What about someone who claims he had a vision which says he needs to kill himself, how can he navigate between illusions and "real answers"? How do _you_ know, no matter the way you get your answers, whether the answer you've got - and even a simple one like reading another story for your children before they go to sleep - is nothing but a result of a psychological-stress process?


 First of all, God works in an ordered fashion, so he doesn't give different commandments to different people. Part of the reason that he calls prophets is so that there is an authoritative voice for his commandments that apply to all, rather than every individual proclaiming their own doctrine. Second, we believe that God will not give us commandments individually that are contrary to his revealed word. We already know that it is against God's commandments to commit suicide. So if someone were to profess they received a commandment from God to kill themselves, I would tend to think that the inspiration did not come from God. In fact, this is a way that we can judge whether something comes from God - whether it contradicts his gospel and commandments. In terms of things as simple as what story to read your child (or other analogous ideas), we also believe that God is not going to instruct is in every minute detail of our lives. His intention is not to command us in all things. Some decisions require us to exercise our best judgment. And in many instances, there may be no wrong choice, and it is up to us to then decide. As to whether my "answers" are nothing more than the result of a psychological stress process, all I can say is that I know. My answers are not always to stressful problems. In addition, I have felt His spirit in other instances where I was not specifically seeking it out, and no stress was involved. I don't think I'm going to give you any kind of quantifiable answer to this question that can fully satisfy your curiosity.



> In my religion you don't attach positive verbs to God, but only negative, since he's infinite. (e.g. You don't say "God is strong", but "God isn't weak") but that's another thread...
> 
> Another question: 2. Why do you need Jesus if you have God? Does the initial and infinite power that created everything have anything to do with Jesus? He was just a human after all, wasn't he? What would have happened if X was Jesus and X didn't know what he was doing while he carried the Christians after him? X was alive 2000 years ago, after all, and 10 years before he was not. Why wouldn't you proclaim him as finite?


 You are putting the cart before the horse. This question come from the perspective that Christianity is contrived by man, and not in fact real. I don't believe in God, but feel incomplete, so I sought out another being to fulfill my needs. I believe in God, and I believe that he sent his son, Jesus, to come to earth, to instruct us, and to atone for the sins of those who would believe in him and repent, and then to die on the cross and be resurrected on the third day, so that all mankind could live again. Jesus was the savior in God's plan to be able to redeem us all from a fallen state. None of us are finite - we all have an eternal existence. We lived before this life, and we will live on after it.



> 3. Why do God and Jesus have to guide you these days if you have a "perfect" (?) doctrine?


 Part of our doctrine is that God constantly talks to us through revelation and through prophets. Have you noticed how many different churches there are that all are Christian? Some have only minor differences, some fairly large. This is a perfect example why God's continued guidance is necessary. In addition, God continues to speak to his prophets to give us instructions regarding the challenges that we face in our days. We also believe that God continues to do his work, and we believe that God will always reveal his work through his servants the prophets. If God is in fact real, why would he have spoken to people thousands of years ago, but now refuse to open his mouth?


----------



## Earthling

Argus said:


> Do Mormons go on tours around the world to convert people? I ask because I have met a few at the bus station and around town, and they're always American. They're always very friendly people and there was even one that was bang tidy, even if they have a kind of robotic quality.


Low, however, is a great rock band (Alan & Mimi are both Mormon).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

According to the New Testament, Jesus was human in every way except he did not sin. (That sounds like a paradox to me in the first place). Some historical scholars also speculated that Jesus may have married a woman called Marry Magdalena but his disciples, especially Saint Paul, were against the influence of women in Christianity after the death of Jesus, and early Christian history was in fact largely distorted by the four apostles (Saints John, Mark, Paul and Peter).

I personally do believe that the historic Jesus walked this earth with his historic disciples 2,000 years ago and they pretty much founded Christianity amongst the Jews. But Jesus was a human being as much as you and me, or as much as Muhammed or Joseph Smith Jr., but not a super being/Son of God with supernatural powers.

History has always shown that prophets/messengers of God would come about and start their own version/variation of an existing belief/religion. Some had suspect motives, others less clear, while the most influencing of these, Jesus and Muhammed, had tremendous influence on humanity, often with terrible consequences on a huge scale. Then again, these were all the actions and decisions of man.


----------



## jurianbai

I have meet a Mormon activist here in Singapore. They give the Mormon version Bible to my friend and I got a change to quick browse on that. But don't ask me the rest of story I had forgoten everything.


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> First of all, God works in an ordered fashion, so he doesn't give different commandments to different people. Part of the reason that he calls prophets is so that there is an authoritative voice for his commandments that apply to all, rather than every individual proclaiming their own doctrine. Second, we believe that God will not give us commandments individually that are contrary to his revealed word. We already know that it is against God's commandments to commit suicide. So if someone were to profess they received a commandment from God to kill themselves, I would tend to think that the inspiration did not come from God. In fact, this is a way that we can judge whether something comes from God - whether it contradicts his gospel and commandments. *In terms of things as simple as what story to read your child (or other analogous ideas), we also believe that God is not going to instruct is in every minute detail of our lives.* His intention is not to command us in all things. Some decisions require us to exercise our best judgment. And in many instances, there may be no wrong choice, and it is up to us to then decide.


So if you get a vision that God tells you to read another story to your children, you assume it's probably wrong since God doesn't command you with these kind of details, and simply ignore it? What if, you would have done what you've been told and read another random story to your children, this specific story - as part of God's huge action in this world - affects your children after years for good only because you read it for them; And the opposite if you would have not. Don't you miss the target?


DrMike said:


> As to whether my "answers" are nothing more than the result of a psychological stress process, all I can say is that I know. My answers are not always to stressful problems. In addition, I have felt His spirit in other instances where I was not specifically seeking it out, and no stress was involved. I don't think I'm going to give you any kind of quantifiable answer to this question that can fully satisfy your curiosity.


Yes, but doesn't it bother you to comprehend that when you feel "His spirit" in spite of the fact you do not seek for it (and even if you do actually), it might be a *simple* result of a psychological/biological/physical or any other process which can be easily scientifically explained with rational terms - which could have been made by you if you have the right tools - and not something from above. What about the considerably significant implications that might be?
_I_ would define the faith of those who consistently ignore those things as terribly inadequate and even complete sham.


DrMike said:


> You are putting the cart before the horse. This question come from the perspective that Christianity is contrived by man, and not in fact real. I don't believe in God, but feel incomplete, so I sought out another being to fulfill my needs. I believe in God, and I believe that he sent his son, Jesus, to come to earth, to instruct us, and to atone for the sins of those who would believe in him and repent, and then to die on the cross and be resurrected on the third day, so that all mankind could live again. Jesus was the savior in God's plan to be able to redeem us all from a fallen state.


You believe in Jesus as much as you believe in God or even more/less? Did you ask an image and not God himself only because of your human limitations since God the infinite (in any aspect) is too powerful and inhuman to comprehend? Thus, Jesus came to earth to instruct you... Don't you think it's a thorny problem to detract God's infinity powers by saying that bringing Jesus was the only way to complete your incompleteness? God couldn't have done that otherwise? and even if it was the only way, why do you worship Jesus if he's nothing but a "retrospect tool"?


DrMike said:


> None of us are finite - we all have an eternal existence. We lived before this life, and we will live on after it.


By saying finite, I actually meant it relatively to this world; I assume it's unquestionable to say that lives on earth are earthly finite.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Member Boccherini seems to have declared Holy War with a fellow God believer, just like numerous episodes in history because they couldn't get along believing the same God. 

The rest of us infidels/pagans will burn in hell anyway, so what do I care.


----------



## Boccherini

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Member Boccherini seems to have declared Holy War with a fellow God believer, just like numerous episodes in history because they couldn't get along believing the same God.
> 
> The rest of us infidels/pagans will burn in hell anyway, so what do I care.


Don't take it as a trollish statement, but I was raised that Christianity - in all its manifestations - is idolatry, erroneous faith as opposed to God's wills.


----------



## Guest

Boccherini said:


> So if you get a vision that God tells you to read another story to your children, you assume it's probably wrong since God doesn't command you with these kind of details, and simply ignore it? What if, you would have done what you've been told and read another random story to your children, this specific story - as part of God's huge action in this world - affects your children after years for good only because you read it for them; And the opposite if you would have not. Don't you miss the target?
> 
> Yes, but doesn't it bother you to comprehend that when you feel "His spirit" in spite of the fact you do not seek for it (and even if you do actually), it might be a *simple* result of a psychological/biological/physical or any other process which can be easily scientifically explained with rational terms - which could have been made by you if you have the right tools - and not something from above. What about the considerably significant implications that might be?
> _I_ would define the faith of those who consistently ignore those things as terribly inadequate and even complete sham.
> 
> You believe in Jesus as much as you believe in God or even more/less? Did you ask an image and not God himself only because of your human limitations since God the infinite (in any aspect) is too powerful and inhuman to comprehend? Thus, Jesus came to earth to instruct you... Don't you think it's a thorny problem to detract God's infinity powers by saying that bringing Jesus was the only way to complete your incompleteness? God couldn't have done that otherwise? and even if it was the only way, why do you worship Jesus if he's nothing but a "retrospect tool"?
> 
> By saying finite, I actually meant it relatively to this world; I assume it's unquestionable to say that lives on earth are earthly finite.


As I said, I don't believe in Christ because I felt somehow that God wasn't quite omnipotent enough. God sent Christ. God declared him to be his son, to follow his gospel, because it was, in fact, God's gospel.

I'm really not sure anymore what you are trying to get from me with this. You want to know how I absolutely know what I do, and how I absolutely exclude any other possibilities. I can't give you that answer. Sorry. Obviously you don't buy my explanation - that's fine. It works for me. If you aren't convinced, I'm sorry, but answering the same question over and over isn't making any headway. I don't have a secret decoder ring that helps me define which answers I get are from God and which are merely random biochemical reactions in my central nervous system. I haven't received any impulses to kill myself, and am unlikely to believe that I would receive such a commandment from God. I don't think that reading Green Eggs and Ham, as opposed to The Cat in the Hat, to my child is going to affect his life in any significant way tomorrow, or 20 years from now.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> I don't mind answering questions. It is actually something I am quite used to as a Mormon.


Those who do not believe in the Messiah (Jesus) will be destroyed by fires, storms, earthquakes, war, disease, and starvation. Nephi 6:15

God will force people to eat their own flesh and drink their own blood. Nephi 6:18

Hell is a lake of fire and brimstone where the damned are tormented forever. Nephi 9:19, 9:26

Those who don't believe or who are not baptized will be damned to hell. Nephi 9:24

Those who don't know Christ will be thrown into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Mosiah 26:27

If you ask God to kill your enemies, he will do it for you. Alma 33:10

I saw thousands of them hewn down in open rebellion against their God, and heaped up as dung upon the face of the land. Mormon 2:15

I'm slightly curious about the nature of your holy book, could you perhaps justify how these teachings can inspire goodness, let alone art?


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> As I said, I don't believe in Christ because I felt somehow that God wasn't quite omnipotent enough. God sent Christ. God declared him to be his son, to follow his gospel, because it was, in fact, God's gospel.
> 
> I'm really not sure anymore what you are trying to get from me with this. You want to know how I absolutely know what I do, and how I absolutely exclude any other possibilities. I can't give you that answer. Sorry. Obviously you don't buy my explanation - that's fine. It works for me. If you aren't convinced, I'm sorry, but answering the same question over and over isn't making any headway. I don't have a secret decoder ring that helps me define which answers I get are from God and which are merely random biochemical reactions in my central nervous system. I haven't received any impulses to kill myself, and am unlikely to believe that I would receive such a commandment from God. I don't think that reading Green Eggs and Ham, as opposed to The Cat in the Hat, to my child is going to affect his life in any significant way tomorrow, or 20 years from now.


I could continue with this, but it seems there's no point and as I thought; didn't satisfy me at all. 
Well then, it was nice to discuss with you.


----------



## Guest

Boccherini said:


> I could continue with this, but it seems there's no point and as I thought; didn't satisfy me at all.
> Well then, it was nice to discuss with you.


Might I ask how you know your religious beliefs to be true?


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Those who do not believe in the Messiah (Jesus) will be destroyed by fires, storms, earthquakes, war, disease, and starvation. Nephi 6:15
> 
> God will force people to eat their own flesh and drink their own blood. Nephi 6:18
> 
> Hell is a lake of fire and brimstone where the damned are tormented forever. Nephi 9:19, 9:26
> 
> Those who don't believe or who are not baptized will be damned to hell. Nephi 9:24
> 
> Those who don't know Christ will be thrown into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Mosiah 26:27
> 
> If you ask God to kill your enemies, he will do it for you. Alma 33:10
> 
> I saw thousands of them hewn down in open rebellion against their God, and heaped up as dung upon the face of the land. Mormon 2:15
> 
> I'm slightly curious about the nature of your holy book, could you perhaps justify how these teachings can inspire goodness, let alone art?


Alright, the first several from 2 Nephi chapters 6 and 9 refer to the punishment of those who chose to not obey God's commandments. There is a punishment for not following the law. How exactly is that anathema to inspiring goodness, etc.? We live in societies that have various levels of punishments for various crimes. Does that mean that such societies are incapable of inspiring goodness or art?

The verse in Alma has been misconstrued by you - the individual speaking there does not state that he asked God to kill his enemies. Here is the actual verse:
"Yea, and thou hast also heard me when I have been cast out and have been despised by mine enemies; yea, thou didst hear my cries, and wast angry with mine enemies, and thou didst visit them in thine anger with speedy destruction."
God does not act as some contract killer. He saw the plight of the individual, and decided to punish the enemies. The individual did not ask God to kill them. So a God that protects those trying to live right can't inspire goodness or art?

And the final verse you cite, in Mormon, is relating the fate of the people from wars. They had ceased to keep God's commandments, and had become bloodthirsty, and were constantly fighting wars and losing. So they were being destroyed - not just because God struck them down, but because they were constantly at war. You tend to die off if you are constantly at war. If you read more, you will learn that God promised them he would help protect them if their enemies attacked and they were keeping the commandments. Their destruction came because they ignored God's commandments, and rather than being a peaceful people, they became bloodthirsty and constantly fighting. So again, how does that support your statement?

Why don't you also quote the scriptures that talk about the blessings that come to those who keep God's commandments? Because that wouldn't fit into your narrative? Not very scientific of you - scientists are taught to not cherry-pick data to suit their hypotheses. They have to look at it all, and make the hypothesis fit the data, not force the data to fit a hypothesis.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Those who do not believe in the Messiah (Jesus) will be destroyed by fires, storms, earthquakes, war, disease, and starvation. Nephi 6:15
> 
> God will force people to eat their own flesh and drink their own blood. Nephi 6:18
> 
> Hell is a lake of fire and brimstone where the damned are tormented forever. Nephi 9:19, 9:26
> 
> Those who don't believe or who are not baptized will be damned to hell. Nephi 9:24
> 
> Those who don't know Christ will be thrown into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Mosiah 26:27
> 
> If you ask God to kill your enemies, he will do it for you. Alma 33:10
> 
> I saw thousands of them hewn down in open rebellion against their God, and heaped up as dung upon the face of the land. Mormon 2:15
> 
> I'm slightly curious about the nature of your holy book, could you perhaps justify how these teachings can inspire goodness, let alone art?


By the way - you claimed I hadn't given you a direct answer to your questions. Here I have. Might I kindly ask for you to respond to the last set of questions I posed to you?

Incidentally, how do you deal with scientific hypotheses that may never be verified? Say, the origin of life on this planet? Finding actual fossil evidence for common ancestors? Say the first mammal, or the common primate ancestor? Such things COULD be potentially proven scientifically, but that doesn't mean they will. Additionally, the only absolute standard to validate a hypothesis is to then replicate the result. Can this be done in these instances? If not, how far are you willing to go in your belief in science without absolute proof? Could we not say that you have some faith that science will provide the answers, or that when it doesn't, you at least have faith that scientific hypotheses and theories are true? Without definitive evidence to support it?


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> Alright, the first several from 2 Nephi chapters 6 and 9 refer to the punishment of those who chose to not obey God's commandments. There is a punishment for not following the law. How exactly is that anathema to inspiring goodness, etc.? We live in societies that have various levels of punishments for various crimes. Does that mean that such societies are incapable of inspiring goodness or art?


Do you really think eternal damnation in the fires of hell is just punishment for those who do not follow Jesus? What kind of sick book is this? What about those who have never heard of Jesus? I'm guessing they won't be spared the lakes of sulphur and the devils pitchfork! Is it really a sin to be Jewish, homosexual, Native American or atheist? The authors of your book seem to think so. If you think these groups of people should be eternally punished in the next world, well, I don't need to spell it out because you know what I'd think about that.

Yes, we have punishments for crimes, but unlike your deity, we have the capacity for mercy and hope that those who sin can be rehabilitated. I'd be terrified to live in hellish nightmare-world described in your scripture!



DrMike said:


> The verse in Alma has been misconstrued by you - the individual speaking there does not state that he asked God to kill his enemies. Here is the actual verse:
> "Yea, and thou hast also heard me when I have been cast out and have been despised by mine enemies; yea, thou didst hear my cries, and wast angry with mine enemies, and thou didst visit them in thine anger with speedy destruction."
> God does not act as some contract killer. He saw the plight of the individual, and decided to punish the enemies. The individual did not ask God to kill them. So a God that protects those trying to live right can't inspire goodness or art?


So because some guy didn't like some people, god killed them? And it does say "speedy destruction" which you cannot deny means death. I'm guessing they went to hell too along with the Jews, homosexuals, Native Americans and atheists. And for what? Getting on the wrong side of some guy? Harsh!



DrMike said:


> And the final verse you cite, in Mormon, is relating the fate of the people from wars. They had ceased to keep God's commandments, and had become bloodthirsty, and were constantly fighting wars and losing. So they were being destroyed - not just because God struck them down, but because they were constantly at war. You tend to die off if you are constantly at war. If you read more, you will learn that God promised them he would help protect them if their enemies attacked and they were keeping the commandments. Their destruction came because they ignored God's commandments, and rather than being a peaceful people, they became bloodthirsty and constantly fighting. So again, how does that support your statement?


Wait a minute! What about the crusades?! That was a period of constant war and presumably your deity was on the side of the Christians (I presume this because you follow Jesus). So how come the holy lands are surrounded by Muslim countries? God dropped the ball that time!



DrMike said:


> Why don't you also quote the scriptures that talk about the blessings that come to those who keep God's commandments?


By all means, give me some passages! Let's see if they justify the harrowing slaughter that this book endorses.


----------



## Edward Elgar

When God gets really angry, he causes earthquakes. Nephi 23:13 - So it's got nothing to do with tectonic plates than?

Dragons will live in Babylonian palaces and satyrs will dance there. Nephi 23:21-22 - Cool! But why hasn't god invented them already? Oh, I'm sorry, _created_.

Before many generations pass, Native Americans will convert to Mormonism, their skins will turn white, and they will become a "delightsome" people. Nephi 30:6 - Darn tootin'! And maybe they will stop their obsessive gambling. Jeez those guys have a problem! God really likes white people I've noticed.

God will "smite the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the breath of his mouth he shall slay the wicked." Nephi 30:9 - I think god needs a splash of Listerine!

Those who hope in Christ will obtain riches. Jacob 2:19 - But they'll give it all away just like Jesus told them to do? Right?

Jesus is both the Father and the Son. Mosiah 15:2-3 - Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

God darkened the skin of the Lamanites (Native Americans) to keep them separate from the Nephites. Alma 3:8 - Plus, the Nephites needed to know who to shoot, because otherwise how could you tell?

The Nephites were called "Christians" 70 years before Jesus was born. Alma 48:10 - Nothing like being prepared!

If you believe in Christ, whatever you ask for will be given to you. Mormon 9:21 - A Steinway please J.C.!


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> *Do you really think eternal damnation in the fires of hell is just punishment for those who do not follow Jesus? *What kind of sick book is this? What about those who have never heard of Jesus? I'm guessing they won't be spared the lakes of sulphur and the devils pitchfork! Is it really a sin to be Jewish, homosexual, Native American or atheist? The authors of your book seem to think so. If you think these groups of people should be eternally punished in the next world, well, I don't need to spell it out because you know what I'd think about that.


 You need to re-read the verses you referenced. Here is verses 26 and 27 in 2 Nephi chapter 9:
"26 For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.
27 But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state!"
In verse 26, it very clearly states that the atonement will apply to those who never knew the laws of God, so that they will not suffer these punishments. The punishments apply to those who knew the law, and violated it. So no, eternal damnation DOES NOT await those who have never heard of Jesus. Quite the opposite of what you insisted.



> Yes, we have punishments for crimes, but unlike your deity, we have the capacity for mercy and hope that those who sin can be rehabilitated. I'd be terrified to live in hellish nightmare-world described in your scripture!
> 
> So because some guy didn't like some people, god killed them? And it does say "speedy destruction" which you cannot deny means death. I'm guessing they went to hell too along with the Jews, homosexuals, Native Americans and atheists. And for what? Getting on the wrong side of some guy? Harsh!


 Of course speedy destruction probably means death. I didn't say it didn't. And I like how you minimize the actions of the enemies as merely some squabble. Way to twist it to fit your argument.



> Wait a minute! What about the crusades?! That was a period of constant war and presumably your deity was on the side of the Christians (I presume this because you follow Jesus). So how come the holy lands are surrounded by Muslim countries? God dropped the ball that time!
> 
> By all means, give me some passages! Let's see if they justify the harrowing slaughter that this book endorses.


God would not be on the side of the Christians just because they claimed they were doing it in his name. Are you on the side of atheist murderers? What if they say they are doing it in the name of atheism? Proclaiming yourself a Christian does not guarantee you God's protection for any action you undertake. He will not support people acting contrary to his will and commandments. Your arguments here are getting a little more desperate.


----------



## Earthling

DrMike said:


> God would not be on the side of the Christians just because they claimed they were doing it in his name.


Perhaps that is a debatable point (I say "perhaps" because this starts veering toward a "No True Scotsman" fallacy that one wonders if Christians _ever _existed in history). I think the bigger picture here is the danger of groupthink (and so the problem extends beyond organised religion but many utopian revolutionary types, etc.).

However, the Bible does indicate that Yahweh himself did indeed command things that don't exactly seems like "love" (unless you re-define "love"). I won't bother to quote any more passages.

The Bible has helped to produce the anti-semitism in John Chrysostom and Martin Luther, not to mention the Salem Witch Trials, and all sorts of dogmatic thinking backed up by all manner of punishments. The Bible has also helped to produce admirable heroes such as Bonhoeffer and MLK. But the reason why is that there are passages in the Bible that are violent, intolerant and contradictory passages about helping the poor and being compassionate. Both kinds of Christians are cherry picking, because the Bible is hardly a systematic nor consistent book (it isn't even a "book" but rather a selection of books that were chosen, tossed aside, etc. by various councils over the centuries).

Unfortunately, the history of Christianity and its practising Christians has shown that they tend to cherry pick more on the dogmatic and manichean side of things rather than any of that helping the poor stuff. On one side you've got your Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwells, and on the other, you've got your pacifist Quakers and Dorothy Days. BOTH can find justifications for their beliefs in their Bible, but BOTH are also cherry picking their favourite (and contradictory) Bible passages-- neither Dorothy Day nor Jerry Fallwell are a "true christian"-- nor anyone else, because the best one can do it highlight certain passages and ignore others. Its nothing more than trying to *confirm one's own biases and claim it has the some sort of divine decree. * Its not enough to simply say "_I_ think _______"-- one feels the need to back it up with "sacred" scripture. And unfortunately, throughout history, Christianity is made up more of Jerry Falwell mindsets rather than Dorothy Day types.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Edward Elgar said:


> Those who do not believe in the Messiah (Jesus) will be destroyed by fires, storms, earthquakes, war, disease, and starvation. Nephi 6:15
> 
> God will force people to eat their own flesh and drink their own blood. Nephi 6:18
> 
> Hell is a lake of fire and brimstone where the damned are tormented forever. Nephi 9:19, 9:26
> 
> Those who don't believe or who are not baptized will be damned to hell. Nephi 9:24
> 
> Those who don't know Christ will be thrown into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Mosiah 26:27
> 
> If you ask God to kill your enemies, he will do it for you. Alma 33:10
> 
> I saw thousands of them hewn down in open rebellion against their God, and heaped up as dung upon the face of the land. Mormon 2:15
> 
> I'm slightly curious about the nature of your holy book, could you perhaps justify how these teachings can inspire goodness, let alone art?


Even the beginnings of the book of Genesis strongly explains/encourages why followers of God from day one have plundered the environment with little regard, all throughout history, until the 20th century (thanks to science and economics) when man realised that the environment is not for unlimited plundering. This contrasts very sharply with some other cultures and beliefs where the environment is not subservient to man.

The early passages of Genesis says it is through God's love that He also created the wild life for man, making man in charge of the fish, the birds, and all the wild animals etc. "*... have many children, so that your descendants will live all over the earth, and bring it under their control*. *I am putting you in charge *of the fish ... etc. *I have provided all *kinds of grain and all kinds of fruit for *you to eat *... etc."

Well, thanks to this arrogant and extremely selfish teaching from the very start, folks have always consumed till we run dry (out of the belief that God's provisions are done out of His love). We certainly cannot have numerous children, for the environment can't support it. And we are certainly not the king of the environment. Some even believe that fossil fuels and its unlimited burning of fuel were also part of God's intent ...


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> When God gets really angry, he causes earthquakes. Nephi 23:13 - So it's got nothing to do with tectonic plates than?
> 
> Dragons will live in Babylonian palaces and satyrs will dance there. Nephi 23:21-22 - Cool! But why hasn't god invented them already? Oh, I'm sorry, _created_.
> 
> Before many generations pass, Native Americans will convert to Mormonism, their skins will turn white, and they will become a "delightsome" people. Nephi 30:6 - Darn tootin'! And maybe they will stop their obsessive gambling. Jeez those guys have a problem! God really likes white people I've noticed.
> 
> God will "smite the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the breath of his mouth he shall slay the wicked." Nephi 30:9 - I think god needs a splash of Listerine!
> 
> Those who hope in Christ will obtain riches. Jacob 2:19 - But they'll give it all away just like Jesus told them to do? Right?
> 
> Jesus is both the Father and the Son. Mosiah 15:2-3 - Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!
> 
> God darkened the skin of the Lamanites (Native Americans) to keep them separate from the Nephites. Alma 3:8 - Plus, the Nephites needed to know who to shoot, because otherwise how could you tell?
> 
> The Nephites were called "Christians" 70 years before Jesus was born. Alma 48:10 - Nothing like being prepared!
> 
> If you believe in Christ, whatever you ask for will be given to you. Mormon 9:21 - A Steinway please J.C.!


I see that your real intention is only to hold up the beliefs of others to ridicule, and that you have no legitimate interest in a serious discussion. Additionally, you don't intend to carry out any serious conversation, as you have ignored my questions to you. Is this truly the best that can be conjured up by those who profess to lead a life dedicated to logic and reason?


----------



## TomCatPat

*My thought*

I find this to be a great topic for discussion, though too controversial for me. I do not feel that the two sides will find a middle ground.-_-


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> I see that your real intention is only to hold up the beliefs of others to ridicule, and that you have no legitimate interest in a serious discussion. Additionally, you don't intend to carry out any serious conversation, as you have ignored my questions to you. Is this truly the best that can be conjured up by those who profess to lead a life dedicated to logic and reason?


You answer my questions and I'll answer yours.

1 - What are the possible reasons (if any) why someone should invent a deity?
2 - How many gods (if any) have been invented by humanity?
3 - How can the often barbaric and ridiculous nature of your scripture inspire goodness or art?

You will have to refresh my memory on your questions that I'm more than happy to answer. Either that or direct me to the posts in which your questions are. I'm surprised you have any questions for me. You've found the truth right?

Plus, I found it funny how you ridiculed me for ridiculing your ridiculous scriptural passages. Is that all you've got to justify your book? That seems to me to be a weak justification. Can you justify not one of those passages?


----------



## ellll

*No Divinity*

I don't see Divinity having anything what so ever to do with music

Now.... Organized Religion? YES .... one of the very few good things that happened from organized religion..

ellll


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

People were created to be worshipers. That's why even though people reject the One True God, we will still create an array of gods because of the inherent instinct within us to worship anything. Even people who call themselves atheists worship something, likely themselves and other people.

Heidelberg Catechism Q. 1

_What is chief end of Man?

The chief end of Man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever._

So, as to myself, I'll just go on enjoying the Lord by enjoying music, and glorifying Him by playing it.


----------



## Petwhac

Huilunsoittaja said:


> People were created to be worshipers. That's why even though people reject the One True God, we will still create an array of gods because of the inherent instinct within us to worship anything. Even people who call themselves atheists worship something, likely themselves and other people.
> 
> Heidelberg Catechism Q. 1
> 
> _What is chief end of Man?
> 
> The chief end of Man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever._
> 
> So, as to myself, I'll just go on enjoying the Lord by enjoying music, and glorifying Him by playing it.


People were not created, they evolved.
Humans do indeed look for something or someone greater than themselves to help give meaning to their lives.
There is no instinct to 'worship' but maybe to admire.
There is only one true God for those who were indoctrinated into believing it.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Petwhac said:


> There is only one true God for those who were indoctrinated into believing it.


I was not "indoctrinated" into my faith. I was dragged kicking and screaming into the Kingdom by God Himself.


----------



## Petwhac

Kicking and screaming?
What kind of God would need to do that? Would need to be worshiped?


----------



## David58117

Huilunsoittaja said:


> People were created to be worshipers. That's why even though people reject the One True God, we will still create an array of gods because of the inherent instinct within us to worship anything. *Even people who call themselves atheists worship something, likely themselves and other people.*
> 
> Heidelberg Catechism Q. 1
> 
> _What is chief end of Man?
> 
> The chief end of Man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever._
> 
> So, as to myself, I'll just go on enjoying the Lord by enjoying music, and glorifying Him by playing it.


"Oh David58117, in your name I honor you. You are the glory of mankid, the shining beacon of truth and intelligence. You stand at the front of the eternal line, demonstrating your superiority by getting there slightly quicker than everyone else. Your music rocks and puts others to shame, for you are truly remarkable in each and every way."

Oh no, Huil found out! They must of had a spy in our Atheist community, because they found out our deep dark secret that every atheist actually worships themselves (or some other person)!

Oh no! What will we do now! We've been outed! Somehow Huil saw through all the "religion is emotional, we don't have that need, we just want to live our lives" lines and realized what we actually meant was "we worship ourselves or other people!"

Huil - please realize I'm joking. People weren't *created to be worshipers by God,* people *have an emotional need for the comfort/security/community religion provides.* It's when you take a step back and get a view of everything, you realize that every worshiper feels the same conviction that *their* God, is "the One True God" (your words) - or one of the many their religion provides.

But what's the common denominator that you get, that Dr. Mike gets, that the man in India gets, or the man sitting in a mosque in the middle east gets? I would bet - a sense of security, comfort, and community. Sure, as Dr. Mike said, sometimes you may be persecuted for your beliefs, but so what - you got the big guy upstairs on your side!

All we Atheist do is choose to fulfill our need for community, comfort, and security in other ways. I have family, I have music, I have pursuit of a career/education (student in nursing shcool). When I die I'm not concerned about harps and robes and white everywhere, I just want my wife to not be in debt and be able to get on with her life. I don't worship myself or anyone else, I raise my hands together and pretend to pray when I'm around others who do it, I'm able to sit with patients who are dying and are receiving their last rites without any problems, and interact with religious family members who have lost a loved one, again without any problems.

So yeah, Atheism isn't some cover for worshiping myself or anyone or anything else.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Petwhac said:


> Kicking and screaming?
> What kind of God would need to do that? Would need to be worshiped?


The proper question is "What kind of _person _would have to be dragged in like that?"

Because I have a sinful nature, and without some drastic move by God, I wouldn't have wanted Him in the least. (It was figurative)


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> Might I ask how you know your religious beliefs to be true?


My faith based on several elements; One of them says that God is "one" that cannot be divided into several parts, therefore we're obligated only to him. Thus, we don't worship his prophets (incidentally, there are no prophets nowadays) for they were nothing but simple "emmisaries" (that's not quite correct since they should have been better, in some aspects, than normal ones, but the difference is pretty negligible for this purpose) to motivate the ones that were obligated to God to repent, not apostles who updated the Bible.

I think that one of the major differences between us is that I neither believe/worship Jesus nor his New Testament/Gospel, as opposed to you.


----------



## Boccherini

Edward Elgar said:


> *Do you really think eternal damnation in the fires of hell is just punishment for those who do not follow Jesus? What kind of sick book is this? What about those who have never heard of Jesus? I'm guessing they won't be spared the lakes of sulphur and the devils pitchfork! Is it really a sin to be Jewish, homosexual, Native American or atheist? The authors of your book seem to think so. If you think these groups of people should be eternally punished in the next world, well, I don't need to spell it out because you know what I'd think about that.
> 
> Yes, we have punishments for crimes, but unlike your deity, we have the capacity for mercy and hope that those who sin can be rehabilitated. I'd be terrified to live in hellish nightmare-world described in your scripture!*
> 
> So because some guy didn't like some people, god killed them? And it does say "speedy destruction" which you cannot deny means death. I'm guessing they went to hell too along with the *Jews*, homosexuals, Native Americans and atheists. And for what? Getting on the wrong side of some guy? Harsh!
> 
> Wait a minute! What about the crusades?! That was a period of constant war and presumably your deity was on the side of the Christians (I presume this because you follow Jesus). So how come the holy lands are surrounded by Muslim countries? God dropped the ball that time!
> 
> By all means, give me some passages! Let's see if they justify the harrowing slaughter that this book endorses.


I don't really want to intervene in your debate with DrMike, but allow me to add that in my faith (mostly) there is *no* such thing as "eternal damnation"; even _really_ bad people who made quite a lot of evil deeds are going out from hell to a better place after a specific period. I added "mostly" in parenthesis because there were a few, quite a few, people that cannot be defined in any evil word that are going to settle in Hell for a *long* time, and many say forever. The only people I've heard that fit that sector is Jesus (@All Christians over TC: _Please_ don't take it as abusive statement) and Hitler.

By the way, when I saw Jews in your post, I don't know why, but I simply laughed.


----------



## Boccherini

Earthling said:


> Perhaps that is a debatable point (I say "perhaps" because this starts veering toward a "No True Scotsman" fallacy that one wonders if Christians _ever _existed in history). I think the bigger picture here is the danger of groupthink (and so the problem extends beyond organised religion but many utopian revolutionary types, etc.).
> 
> However, the Bible does indicate that Yahweh himself did indeed command things that don't exactly seems like "love" (unless you re-define "love"). I won't bother to quote any more passages.
> 
> The Bible has helped to produce the anti-semitism in John Chrysostom and Martin Luther, not to mention the Salem Witch Trials, and all sorts of dogmatic thinking backed up by all manner of punishments. The Bible has also helped to produce admirable heroes such as Bonhoeffer and MLK. But the reason why is that there are passages in the Bible that are violent, intolerant and contradictory passages about helping the poor and being compassionate. Both kinds of Christians are cherry picking, because *the Bible is hardly a systematic nor consistent book* (it isn't even a "book" but rather a selection of books that were chosen, tossed aside, etc. by various councils over the centuries).
> 
> Unfortunately, the history of Christianity and its practising Christians has shown that they tend to cherry pick more on the dogmatic and manichean side of things rather than any of that helping the poor stuff. On one side you've got your Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwells, and on the other, you've got your pacifist Quakers and Dorothy Days. BOTH can find justifications for their beliefs in their Bible, but BOTH are also cherry picking their favourite (and contradictory) Bible passages-- neither Dorothy Day nor Jerry Fallwell are a "true christian"-- nor anyone else, because the best one can do it highlight certain passages and ignore others. Its nothing more than trying to *confirm one's own biases and claim it has the some sort of divine decree. * Its not enough to simply say "_I_ think _______"-- one feels the need to back it up with "sacred" scripture. And unfortunately, throughout history, Christianity is made up more of Jerry Falwell mindsets rather than Dorothy Day types.


I strongly disagree with that statement. The books that Edward Elgar quoted from (Nephi, Mosiah, Jacob, Alma etc.) are Mormons', unlike the Bible, not the updated one.
And if you do think there are several contradictions in the real Bible, I'll be glad if you could show me.


----------



## Boccherini

ellll said:


> I don't *see* Divinity having anything what so ever to do with music
> 
> Now.... Organized Religion? YES .... one of the very few good things that happened from organized religion..
> 
> ellll


Don't "see", make a profound vision with, say, Bach's works.


----------



## David58117

Boccherini said:


> I strongly disagree with that statement. The books that Edward Elgar quoted from (Nephi, Mosiah, Jacob, Alma etc.) are Mormons', unlike the Bible, not the updated one.
> And *if you do think there are several contradictions in the real Bible, I'll be glad if you could show me.*


There are many websites devoted to them, knock yourself out if that's what you're after:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical Contradictions.htm


----------



## Boccherini

David58117 said:


> There are many websites devoted to them, knock yourself out if that's what you're after:
> 
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
> 
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
> 
> http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical Contradictions.htm


Wow, the infidels seem to work hard as well after all. Anyway, all contradiction are easily refuted by our commentators. You don't expect _me_ to post all answers, do you?


----------



## David58117

Boccherini said:


> Wow, the infidels seem to work hard as well after all. Anyway, all contradiction are easily refuted by our commentators. You don't expect _me_ to post all answers, do you?


There's a list that refutes each and every one of those? Please provide it. Here's another one from the same website, called "fatal bible flaws."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html


----------



## Earthling

Boccherini said:


> Wow, the infidels seem to work hard as well after all. Anyway, all contradiction are easily refuted by our commentators. You don't expect _me_ to post all answers, do you?


Well, you _did _ask.


----------



## Boccherini

David58117 said:


> There's a list that refutes each and every one of those? Please provide it. Here's another one from the same website, called "fatal bible flaws."
> 
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html


Sorry, I can't link a URL if that's what you mean, everything could be found on our books.
By the way, most of the "contradictions" you linked are quite ridiculous and superficial that any little whelp could contend with.

Examples:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

The term "light" doesn't have anything to do with the "Sun".

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

No, no, no, that's terrible rubbish! Trees indeed created before man was created, but according to GE 2:4-9, God has planted a garden in Eden (which was after man creation), but it doesn't mean those trees in this garden were the first. "Trees" were truely created before man, the garden afterwards.

That's one single explanation, but I'm pretty sure there're even more to these particular "contradictions". By the way, there _might_ be a few contradictions because of the translation.


----------



## jurianbai

remember to read the notes before the 'flaws' list. it is clearly say this list in not 'confirmed' a flaws. to me the notes simply mean the author (Donald Morgan) presented a questions that need to be answer. and here a quick search for the 'answers'

from Yahoo

or direct links :
http://www.setterfield.org/Morgan Answered.html



> As time permits, we will respond to some of his other 'problems' with the Bible, many of which involve him judging God, *taking material out of context*, not liking the way the Bible describes things (no one ever called it a "G" rated book!) and evidently purposely 'misunderstanding' material. In the long run, each person has a choice - accept or reject the truth. Morgan has, at least so far, rejected it. For the sake of some who may be confused by some of his accusations regarding the Bible, we offer the following responses.


http://www.tektonics.org/lp/morgand03.html

Taking material out of context is the most popular and lazy way to say a flaw in Bible, usually done here also. The illustration of doing this is like saying:

The Law say you are free to speech but The Law will punish if you say hate speech.
Contradicted and inconsistency, why you still live in such law?


----------



## David58117

jurianbai said:


> remember to read the notes before the 'flaws' list. it is clearly say this list in not 'confirmed' a flaws. to me the notes simply mean the author (Donald Morgan) presented a questions that need to be answer. and here a quick search for the 'answers'
> 
> from Yahoo
> 
> or direct links :
> http://www.setterfield.org/Morgan Answered.html
> 
> http://www.tektonics.org/lp/morgand03.html
> 
> Taking material out of context is the most popular and lazy way to say a flaw in Bible, usually done here also. The illustration of doing this is like saying:
> 
> The Law say you are free to speech but The Law will punish if you say hate speech.
> Contradicted and inconsistency, why you still live in such law?


What about these:

MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm.
(Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life.)

LK 1:26-38 The angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the throne of David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and that his kingdom will never end. (None of this took place nor can it now be fulfilled.)

MT 16:28, MK 9:1, LK 9:27 Jesus says that some of his listeners will not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom. This was said almost 2000 years ago.
(Note: This passage and many others indicate that Jesus was to come again in a relatively short period of time and not just "quickly" as present day Biblicists assert. All of his listeners are now dead, yet Jesus has not come again in his kingdom. All of the alleged words of Jesus put forth in the Bible are therefore suspect.)

EZ 20:25 God says that he intentionally gave out bad laws. (This means that God-given laws or commandments are sometimes suspect.)

---

OR what about this one:

MT 16:18 Jesus founds his church on Peter and will give him the keys of the kingdom.
AC 15:1-21 James presides over the first Council of Jerusalem and formulates the decree regarding the accepting of Gentiles which is sent to the other churches. (Note: Tradition has it that James was appointed as the first Bishop or Pope, not Peter.)

The website you gave simply gives:

*We disagree that Jesus founded the church on Peter in 16:18.*

But when I look at the passage, I don't see how they can just say "we disagree" - it's obviously Jesus talking...

Anyway, I don't really study the bible or care to jump into debates regarding it, I'm just looking at the websites, picking things that seem interesting


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Boccherini said:


> I added "mostly" in parenthesis because there were a few, quite a few, people that cannot be defined in any evil word that are going to settle in Hell for a *long* time, and many say forever. The only people I've heard that fit that sector is Jesus (@All Christians over TC: _Please_ don't take it as abusive statement) and Hitler.


So according to Judaism (I think that is your religion), you have been told that Jesus of Nazareth and Adolf Hitler went to Hell for eternal damnation. Did your God Yahweh decide that? Or did these two people choose to stay in Hell?

What about Muhammed (founder of Islam) and Joseph Stalin? Are they now in Heaven? I picked these two because the former was a prophet who started a whole new version of God, while Joseph Stalin was also as murderous as Hitler (but Stalin was more busy doing that with his own people).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Huilunsoittaja said:


> People were created to be worshipers. That's why even though people reject the One True God, we will still create an array of gods because of the inherent instinct within us to worship anything.


Your One True God is the real one, right? All other versions of Him and any other Gods are all wrong.

This thread is getting quite interesting now.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Your One True God is the real one, right? All other versions of Him and any other Gods are all wrong.
> 
> This thread is getting quite interesting now.


Yes. You may laugh at that, but I'm serious. I'm not a relativist nor a pluralist. All the other versions of God are false because they do not express His nature perfectly. Jesus is not the same as Allah, nor is Buddha or Vishnu, or whoever. I would explain why if that's what you wish.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Yes. You may laugh at that, but I'm serious. I'm not a relativist nor a pluralist. All the other versions of God are false because they do not express His nature perfectly. Jesus is not the same as Allah, nor is Buddha or Vishnu, or whoever. I would explain why if that's what you wish.


I'm serious, too. Please share with us your wisdom. When you suggested "all other versions of God are false", can you firstly please state which version of God you are worshipping, according to what source? Is it the God of the Old Testament?


----------



## jurianbai

David58117 said:


> What about these:
> 
> MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm.
> (Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life.)
> 
> --------------
> --------------
> 
> Anyway, I don't really study the bible or care to jump into debates regarding it, I'm just looking at the websites, picking things that seem interesting


Same here, I also not study Bible seriously and only quoting search engine. I also find out you are only copy paste from internet and actually if you do research for the opposition you will easily find the answer for these verses. Again I doubt we get to know the context of these verses by just quoting one or two verses.

Take example for your passage. Here quick search answer:

Q: In Mk 16:18, does this mention of picking up serpents justify people in Appalachia who think some are supposed to handle snakes in worship?

A: No. Even without this verse, the Bible shows that God gives Christians the protection they need, and God will perform miracles, and not just limited to immunity to snakebite, when there is need. However, even with this verse, the Bible is saying that we are not to test God by putting ourselves in a position simply to show off. 
Exodus 17:2-7; Numbers 14:22; Deuteronomy 6:16, Psalm 78:17-18, 40-41, 56-57; 95:8-9. Hezekiah is the exception that proves the rule. While Hezekiah was familiar with the concept of testing God and was not going to test God in Isaiah 7:12, it is not testing God to answer when a prophet of His asks you a question. http://www.muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers/mk.htm

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~lakolberg/transcripts/C244A.html

and autocritic to the verse that seriously taken too literally:
http://www.newtestamentchurch.org/OPA/Articles/1986/04/they_shall_take_up_serpents.htm

and my personal interpretation is , this passage was spoken from Jesus to the remaining 11 students, maybe this miracle power limited to them only, as I can interpreted 'He' to referred to the 11 students.

Meanwhile David58117 I give up respond the rest as it will take my time listening to classical music, and probably it will never answered clearly.... too much trouble for me jumping in this thread, I already said faith is personal thing.


----------



## Boccherini

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> So according to Judaism (I think that is your religion), you have been told that Jesus of Nazareth and Adolf Hitler went to Hell for eternal damnation. Did your God Yahweh decide that? Or did these two people choose to stay in Hell?
> 
> What about Muhammed (founder of Islam) and Joseph Stalin? Are they now in Heaven? I picked these two because the former was a prophet who started a whole new version of God, while Joseph Stalin was also as murderous as Hitler (but Stalin was more busy doing that with his own people).


Correct, Judaism is my religion.
I'm sorry for saying "many say forever" in the last post, it was an exaggeration. No one actually think that according to Judaism these people will be in Hell forever, as far as I know, it's simply a humane cogitation used by a few Jews. No one knows whether it's true or false, but the general attitude is everybody go to heaven. No way in "hell" that any one would like to stay in Hell. Stalin surely was a huge murderer, but I wouldn't compare him to Hitler.
By the way, Some of us tend not to call these two people in their names, especially in holy places.

As for Muhammed, again, I wouldn't compare him to Jesus, if only because he proclaimed himself as a prophet, but didn't ask for people to worship him, as opposed to Jesus.
There's a *huge* difference between Christianity and Islam, the first is Idolatry whilst the latter is not, Muslims proclaim God as their one and own, as opposed to Christians. Therefore, I'm allowed to get into a Mosque, not into a Church.


----------



## Boccherini

jurianbai said:


> Same here, I also not study Bible seriously and only quoting search engine. I also find out you are only copy paste from internet and actually if you do research for the opposition you will easily find the answer for these verses. Again I doubt we get to know the context of these verses by just quoting one or two verses.
> 
> Take example for your passage. Here quick search answer:
> 
> Q: In Mk 16:18, does this mention of picking up serpents justify people in Appalachia who think some are supposed to handle snakes in worship?
> 
> A: No. Even without this verse, *the Bible shows that God gives Christians the protection they need*, and God will perform miracles, and not just limited to immunity to snakebite, when there is need. However, even with this verse, the Bible is saying that we are not to test God by putting ourselves in a position simply to show off.
> Exodus 17:2-7; Numbers 14:22; Deuteronomy 6:16, Psalm 78:17-18, 40-41, 56-57; 95:8-9. Hezekiah is the exception that proves the rule. While Hezekiah was familiar with the concept of testing God and was not going to test God in Isaiah 7:12, it is not testing God to answer when a prophet of His asks you a question. http://www.muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers/mk.htm
> 
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/~lakolberg/transcripts/C244A.html
> 
> and autocritic to the verse that seriously taken too literally:
> http://www.newtestamentchurch.org/OPA/Articles/1986/04/they_shall_take_up_serpents.htm
> 
> and my personal interpretation is , this passage was spoken from Jesus to the remaining 11 students, maybe this miracle power limited to them only, as I can interpreted 'He' to referred to the 11 students.
> 
> Meanwhile David58117 I give up respond the rest as it will take my time listening to classical music, and probably it will never answered clearly.... too much trouble for me jumping in this thread, I already said faith is personal thing.


Could you specify what kind of Bible/Translation of the Bible are you refering to?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Boccherini said:


> Stalin surely was a huge murderer, but I wouldn't compare him to Hitler.


But I would.

Stalin's right up there with Hitler in 'body-count.' Mao too.

Pol Pot deserves special mention for slaughter-ratio, if not not actual ordinal "corpse-count." The biggest difference between him and the preceding three is that his villany was limited by the size of his country- only so many denizens to slay...


Boccherini said:


> As for Muhammed, again, I wouldn't compare him to Jesus, if only because he proclaimed himself as a prophet, but didn't ask for people to worship him, as opposed to Jesus.


Please help me clarify this. It was my belief that traditional Judaism taught that the historical Jesus was an interesting teacher- but not divine. Jehovah's Witnesses, too, argue for the non-divinity of Jesus, citing his numerous Son of Man references in the New Testament. However, _you_ seem to be saying that you take seriously Jesus' claims to Divinity, and conclude that it's charlatanism.

Is this
a) a personal conclusion,
b) a teaching of some particular sub-section of Judaism, or
c) an increasingly popular interpretation gaining traction throughout mainstream Judaism?


----------



## Guest

Chi townPhilly said:


> Stalin's right up there with Hitler in 'body-count.'


By most accounts, Stalin surpassed Hitler. To me, Stalin was much worse. At least Hitler brought his country out of the depression and made them a superpower; Stalin only dug his country further into famine and poverty.


----------



## David58117

jurianbai said:


> Same here, I also not study Bible seriously and only quoting search engine. *I also find out you are only copy paste from internet and actually if you do research for the opposition you will easily find the answer for these verses. Again I doubt we get to know the context of these verses by just quoting one or two verses.
> *


No - this is not what I'm doing. I am verifying these with an independent bible, I'm not just cutting/pasting 1-2 passages from a website. I'm sitting here with a bible, finding the passage mentioned, and reading back to try to get some context of the passage.



jurianbai said:


> and my personal interpretation is , this passage was spoken from Jesus to the remaining 11 students, maybe this miracle power limited to them only, as I can interpreted 'He' to referred to the 11 students.


Oh ok, you added your own "limited time only" clause to it. Crafty my friend, very crafty.

Anyway, I think I'm done with the bible. I've looked up a few "controversial passage explanations" and there's too much "yeah it says that, but what it REALLY means is..." while calling up 10 different passages that explain why a statement as clear as "this cat is blue" really means "there's a dog barking over there."

And then I get to this:

"Peter, James, and John received a vision of the future kingdom and glory of Christ. They saw Him coming in His kingdom. It was to this event that Peter referred when he said, "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount." (2 Peter 1:16-18). These three men were eyewitnesses of the majesty of "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." What a glorious opportunity they had! What a glorious testimony they give!"

No offense, but - have you ever been around anyone with a mental health disorder? We've done rotations in mental health units, and these quotations strike a little too close to certain claims made by patients within the units we've been in...

I'm impressed by the amount of faith people have in those who received the visions, the voices, etc. Why is it that these people are taken to be 100% mentally fit, free of delusions, or attraction to grandiose claims?


----------



## Petwhac

This debate is going nowhere because the minds of 'believers' are closed and locked tight.
The scriptures upon which they base their faith are documents with no foundation in fact, untestable, unsubstantiated.

They have no answer except "God said so" or "it is written".

The various religious communities have, over the centuries been forced to accept certain facts such as, the Earth is not the centre of the universe, the earth is around 4 billion years old.
The bible talks of the firmament, a term to describe the stars in the sky. It was called the firmament because the ancient people who wrote the bible were ignorant of the fact that that everything in the universe is in motion. There is no such thing as absolute rest. 

Science works in two ways. One way is to postulate a hypothesis and to then make certain predictions and see if they come true and thus determine if the hypothesis was accurate. The other is to formulate a theory, which is a framework or set of principles that can explain what is already observed. The theory can also be tested by making predictions and seeing if the results match up.

Darwin and Einstein both came up with theories to explain what was already observed and over many many years of testing and measuring and predicting their theories have been proven. Not every aspect or detail, but many general principals such as evolution by natural selection and e=mc2 have been proved many times.

No religion is able to make a prediction that is testable because it requires the tester to be dead. 

You'll go to Hell if you do this, Heaven if you do that. But to find out if this is true you are going to have to be dead.


Come on

The 'believer' is probably willing to take the advice of a scientist in say a court of law where a murderer is on trial and the DNA 'fingerprinting' evidence makes it billions to one that the suspect is guilty or not guilty.

But the very same DNA has revealed in the last 20 or so years that we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor from about 6 million years ago. And if you care to go further back we also share a common ancestor with a fish, a cabbage, a worm and in fact every living organism on earth.

If there was a creator then he did his work billions of years ago and the rest has taken care of itself.

The species to which we belong, homo sapiens sapiens, emerged from equatorial Africa only about 150,000 years ago. We are all cousins.

This is fact. 

Religions are useful sometimes, often inspiring, controlling, comforting.They teach compassion, intolerance, mercy, retribution, fear or endurance.

The 'faithful' are actually atheists when it comes to Thor or Wodin or Ra or any God but the one they chose or were brought up to believe in.

Why not go one God further. Release yourself from the primitive superstitions that you are taught in ancient scriptures written by homophobic, misogynistic, racist, intolerant 'prophets'.


----------



## Boccherini

Chi_townPhilly said:


> But I would.
> 
> Stalin's right up there with Hitler in 'body-count.' Mao too.
> 
> Pol Pot deserves special mention for slaughter-ratio, if not not actual ordinal "corpse-count." The biggest difference between him and the preceding three is that his villany was limited by the size of his country- only so many denizens to slay...
> Please help me clarify this. It was my belief that traditional Judaism taught that the historical Jesus was an interesting teacher- but not divine. Jehovah's Witnesses, too, argue for the non-divinity of Jesus, citing his numerous Son of Man references in the New Testament. However, _you_ seem to be saying that you take seriously Jesus' claims to Divinity, and conclude that it's charlatanism.
> 
> Is this
> a) a personal conclusion,
> b) a teaching of some particular sub-section of Judaism, or
> c) an increasingly popular interpretation gaining traction throughout mainstream Judaism?


First of all, I'm not sure if it's proper to compare Mao or Stalin to Hitler, even though they've overtaken in body-count, since the 'way' they have murdered cannot be compared to Hitler's in any aspect. Therefore, I would neither compare Pol Pot for the same reason.

Secondly, Jehovah's Witnesses did argue for the non-divinity of Jesus, but as you said, cited references in the New Testament for they were millenarian restorationinsts of Chirstianity, not Jews if that what you've been thinking (?). The only apprehension I have with Jesus' claims is the same as I concluded, complete charlatanism.

Thus, I wouldn't say the answer is "a" nor "b", but not quite "c" as well since it doesn't gain any traction because it's on its "highest level", but yes, it is surely the mainstream of Judaism, complete charlatanism that doesn't have anything to do with God's wills, but quite the opposite.

@All Christians over TC: Once again and from now on, please don't take my perception of anything that have to do with Jesus as abusive statements.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I'm serious, too. Please share with us your wisdom. When you suggested "all other versions of God are false", can you firstly please state which version of God you are worshipping, according to what source? Is it the God of the Old Testament?


True. I'm sorry, I didn't really make myself clear. I am a Christian.

I'll give you some reasons why Christianity is different from all other religions.

1. It's the only religion out there that proclaims that its God actually made himself weak, even in the form of a man, in order to raise up those he will save.
2. It's the only religion where the follower does _nothing_ to gain salvation. The regeneration, the faith, and even the good works all come from the Holy Spirit, which God imparts to his elect. True, many Christians believe that it takes good works to get into Heaven, but that is Biblically false. The book of Galatians is all about that.
3. It's the only religion where God actually desires to have a personal relationship with his people, like a Father towards his children.


----------



## Guest

Boccherini said:


> First of all, I'm not sure if it's proper to compare Mao or Stalin to Hitler, even though they've overtaken in body-count, since the 'way' they have murdered cannot be compared to Hitler's in any aspect. Therefore, I would neither compare Pol Pot for the same reason.
> 
> Secondly, Jehovah's Witnesses did argue for the non-divinity of Jesus, but as you said, cited references in the New Testament for they were millenarian restorationinsts of Chirstianity, not Jews if that what you've been thinking (?). The only apprehension I have with Jesus' claims is the same as I concluded, complete charlatanism.
> 
> Thus, I wouldn't say the answer is "a" nor "b", but not quite "c" as well since it doesn't gain any traction because it's on its "highest level", but yes, it is surely the mainstream of Judaism, complete charlatanism that doesn't have anything to do with God's wills, but quite the opposite.
> 
> @All Christians over TC: Once again and from now on, please don't take my perception of anything that have to do with Jesus as abusive statements.


Why can't Stalin or Pol Pot be compared to Hitler? Hitler is so much worse because he particularly was interested in killing Jews? To claim that they are different nor not as bad is to imply that the life of a Jew is more sacred than any other life. I refuse to believe that Stalin and Pol Pot were somehow less bad simply because they were less discriminating in who they were trying to eliminate.

And even given your belief that Jesus was a charlatan, to suggest that the worst punishments would be reserved for people like Hitler and Jesus, but not Stalin or Pol Pot, kind of strains the limits of credibility. Is this actual Jewish teaching, or your own personal belief? From your perspective, Jesus was a charlatan. But surely there were others that Jews also considered charlatans that claimed the title of messiah. Surely they would then also inherit this same fate? Or is it just, in your eyes, because Jesus was the most successful?


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> This debate is going nowhere because the minds of 'believers' are closed and locked tight.
> The scriptures upon which they base their faith are documents with no foundation in fact, untestable, unsubstantiated.
> 
> They have no answer except "God said so" or "it is written".
> 
> The various religious communities have, over the centuries been forced to accept certain facts such as, the Earth is not the centre of the universe, the earth is around 4 billion years old.
> The bible talks of the firmament, a term to describe the stars in the sky. It was called the firmament because the ancient people who wrote the bible were ignorant of the fact that that everything in the universe is in motion. There is no such thing as absolute rest.
> 
> Science works in two ways. One way is to postulate a hypothesis and to then make certain predictions and see if they come true and thus determine if the hypothesis was accurate. The other is to formulate a theory, which is a framework or set of principles that can explain what is already observed. The theory can also be tested by making predictions and seeing if the results match up.
> 
> Darwin and Einstein both came up with theories to explain what was already observed and over many many years of testing and measuring and predicting their theories have been proven. Not every aspect or detail, but many general principals such as evolution by natural selection and e=mc2 have been proved many times.
> 
> No religion is able to make a prediction that is testable because it requires the tester to be dead.
> 
> You'll go to Hell if you do this, Heaven if you do that. But to find out if this is true you are going to have to be dead.
> 
> Come on
> 
> The 'believer' is probably willing to take the advice of a scientist in say a court of law where a murderer is on trial and the DNA 'fingerprinting' evidence makes it billions to one that the suspect is guilty or not guilty.
> 
> But the very same DNA has revealed in the last 20 or so years that we and chimpanzees share a common ancestor from about 6 million years ago. And if you care to go further back we also share a common ancestor with a fish, a cabbage, a worm and in fact every living organism on earth.
> 
> If there was a creator then he did his work billions of years ago and the rest has taken care of itself.
> 
> The species to which we belong, homo sapiens sapiens, emerged from equatorial Africa only about 150,000 years ago. We are all cousins.
> 
> This is fact.
> 
> Religions are useful sometimes, often inspiring, controlling, comforting.They teach compassion, intolerance, mercy, retribution, fear or endurance.
> 
> The 'faithful' are actually atheists when it comes to Thor or Wodin or Ra or any God but the one they chose or were brought up to believe in.
> 
> Why not go one God further. Release yourself from the primitive superstitions that you are taught in ancient scriptures written by homophobic, misogynistic, racist, intolerant 'prophets'.


The faithful are atheists because they don't believe in Thor or Wodin or Ra? No, they are monotheists. Atheism literally means the belief in no god. So the second you believe in at least one god automatically excludes atheism. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are monotheists. This statement of yours is simply wrong.

You also don't understand the definition of "theory." Yes, a theory has much more weight than an hypothesis, as it has withstood much scientific testing. However, proven is a strong word here. Proven would make it a "law." There are several scientific laws that have been proven. There are several scientific "theories" that are backed by significant evidence, but not quite proven.

Take your specific example - chimpanzees and humans. You stated that they are our closest living relative, having diverged some 6 million years ago. How is this proven? There is circumstantial evidence - based on analysis of the genomes, the genetic identity is the closest to any other animal. But we have not found a common ancestor to link us together. Essentially, we compare genomes, and the ones that have more of their genomes in common are said to be more closely related. You really want it to be true, and maybe it is. But it is far from proven.

And your argument about "firmament" is perhaps the flimsiest of all. Firmament is an English word. The Bible was not written in English. Much of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, once it was written down. Later, possibly Aramaic. At some point, as Greek became the dominant language of the Mediterranean, after Alexander conquered much of it, then some enterprising people translated the books of the Old Testament into Greek, probably so the Alexandrian Jews of the diaspora could read in a language they knew. Still later, it got translated into other languages. Our English "firmament" came from the Latin firmamentum, or "a support or strengthening." However, the Hebrew word that was used was raqia, which could mean both the vault of the sky and the floor of the earth, or "expanse." It is probably derived from the Hebrew word raqa, which means "to spread out." So your argument here about the ignorance of the Old Testament authors and proof that they new nothing of the universe hinges on an inaccurate translation by people who came along centuries, or even thousands of years later. Most people who read the Bible are aware of issues like this. Different languages do not always easily translate from one to the other, and often the judgment of the translator can unintentionally cause subtle changes in the meaning. This is one reason why there are always ongoing efforts to find earlier and earlier manuscripts of biblical writings, to gain greater insight into what the original texts (which we don't have) said.

Since those weighing in here on the atheist side of the fence like to point out how intransigent we religious types are, and how irrational we are in our faith in things that cannot be scientifically proven, I invite you to share with me your proof for your accepted belief in the origin of life, and for macro-evolution. The stuff that has convinced you. Because it can't be based on just plausible possibilities, rather hard evidence. So, whether you believe that life was transplanted here from an extraterrestrial source (on a comet, or meteor, or something else), or emerged from lifelessness in the ancient conditions that existed on this earth. Tell me how you know we all descended from a common source, or at least from a limited number of sources. Or even just give me the proof that chimpanzees and humans evolved from the same common source. What was that common ancestor? Where are the remains? Is it only circumstantial? Can you provide evidence for a common ancestor for the plant and animal kingdoms? Explain to me what the evidence threshold is for people who claim allegiance to logic and reason to believe things, and who reject faith and religion.


----------



## jurianbai

David58117 said:


> No - this is not what I'm doing. I am verifying these with an independent bible, I'm not just cutting/pasting 1-2 passages from a website. I'm sitting here with a bible, finding the passage mentioned, and reading back to try to get some context of the passage.
> 
> Oh ok, you added your own "limited time only" clause to it. Crafty my friend, very crafty.
> 
> Anyway, I think I'm done with the bible. I've looked up a few "controversial passage explanations" and there's too much "yeah it says that, but what it REALLY means is..." while calling up 10 different passages that explain why a statement as clear as "this cat is blue" really means "there's a dog barking over there."


exactly, the arguments giving to me is the bible has a cultural, language and contextual gap to present time. although your example is satiristic but i am afraid I stick to that. just like I posted earlier, when say today's Law allowed freedom of speech, but..errh not really freedom of speech, and need a whole wikipedia page to define 'freedom'.

Never I intended to be crafty. the flow of discussion here is, you present a verses and then in a minute I found answer on the net, so haven't really convincing to me to get why it is a problem.



> And then I get to this:
> 
> "Peter, James, and John received a vision of the future kingdom and glory of Christ. They saw Him coming in His kingdom. It was to this event that Peter referred when he said, "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount." (2 Peter 1:16-18). These three men were eyewitnesses of the majesty of "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." What a glorious opportunity they had! What a glorious testimony they give!"
> 
> No offense, but - have you ever been around anyone with a mental health disorder? We've done rotations in mental health units, and these quotations strike a little too close to certain claims made by patients within the units we've been in...
> 
> I'm impressed by the amount of faith people have in those who received the visions, the voices, etc. Why is it that these people are taken to be 100% mentally fit, free of delusions, or attraction to grandiose claims?


maybe because the guys see many miracles with Jesus? that's why they shouting a mental disorder-like statement. I never been to mental assylum before... sorry. But I have been around in Singapore and rest of SE Asia where Chinese paranormal able to do supernatural thingy, there is a lot of community statement similar to that, like how they can cure disease, put a curse to enemy, raising charm, perform body torturing in religious event without being hurt. Actually I will be glad if those guys to be listed as mentally unfit.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Huilunsoittaja said:


> True. I'm sorry, I didn't really make myself clear. I am a Christian.
> 
> I'll give you some reasons why Christianity is different from all other religions.
> 
> 1. It's the only religion out there that proclaims that its God actually made himself weak, even in the form of a man, in order to raise up those he will save.
> 2. It's the only religion where the follower does _nothing_ to gain salvation. The regeneration, the faith, and even the good works all come from the Holy Spirit, which God imparts to his elect. True, many Christians believe that it takes good works to get into Heaven, but that is Biblically false. The book of Galatians is all about that.
> 3. It's the only religion where God actually desires to have a personal relationship with his people, like a Father towards his children.


You are saying God created man and the universe out of love for man, desires to have a good relationship with man but God is very humble about it, and even forgives man even if man does nothing to gain salvation.

I'm glad to see that, then. That's because even as I don't believe there is a God, but I do personally believe in doing good to fellow humans, thus I will end up in Heaven anyway when I die. It's so easy! All I have to behave is do good when I'm alive (because I want to, not because of religion), and eternal bliss is rest assured! So, who really needs religion? Most people want to do good, out of instinct anyway. Don't you?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> Since those weighing in here on the atheist side of the fence like to point out how intransigent we religious types are, and how irrational we are in our faith in things that cannot be scientifically proven, I invite you to share with me your proof for your accepted belief in the origin of life, and for macro-evolution. The stuff that has convinced you. Because it can't be based on just plausible possibilities, rather hard evidence. So, whether you believe that life was transplanted here from an extraterrestrial source (on a comet, or meteor, or something else), or emerged from lifelessness in the ancient conditions that existed on this earth. Tell me how you know we all descended from a common source, or at least from a limited number of sources. Or even just give me the proof that chimpanzees and humans evolved from the same common source. What was that common ancestor? Where are the remains? Is it only circumstantial? Can you provide evidence for a common ancestor for the plant and animal kingdoms? Explain to me what the evidence threshold is for people who claim allegiance to logic and reason to believe things, and who reject faith and religion.


Science has come a long, long way to provide many answers, but obviously not all answers to the questions we have. Many of the accepted answers were rigorously proven mathematically but many were verified with statistical confidence and/or experimentally, pointing only to a general direction of answer. While nobody may rigorously prove that chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common source, or man got HIV-1 from chimpanzees, science will provide key insights to many questions surrounding that, if not direct answers.

Religion does not. HIV-1 is not a disease sent by God to damn homosexuals who commit sodomy, sexually promiscuous people and intravenous drug users. Science does not prejudice people, religion often does. Some who worship God as per Judaism even believe that Jesus of Nazareth is in Hell, despite having the same/similar God as the God of Joseph Smith Jr.

An eminent physicist, Steve Weinberg, said: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; *but for good people to do evil-that takes religion*".


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Boccherini said:


> First of all, I'm not sure if it's proper to compare Mao or Stalin to Hitler, even though they've overtaken in body-count, since the 'way' they have murdered cannot be compared to Hitler's in any aspect. Therefore, I would neither compare Pol Pot for the same reason.


If following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, can you see where this would go? Perhaps one would say that being motivated by power lust to enact policies responsible for the death of 35 million people is »less bad« than being motivated by prejudicial hate to enact policies responsible for the death of 25 million people. That somehow one gets more than 10 million corpses "extra-credit" for being animated by the less impure motive!?

I think the most measured thing I can say in repsonse to such a contention is that I don't share that viewpoint...


----------



## michael walsh

Thank you ? Peters. It certainly stimulated debate and some wonderful comment. This sadly is interpreted by some as being provocative. The dissemination and free flow of information for some is an expression, that is all. I did in fact stop posting because some of my work, already out there in the public domain, had been blue pencilled here. Thanks for your comments. Michael.


----------



## Elgarian

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Science does not prejudice people, religion often does.


The problem lies not with science and/or religion as such, but with fundamentalism. The problems arise from the intolerance that's generated by fundamentalism of all kinds - and there are plenty of advocates of scientific fundamentalism ('scientism') whose intolerance is just as frightening as that of any Biblical literalist. The scientific fundamentalist, in his ignorance of the philosophy of science (and therefore with no understanding of the limitations of his own position), attacks the religious straw man of his own creation without a proper understanding of the nature of the religious impulse, or of its value. The religious fundamentalist, locked in his false certainties, and with no understanding of the true strengths and weaknesses of the scientific position, equally generates a lot of heat and no light.

_All _kinds of fundamentalism, whether scientific or religious, breed prejudice, intolerance, and hostility. The person who claims to know _for certain_ is the person whose opinion should most be doubted. The one conclusion we can be sure of, on which philosophers as wide-ranging as Socrates, Hume, and Popper are agreed, is that we know so little.

Put the following people in the same room: a Christian (or Muslim) who lives the Christian (or Muslim) life because of the meaning he finds in doing so, regardless of divergencies of opinion about the interpretation of the Bible (or Koran); a physicist who has doubts about what quantum mechanics really means; and a biologist who has some understanding of the philosophical implications of the scientific process that he engages in. The chances are high that between them we'd get a _real_ discussion, and _real_ increase of mutual understanding, instead of the near-thermonuclear warfare these exchanges usually lead to in threads like this.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Elgarian said:


> ... instead of the near-thermonuclear warfare these exchanges usually lead to in threads like this.


Well, as a moderator, you can play God - just lock this thread. 

No more from me here. I'm back to discussing Handel.


----------



## Boccherini

Huilunsoittaja said:


> True. I'm sorry, I didn't really make myself clear. I am a Christian.
> 
> I'll give you some reasons why Christianity is different from all other religions.
> 
> 1. It's the only religion out there that proclaims that its God actually made himself weak, even in the form of a man, in order to raise up those he will save.
> 2. It's the only religion where the follower does _nothing_ to gain salvation. The regeneration, the faith, and even the good works all come from the Holy Spirit, which God imparts to his elect. True, many Christians believe that it takes good works to get into Heaven, but that is Biblically false. The book of Galatians is all about that.
> *3. It's the only religion where God actually desires to have a personal relationship with his people, like a Father towards his children.*


If I understood "personal relationship" correctly, you're wrong, Judaism is also based on the fact that God is our Father in all respects, and it doesn't matter whether we do what we've told or not. How'd you define "his people" to use your words, everybody or just the obedient? Does your God desires to have a relationship with the ones who'll have an eternal hell? I pray 3 times a day, you're just once a week, as far as I know; You don't have as much commandments/obligations as I have; If I was a neutral person, I would have thought my (as a religious) personal relationship with God is even greater.


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> Why can't Stalin or Pol Pot be compared to Hitler? Hitler is so much worse because he particularly was interested in killing Jews? To claim that they are different nor not as bad is to imply that the life of a Jew is more sacred than any other life. I refuse to believe that Stalin and Pol Pot were somehow less bad simply because they were less discriminating in who they were trying to eliminate.
> 
> And even given your belief that Jesus was a charlatan, to suggest that the worst punishments would be reserved for people like Hitler and Jesus, but not Stalin or Pol Pot, kind of strains the limits of credibility. Is this actual Jewish teaching, or your own personal belief? From your perspective, Jesus was a charlatan. But surely there were others that Jews also considered charlatans that claimed the title of messiah. Surely they would then also inherit this same fate? Or is it just, in your eyes, because Jesus was the most successful?


Ouch, I knew people would like to elaborate that point...

No, Hitler isn't worse than Stalin and Pol Pot because he was particularly interested in killed Jews, of course not. I don't know why you concluded that way after I literally said that Hitler is worse because of his *way* of murdering people (not only Jews) was completely horrible and inhuman which, I said again, cannot be compared to others. *The Holocaust was definitely the worst event of humanity in all history*, speaking objectively. If you have a problem with the bolded text, it's another thing which I don't really think I could add much except suggesting you to read books and watch videos on that issue.

Once again, the fact that Jesus and Hitler have the worst punishment, doesn't have anything to do with my religion, it's nothing but human speculations trying to describe these two' implications, it's not written somewhere in our books. The fact that we're not obligated to Jesus is mostly because of the Jewish education to worship only God. Therefore, everyone simply concludes that Jesus and his Gospel is not our way, and the speculation of an eternal hell is absolutely *not* part of the education, indeed.

Yes, The people that speculate that Jesus will be in hell forever and not another messiah for example, don't necessarily do it because he was the most successful, but as a result of his success. I'm pretty sure you know what am I talking about.

As for me, the only thing I know is there's no eternal hell, whoever is the person that might be.


----------



## Boccherini

Chi_townPhilly said:


> If following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, can you see where this would go? Perhaps one would say that being motivated by power lust to enact policies responsible for the death of 35 million people is »less bad« than being motivated by prejudicial hate to enact policies responsible for the death of 25 million people. That somehow one gets more than 10 million corpses "extra-credit" for being animated by the less impure motive!?
> 
> I think the most measured thing I can say in repsonse to such a contention is that I don't share that viewpoint...


It doesn't have a logical conclusion since 1 human plus another one doesn't equal 2, the whole formula is quite irrational.


----------



## Guest

Boccherini said:


> Ouch, I knew people would like to elaborate that point...
> 
> No, Hitler isn't worse than Stalin and Pol Pot because he was particularly interested in killed Jews, of course not. I don't know why you concluded that way after I literally said that Hitler is worse because of his *way* of murdering people (not only Jews) was completely horrible and inhuman which, I said again, cannot be compared to others. *The Holocaust was definitely the worst event of humanity in all history*, speaking objectively. If you have a problem with the bolded text, it's another thing which I don't really think I could add much except suggesting you to read books and watch videos on that issue.
> 
> Once again, the fact that Jesus and Hitler have the worst punishment, doesn't have anything to do with my religion, it's nothing but human speculations trying to describe these two' implications, it's not written somewhere in our books. The fact that we're not obligated to Jesus is mostly because of the Jewish education to worship only God. Therefore, everyone simply concludes that Jesus and his Gospel is not our way, and the speculation of an eternal hell is absolutely *not* part of the education, indeed.
> 
> Yes, The people that speculate that Jesus will be in hell forever and not another messiah for example, don't necessarily do it because he was the most successful, but as a result of his success. I'm pretty sure you know what am I talking about.
> 
> As for me, the only thing I know is there's no eternal hell, whoever is the person that might be.


I'm sorry, but totally disregarding any religious aspect, how can you claim that the Holocaust is the worst event in human history? Hitler butchered innocents in inhuman ways. He is not unique. Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime didn't merely murder people, they often tortured them mercilessly prior to killing them. What of Saddam Hussein's torture rooms and mass graves?

Hitler's actions are perhaps some of the most widely known, because the Nazis were defeated and evidence of their crimes were immediately documented. Yes, it was horrible, but to say that there have been others who have done just as horrendous things does not take away from the heinousness of his crimes.

But you simply destroy any credibility for your argument to lump Jesus together with Hitler. By your claims, Jesus was a charlatan. Hitler was a mass murderer. Stalin and Pol Pot were mass murderers. How is being a charlatan on par with being a mass murderer? On how is a charlatan on par with a mass murderer, but other mass murderers aren't quite so bad? You say Hitler is really bad because of the way that he killed. So being a charlatan is on par with only the most wicked of mass murderers, while other mass murderers are better than charlatans? In some kind of hierarchy of wickedness, you put Hitler and Jesus at the bottom, and Stalin and Pol Pot somewhere above them? I'd hate to hear where common thieves fall in that spectrum. I'm not meaning to be facetious here, because your characterization really kind of defies any kind of logical division of severity of crimes.


----------



## Guest

Boccherini said:


> It doesn't have a logical conclusion since 1 human plus another one doesn't equal 2, the whole formula is quite irrational.


1 innocent human plus another innocent human does equal 2 innocent people, whether killed by Hitler or Stalin. And to my knowledge, Jesus was not reported to have killed anybody.


----------



## Elgarian

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Well, as a moderator, you can play God - just lock this thread.


1. I'm not a moderator.
2. My advocacy of genuinely informed discussion, leading to mutual understanding and tolerance, seems a long way removed from the idea of locking threads!


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Science has come a long, long way to provide many answers, but obviously not all answers to the questions we have. Many of the accepted answers were rigorously proven mathematically but many were verified with statistical confidence and/or experimentally, pointing only to a general direction of answer. While nobody may rigorously prove that chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common source, or man got HIV-1 from chimpanzees, science will provide key insights to many questions surrounding that, if not direct answers.
> 
> Religion does not. HIV-1 is not a disease sent by God to damn homosexuals who commit sodomy, sexually promiscuous people and intravenous drug users. Science does not prejudice people, religion often does. Some who worship God as per Judaism even believe that Jesus of Nazareth is in Hell, despite having the same/similar God as the God of Joseph Smith Jr.
> 
> An eminent physicist, Steve Weinberg, said: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; *but for good people to do evil-that takes religion*".


I see - so science gives you enough tantalizing answers to warrant your believing all the grand claims made by it. Don't get me wrong - I am a scientist by training and profession. I am aware that some things have more evidence to back up their claims than others. I accept evolution as a real phenomenon. But where it all gets fuzzy for me is the power of this theory to explain the entire course of life on this planet.

Science does prejudice people. All information that we take in prejudices us in some potential way. Prejudice is not monopolized by religion. I have read numerous comments in this thread alone from people who claim atheism and pronounce their allegiance to logic, reason, and the scientific method, who have voiced some very prejudiced comments about religious people. Your Weinberg quote was an example of prejudice - that only religion can make people do evil contrary to their nature. That is ludicrous.

When you consider science, and a strict adherence to it, what is evil? Isn't evil a construct of emotion and non-scientific analysis? What is death to nature? Things die. That always happens. Things die on massive scales - look at the dinosaurs. Was that evil to nature? Many people consider animal experimentation to be evil. Scientists often use it to further their studies. If only religion can make good people do evil things, does that mean that all scientists that experiment on animals must be evil by nature, or that all scientists that experiment with animals must be either evil by nature, or for those who are good by nature, must be religious, and it is their religion, not science, that drew them into animal experimentation?

Weinberg may be a brilliant physicist, but clearly this comment of his was extremely prejudiced by his strict adherence to science and perception of religion being anathema to that. His hyperbole is in no way proof of concept. It also makes it quite easy to always support his assertion by simply claiming that any person who did something evil, without religious motivation, clearly must have been evil in the first place.

But what about the corollary, then? If we are to accept that for a good person to do evil, that takes religion, then it implies that religion is able to make a person act contrary to their nature. Is it only one way? Can religion only make good people do evil? Or can it also make evil people do good? For all non-religious people, are they locked into their nature, and cannot change? Without religion, can good people only do good? Can evil people only do evil?

And what is evil? From where do we derive that concept? From science? Nature? As I mentioned before, death is amoral as far as science is concerned. Death is essential to evolution - it is the process by which inferior traits are eliminated from a population or gene pool. It is a purely human construct. If I were to go out and selectively pick out an individual that was sick or impaired in some way and kill that person, I would be evil. If a lion selects out the weakest of a herd to kill, we don't call that evil. You can come up with a number of reasons why it is different for the lion - it is a matter of survival, it is acting on instinct, etc. But humans can also come up with any number of rationalizations for their actions as well. Why does the lion's survival outweigh the right to that other animal to survive? Is evil scientifically quantifiable? If we excuse the actions of other animals as merely them acting according to their nature and instincts, performing things that have been ingrained into them through evolution as a way to perpetuate their species, then why are not humans also judged in the same way? If they are merely the most advanced of the genetic offspring of that first life that emerged on this planet, why are they not also simply free to act upon whatever their natural impulses are, regardless of how it impacts others, without being judged as evil or good? Why should we have judgmental concepts like murder? Does a lion murder? Does a fish murder? When one animal takes food that another acquired, do we condemn that animal as a thief? Should we merely let humans act out their instincts, whatever they are, and allow evolution to continue along? Are diseases and defects merely the price we pay of living in this world, and should we bother trying to correct or cure them, when they might reflect traits that are not beneficial to the species in the long run?

Or is there something different about us? And where does it come from? Why should we care about these things beyond our own individual survival? Can we simply explain all these differences away with evolutionary theory? Do other species contemplate the morality of their actions? Given enough time, will a lion ever start to contemplate whether his actions are moral?


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> The faithful are atheists because they don't believe in Thor or Wodin or Ra? No, they are monotheists. Atheism literally means the belief in no god. So the second you believe in at least one god automatically excludes atheism. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are monotheists. This statement of yours is simply wrong.
> 
> You also don't understand the definition of "theory." Yes, a theory has much more weight than an hypothesis, as it has withstood much scientific testing. However, proven is a strong word here. Proven would make it a "law." There are several scientific laws that have been proven. There are several scientific "theories" that are backed by significant evidence, but not quite proven.
> 
> Take your specific example - chimpanzees and humans. You stated that they are our closest living relative, having diverged some 6 million years ago. How is this proven? There is circumstantial evidence - based on analysis of the genomes, the genetic identity is the closest to any other animal. But we have not found a common ancestor to link us together. Essentially, we compare genomes, and the ones that have more of their genomes in common are said to be more closely related. You really want it to be true, and maybe it is. But it is far from proven.
> 
> And your argument about "firmament" is perhaps the flimsiest of all. Firmament is an English word. The Bible was not written in English. Much of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, once it was written down. Later, possibly Aramaic. At some point, as Greek became the dominant language of the Mediterranean, after Alexander conquered much of it, then some enterprising people translated the books of the Old Testament into Greek, probably so the Alexandrian Jews of the diaspora could read in a language they knew. Still later, it got translated into other languages. Our English "firmament" came from the Latin firmamentum, or "a support or strengthening." However, the Hebrew word that was used was raqia, which could mean both the vault of the sky and the floor of the earth, or "expanse." It is probably derived from the Hebrew word raqa, which means "to spread out." So your argument here about the ignorance of the Old Testament authors and proof that they new nothing of the universe hinges on an inaccurate translation by people who came along centuries, or even thousands of years later. Most people who read the Bible are aware of issues like this. Different languages do not always easily translate from one to the other, and often the judgment of the translator can unintentionally cause subtle changes in the meaning. This is one reason why there are always ongoing efforts to find earlier and earlier manuscripts of biblical writings, to gain greater insight into what the original texts (which we don't have) said.
> 
> Since those weighing in here on the atheist side of the fence like to point out how intransigent we religious types are, and how irrational we are in our faith in things that cannot be scientifically proven, I invite you to share with me your proof for your accepted belief in the origin of life, and for macro-evolution. The stuff that has convinced you. Because it can't be based on just plausible possibilities, rather hard evidence. So, whether you believe that life was transplanted here from an extraterrestrial source (on a comet, or meteor, or something else), or emerged from lifelessness in the ancient conditions that existed on this earth. Tell me how you know we all descended from a common source, or at least from a limited number of sources. Or even just give me the proof that chimpanzees and humans evolved from the same common source. What was that common ancestor? Where are the remains? Is it only circumstantial? Can you provide evidence for a common ancestor for the plant and animal kingdoms? Explain to me what the evidence threshold is for people who claim allegiance to logic and reason to believe things, and who reject faith and religion.


I see you used the phrase 'plausible possibilities, rather than hard evidence'.

Would you kindly explain how you come to the decision that the existence of a supernatural, all knowing, all seeing God who demands to be worshipped, who's words or intentions were written and down translated and mistranslated many times and for whom there is absolutely no hard or soft evidence, is a more plausible possibility than evolution by natural selection?
I'm no expert on science or religion but I know which seems more plausible.
If you or your God would care to show me something or do something that would help me lean towards your view. I'm waiting. Ah, I just have to have faith I suppose.

The existence of your God is far more implausible than the idea that we share a common ancestor with chimps. Is it not true that artificial selection can produce great changes in a matter of decades? I believe this is proven in practice. So is it not very plausible that over many millions of years we could have diverged from our chimp/human like ancestor?

The mountains of data that help to explain natural phenomena are growing daily, and lo and behold they don't contain the notion of God. Why do you think that is?

If a new piece of evidence emerges or is discovered that reliably refutes the theory of evolution then that theory will be thrown out. As was the notion of the 'ether' as a necessary medium for light to travel through.

Every time yet another piece of evidence comes to light which casts doubt on the veracity of someones holy books. The believers, discredit or dismiss the evidence.
It is you who are intransigent.

Nothing in life can be proven. As you say, it is about probabilities.
Do you have ONE good reason that monotheism or theism or deism or pantheism should be regarded as a more rational standpoint than atheism.

As a layman (in science and religion) although I can not feel myself to be in motion. When it is explained to me why it is that although I can't feel it I am none the less sitting on a spinning rock flying around the galaxy. I know that a lot of experimenting, measuring and calculating has been carried out by dedicated people. I also know that if I am really dubious I could go and study astrophysics and mathematics and 'see for myself' what the experts tell me.
After weighing things up I've decided that the physics community are probably correct in their assertion.

I've never heard or read anything from any 'faith' that would lead me to conclude anything apart from the fact that they are superstitious, divisive and unreliable belief systems.
Oh except that some faiths say it is better to be nice to one another and treat each other well.

My mind is not closed. I would give up everything I believe and follow the true path of God if someone somewhere sometime could give me ONE GOOD REASON why.
If there is a God who wants his little creatures to believe in and obey him. Perhaps he could do us the courtesy of existing. When's the last time he appeared? In public? Spoke to a 'prophet'? Since we have developed instant global communication? Since we've had cameras, sound recording? NO indeed. Only to ancient superstitious peoples. Funny that.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Petwhac said:


> Do you have ONE good reason that monotheism or theism or deism or pantheism should be regarded as a more rational standpoint than atheism.


I have a few... but let's start with the "causality argument:"

The hinge of the "causality argument" is


> *There cannot be an infinite regress to the current causes of existence.* from GEISLER


With me so far? (It's a "yes/no" choice. Do you grant this premise, or reject it? Please answer succinctly.)


----------



## Petwhac

Reject.
Succinct enough?

Even if I accepted it, it would not imply, let alone prove 
the existence of a god like the one you believe in.
Are you with me?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> And what is evil? From where do we derive that concept? From science? Nature? As I mentioned before, death is amoral as far as science is concerned. Death is essential to evolution - it is the process by which inferior traits are eliminated from a population or gene pool. It is a purely human construct. If I were to go out and selectively pick out an individual that was sick or impaired in some way and kill that person, I would be evil. If a lion selects out the weakest of a herd to kill, we don't call that evil. You can come up with a number of reasons why it is different for the lion - it is a matter of survival, it is acting on instinct, etc. But humans can also come up with any number of rationalizations for their actions as well. Why does the lion's survival outweigh the right to that other animal to survive? Is evil scientifically quantifiable? If we excuse the actions of other animals as merely them acting according to their nature and instincts, performing things that have been ingrained into them through evolution as a way to perpetuate their species, then why are not humans also judged in the same way? If they are merely the most advanced of the genetic offspring of that first life that emerged on this planet, why are they not also simply free to act upon whatever their natural impulses are, regardless of how it impacts others, without being judged as evil or good? Why should we have judgmental concepts like murder? Does a lion murder? Does a fish murder? When one animal takes food that another acquired, do we condemn that animal as a thief? Should we merely let humans act out their instincts, whatever they are, and allow evolution to continue along? Are diseases and defects merely the price we pay of living in this world, and should we bother trying to correct or cure them, when they might reflect traits that are not beneficial to the species in the long run?
> 
> Or is there something different about us? And where does it come from? Why should we care about these things beyond our own individual survival? Can we simply explain all these differences away with evolutionary theory? Do other species contemplate the morality of their actions? Given enough time, will a lion ever start to contemplate whether his actions are moral?


Thanks for your lengthy response. I copied out a part of it above. I'm afraid I don't particularly find it useful. Bottom line is you have faith in your religion. God and Jesus communicate with you directly and provide you with some/most/all answers you want. That's well for you.



Petwhac said:


> The existence of your God is far more implausible than the idea that we share a common ancestor with chimps.
> 
> My mind is not closed. I would give up everything I believe and follow the true path of God if someone somewhere sometime could give me ONE GOOD REASON why.
> If there is a God who wants his little creatures to believe in and obey him. Perhaps he could do us the courtesy of existing. When's the last time he appeared? In public? Spoke to a 'prophet'? Since we have developed instant global communication? Since we've had cameras, sound recording? NO indeed. Only to ancient superstitious peoples. Funny that.


Agree entirely with your points, Petwhac. There is only one line of reason for religion, their faith. It no longer matters which seems more plausible when there is faith. Even amongst themselves, they cannot agree with certain fundamental aspects of their religion, despite having the same God, yet they seem "qualified" to comment on the plausibility of science. Faith and self-righteousness.

DrMike gave a long response to a couple of points I raised. None directly answered the issue of plausibility.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Thanks for your lengthy response. I copied out a part of it above. I'm afraid I don't particularly find it useful. Bottom line is you have faith in your religion. God and Jesus communicate with you directly and provide you with some/most/all answers you want. That's well for you.
> 
> DrMike gave a long response to a couple of points I raised. None directly answered the issue of plausibility.


What about your Weinberg quote? You threw out a pretty hefty charge - that only religion can make good people do evil. Now you just flippantly disregard my argument against it, and pretend you were doing nothing more than questioning the plausibility of religion, when actually you were impugning its motives.

I repeat my question. Does religion also have the power to make evil people to do good? Can science not reform people? Does our penal system need religion to reform people, or do we just accept that evil people do evil things? So if an atheist does an evil thing, can we then assume that they must be evil? Because if they were good, only religion could have made them do evil. Or do you not actually believe Weinberg's claim, but thought it would be a nice little shot to fire at religious people? I'm not arguing plausibility of religion and God here. I'm wondering if you really stand by such a claim. Basically that all evil in this world is either perpetrated by naturally evil people or good religious people.

Wow, and you claim that religion, not science, prejudices people.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sure, religion may have the power to make evil people do good – you have heard of the term salvation from Joseph Smith Junior’s version of the Bible, have you not? Come on DrMike, you are intelligent enough to attain a PhD. It shows you have some line of reasoning, somewhere. When an Islamic fundamentalist convinces a bunch of his followers (who knew no other cause in life) to wrap themselves up in explosives, to murder themselves and others in the name of all Allah (same God as your Bible), the destitute followers and their families have been manipulated in doing so, in the name of religion. The last several times I read, history has proved terrible examples of Holy Wars, crusades, border intimidations in the name of God. Sure, I do not at all discount the atrocities from non-religious people like Hitler, or Stalin, or murders in my local area/city. Weinberg’s statement was probably painting at those atrocities in history and in modern times, in the name of God – apparently good people distorted in their conviction by religion to belief it was worth killing their own lives and others under the brand named God. 

Now, how do you explain the extremely inconsistency of fundamental beliefs in God as per Judaism that we have read here, versus your belief that Jesus communicates with you directly or transpires in other ways? Or is that far too impolite to question the faith of others? 

The penal system is the final court of judgment, as far as our real daily lives are concerned. When you are a victim of crime, you may well wish to pray to God and believe that the injustice or justice that follows from the decisions of jury and judge are the also the decisions of your God. That’s good for you. But if you think it’s all in God’s hand, and not having a strong prosecution or defense legal team is far more important, then all third party observers can say to you is “good luck”.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Sure, religion may have the power to make evil people do good - you have heard of the term salvation from Joseph Smith Junior's version of the Bible, have you not? Come on DrMike, you are intelligent enough to attain a PhD. It shows you have some line of reasoning, somewhere. When an Islamic fundamentalist convinces a bunch of his followers (who knew no other cause in life) to wrap themselves up in explosives, to murder themselves and others in the name of all Allah (same God as your Bible), the destitute followers and their families have been manipulated in doing so, in the name of religion. The last several times I read, history has proved terrible examples of Holy Wars, crusades, border intimidations in the name of God. Sure, I do not at all discount the atrocities from non-religious people like Hitler, or Stalin, or murders in my local area/city. Weinberg's statement was probably painting at those atrocities in history and in modern times, in the name of God - apparently good people distorted in their conviction by religion to belief it was worth killing their own lives and others under the brand named God.
> 
> Now, how do you explain the extremely inconsistency of fundamental beliefs in God as per Judaism that we have read here, versus your belief that Jesus communicates with you directly or transpires in other ways? Or is that far too impolite to question the faith of others?
> 
> The penal system is the final court of judgment, as far as our real daily lives are concerned. When you are a victim of crime, you may well wish to pray to God and believe that the injustice or justice that follows from the decisions of jury and judge are the also the decisions of your God. That's good for you. But if you think it's all in God's hand, and not having a strong prosecution or defense legal team is far more important, then all third party observers can say to you is "good luck".


Okay, you talk about horrible things done in the name of religion, or through the persuasion of some religious leader. Let me turn your attention to the Nazis. Were you aware that much of the reasoning behind their racial purity doctrine was backed by scientists of the time? Many scientists at the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, the predecessor of the Max Planck Society, a prominent research institution, provided scientific credence to the ideologies behind the Nazi belief of racial superiority. Josef Mengele kept up regular correspondence with scientists there. Here is an article on the topic:
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v2/n10/full/embor304.html

How do explain the various religious beliefs and the convictions of people who have different beliefs? Not knowing the minds of other people, I can't fully explain it. My faith teaches that various beliefs all have truth. But what is critical in my faith is that we still believe in prophets who continue to receive revelation from God to continue to guide His church.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Nazis were using science, along with anything that suited their "racial purification" cause, for one purpose: propaganda. They understood the pyschology of the masses, as did Hitler. Propaganda was their objective, not scientific cause. Those scientists who permitted and twisted their works were probably at least Nazi sympathizers, whereas those with good foresight saw the dangers and left the country; amongst those who left were Albert Einstein.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> But what is critical in my faith is that we still believe in prophets who continue to receive revelation from God to continue to guide His church.


Who was your last prophet to receive revelation from your God?


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> I'm sorry, but totally disregarding any religious aspect, how can you claim that the Holocaust is the worst event in human history? Hitler butchered innocents in inhuman ways. He is not unique. Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime didn't merely murder people, they often tortured them mercilessly prior to killing them. What of Saddam Hussein's torture rooms and mass graves?
> 
> Hitler's actions are perhaps some of the most widely known, because the Nazis were defeated and evidence of their crimes were immediately documented. Yes, it was horrible, but to say that there have been others who have done just as horrendous things does not take away from the heinousness of his crimes.
> 
> But you simply destroy any credibility for your argument to lump Jesus together with Hitler. By your claims, Jesus was a charlatan. Hitler was a mass murderer. Stalin and Pol Pot were mass murderers. How is being a charlatan on par with being a mass murderer? On how is a charlatan on par with a mass murderer, but other mass murderers aren't quite so bad? You say Hitler is really bad because of the way that he killed. So being a charlatan is on par with only the most wicked of mass murderers, while other mass murderers are better than charlatans? In some kind of hierarchy of wickedness, you put Hitler and Jesus at the bottom, and Stalin and Pol Pot somewhere above them? I'd hate to hear where common thieves fall in that spectrum. I'm not meaning to be facetious here, because your characterization really kind of defies any kind of logical division of severity of crimes.


DrMike, I do respect you as member here, but I don't know what the hell are you talking about.
When I said that Hitler and Stalin or Mao cannot be compared I actually meant by several definitions. Hitler is absolutely the greatest mass murderer in history.
The fact that Stalin (or Mao) killed more than Hitler, doesn't automatically turn them to greater murderers since a murderer, generally, and a mass murderer particularly, (especially when they are one of the greatest of all time) is not measured/defined only by the amount of people he had murdered plus a small element of cruelty. I rememeber once that I've seen a list of the 10 greatest mass murderers of all time, which was superficially arranged, more or less, as you might have liked (Hitler was the third, if I recall correctly), but there *have* to be more definitions:

*1. The mass murderer's conceptional affinity toward his victims:* Hitler usually didn't kill people for technical purposes, he had an Ideology whose source was rooted in the German nation for hundreds of years, especially shaped by several philosophers of the 19th century (that one of them was none other but Richard Wagner) who thoroughly developed the anti-semitic ideology in the Romantic era at its peak bloom; Whoever wrote the last and most significant chapter of this book of anti-semitic ideology -- a worldwide ideology, a philosophical master race, terribly irrational that fit that nation and represented its peak (anti-semitism wise), an ideology that concluded that Jews are the most inferior race and only obstruct the cultured nation and as a result must be destroyed forever -- was Hitler.

I don't assume you need elaboration regarding the parallelism with Stalin (or Mao), since Stalin didn't have an actual ideology against humanity (or part of it), and the communism was far off from being compared to the Nazis' ideology in both vile and effect definitions.

*2. Systematic Extermination:* As is well known, Hitler wanted to destroy the Jews as soon as possible, especially when the USA forces arrived Europe. Hitler, with his genius, murdered systematically 6 million Jews by putting them inside ghettos, concentration camps (Konzentrationslager), labor camps (Arbeitslager) and then extermination camps (Vernichtangslager) that contained gas chambers (not soldiers holding a few rifles) that caused their deaths shortly. Trains were arriving to Auschwitz, Birkenau, Buchenwald (and much more camps) full of people - that many of them were dying en route as a result of starvation, deseases etc - and returned empty. In the labor camps, usually, there was a person who was in charge of the acceptance of his specific camp; In most cases, it was something like that: people were standing in a row, and he, with his finger indicated to the left and to the right, one side would go to work while the other to their doom, whoever to "heaven", whoever to hell. Of course, the real purpose of Hitler was to exploit manpower and when he needed them no more he sent them to their doom in extermination camps. I wouldn't like to add much on the inhuman conditions at the camps for everything can be found on books. Anyway, the methodology, the genius systematic extermination whose main purpose was definitely to obliterate the Jewish race once and forever, was Hitler's, unlike Stalin or Mao who murdered mostly those who were not obedient according to their regime.

*3. The Depth of Malice:* Unlike Stalin and Mao who treated their victims as "statistic" and killed them for the simple reason of disobedience, Hitler knew exactly what "race" he's going to extinguish, and his resources for fatal extinction are basically incomparable to Stalin's and Mao's resources for killing. I assume you've seen pictures of the Holocaust, degrading cartoons that had been posted in German, long before the anihilation was started, which resembled the inferiority of Jews. Ah, there's also Wagner's article - _Das Judenthum in der Musik_ (Judaism in Music) which I recommend to read for this is another significant part of anti-semitic cognition of the late 19th century in all its cruelty.

*4. Nation murders a Nation:* As I said above, the anti-semitism was rooted within the German nation hundreds of years (on low power) and therefore received a smooth feedback at Hitler's regime. There are hundreds of evidences of delations by simple german citizens agaisnt Jews even though they were not forced to. In addition to the anti-semitism that was rooted in Germany, Hitler, as an eminent orator, extremely enraptured his new civilians; Did you see the crowd who blindly and brainlessly cheered like imbecile robots after Hitler's speeches? It was Hitler who easily took his nation to its last step toward Nazism. Don't get me wrong, I judge the germans as a *nation*, not as *individuals*. Indeed, there were not a few amongst the "individuals" who couldn't digest Hitler's actions, and several even saved a few people. An interesting example would be Alma Mahler (Mahler's wife) that even though she was raised as anti-semitic by highly anti-semitic paranets, she wrote (in her autobiography, if I remember correctly) that she couldn't digest the Nazis' actions in the 30s and 40s, and was certainly against the Holocaust. So yes, there were a few german individuals who were very good (even though most of them were anti-semitic in different and certain levels, but I do judge the the germans as a nation.
One of the greatest and most interesting questions on the Holocaust is: How is it possible that specifically that nation who was maybe the most glorious/intelligent/cultured amongst other nations, could have done such horrible things? How is it possible that a nation that was certainly peaked at the 19th century in Literature, Music, Science, Philosophy was also peaked in Horror? Is that the direct result of culture? Shouldn't culture glorify men? Amend men? Make him better? Why do we need a culture if that's its result?
I don't think I should add much that niether in China nor in Russia that specific feature was one of the problems.

I think I could add more features that its Stalinist/Maoist parallel was less qualitative in its genius, methodology and cruel implementations.
So yes, body-count is also a significant definition to define a mass murderer and if Hitler would have murdered 600 and not 11-17 millions (6 million were Jews), I'd say he failed, but considering another definitions I mentioned, I definitely crown him as number 1 amongst his fellow mass murderers. The Holocaust is not another event in the history, but a significant event whose main purpose was to destroy a nation/"race" with the assistance of extremely cruel acts, maybe not the most cruel in history but definitely very malicious.
Do you any idea on how many books and articles are being written on that subject per month/year? How many PhDs are being received? Dozens. How many books are being written on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot together? Well, I'm sure lesser. And everything is part of the fact that the Holocaust was the most significant event in human history and Hitler is the greatest mass murderer.

The attitude, of those who say that there were mass murderers who were greater than Hitler, is one of the tactics of Holocaust Denails for systematically diminishing it in order to reach the final step of literally saying that there was not Holocaust at all.


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> But you simply destroy any credibility for your argument to lump Jesus together with Hitler. *[1]*By your claims, Jesus was a charlatan. *[2] *Hitler was a mass murderer. *[3]* Stalin and Pol Pot were mass murderers. *[4]* How is being a charlatan on par with being a mass murderer? On how is a charlatan on par with a mass murderer,*[5]* but other mass murderers aren't quite so bad? *[6]*You say Hitler is really bad because of the way that he killed. *[7]* So being a charlatan is on par with only the most wicked of mass murderers, *[8]* while other mass murderers are better than charlatans? *[9]* In some kind of hierarchy of wickedness, you put Hitler and Jesus at the bottom, and Stalin and Pol Pot somewhere above them? *[10]* I'd hate to hear where common thieves fall in that spectrum. I'm not meaning to be facetious here, because your characterization really kind of defies any kind of logical division of severity of crimes.


I don't know why you took the the "Jesus and Hitler forever in Hell" concept too seriously.

[1]Indeed.
[2]Indeed.
[3]Certainly.
[4]Jesus wasn't _just_ a charlatan, his both religious and historic implications are pretty clear: 1. Jesus misled all people that define themselves as Christians and Christianity is Idolatry, also forbidden for non-Jews. 2. Many Jews (and not only Jews) were killed because of Christianity.
[5]Of course they're bad, but not as bad as Hitler.
[6]Not quite correct, read my last post.
[7]Again, it's just a speculation.
[8]Read number [4].
[9]Yes. If I understood correctly the word "above".
[10] If you define Hitler as the greatest mass murderer in humanity and estimate Jesus' implications as most drastic, religious wise, why wouldn't they be at the top of the black list?


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> Who was your last prophet to receive revelation from your God?


We have a living prophet today, named Thomas S. Monson. Since the church was restored in 1830, the following men have led the church as prophets:
Joseph Smith, Jr.
Brigham Young
John Taylor
Wilford Woodruff
Lorenzo Snow
Joseph F. Smith
Heber J. Grant
George Albert Smith
David O. Mckay 
Joseph Fielding Smith
Harold B. Lee
Spencer W. Kimball
Ezra Taft Benson
Howard W. Hunter
Gordon B. Hinckley
Thomas S. Monson


----------



## Argus

DrMike said:


> We have a living prophet today, named Thomas S. Monson. Since the church was restored in 1830, the following men have led the church as prophets:
> *Joseph Smith, Jr.*
> Brigham Young
> John Taylor
> Wilford Woodruff
> Lorenzo Snow
> *Joseph F. Smith*
> Heber J. Grant
> _George Albert Smith_
> David O. Mckay
> *Joseph Fielding Smith*
> Harold B. Lee
> Spencer W. Kimball
> Ezra Taft Benson
> Howard W. Hunter
> Gordon B. Hinckley
> Thomas S. Monson


Any relations or does God like the name?


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Nazis were using science, along with anything that suited their "racial purification" cause, for one purpose: propaganda. They understood the pyschology of the masses, as did Hitler. Propaganda was their objective, not scientific cause. Those scientists who permitted and twisted their works were probably at least Nazi sympathizers, whereas those with good foresight saw the dangers and left the country; amongst those who left were Albert Einstein.


So wait, you can conceive a disconnect between science and how people manipulate science to fit their particular agenda. Yet you continuously cite all evil done in the name of religion as being directly connected. Scientists assisted, or were used by, Nazis to further their pathological hatred, and you don't see it as something inherently wrong with science, rather the result of science being manipulated. But then you point to the crusades as being the direct result of religion, not the people manipulating religion to suit their needs?

Do you understand what I am getting at here? Yes, evil things have been done in the name of religion. But that does not necessarily mean that it is because the religion is evil, or that the religion has evil designs, but rather that, just as with science, people throughout the ages have always sought for ideologies or unifying beliefs to manipulate for their own self interests. Science is just as easily manipulated as religion to support evil purposes - as examples, the inquisition for religion and racial superiority for science. The issue isn't any particular ideology, but the people who have the skills to manipulate the ideology to suit their needs.

There are certainly other examples for science where scientists performed evil actions in the name of science, not just the Nazis. What about the Tuskeegee syphillis experiments on African-American men? Do you condemn all scientists and scientific research based on this, or do you disconnect the actions of scientists from science?

Incidentally, Einstein didn't leave Germany simply because he had philosophical differences with Nazis regarding scientific research. He was a Jew, and when the Nazis came to power, he knew he couldn't stay there, so he left. And again, the argument fits so easily for you, because you simply get to claim that any scientist involved in evil practices must simply have been evil in the first place. That still doesn't change the fact that these were scientists, using the authority of scientific research to justify evil actions. Plenty of religious people at the time understood the actions to be evil, including people within Germany. But one of the most prestigious scientific research institutes in Germany was fueling the fire.


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> Any relations or does God like the name?


Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith were descendents of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s brother, Hyrum Smith, who was killed at the same time Joseph Smith was. As you can imagine, many of Joseph Smith's family joined the church early on, so there were several Smiths in the early church.


----------



## Guest

Boccherini said:


> I don't know why you took the the "Jesus and Hitler forever in Hell" concept too seriously.
> 
> [1]Indeed.
> [2]Indeed.
> [3]Certainly.
> [4]Jesus wasn't _just_ a charlatan, his both religious and historic implications are pretty clear: 1. Jesus misled all people that define themselves as Christians and Christianity is Idolatry, also forbidden for non-Jews. 2. Many Jews (and not only Jews) were killed because of Christianity.
> [5]Of course they're bad, but not as bad as Hitler.
> [6]Not quite correct, read my last post.
> [7]Again, it's just a speculation.
> [8]Read number [4].
> [9]Yes. If I understood correctly the word "above".
> [10] If you define Hitler as the greatest mass murderer in humanity and estimate Jesus' implications as most drastic, religious wise, why wouldn't they be at the top of the black list?


Boccherini,
Couple of points. First, while Nazi Germany certainly took anti-semitism to its most extreme, to claim that anti-semitism was a particular specialty of Germany, and ignore the broad history of anti-semitism is cherry picking history. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a hateful anti-semitic screed that is still widely published today, a forgery that made horrific claims against Jews, was created by the Russian Secret Police in the early 1900's. Over the centuries, Jews had been expelled from England, France, Germany, and Austria, which is one of the reasons that so many were living in Poland. In the 1700's, tens of thousands of Jews were killed in what is now present-day Ukraine. Russia, even before the 1900's, also participated in this anti-semitism. And not Europeans only - anti-semitism was and is present in the U.S.A., and in Muslim countries. Although for a long time, Jews enjoyed a greater liberty in Muslim-controlled countries, especially Spain, than they did in Christian Europe, that eventually changed. The Dreyfus affair in France was a much publicized scandal that revealed widespread anti-semitism in France.

The Holocaust represented the disastrous combination of several factors - the anti-semitism that was prevalent throughout Europe, the destitute state of Germany post-World War I and the desire to place the blame somewhere, and the rise of a charismatic individual who was able to promise and deliver to the people a Germany with restored national pride, and who provided useful scapegoats, allowing his particularly vile anti-semitism to be institutionalized. What gets little mention is that Hitler didn't have that hard of a time convincing conquered countries to yield up their Jews for deportation, with the curious exception of Mussolini. Mussolini was surprisingly resistant to demands that Italian Jews be deported to German concentration camps, at least until after his first overthrow as the Allies began their Italian campaign. But then after the war, many Jews attempting to return to their homes in various countries, not just Germany, were subject to violence and murder, even after the Nazis had been vanquished. It was one of the primary factors leading to the establishment of the modern state of Israel.

And again, I simply think that, even if you believe Jesus was a fraud, his actions don't even approach the already discussed mass murderers. Where, in all of the New Testament, is there any word of him advocating the violence that you blame him for? New Testament scriptures are practically devoid of any kind of violent doctrine, as compared to Old Testament scripture, the scripture of the Jews. Jesus taught that an eye for an eye was wrong. Forgive your enemies. Bless those that curse you. If someone takes your coat, give them your cloak as well. Forgive your enemies seventy times seven times. He spared the harlot from being stoned. He rebuked his apostle for cutting off the ear of the soldier sent to take him prisoner. If he was a charlatan, then he was a charlatan that taught a more peaceful religion than that followed by the Jews. Any violence perpetrated by his followers came long, long after his death, and was not rooted in any of his teachings. In fact, when people have tried to justify violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity, they have often had to use Old Testament scripture to rationalize the actions. I'm not saying that it is the fault of the Jews that Christians did horrible things. I'm saying that it is neither the fault of the Jews or Jesus, rather the fault of wicked men who came along and manipulated the religion to further their own personal power and prestige. If that is your basis for condemning Jesus in the same breath as Hitler, it seems pretty preposterous.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Petwhac said:


> Reject.
> Succinct enough?


O.K.- thanks for making that clear.

So you think there CAN (or _may_) be an infinite regress to the current causes of existence.
And what, in science or sense-experience, led you to THAT conclusion??

And to think that there are those who say that the _theists_ take unbuttressed leaps-of-faith...


----------



## Petwhac

Chi_townPhilly said:


> O.K.- thanks for making that clear.
> 
> So you think there CAN (or _may_) be an infinite regress to the current causes of existence.
> And what, in science or sense-experience, led you to THAT conclusion??
> 
> And to think that there are those who say that the _theists_ take unbuttressed leaps-of-faith...


I don't think I understood what you meant 'regress to the current causes'

Do you think there has to be a first cause?

The human mind has difficulty with concepts like infinity and oblivion. It also has difficulty with concepts such as 11 dimensional space-time or quantum non-locality.

If you are saying that something (God) must have 'caused' the universe in the first place then are you not saying that something must have caused God too?

That argument proves nothing.

I am sure you are well acquainted with Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot argument.

Can you or I disprove or prove the teapot?

No

Can you or I disprove or prove the existence of God (or each other for that matter)?

No.

What however, is the _probability_ of a God like the one in the Bible being
a fact?

A bit of a long shot I would say.


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> *And again, I simply think that, even if you believe Jesus was a fraud, his actions don't even approach the already discussed mass murderers.* Where, in all of the New Testament, is there any word of him advocating the violence that you blame him for? New Testament scriptures are practically devoid of any kind of violent doctrine, as compared to Old Testament scripture, the scripture of the Jews. Jesus taught that an eye for an eye was wrong. Forgive your enemies. Bless those that curse you. If someone takes your coat, give them your cloak as well. Forgive your enemies seventy times seven times. He spared the harlot from being stoned. He rebuked his apostle for cutting off the ear of the soldier sent to take him prisoner. If he was a charlatan, then he was a charlatan that taught a more peaceful religion than that followed by the Jews. Any violence perpetrated by his followers came long, long after his death, and was not rooted in any of his teachings. In fact, when people have tried to justify violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity, they have often had to use Old Testament scripture to rationalize the actions. I'm not saying that it is the fault of the Jews that Christians did horrible things. I'm saying that it is neither the fault of the Jews or Jesus, rather the fault of wicked men who came along and manipulated the religion to further their own personal power and prestige. If that is your basis for condemning Jesus in the same breath as Hitler, it seems pretty preposterous.


True, the comparison between Hitler and Jesus is nearly impossible as each one of them extremely affected in differrent ways, but the fact that Jesus was so successful, spreading his words out to so many people and even after thousands of years his leverage of religion still running, as exetremely opposed to God's wills, is something very meaningful to my perspective even if I disregard historic events regarding Christianity. So yes, you don't actually condemn them in the same breath as it's superficial.

But I want to rise another question: Total peacefulness in religion, what is it good for? Don't you think it's inhuman to be a perfect masochist? Do you basically think these are part of God's will? Why killing yourself, then, is against the rules, while being a masochist is not? Isn't it another higher level of Masochism, commiting a suicide? Do _you_ act like a masochist in your personal life?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I'm encouraged by your most recent post.


Petwhac said:


> I don't think I understood what you meant 'regress to the current causes'


If you did not understand the premise, you oughtn't have summarily rejected it.


Petwhac said:


> Do you think there has to be a first cause?


Yes.


Petwhac said:


> The human mind has difficulty with concepts like infinity and oblivion. It also has difficulty with concepts such as 11 dimensional space-time or quantum non-locality.


No doubt. And yet those concepts remain, independent of my humble inability to sufficiently grasp them.


Petwhac said:


> If you are saying that something (God) must have 'caused' the universe in the first place then are you not saying that something must have caused God too?


No. That's the trap of the infinite regress. Now, one can argue for the infinite in the absence of God, but one is forced into attributing an infinite nature to some things that are demonstrably NOT infinite. Matter, for instance.

Perhaps a better candidate is Energy. Maybe one can fall back on the "Law of Conservation" and say that since it can't be created or destroyed, we can place our hopes for infinity in that(?) [I think this leads to a trap, though...] 


Petwhac said:


> Can you or I disprove or prove the existence of God (or each other for that matter)?
> 
> No.


O.K. then- that allows me to better recognize your position, which (if I'm apprising this correctly) is agnosticism, not atheism. In fact, the premise that neither you nor I can prove our existence to one another seems to indicate a neo-Humean skepticism, which of course can be critiqued on the grounds that it exempts itself from its own primary premise. If one opines for the rejection of the idea of certitude, then why should that very rejection be treated as a certain pronouncement?


----------



## Petwhac

Chi_townPhilly said:


> O.K. then- that allows me to better recognize your position, which (if I'm apprising this correctly) is agnosticism, not atheism.


Are you an agnostic when it comes to the teapot?

I'm sure you are a very learned person who knows their philosophical terminology very well.
But you fail to convince me that your belief in a God (along the lines of the biblical one) is anything but superstition.

I am still waiting for a convincing answer to any of my questions.

If there is a creator of our universe could it not be a physicist called Clive in a parallel universe. I presume you are an agnostic too.


----------



## Petwhac

Chi_townPhilly said:


> .... but one is forced into attributing an infinite nature to some things that are demonstrably NOT infinite. Matter, for instance.
> 
> Perhaps a better candidate is Energy. Maybe one can fall back on the "Law of Conservation" and say that since it can't be created or destroyed, we can place our hopes for infinity in that(?)


Are matter and energy not the same thing then? If energy can be infinite then so too matter. 
They are two sides of the same coin.

E= MC2

You have not demonstrated that matter is not infinite.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Petwhac said:


> ...you fail to convince me that your belief in a God (along the lines of the biblical one) is anything but superstition.


Well, I'm trying to be fair- but when you say that my theism is superstition and overlook the philosophical underpinnings I've begun to articulate, then you're engaging in a mischaracterization (don't know if it's intentional or not), and have revealed a tendency to pre-judge, more than you've revealed any shortcomings in my chain of reasoning.



Petwhac said:


> [Matter & Energy] are two sides of the same coin.


I warned that this might be a trap- and we went there, anyway. Matter can be made (with extreme effort) to convert into energy... but I fail to see in what way energy (by _itself_) can be ordered into matter. We can take that egg and scramble it- it's that "unscrambling" process that'll always trip us up.

And the very fact that we know that matter can be vaporized argues against its permanence.


----------



## Petwhac

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Well, I'm trying to be fair- but when you say that my theism is superstition and overlook the philosophical underpinnings I've begun to articulate, then you're engaging in a mischaracterization (don't know if it's intentional or not), and have revealed a tendency to pre-judge, more than you've revealed any shortcomings in my chain of reasoning.
> 
> I warned that this might be a trap- and we went there, anyway. Matter can be made (with extreme effort) to convert into energy... but I fail to see in what way energy (by _itself_) can be ordered into matter. We can take that egg and scramble it- it's that "unscrambling" process that'll always trip us up.
> 
> And the very fact that we know that matter can be vaporized argues against its permanence.


When matter is vaporized I believe that the atoms of which it is made are still there but they are no longer bonded together. Water vapor is water still.

I also think you will find that there is exactly the same amount of protons in the universe now as there was 15 billion years ago. Sound pretty permanent to me.

Also, I think you should have said that the 'unscrambling' process has so far tripped us up. How do you know it will "always trip us up"?

But forget that, please just answer these 2 questions.
1. Are you an agnostic when it comes to Clive or the teapot.

2, Do you have any direct evidence of God?

Please don't answer with a question just yes or no.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> So wait, you can conceive a disconnect between science and how people manipulate science to fit their particular agenda. Yet you continuously cite all evil done in the name of religion as being directly connected. Scientists assisted, or were used by, Nazis to further their pathological hatred, and you don't see it as something inherently wrong with science, rather the result of science being manipulated. But then you point to the crusades as being the direct result of religion, not the people manipulating religion to suit their needs?
> 
> Do you understand what I am getting at here? Yes, evil things have been done in the name of religion. But that does not necessarily mean that it is because the religion is evil, or that the religion has evil designs, but rather that, just as with science, people throughout the ages have always sought for ideologies or unifying beliefs to manipulate for their own self interests. Science is just as easily manipulated as religion to support evil purposes - as examples, the inquisition for religion and racial superiority for science. The issue isn't any particular ideology, but the people who have the skills to manipulate the ideology to suit their needs.
> 
> There are certainly other examples for science where scientists performed evil actions in the name of science, not just the Nazis. What about the Tuskeegee syphillis experiments on African-American men? Do you condemn all scientists and scientific research based on this, or do you disconnect the actions of scientists from science?
> 
> Incidentally, Einstein didn't leave Germany simply because he had philosophical differences with Nazis regarding scientific research. He was a Jew, and when the Nazis came to power, he knew he couldn't stay there, so he left. And again, the argument fits so easily for you, because you simply get to claim that any scientist involved in evil practices must simply have been evil in the first place. That still doesn't change the fact that these were scientists, using the authority of scientific research to justify evil actions. Plenty of religious people at the time understood the actions to be evil, including people within Germany. But one of the most prestigious scientific research institutes in Germany was fueling the fire.


Of course men have done evil in the name of science. I do not dispute that. But let's not forget or get too carried away from the original point of this discussion involving science. The point originally, many posts abopve, was to ask if there is scientific existence or at least undisputed explanation that your God exists, and that God transipires in a way other than in an emotional manner called faith? Thousands of words have been written here, and the obvious answer is a clear no.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Of course men have done evil in the name of science. I do not dispute that. But let's not forget or get too carried away from the original point of this discussion involving science. The point originally, many posts abopve, was to ask if there is scientific existence or at least undisputed explanation that your God exists, and that God transipires in a way other than in an emotional manner called faith? Thousands of words have been written here, and the obvious answer is a clear no.


It was your tangent, making a cheap shot regarding only religion being able to make good people do evil.

No, there is no scientific evidence for God.

But what do you have with the scientific explanation for the origins of life? Circumstantial evidence. You see variations emerging that give evidence that evolution, or at least change, occurring. The problem is showing speciation. Yes, diversity does increase, traits change, and we have direct evidence for that. But, while you can see, for example, different varieties of dogs, they are all still dogs. Changes in humans have also been demonstrated, but they all still are humans. So while evolution very clearly is evident in producing variety within a species, where is the evidence of the natural emergence of new species arising from old? We have numerous examples of all kinds of primates in the fossil record. We have evidence of all kinds of species since the divergence of our line from that of chimpanzees, as well as all kinds of more primitive animal life. But we can't seem to find that common ancestor of chimps and humans. So even with the extensive fossil record that we have, we can't seem to find any examples that provide that critical evidence of a new, more evolved species arising from a more primitive species. We are told, though, that these explanations are more plausible, though, because, theoretically, eventually science could prove it.

So yes, these evolutionary explanations for the development of life do provide a scientifically testable explanation, but it doesn't exclude the possibility of God. Because scientists can provide any number of explanations and have them all proven wrong. Evolution could be disproven tomorrow, and scientists would then move on to the next theory, which also can potentially be disproven.

Just because God cannot be tested for by scientific means does not preclude his existence. And why should emotion be precluded from the equation? Emotions are not inconsequential. Have they not also been part of our evolution? Fear arose as a way to protect us - a danger signal. Love helps promote community and social interactions, which provides extra protection from numbers and is beneficial in mating and protecting our young during the developmental phase. So from a purely scientific standpoint, the development of emotions has been at least as important as the development of reason in perpetuating and improving the species. In fact, throughout history, even modern history where logic and reason have taken a more prominent role, even among the most educated, there are numerous instances of emotions overriding logic. Emotions may be stronger than reason. Even where we have "clear" evidence, people still dispute. As the saying goes, looks can be deceiving. So, just possibly, a higher being, a God, might see emotions as a more useful tool for making himself known to humans than empirical evidence. That is not to say that he doesn't use empirical evidence - numerous people throughout history have made claims to having directly interacted with God. But these instances tend to be very personal.

I'll repeat what I have said before. I am not making the argument that God must exist because you can't disprove Him. I am saying that my personal experiences, including emotional experiences, have brought me to the conclusion that God exists. And while I can't use science to prove to you what I believe, nothing in science can disprove what I have discovered, and so I have no reason to discard my conclusions.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> When matter is vaporized I believe that the atoms of which it is made are still there but they are no longer bonded together. Water vapor is water still.
> 
> *I also think you will find that there is exactly the same amount of protons in the universe now as there was 15 billion years ago. Sound pretty permanent to me.*
> 
> Also, I think you should have said that the 'unscrambling' process has so far tripped us up. How do you know it will "always trip us up"?
> 
> But forget that, please just answer these 2 questions.
> 1. Are you an agnostic when it comes to Clive or the teapot.
> 
> 2, Do you have any direct evidence of God?
> 
> Please don't answer with a question just yes or no.


Actually, no. Scientists don't believe that the same amount of protons are in the universe now as 15 billion years ago. Estimates put the age of this universe around 13-15 billion years. Although there are several competing theories for the origins of the universe, at least considering the Big Bang theory, it speculates that all the matter in what is now the universe was condensed into a single point of infinite density in which time, space, and atoms, and even protons, did not exist. It was only after the event that resulted in the expansion of all that occurred, as the matter expanded and finally slowed down enough that it was able to condense down into, first, sub-atomic particles, then larger subatomic particles such as protons, and then into atoms, and larger condensations of matter that give us the various bodies that now populate our universe. So no, there are not the same number of protons now as at the origin of the universe.


----------



## David58117

DrMike said:


> It was your tangent, making a cheap shot regarding only religion being able to make good people do evil.
> 
> No, there is no scientific evidence for God.
> 
> But what do you have with the scientific explanation for the origins of life? Circumstantial evidence. You see variations emerging that give evidence that evolution, or at least change, occurring. The problem is showing speciation. Yes, diversity does increase, traits change, and we have direct evidence for that. But, while you can see, for example, different varieties of dogs, they are all still dogs. Changes in humans have also been demonstrated, but they all still are humans. *So while evolution very clearly is evident in producing variety within a species, where is the evidence of the natural emergence of new species arising from old?* We have numerous examples of all kinds of primates in the fossil record. We have evidence of all kinds of species since the divergence of our line from that of chimpanzees, as well as all kinds of more primitive animal life. But we can't seem to find that common ancestor of chimps and humans. *So even with the extensive fossil record that we have, we can't seem to find any examples that provide that critical evidence of a new, more evolved species arising from a more primitive species. * We are told, though, that these explanations are more plausible, though, because, theoretically, eventually science could prove it.


Oh come on Dr. Mike! I know you've must of heard of the recent discovery of Tiktaalik, which wikipedia sums up as "an intermediate form between fish and amphibians."

Here's more of what wikipedia has to say, but by all means go out and read "Your inner fish" which goes into greater detail:

"Tiktaalik's "fins" have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably were not used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creature's body, push up fashion. The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current.

Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content. This development may have led to the evolution of a more robust ribcage, a key evolutionary trait of land living creatures"

Anyway, doesn't Diane Dodds experiment "show" speciation? I know it doesn't *prove* speciation, but the findings from it are in line with what is to be expected, isn't it? I remember hearing about it in my ecology class, back in my other life as a biology/chemistry student. I'd love to go back and finish that degree...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> But what do you have with the scientific explanation for the origins of life? Circumstantial evidence. You see variations emerging that give evidence that evolution, or at least change, occurring. The problem is showing speciation. Yes, diversity does increase, traits change, and we have direct evidence for that. But, while you can see, for example, different varieties of dogs, they are all still dogs. Changes in humans have also been demonstrated, but they all still are humans. So while evolution very clearly is evident in producing variety within a species, where is the evidence of the natural emergence of new species arising from old? We have numerous examples of all kinds of primates in the fossil record. We have evidence of all kinds of species since the divergence of our line from that of chimpanzees, as well as all kinds of more primitive animal life. But we can't seem to find that common ancestor of chimps and humans. So even with the extensive fossil record that we have, we can't seem to find any examples that provide that critical evidence of a new, more evolved species arising from a more primitive species. We are told, though, that these explanations are more plausible, though, because, theoretically, eventually science could prove it.
> 
> So yes, these evolutionary explanations for the development of life do provide a scientifically testable explanation, but it doesn't exclude the possibility of God. Because scientists can provide any number of explanations and have them all proven wrong. Evolution could be disproven tomorrow, and scientists would then move on to the next theory, which also can potentially be disproven.


I agree that evolution is not completely/rigorously proven. All that we can infer from it so far, are by observing the natural evidence surrounding us in the natural world - say tortosies with a larger build and long necks on the Galapagos compared with other nearby islands. Your point however, is suggesting that despite these physical differences, these creatures are still tortosies. Then, it really is therefore a question of how much these slight changes over a long, long period of time might accumulate such that a distinct new species eventually forms.

If one is comfortable with evolution that these small changes over a long, long period give rise to a new group/species, then we can say that evolution does not require the hand of God, and if we are comfortable with that, then we may take a step further by suggesting that God did not take part in the creation of the world we see around us.

Here's basically what I'm on above. A short 7 minute clip from a longer show. If you have a moment, then check it out.








DrMike said:


> I'll repeat what I have said before. I am not making the argument that God must exist because you can't disprove Him. I am saying that my personal experiences, including emotional experiences, have brought me to the conclusion that God exists. And while I can't use science to prove to you what I believe, nothing in science can disprove what I have discovered, and so I have no reason to discard my conclusions.


Understood. And I do realise it is important to you, on a very personal level.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> Actually, no. Scientists don't believe that the same amount of protons are in the universe now as 15 billion years ago. Estimates put the age of this universe around 13-15 billion years. Although there are several competing theories for the origins of the universe, at least considering the Big Bang theory, it speculates that all the matter in what is now the universe was condensed into a single point of infinite density in which time, space, and atoms, and even protons, did not exist. It was only after the event that resulted in the expansion of all that occurred, as the matter expanded and finally slowed down enough that it was able to condense down into, first, sub-atomic particles, then larger subatomic particles such as protons, and then into atoms, and larger condensations of matter that give us the various bodies that now populate our universe. So no, there are not the same number of protons now as at the origin of the universe.


It was condensed but it was there.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I agree that evolution is not completely/rigorously proven. All that we can infer from it so far, are by observing the natural evidence surrounding us in the natural world - say tortosies with a larger build and long necks on the Galapagos compared with other nearby islands. Your point however, is suggesting that despite these physical differences, these creatures are still tortosies. Then, it really is therefore a question of how much these slight changes over a long, long period of time might accumulate such that a distinct new species eventually forms.
> 
> If one is comfortable with evolution that these small changes over a long, long period give rise to a new group/species, then we can say that evolution does not require the hand of God, and if we are comfortable with that, then we may take a step further by suggesting that God did not take part in the creation of the world we see around us.
> 
> Here's basically what I'm on above. A short 7 minute clip from a longer show. If you have a moment, then check it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understood. And I do realise it is important to you, on a very personal level.


Yes, the evolutionary evidence does provide a plausible explanation for the emergence of all the different species over a long period of time. But, and not to belabor this point, our current theories are biased by our preconceived notions and ability to test them. There have been many highly plausible theories that have been discarded as more information has been introduced. Many scientists once thought it highly implausible that the genetic material could be nucleic acid, which had only 4 bases, as opposed to proteins, which were composed of more numerous amino acids. In addition, there are some theories and even laws that absolutely are real, but break down under certain conditions. Newtonian physics apply on larger scales, but there are certain instances where it breaks down. So it is possible to say that evolution is absolutely possible on some scale, but quite possibly it breaks down at some level - say, when we try to explain speciation.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> It was condensed but it was there.


No, all the matter/energy was there, not all the protons. That's like saying all the planets were there, just condensed. They weren't. The matter/energy that later became planets was there, not the planets in a condensed form.

You are trying to apply normal accepted ideas - matter neither created nor destroyed, for example - to a phenomenon where most of the laws are predicted to completely break down. When all the matter in the universe is compacted into a single point, possibly only a few millimeters in diameter, then we can't think of it all as matter in the conventional sense.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> No, all the matter/energy was there, not all the protons.
> 
> Earlier, you said that matter wasn't permanent in the way that energy is. But now you've said it "was there". Matter _is_ energy isn't it?
> 
> I'm not a particle physicist. Please tell me about the other scientific theories for the origin of the universe. Many Worlds? Multiverse? I've heard of those.
> 
> Science hasn't answered some basic questions and maybe it never will.
> 
> I don't have a problem with the concept of a creator in principal. Though I think it less likely than there not being one. As I said before, that creator may be an intelligent life force in another universe for all I know.
> 
> But I do have problem with virgin birth, resurrection, re-incarnation, miracles, prophets, omnipotent beings, ritual, dogma, homophobia, heaven and hell.
> 
> Just because we don't know the answer to everything, why should we leap to the belief in far fetched things.
> 
> Teapots?
> Clive?


----------



## Edward Elgar

Er, Dr Mike,

1 - What are the possible reasons (if any) why someone should invent a deity?
2 - How many gods (if any) have been invented by humanity?
3 - How can the often barbaric and ridiculous nature of your scripture inspire goodness or art?

Sorry to press you for an answer, but these are important questions. Please try to give definite answers as I would gladly do the same for you.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> DrMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, all the matter/energy was there, not all the protons.
> 
> Earlier, you said that matter wasn't permanent in the way that energy is. But now you've said it "was there". Matter _is_ energy isn't it?
> 
> I'm not a particle physicist. Please tell me about the other scientific theories for the origin of the universe. Many Worlds? Multiverse? I've heard of those.
> 
> Science hasn't answered some basic questions and maybe it never will.
> 
> I don't have a problem with the concept of a creator in principal. Though I think it less likely than there not being one. As I said before, that creator may be an intelligent life force in another universe for all I know.
> 
> But I do have problem with virgin birth, resurrection, re-incarnation, miracles, prophets, omnipotent beings, ritual, dogma, homophobia, heaven and hell.
> 
> Just because we don't know the answer to everything, why should we leap to the belief in far fetched things.
> 
> Teapots?
> Clive?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you are confusing my comments with others on here, because I don't recall saying that matter wasn't permanent. As for matter being energy, I'm not certain about this - not being a physicist - but I believe that it is more correct to say that matter can be converted into energy.
> 
> As to alternate theories other than the Big Bang, my knowledge is based on personal interest/curiosity, and I don't pretend to fully understand it all. Big Bang, I believe, is the most widely held idea, but there are others as well, sometimes closely related. One I've read of is the idea that there are multiple "pocket" universes inside one greater universe, caused by multiple Big Bangs, and in turn, in the distant future, once our universe reaches equilibrium in its expansion, a new universe could be created by a Big Bang, triggered by dark energy. Another idea, even more hard for me to wrap my brain around, is based on string theory, and postulates a bunch of 3-D membranes, moving around like sheets of paper in a vast bulk. Occasionally these membranes collide, creating a large explosion, similar to a Big Bang, which results in the energy in the explosion converting to matter, and eventually condensing into planets, stars, galaxies, solar systems.
> 
> You have a problem with virgin birth? What about in vitro fertilization? What about cloning? What about following evolution back to its logical beginning - that life emerged from lifelessness? At one instant in time, there was no life. Then there was.
> 
> Resurrection? There are some theoretical physicists who question the notion that time has to move in one direction - forward. They speculate that other universes may exist where time flows in the opposite direction. We know that when you inflate a balloon, and then pop it, all the air rushes out to fill the space it is in - you don't see the air rushing back into the popped balloon. But they speculate that that is merely the way our particular universe operates. With that concept in mind, does resurrection seem more outlandish?
> 
> Miracles? What is a miracle to you? That is important in understanding why you have problems conceiving them. An unexplained phenomenon? Or are you merely referring to an event directly caused by God? Again, what could be more miraculous than the evolutionary conclusion that all life arose from a single extremely primitive molecule? Or that life came from lifelessness? Or that all the matter in the universe could be condensed into a space a few millimeters in diameter? I can't imagine our moon condensed into that small of a space, let alone the entire universe, even if it is mostly space.
> 
> As for prophets, omnipotent beings, ritual, dogma, I don't know how to help you there.
> 
> As for homophobia, I also don't accept it. This may be hard for you to fathom, but just because a religion forbids a certain action, it doesn't also mean that it calls for the persecution of people who participate in such action. Case in point - Christian doctrine forbids adultery and fornication. Yet when a woman caught in adultery was brought before Christ for condemnation, he didn't. He urged her to go and no longer commit the sin.
> 
> In my religious beliefs, I believe that homosexual activities are a sin. I also believe that heterosexual activities outside of marriage are a sin. My particular church also teaches against drinking alcohol and using tobacco. Yet for all of this, I have no animosity against anybody who would engage in such things. It is possible to hate the sin, but love the sinner. Just because I disapprove of a person's actions, or don't think their actions should gain legal sanction, it doesn't mean that I hate or fear the person. We are increasingly restricting the ability of people to smoke in public in the U.S.A. Does that mean we hate smokers? Or does it mean that we hate smoking? If we incarcerate a kleptomaniac for theft, even though they are acting out on their natural impulses, does that mean that we hate them? Is my failure to sanction every possible action of every person a sign of my inbred hatred for every person?
Click to expand...


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Petwhac said:


> Are you an agnostic when it comes to Clive or the teapot.
> Please don't answer with a question just yes or no.


All righty... I'll answer- but if you intentionally limit the scope of my responses, you might not find the ripostes satisfying-

Re: the Teapot- No.
I believe in the presence of the Celestial Teapot, having witnessed it with my own eyes. 
Put another way, you have a Nun-lock, and I have a Nunki!*

*a little 'astronomy humor' there...

Re: Clive. I really like Clive. If you came up with the idea- I give you credit for it. It's a much more satifying answer than Madelyn Murray-O'Hair's expression that matter is just _there_, and we need contemplate it no further- which I view as the philosophical equivalent of "move along... nothing to see here(!)"

Ultimately (in "yes-or-no" terms) I have to say no to Clive, too. He's not a distasteful Red Herring, but he's a Red Herring, nonetheless. If we get on board with Clive, all we've done is kick the can of causality a little further down the road. We're left with the same questions, except that we've substituted "multiverse" for "universe."


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Er, Dr Mike,
> 
> 1 - What are the possible reasons (if any) why someone should invent a deity?
> 2 - How many gods (if any) have been invented by humanity?
> 3 - How can the often barbaric and ridiculous nature of your scripture inspire goodness or art?
> 
> Sorry to press you for an answer, but these are important questions. Please try to give definite answers as I would gladly do the same for you.


No, they aren't important questions. They are your way of trying to make me look ridiculous. You are demanding that I answer questions based on premises that I don't accept. Your questions are leading, and wholly biased, not seeking legitimate discussion or truth, but biased responses. What you want me to do is jump through your hoops, like a trained puppy, and then turn all the answers back on me. You are hoping that I will take the opportunity in answering these questions to give reasons for why all other gods other than my own aren't real, so that then you can turn my arguments on me. Your motives are incredibly transparent - and that is why I haven't answered these questions.

Even were I an atheist, I would not have the expertise to answer why a person would invent a deity, or how many gods has humanity invented.

At any rate, the questions are irrelevant. Even if mankind invents deities, and even if there have been countless invented gods, it would not preclude the possibility of the existence of a real God, not created by man.

Consider the myths that emerge around actual historical figures. Consider Robin Hood, or William Tell, or King Arthur. Their stories have become so exaggerated over time that it is no longer clear what is real, and what is fiction. And yet that doesn't mean that they didn't exist. What if it is like the way science works? What if people throughout time have known that there was a deity, but for whatever reason didn't know his exact nature, and so postulated various theories about what God was. Over time, various theories about God were rejected as not correct, and discarded. This is how science works. A phenomenon is observed, and scientists seek to find out how it happened. They devise various hypotheses and theories to explain the phenomenon, and as they learn more, the explanations that no longer fit the data are discarded. How long ago the most correct of the explanations was discovered is irrelevant, so long as it continues to stand up to scrutiny. The Greeks discovered that the earth was round long before Columbus and Magellan set sail. Their discovery is still true today. Mendel proposed the concept of inheritable traits, or genes, over 100 years ago, and it is still true. Newton goes back even further than that.

That there have been numerous gods envisioned by man over time is not proof that there is no God. Rather, it suggests a common goal shared by man to discover God.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> No, they aren't important questions. They are your way of trying to make me look ridiculous. You are demanding that I answer questions based on premises that I don't accept. Your questions are leading, and wholly biased, not seeking legitimate discussion or truth, but biased responses. What you want me to do is jump through your hoops, like a trained puppy, and then turn all the answers back on me. You are hoping that I will take the opportunity in answering these questions to give reasons for why all other gods other than my own aren't real, so that then you can turn my arguments on me. Your motives are incredibly transparent - and that is why I haven't answered these questions.


That shows me that even you acknowledge the questionable nature of your fundamental beliefs.

My motives may well be transparent, but so are your thought processes when faced with questions of this kind. Answering them will reveal your religion to be flawed so the best thing to do is ignore them.



DrMike said:


> Even were I an atheist, I would not have the expertise to answer why a person would invent a deity, or how many gods has humanity invented.


Really? What about the fear of death? What about control over the masses?

Humanity has prayed to countless gods over the years, are you telling me that they all exist? Some cultures must have got it wrong, why then all the killing in god's name?



DrMike said:


> At any rate, the questions are irrelevant. Even if mankind invents deities, and even if there have been countless invented gods, it would not preclude the possibility of the existence of a real God, not created by man.


By that logic your god is irrelevant. Event's that occur on earth happen by chance, so if a god did or didn't exist, the issue of his existence would be irrelevant because events would continue to happen by chance!



DrMike said:


> That there have been numerous gods envisioned by man over time is not proof that there is no God. Rather, it suggests a common goal shared by man to discover God.


That is also no proof that there is a god. It just shows that mankind has evolved to have a religious inclination.

Consider how religion would help a tribe conquer another tribe. Religion would teach that tribe that the other tribe are descendants from pigs and apes put on this earth to do the work of the devil. The rational tribe would have no such barbaric inclination and therefore would be defeated.

Religion was beneficial in mankind's infancy. Why is it necessary today?


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> That shows me that even you acknowledge the questionable nature of your fundamental beliefs.
> 
> My motives may well be transparent, but so are your thought processes when faced with questions of this kind. Answering them will reveal your religion to be flawed so the best thing to do is ignore them.
> 
> Really? What about the fear of death? What about control over the masses?
> 
> Humanity has prayed to countless gods over the years, are you telling me that they all exist? Some cultures must have got it wrong, why then all the killing in god's name?
> 
> By that logic your god is irrelevant. Event's that occur on earth happen by chance, so if a god did or didn't exist, the issue of his existence would be irrelevant because events would continue to happen by chance!
> 
> That is also no proof that there is a god. It just shows that mankind has evolved to have a religious inclination.
> 
> Consider how religion would help a tribe conquer another tribe. Religion would teach that tribe that the other tribe are descendants from pigs and apes put on this earth to do the work of the devil. The rational tribe would have no such barbaric inclination and therefore would be defeated.
> 
> Religion was beneficial in mankind's infancy. Why is it necessary today?


The flaw in all of your arguments here is that you construct them from a position that God does not exist. You base your entire argument on a hypothesis that is unprovable.

I'm not saying that your lack of evidence of God is de facto proof that He exists. But you are expecting me to first accept your equally unprovable claim that God does not exist, and then answer theoretical questions around that unscientific premise. You are trying to develop scientific explanations for a phenomenon that you can't even prove is real. You believe that humans "invent" God, and so then you try and come up with scientific and rational arguments for why this should be so. But you can't prove the initial assumption, and that is the fatal flaw in this entire line of debate of yours.

You have a series of explanations that you like, which are clearly biased by your own beliefs. But they amount to no more than speculation based on your unproven thoughts regarding how the mind works.

My answers exposed no flaw in my beliefs. You simply will see flaws in anything I say that doesn't fit your belief system. My discrediting beliefs that don't fit my belief system doesn't discredit my own, and more than a scientist discrediting theories other than his own doesn't discredit his own. In essence, you are telling me that my belief in a single God is absurd based on my not believing in multiple gods.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Edward Elgar said:


> 1 - What are the possible reasons (if any) why someone should invent a deity?
> 2 - How many gods (if any) have been invented by humanity?
> 3 - How can the often barbaric and ridiculous nature of your scripture inspire goodness or art?





DrMike said:


> Your questions are leading, and wholly biased; not seeking legitimate discussion or truth, but biased repsonses.


That's clear, beyond argument.

#3 in particular is a "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" question.

I understand that there may be some sympathy for Julien De La Mettrie on the other side of the philosophical aisle, but we're still men, not machines, and many of us are quite happy to discuss this without being lead through the 'Big-Book-of-Atheist-Argumentation' ready-made flow-chart for pigeon-holing responses to fit the prefabricated straw-man outlines, which can then subsequently be assailed.

I have unanswered questions in this thread, too- but you won't find me bewailing the situation, 
nor petulantly claiming that the non-repsonses demonstrate the veracity of my viewpoint.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Consider how religion would help a tribe conquer another tribe. Religion would teach that tribe that the other tribe are descendants from pigs and apes put on this earth to do the work of the devil. The rational tribe would have no such barbaric inclination and therefore would be defeated.
> 
> Religion was beneficial in mankind's infancy. Why is it necessary today?




I love that. Again someone throwing out this canard that religion is a system whereby believers can oppress non-believers (your rational tribe).

As I mentioned elsewhere, the Nazis used "reason" and "science" to manipulate others and conquer/destroy others who had less barbaric inclination, including, most prominently, a religious group. Was science just the latest construct of mankind to be able to wield influence over others? Climate change science is now being used to impose drastic legislation on people, often with a similar kind of fervor and fanaticism often used to describe religious people. People have always used any tool at their disposal to achieve their goals. That doesn't discredit the tool, just the person using it. Because at some point a person used religion to oppress others or for personal aggrandizement, it doesn't mean that that was the origin of the religion. Mankind didn't create atomic energy so that they could build a more destructive bomb. Atomic energy was always there - someone just learned to use it in a destructive manner. Evolution was not created by people so that they could use it to justify their racist actions as some kind of social Darwinism/survival of the superior race doctrine. If evolution is real, it has been a force on this planet for generating diversity and adaptation to an ever-changing environment - and would be independent of how some have manipulated it. You are mistaking a downstream effect of religion with its origin. If I witness a person being executed in an electric chair, and not knowing anything prior to that moment, I could say that electricity had been created for punishing criminals. We know, though, that statement is false. First, man has not created electricity. Second, while electricity can be used for such purposes, that is not its intended purpose, if it can even be said to have an intended purpose.

If you are going to apply some kind of explanation for what religion is, how it came to be, etc., then you can't simply cherry pick things about it to consider in your analysis.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

It seems to me that the only reason some of you guys deem God irrelevant is because you haven't yet heard any reason _why_ you need God. You all seem to feel that life is _fine _without God. No, it's far from it.

Unless you repent and believe, your lives will all be in vain. Everything you lived for in life will vanish the moment you die. This is a broken, miserable, and fallen world. What's the point of making heaven on earth when it will only last the blink of an eye? _I_ don't want to call this world home.

And more than that, you are all under condemnation who don't repent of unbelief! You are "sinners in the hands of an angry God," as Jonathan Edwards put it. God demands perfection of _everyone_, even those who don't trust in the work of Christ, but it's obvious that no one can do that. Thus, you have no way of escaping the wrath to come.

Even if God didn't exist... wouldn't you rather be on God's side on the day of Judgment just in case?


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> The flaw in all of your arguments here is that you construct them from a position that God does not exist. You base your entire argument on a hypothesis that is unprovable.


I construct all my thought from a position that god may or many not exist. Since you can't prove or disprove a negative assertion (i.e. there is an invisible immaterial man watching your moves and listening to your thoughts) and there is no evidence of any kind that god exists (a point which you readily acknowledge), I lean more towards the atheist camp.

However, I'm totally prepared to convert if conclusive proof came to pass that god exists. Considering my attitude towards god I'd probably be on my knees begging for forgiveness!

The thing I find puzzling is why theists are not prepared to accept the notion that a god might not exist. Things happen by chance, and attributing chance to the intervention of a divine being is not rational behaviour. We all know now in these enlightened times that putting shoes on the table e.t.c. is not bad luck. It's all merely superstition.



DrMike said:


> I'm not saying that your lack of evidence of God is de facto proof that He exists. But you are expecting me to first accept your equally unprovable claim that God does not exist, and then answer theoretical questions around that unscientific premise. You are trying to develop scientific explanations for a phenomenon that you can't even prove is real. You believe that humans "invent" God, and so then you try and come up with scientific and rational arguments for why this should be so. But you can't prove the initial assumption, and that is the fatal flaw in this entire line of debate of yours.


Mmm. I think you are dismissing my argument because you are slowly seeing my way of thinking.

If you take the probability of god's existence and compare it with the probability of a culture inventing a deity, you can begin to realise the reality that is most probable.



DrMike said:


> My answers exposed no flaw in my beliefs.


On this I agree with you. You gave no answers! It was your defensive response to being asked these questions that betrayed your convictions.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Dr Mike, you made some good claims in post #462

In recent history, political motivations can lead to appalling crimes which anyone with a shred of decency would condemn in an instant. Science was used to justify these crimes, but science was not the _reason_ behind these crimes.

Also, you didn't answer my question; Why is religion necessary today? That's a fair question I think.


----------



## Elgarian

One of the problems in these discussions arises because people on different sides of the fence use words in different ways. 'Faith' and 'belief' for instance, are often used loosely (on both sides) without it being made clear just what is meant by them.

If I were to think carefully about the act of riding a bicycle, for example, I think could persuade myself (if I'd never actually attempted it, and were trying to contemplate all the torques and forces involved) that the thing is impossible. Fact is, most of us don't actually wait for proof that we can ride a bicycle. We find that we can just get on and do it. Bicycle-riding, for most of us, is a kind of act of faith, based on experience of riding bicycles and seeing others ride bicycles. I suspect that very few people ride bicycles because they've read a comprehensive analysis of the physics of the process, proving its possibility. Even so, bicycle riding is viable. It works for lots of people.

The problem that faces most of us is not the issue of belief or disbelief in the existence of a Creator. The problem is more like riding a bicycle. We want to find the best way we can of leading a meaningful life. We're looking for something that works for us, and we construct models of reality to try to achieve that. The scientific process is one way of constructing models of certain aspects of our experience of reality, but just as scientists don't always agree about what the most satisfactory current theories are, so not everyone finds that the answers provided by science match their personal experience of life adequately.

The plurality of religious (and non-religious) experience suggests that there's no one currently available solution (religious or non-religious) that will fit all. There may indeed be some kind of truth out there for us to discover, but since we all see through a glass darkly, with varying degrees of accuracy, all we have so far is a variety of glimpses that can only ever be partly accurate. As individuals, it's our personal responsibility to find a way through this plurality of responses as best we can, choosing the aspects that best fit our lives as we experience them. What we must not do, I think, is try to impose our personal vision on others, or to ridicule the choices that others have made, when they've made them on grounds that make sense _to them_. For ourselves, we have all the data (at least potentially). So we can (potentially) know why we've made the choices we've made, ourselves. For others, we don't.

I realise of course that this tolerant approach (it's not relativism, by the way; it's merely an acknowledgement of the plurality of responses to a real truth that's out there) can never be acceptable to the fundamentalist. It's not acceptable to the _religious_ fundamentalist because his rules of engagement preclude any recourse to rational thought and therefore his beliefs become self-fulfilling. But it's not acceptable to the _scientific _fundamentalist either, because he believes there's only one true way to acquire knowledge - that is, through the scientific method. He adopts a restricted philosophy that excludes other kinds of knowledge and therefore becomes equally self-fulfilling.

It always seems to me in these exchanges that the various sides are engaged in a continual series of category errors. It may not seem like it, but often at root, the questions posed by one side for the other side to answer are of the type 'Is the King of France bald?' It looks like a real question, but actually it isn't. If we really, truly want to understand why Jack says he believes in God and Jill doesn't, we need to be absolutely clear about what Jack and Jill each mean by 'belief' and 'God', and what each thinks that 'believing in God' entails. That's no easy matter. It's necessary to drop the desire to prove that 'I'm right and he's wrong', and make a serious attempt to understand the other's beliefs, _from his perspective instead of mine_. Unless some such attempt is made, the exchanges will always fall into an endless cycle of category errors, eternally irresolvable.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Huilunsoittaja said:


> It seems to me that the only reason some of you guys deem God irrelevant is because you haven't yet heard any reason _why_ you need God. You all seem to feel that life is _fine _without God. No, it's far from it.
> 
> Unless you repent and believe, your lives will all be in vain. Everything you lived for in life will vanish the moment you die. This is a broken, miserable, and fallen world. What's the point of making heaven on earth when it will only last the blink of an eye? _I_ don't want to call this world home.
> 
> And more than that, *you are all under condemnation who don't repent of unbelief*! You are "sinners in the hands of an angry God," as Jonathan Edwards put it. God demands perfection of _everyone_, even those who don't trust in the work of Christ, but it's obvious that no one can do that. *Thus, you have no way of escaping the wrath to come.*
> Even if God didn't exist... wouldn't you rather be on God's side on the day of Judgment just in case?


You are contradicting yourself. Your foolish self-righteousness does not qualify you from judging whether those who do not believe in your God might live "life in vain" when they die. In any case, your God (quoted directly above) is one of judgement and punishment, whereas your other God (quoted directly below) is one of forgiveness.

Nice to see your God could change from one extreme perspective to the next, in the matter of a few days. But the Lord does work in mysterious ways, and it seems that mystery has also mysteriously worked well on you.



Huilunsoittaja said:


> True. I'm sorry, I didn't really make myself clear. I am a Christian.
> 
> I'll give you some reasons why Christianity is different from all other religions.
> 
> 1. It's the only religion out there that proclaims that its God actually made himself weak, even in the form of a man, in order to raise up those he will save.
> 2. *It's the only religion where the follower does nothing to gain salvation*. The regeneration, the faith, and even the good works all come from the Holy Spirit, which God imparts to his elect. *True, many Christians believe that it takes good works to get into Heaven, but that is Biblically false*. The book of Galatians is all about that.
> 3. It's the only religion where God actually desires to have a personal relationship with his people, like a Father towards his children.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Dr Mike, you made some good claims in post #462
> 
> In recent history, political motivations can lead to appalling crimes which anyone with a shred of decency would condemn in an instant. Science was used to justify these crimes, but science was not the _reason_ behind these crimes.
> 
> Also, you didn't answer my question; Why is religion necessary today? That's a fair question I think.


You ask why religion is necessary today. Why is justice necessary today? Why are laws necessary today?

I would tell you that God still exists today, and his commandments still are there, and while we, as humans, have advanced technologically and intellectually, fundamentally we haven't changed.

You think that religion was created for reasons such as fear of death. Do people no longer fear death? Is death no longer an issue?

Really, though, regarding man, the more we change, the more we stay the same. We still make the same stupid mistakes, we just do them more efficiently now. We still wage war with one another, sometimes with good justification, sometimes without. We now are able to kill more people with our weapons than we used to with spears, rocks, and swords. We still covet what our neighbor has, we just have more sophisticated ways of taking it from him. We still lie - we just have better ways of doing it anonymously. As we read in Ecclesiastes in the OT, there is nothing new under the sun.

But I would say that God still exists, we are still his children, he still wants us to follow his commandments and return to him after this life. Hence, we still need religion.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Elgarian said:


> It always seems to me in these exchanges that the various sides are engaged in a continual series of category errors. It may not seem like it, but often at root, the questions posed by one side for the other side to answer are of the type 'Is the King of France bald?' It looks like a real question, but actually it isn't. If we really, truly want to understand why Jack says he believes in God and Jill doesn't, we need to be absolutely clear about what Jack and Jill each mean by 'belief' and 'God', and what each thinks that 'believing in God' entails. That's no easy matter. It's necessary to drop the desire to prove that 'I'm right and he's wrong', and make a serious attempt to understand the other's beliefs, _from his perspective instead of mine_. Unless some such attempt is made, the exchanges will always fall into an endless cycle of category errors, eternally irresolvable.


I certainly do understand the perspective of many religious people. I'm not referring to religious members here (whom I do not know personally at all). I have personal friends in my life who are very religious; people with whom I went to Catholic primary & secondary high school, and who continuously practise their faith as adults today. It is not as complicated as you make it out to be (or perhaps you have interacted with religious people in your life and have made you to conclude that way).

My experience in life with religious people are they have followed religion primarily because of upbringing, and more importantly it seems, that it also gives them a sense of peaceful and good belonging to a belief that offers them personal meaning, and also be part of a society that finds it acceptable (think Muslims in Muslim state for example, especially those born in one).


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> As for matter being energy, I'm not certain about this - not being a physicist - but I believe that it is more correct to say that matter can be converted into energy.


No, I believe from various popular science books on quantum physics that the current thinking is that matter is energy.



DrMike said:


> You have a problem with virgin birth? What about in vitro fertilization? What about cloning?


What about them? I don't recall there being any talk of hypodermics in the bible. I think these are fairly recent developments.



DrMike said:


> Resurrection? There are some theoretical physicists who question the notion that time has to move in one direction - forward. They speculate that other universes may exist where time flows in the opposite direction. We know that when you inflate a balloon, and then pop it, all the air rushes out to fill the space it is in - you don't see the air rushing back into the popped balloon. But they speculate that that is merely the way our particular universe operates. With that concept in mind, does resurrection seem more outlandish?


Yes. Unless you care to formulate a plausible theory as to how Jesus came back from the dead without just saying " it was the work of God".



DrMike said:


> Again, what could be more miraculous than the evolutionary conclusion that all life arose from a single extremely primitive molecule? Or that life came from lifelessness? Or that all the matter in the universe could be condensed into a space a few millimeters in diameter? I can't imagine our moon condensed into that small of a space, let alone the entire universe, even if it is mostly space.


That's the whole point of scientific enquiry and why science and the natural world is a source of wonderment and awe. Precisely _because_ evolution, big bang, black holes can exist without the need to invent a superbeing.



DrMike said:


> As for homophobia, I also don't accept it. This may be hard for you to fathom, but just because a religion forbids a certain action, it doesn't also mean that it calls for the persecution of people who participate in such action. Case in point - Christian doctrine forbids adultery and fornication. Yet when a woman caught in adultery was brought before Christ for condemnation, he didn't. He urged her to go and no longer commit the sin.


You will discriminate against a gay or lesbian person although you might not persecute them.
According to your doctrine they are an abomination (as is eating shell fish?).
Yet when a secular institution forbids you to wear a cross or hijab you claim to be a victim of persecution.



DrMike said:


> Just because I disapprove of a person's actions, or don't think their actions should gain legal sanction, it doesn't mean that I hate or fear the person. We are increasingly restricting the ability of people to smoke in public in the U.S.A. Does that mean we hate smokers? Or does it mean that we hate smoking? If we incarcerate a kleptomaniac for theft, even though they are acting out on their natural impulses, does that mean that we hate them? Is my failure to sanction every possible action of every person a sign of my inbred hatred for every person?


Do you seriously mean you want to forbid gay marriage for even those people who aren't members of your church/faith? 
There is such a thing as second hand smoke which can damage your health.

You want to impose your dogma on the gay person's right to have a legal contract with a loving life partner?

How about the Soviet regime's dogma of forbidding the public worship of God.

But that's religion for you. 'My views were given to me from God and therefore they trump yours"

Bin Laden would agree with you there.

You are on very shaky ground now.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> No, I believe from various popular science books on quantum physics that the current thinking is that matter is energy.
> 
> What about them? I don't recall there being any talk of hypodermics in the bible. I think these are fairly recent developments.
> 
> Yes. Unless you care to formulate a plausible theory as to how Jesus came back from the dead without just saying " it was the work of God".
> 
> That's the whole point of scientific enquiry and why science and the natural world is a source of wonderment and awe. Precisely _because_ evolution, big bang, black holes can exist without the need to invent a superbeing.
> 
> You will discriminate against a gay or lesbian person although you might not persecute them.
> According to your doctrine they are an abomination (as is eating shell fish?).
> Yet when a secular institution forbids you to wear a cross or hijab you claim to be a victim of persecution.
> 
> Do you seriously mean you want to forbid gay marriage for even those people who aren't members of your church/faith?
> There is such a thing as second hand smoke which can damage your health.
> 
> You want to impose your dogma on the gay person's right to have a legal contract with a loving life partner?
> 
> How about the Soviet regime's dogma of forbidding the public worship of God.
> 
> But that's religion for you. 'My views were given to me from God and therefore they trump yours"
> 
> Bin Laden would agree with you there.
> 
> You are on very shaky ground now.


Well, you are now comparing me with a homicidal maniac that is responsible for the death of thousands. I honestly have nothing else to say to you at this point. Go ahead and cast whatever further aspersions about me and my faith. Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## David58117

Dr Mike - you made a lot of claims about evolution falling short on speciation, such as:

"So while evolution very clearly is evident in producing variety within a species, where is the evidence of the natural emergence of new species arising from old?

So even with the extensive fossil record that we have, we can't seem to find any examples that provide that critical evidence of a new, more evolved species arising from a more primitive species.

So it is possible to say that evolution is absolutely possible on some scale, but quite possibly it breaks down at some level - say, when we try to explain speciation."

But as I said before, these statements are not true at all - there HAVE been fossils found that "provide that critical evidence of a new, more evolved species arising from a more primitive species," (The 2004 finding of the predicted Tiktaalik comes to mind).

Also, there have been easily repeatable experiments that are entirely in line with what is to be expected with speciation (ie, Diane Dodds fuit fly experiment). 

So do you have any reason why these are not valid?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

David58117 said:


> ... *there HAVE been fossils found that "provide that critical evidence of a new, more evolved species arising from a more primitive species*," (The 2004 finding of the predicted Tiktaalik comes to mind).


Indeed. Perhaps the most famous of these, and an excellent example of it too, is _Archaeoptryx_ (formally announced in 1861; two years after Darwin's _On the Origin of Species_). It was a primitive bird. The first discovered fossilized evidence of the feather and wings on a creature that still had reptilian/dinosaur characteristics (a tail, claws on a pair of rather long legs). A clear transitional creature between dinosaurs and birds. It was probably a very bad flyer though.

The critical evidence here is feathers, near asymmetric flight feathers on wings and on tails were obviously not part of land living dinosaurs until these primitive early birds appeared. I think it would be difficult to argue that a development as significant as feathers and taking flight would not be considered as evolutionary development by way of speciation from land living creatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> You ask why religion is necessary today. Why is justice necessary today? Why are laws necessary today?


This is what I don't like about your answers. You either refuse to give an answer or answer a question with a question.

We need justice to restore some degree of moral balance in society. We need laws to maintain a peaceful society. These concepts have nothing to do with religion.

I ask again, why is religion necessary today?



DrMike said:


> I would tell you that God still exists today, and his commandments still are there, and while we, as humans, have advanced technologically and intellectually, fundamentally we haven't changed.


I know you don't like questions, but this raises more questions than is answers.

How do you know his commandments are still relevant? How do you know if god cares so much about what happens to humanity? Why does god command anything of us? What has humanity done to deserve these commands?

I have so many questions and yet theists can't seem to answer them.



DrMike said:


> You think that religion was created for reasons such as fear of death. Do people no longer fear death? Is death no longer an issue?


I don't really see your argument here. Your first assertion is correct. People who are not in control of their lives or have yet to achieve a fulfilling life I think are afraid of death. Death is random, uncontrollable, painful and frightening. It's no wonder people make up stories to soften the cruel concept of death. Death is still an issue, but why not look at is from the Stoic perspective? (I'm sorry, that's another question) There's nothing we can do to control death so why not make the most of life on earth now so on the off-chance there is no afterlife we have no regrets on our deathbeds.



DrMike said:


> Really, though, regarding man, the more we change, the more we stay the same. We still make the same stupid mistakes, we just do them more efficiently now. We still wage war with one another, sometimes with good justification, sometimes without. We now are able to kill more people with our weapons than we used to with spears, rocks, and swords. We still covet what our neighbor has, we just have more sophisticated ways of taking it from him. We still lie - we just have better ways of doing it anonymously. As we read in Ecclesiastes in the OT, there is nothing new under the sun.


Indeed! God's done a great job keeping humanity in check!

How is is that when humanity is in dire need of salvation, (the holocaust, natural disasters, famine) god turns a blind eye and forsakes us? He must be as sick as the Nazis were to allow the holocaust to have happened.



DrMike said:


> But I would say that God still exists, we are still his children, he still wants us to follow his commandments and return to him after this life. Hence, we still need religion.


Again, more questions. Your story has quite a few plot holes that can't seem to be filled. How do you know what god wants? Where is this afterlife place?

I don't expect to get any answers from these questions as you are way too defensive to expose any weakness in your beliefs. Just know that the more questions you ask yourself, the more you begin to realise the true nature of reality.


----------



## Argus

Huilunsoittaja said:


> It seems to me that the only reason some of you guys deem God irrelevant is because you haven't yet heard any reason _why_ you need God. You all seem to feel that life is _fine _without God. No, it's far from it.
> 
> Unless you repent and believe, your lives will all be in vain. Everything you lived for in life will vanish the moment you die. This is a broken, miserable, and fallen world. What's the point of making heaven on earth when it will only last the blink of an eye? _I_ don't want to call this world home.
> 
> And more than that, you are all under condemnation who don't repent of unbelief! You are "sinners in the hands of an angry God," as *Jonathan Edwards *put it. God demands perfection of _everyone_, even those who don't trust in the work of Christ, but it's obvious that no one can do that. Thus, you have no way of escaping the wrath to come.
> 
> Even if God didn't exist... wouldn't you rather be on God's side on the day of Judgment just in case?


Hahaha. Since when does being a world class triple jumper make anyone an expert on religion.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> Well, you are now comparing me with a homicidal maniac that is responsible for the death of thousands. I honestly have nothing else to say to you at this point. Go ahead and cast whatever further aspersions about me and my faith. Whatever floats your boat.


I am very sorry if you feel I was making a personal attack. I wasn't. I only meant to point out that dogma is dangerous and leads to prejudice and intolerance.

And by the way, we only have _circumstantial_ evidence that Bin laden was behind 9/11.
There is absolutely no hard evidence and a number of other theories have been put forward.

Again, I did not mean to offend you personally and I'm sorry that you took my comments that way.

I am as frightened by the prospect of living in a state that is governed by your God's laws as by Bin Laden's God. This is why I resist totalitarianism.

You are free to worship and gays are free to marry. ( I'm a heterosexual and have been married for 25 years , by the way)


----------



## Boccherini

DrMike said:


> You ask why religion is necessary today. Why is justice necessary today? Why are laws necessary today?
> 
> I would tell you that God still exists today, and his commandments still are there, and while we, as humans, have advanced technologically and intellectually, fundamentally we haven't changed.
> 
> *You think that religion was created for reasons such as fear of death.* Do people no longer fear death? Is death no longer an issue?
> 
> Really, though, regarding man, the more we change, the more we stay the same. We still make the same stupid mistakes, we just do them more efficiently now. We still wage war with one another, sometimes with good justification, sometimes without. We now are able to kill more people with our weapons than we used to with spears, rocks, and swords. We still covet what our neighbor has, we just have more sophisticated ways of taking it from him. We still lie - we just have better ways of doing it anonymously. As we read in Ecclesiastes in the OT, there is nothing new under the sun.
> 
> But I would say that God still exists, we are still his children, he still wants us to follow his commandments and return to him after this life. *Hence, we still need religion.*


I'm confused. After reading the second paragraph, I comprehended that you're saying that religion was not created for particular reasons such as fear of death, but after reading the third paragraph and your last (bolded) sentence, I presume you implied that we need religion because we _still_ have fears/mistakes etc, but if, say, we are not being affected by those terms, we wouldn't have needed religion?
By saying "we still need religion", I would conclude, that there might be a situation which religion isn't needed, which is, I assume, not your intention after saying "You think that religion was created for reasons such as fear of death".


----------



## Boccherini

Edward Elgar said:


> This is what I don't like about your answers. You either refuse to give an answer or answer a question with a question.
> 
> We need justice to restore some degree of moral balance in society. We need laws to maintain a peaceful society. These concepts have nothing to do with religion.
> 
> *[1]*I ask again, why is religion necessary today?
> 
> I know you don't like questions, but this raises more questions than is answers.
> 
> *[2]*How do you know his commandments are still relevant? *[3]*How do you know if god cares so much about what happens to humanity? *[4]*Why does god command anything of us? *[5]*What has humanity done to deserve these commands?
> 
> I have so many questions and yet theists can't seem to answer them.
> 
> I don't really see your argument here. Your first assertion is correct. People who are not in control of their lives or have yet to achieve a fulfilling life I think are afraid of death. Death is random, uncontrollable, painful and frightening. It's no wonder people make up stories to soften the cruel concept of death. Death is still an issue, *[6]*but why not look at is from the Stoic perspective? (I'm sorry, that's another question)*[7]* There's nothing we can do to control death so why not make the most of life on earth now so on the off-chance there is no afterlife we have no regrets on our deathbeds.
> 
> Indeed! God's done a great job keeping humanity in check!
> 
> *[8]*How is is that when humanity is in dire need of salvation, (the holocaust, natural disasters, famine) god turns a blind eye and forsakes us? He must be as sick as the Nazis were to allow the holocaust to have happened.
> 
> Again, more questions. Your story has quite a few plot holes that can't seem to be filled. *[9]*How do you know what god wants? *[10]*Where is this afterlife place?
> 
> I don't expect to get any answers from these questions as you are way too defensive to expose any weakness in your beliefs. Just know that the more questions you ask yourself, the more you begin to realise the true nature of reality.


I'll try to answer according to my religion, if you don't mind:

[1]There's something you must understand: Religion is not a "tool" which might be useless one day. 
[2]For the simple reason he didn't say otherwise, why would it change?
[3]For the reasons: he created you, he would have destroyed you otherwise.
[4]Why wouldn't he? You should thank him for giving you a life, shoudn't you?
[5]Good question.
[6]Because Death isn't the end.
[7]That's a superficial statement which I don't accept. You don't need to do _anything_ in order to control death, but you can do _something_ that would change your status in the afterlife.
[8]No, God neither turn a blind eye nor forsakes us. You don't seem to accept the concept that there are a few questions that we _should not_ ask their rational answers, for this might be an experience that God wants to give you a try if you're obedient/disobedient. That's the point where many people fall.
[9]I don't intend to answer that specific question.
[10]Why do you care? Don't ask such questions for this is useless.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Boccherini said:


> I'll try to answer according to my religion, if you don't mind:


How uncommonly refreshing! Thank you!



Boccherini said:


> [1]There's something you must understand: Religion is not a "tool" which might be useless one day.


That doesn't really answer the question though. Telling me what religion is _not_ does not tell me why religion is relevant today. Try telling me what religion is to try and persuade me that religion still has some degree of worth.



Boccherini said:


> [2]For the simple reason he didn't say otherwise, why would it change?


How, when and where did god speak? Who did he speak to? Who documented these conversations? Is it even possible for a human being to hear god's voice or see god's face?

These assertions that god told us to do some stuff but not to do other stuff 2000 years ago raises more questions than it answers.



Boccherini said:


> [3]For the reasons: he created you, he would have destroyed you otherwise.


So by that logic it's impossible to care about me without commanding me not to be jealous of my neighbour's possessions? and I thought god was omnipotent!



Boccherini said:


> [4]Why wouldn't he? You should thank him for giving you a life, shoudn't you?


God had nothing to do with giving me life. That was a decision made by my parents. I don't see how god gave me life, and if he did why does he feel it necessary to command me not to do stuff I know is wrong anyway?



Boccherini said:


> [5]Good question.


I suppose it's good because it ties in with your "original sin" theory. Why did god create an imperfect being in his own image? This just begs more and more questions.

Plus, why did Jesus have a foreskin? If he was born perfect, he would have been born circumcised as the foreskin is an attachment of the devil's design.



Boccherini said:


> [6]Because Death isn't the end.


How can you be so sure?



Boccherini said:


> [7]That's a superficial statement which I don't accept. You don't need to do _anything_ in order to control death, but you can do _something_ that would change your status in the afterlife.


Again, how can you be so sure?



Boccherini said:


> [8]No, God neither turn a blind eye nor forsakes us. You don't seem to accept the concept that there are a few questions that we _should not_ ask their rational answers, for this might be an experience that God wants to give you a try if you're obedient/disobedient. That's the point where many people fall.


So we should remain stupid and obedient, even in the face of evil. That's not good advice in my opinion.



Boccherini said:


> [9]I don't intend to answer that specific question.


And yet it's fundamental to all the practices of a Christian! If you don't know what god wants, what was the reason behind the crusades, Spanish inquisition, discrimination of women and homosexuals, repression of scientific truth? If god didn't want any of that then where are you getting your information from? This is important because people live or die by what other people think god wants!

I fear that for theists, life is cheaper as they are sure an afterlife awaits. What if we only get one life and the Christian sends the Muslim to eternal unconsciousness? Saying that, it's probably better than sending him to eternal torture. God, humans are sick!



Boccherini said:


> [10]Why do you care? Don't ask such questions for this is useless.


You seem to care a great deal about where you go after you die! Why don't you care where it is?


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> This is what I don't like about your answers. You either refuse to give an answer or answer a question with a question.
> 
> We need justice to restore some degree of moral balance in society. We need laws to maintain a peaceful society. These concepts have nothing to do with religion.
> 
> I ask again, why is religion necessary today?
> 
> I know you don't like questions, but this raises more questions than is answers.
> 
> How do you know his commandments are still relevant? How do you know if god cares so much about what happens to humanity? Why does god command anything of us? What has humanity done to deserve these commands?
> 
> I have so many questions and yet theists can't seem to answer them.
> 
> I don't really see your argument here. Your first assertion is correct. People who are not in control of their lives or have yet to achieve a fulfilling life I think are afraid of death. Death is random, uncontrollable, painful and frightening. It's no wonder people make up stories to soften the cruel concept of death. Death is still an issue, but why not look at is from the Stoic perspective? (I'm sorry, that's another question) There's nothing we can do to control death so why not make the most of life on earth now so on the off-chance there is no afterlife we have no regrets on our deathbeds.
> 
> Indeed! God's done a great job keeping humanity in check!
> 
> How is is that when humanity is in dire need of salvation, (the holocaust, natural disasters, famine) god turns a blind eye and forsakes us? He must be as sick as the Nazis were to allow the holocaust to have happened.
> 
> Again, more questions. Your story has quite a few plot holes that can't seem to be filled. How do you know what god wants? Where is this afterlife place?
> 
> I don't expect to get any answers from these questions as you are way too defensive to expose any weakness in your beliefs. Just know that the more questions you ask yourself, the more you begin to realise the true nature of reality.


I have answered the same questions from you and other people multiple times here. You just think that the answers have to satisfy you, or else I must not be answering you. You can't tell me the exact way that life began here. Should I infer from that that you are evading my questions?

I gave specific answers in my post, not just more questions. The questions I raised were meant to illustrate that some things are ever present. There isn't some time when we don't need them.

Unfortunately, my answer was a little bit confusing, as Boccherini took it to mean that religion is only needed at certain times, which I did not mean to imply. Asking why we need God anymore is like asking why I need my parents anymore. It is an irrelevant question, because I have parents. Whether I think I need them anymore is irrelevant to the fact that they are still my parents.

You might want to phrase your questions to Boccherini differently - you raise issues with Christianity, and he is Jewish, so you probably won't get the answer you want from him.

We know what God expects of us because he has told prophets, who have told us, and then we can also find out from him through prayer. If you want to know how that works, you'll just have to try it for yourself.

The commandments are still relevant because, as I said, God is still relevant, and his plan for us is still relevant. The commandments against such things as murder and stealing are still relevant (merely as a small example) because those are still problems. You say that because they still exist, that is a sign of an ineffective God - maybe, if it were the same people still on this earth as were here thousands of years ago. Assuming you don't believe in reincarnation, I think we can both agree that there have been numerous generations since then. Each generation has to learn these things. For that matter, we could just as easily say that justice is a complete failure, if we still need it after all this time. Education must be a failure, if we still have to educate people.

God doesn't turn a blind eye - but he also doesn't protect us from all of life's dangers. As I mentioned elsewhere, critical to our being able to progress is the possibility of making mistakes, even big ones. And, as so often happens, the sins of one often affect another - sometimes unintentionally, sometimes intentionally. But death can come at any time. What is important is that we have ourselves prepared at all times. So, you see, religious people can also seek to live as good of a life as possible every single day so that when death takes them, they will be prepared for what comes next.

It is simply a fallacy that love requires absolute coddling.

So, since you are so much more "open" than I, do you have a better handle on what reality is? Or are you just more convinced of your opinion than you are of mine? You claim my religion has too many holes in the plot. I could say the same of your beliefs. I am still waiting for an explanation as to how a mere 2-4% difference in genomes can differentiate us from chimpanzees, not only in appearance and physical traits, but also in cognitive capacity. How does a sense of morality evolve? How does a concept of justice and mercy emerge? Are thoughts capable of being genetically imprinted? How does life emerge from lifelessness? How can all matter and energy in our universe condense into a single point a few millimeters in diameter? That is the part that gets me - I don't deny it could happen. I think explaining that would be one of man's greatest achievements. But I love how it is merely accepted now, with scientists waving their hands saying, well, none of our current theories can explain it, so we'll say that in such a situation, the normal laws simply don't apply. I think that is probably true. But from a skeptical standpoint, that sounds like a copout answer. That is like saying, well, I know my religious ideas can't be scientifically proven, but I can still believe by faith. Both require a suspension of proof, and a blind leap of faith to accept. A plot hole, if you will.


----------



## Toccata

Isn't it about time this ridiculous thread was closed?

It is utter ***** of the first order, with a dwindling bunch of smart-**** school kids arguing the toss endlessly with the Research Department of the Mormon Church.

It reminds me of Saul (he of CMG and GMG fame) presenting all his ultra-Orthodox opinions pretending they were his own when all the time it was obvious to all that it was coming from Rabbi Schmuley Boteach.

Can't the Moderators of this forum see that 99% of the membership of this place aren't interested in any of this religious crap?


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> We know what God expects of us because he has told prophets, who have told us....


When did he tell prophets? How do you know he told prophets, because they said so?


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> 3 - How can the often barbaric and ridiculous nature of your scripture inspire goodness or art?


Handel - Messiah, Saul, Salomon, Samson oratorios
Haydn - The 7 Last Words of Christ on the Cross, The Creation
Bach - St. Matthew and St. John Passion
Brahms - Ein Deutsches Requiem

These are just right off the top of my head, and are restricted to only those directly drawn from scripture. If you'd like a longer list, I can do that (there would be even more oratorios from Handel).
So you tell me. Or will you argue that these are neither good, nor art?


----------



## Guest

Opal said:


> Isn't it about time this ridiculous thread was closed?
> 
> It is utter ***** of the first order, with a dwindling bunch of smart-**** school kids arguing the toss endlessly with the Research Department of the Mormon Church.
> 
> It reminds me of Saul (he of CMG and GMG fame) presenting all his ultra-Orthodox opinions pretending they were his own when all the time it was obvious to all that it was coming from Rabbi Schmuley Boteach.
> 
> Can't the Moderators of this forum see that 99% of the membership of this place aren't interested in any of this religious crap?


Yet you popped in to read it? There are probably any number of topics discussed here that 99% of the membership aren't interested in.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> Handel - Messiah, Saul, Salomon, Samson oratorios
> Haydn - The 7 Last Words of Christ on the Cross, The Creation
> Bach - St. Matthew and St. John Passion
> Brahms - Ein Deutsches Requiem


I was referring to the Book of Mormon.

I'll freely admit that the bible has some inspiring verses. Saying that, so does 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Harry Potter'.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> I was referring to the Book of Mormon.
> 
> I'll freely admit that the bible has some inspiring verses. Saying that, so does 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Harry Potter'.


The Bible is my scripture, as well. And tell me, is there anything, to you, more far-fetched in the Book of Mormon than can be found in the Bible? Given that the Book of Mormon has only been circulated for a little over 100 years, there hasn't been the exposure that the Bible has had. But there is music in the Mormon church inspired, or directly drawn from the Book of Mormon - you would probably be less familiar with it, though. But I would think that it is the larger issue of goodness and art coming from religion in general. Proving that one particular book has not inspired as much art seems kind of tangential to the topic. As for goodness, well, I'll let you decide for yourself whether practicing Mormons meet your threshold of goodness to decide whether this book can inspire goodness.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> I have answered the same questions from you and other people multiple times here. You just think that the answers have to satisfy you, or else I must not be answering you. You can't tell me the exact way that life began here. Should I infer from that that you are evading my questions?


I'm not a biologist, but I'll answer that as well as I can. When a group of chemicals arranged in a certain way (amino acids) can replicate themselves, natural selection takes over and over billions of years, we are here.

The chances of chemicals arranging themselves in such a manner may well be staggeringly improbable, but in an infinite universe (or a universe so big it defies contemplation), everything that can happen, will happen.

I'll not try to evade any question. I've nothing to hide and nothing to loose.



DrMike said:


> Unfortunately, my answer was a little bit confusing, as Boccherini took it to mean that religion is only needed at certain times, which I did not mean to imply. Asking why we need God anymore is like asking why I need my parents anymore. It is an irrelevant question, because I have parents. Whether I think I need them anymore is irrelevant to the fact that they are still my parents.


I take it that means whether you're a theist or an atheist, the matter is irrelevant. If your heterosexual or homosexual, the matter is irrelevant. If we think we don't need god (which you agree is fine as the issue of us caring is irrelevant), why adhere to what his prophets have told us about him?

I've brought up a flaw in this logic of irrelevance before but you haven't yet addressed it. If god did or didn't exist, the issue of his existence would be irrelevant because events would continue to happen by chance and not by divine intervention.



DrMike said:


> You might want to phrase your questions to Boccherini differently - you raise issues with Christianity, and he is Jewish, so you probably won't get the answer you want from him.


Oops! Then maybe perhaps you could tell me why Jesus had a foreskin?



DrMike said:


> We know what God expects of us because he has told prophets, who have told us, and then we can also find out from him through prayer. If you want to know how that works, you'll just have to try it for yourself.


I spent the first 10 years of my life praying. I'm ashamed it took me so long to realise that no-ones' listening!

So a stranger walks up to you in the street and claims he has heard the word of god and wants you to document the words he will recite back. Convenient that this does not require a shred of proof in my opinion.



DrMike said:


> The commandments are still relevant because, as I said, God is still relevant, and his plan for us is still relevant. The commandments against such things as murder and stealing are still relevant (merely as a small example) because those are still problems. You say that because they still exist, that is a sign of an ineffective God - maybe, if it were the same people still on this earth as were here thousands of years ago. Assuming you don't believe in reincarnation, I think we can both agree that there have been numerous generations since then. Each generation has to learn these things. For that matter, we could just as easily say that justice is a complete failure, if we still need it after all this time. Education must be a failure, if we still have to educate people.


We know what is right and wrong without scripture. Why does no scripture condemn slavery, rape or genocide? Curious in my opinion.



DrMike said:


> I am still waiting for an explanation as to how a mere 2-4% difference in genomes can differentiate us from chimpanzees, not only in appearance and physical traits, but also in cognitive capacity.


Just goes to show how much information is stored in those genes. Certain genes do the same things in ever mammal. Chimpanzees basically do everything humans do. It's just that they've got a bit more hair and a larger mouth. (The large mouth is the reason they are not as intelligent as us by the way because it doesn't allow the skull much room for expansion).



DrMike said:


> How does a sense of morality evolve?


Theory of mind. We can put ourselves in other people's shoes so we know what it feels like to wrong them. Ergo we choose not to. Plus it's pleasurable for us to help others.

In fact, that's one good thing from scripture. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Shame some Christians don't adhere to that.



DrMike said:


> How does a concept of justice and mercy emerge?


These are all really good questions! There's a free-thinker inside you screaming to get out!

Well, what's the logical thing to do if someone is running around shooting everybody? To ensure the survival of the species we are obligated to do something about it (whether the method be prison, rehabilitation or capital punishment).

As for mercy, that's theory of mind again.



DrMike said:


> Are thoughts capable of being genetically imprinted?


I don't have the thoughts of my ancestors. That's an interesting topic.



DrMike said:


> How does life emerge from lifelessness?


As i said before, chemicals that are able to copy themselves.



DrMike said:


> How can all matter and energy in our universe condense into a single point a few millimeters in diameter?


Matter is made up of mostly nothing. We perceive our environment in a way that is beneficial for us to do so.

Science hasn't got that far in explaining this fully. All we've got to go on is a theory of a big bang which I don't fully understand.

We could continue our journey of discovery or just put our feet back and say god did it. That's for clever physics people to decide.



DrMike said:


> I don't deny it could happen.


THANK YOU


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> I'm not a biologist, but I'll answer that as well as I can. When a group of chemicals arranged in a certain way (amino acids) can replicate themselves, natural selection takes over and over billions of years, we are here.
> 
> The chances of chemicals arranging themselves in such a manner may well be staggeringly improbable, but in an infinite universe (or a universe so big it defies contemplation), everything that can happen, will happen.


 Well, that is quite the interesting statement. So when you get back to a point where no explanation exists, then you can simply throw out the statement that an infinite universe provides an infinite number of possibilities. But it doesn't, does it? Aren't laws there to be followed? With the exception of special circumstances - the universe pre-Big Bang and singularities at the center of black holes - the normal laws are followed.



> I take it that means whether you're a theist or an atheist, the matter is irrelevant. If your heterosexual or homosexual, the matter is irrelevant. If we think we don't need god (which you agree is fine as the issue of us caring is irrelevant), why adhere to what his prophets have told us about him?
> 
> I've brought up a flaw in this logic of irrelevance before but you haven't yet addressed it. If god did or didn't exist, the issue of his existence would be irrelevant because events would continue to happen by chance and not by divine intervention.


No, God is not irrelevant because he doesn't oversee every action that occurs. He can still intervene. And, more importantly, he is very much involved in our circumstances after this life.



> Oops! Then maybe perhaps you could tell me why Jesus had a foreskin?


I'm not familiar with the doctrine that the foreskin is a creation of the devil. As I understand it, circumcision was instituted as a sign between Abraham and his descendants and God as a sign of their covenant with God.



> So a stranger walks up to you in the street and claims he has heard the word of god and wants you to document the words he will recite back. Convenient that this does not require a shred of proof in my opinion.


 No, I would first ask him how he came by the authority to be God's prophet, compare what he is teaching to the words of other prophets, and then go to God in prayer to determine whether it is true. The same way I came to believe what I now believe.



> We know what is right and wrong without scripture. Why does no scripture condemn slavery, rape or genocide? Curious in my opinion.


 Ah, so the golden rule wouldn't preclude those? The whole "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't condemn genocide? Then, of course, when Christ was asked what the greatest commandment was, he said to love God with all your heart, might, mind, and strength. And the second was like unto it - to love your neighbor as yourself. To love my neighbor as myself seems rather difficult if I am enslaving my neighbor. Christ said that in these two laws hang all the laws and the prophets. Adultery, fornication, any kind of sex outside of marriage also gets frequent condemnation. So I would think rape fell in there.



> Matter is made up of mostly nothing. We perceive our environment in a way that is beneficial for us to do so.
> 
> Science hasn't got that far in explaining this fully. All we've got to go on is a theory of a big bang which I don't fully understand.
> 
> We could continue our journey of discovery or just put our feet back and say god did it. That's for clever physics people to decide.


 What we normally think of matter does consist of a lot of empty space - the space within an atom. But surely if we even considered only the atoms that make up our planet, squeezing them all closely together into a point a meter across seems difficult, to put it mildly. Especially considering all the opposing forces at play. Add into that point the remaining atoms in our solar system. Then squeeze in there the remaining celestial bodies in just our galaxy. Now start packing in the other galaxies that we can see. Then factor in those that we don't see.

Understand, I don't see science and nature at odds. I don't view God as some being that exists in a dimension where the laws of science are non-existent. I believe that how he works is through scientific laws, universal laws, that he has a much greater understanding of. Now, whether all of these theories that man has devised are the truth, I don't know yet. I don't know how it was that he performed the creation. Perhaps with a Big Bang. I don't know. I don't exclude science. I just believe that something is being left out of the equation.


----------



## Grosse Fugue

Ok now that we've established that if you believe in God you won't be convinced otherwise and vice versa we can get back to talking about music.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Dr Mike, thank you for your last couple of posts. You have been very clear and I better understand your position. I'll just pose one last question and leave you with a couple of my thoughts.

My last question is this. What do you hear when you pray?

My final thoughts are these:

Science does not have all the answers, but every time an answer does come along, religion bends itself to fit in with the new theory. I'd be surprised if you thought the universe was created in 6 days because intelligent theists now view the bible as allegorical.

Anything we can't fully explain or control we attribute to a higher power because humans can only operate on a level at which it's advantageous for us to operate. Ideas about death are a main component of faith because that's the state we have least control over.

Morality is innate in humans. It is in our best interest to look after each other. We don't need scripture to tell us not to kill, steal e.t.c. (except for criminals who are social constructs but that's a different story)

Theology was mankind's original attempt to answer the big questions. Now these questions are being answered, our earliest assumptions about the nature of the universe are being refuted. This is a positive thing as it allows us as a species to grow.

There may or may not be a god. However things happen by chance. I could be the most devout Christian and start flipping a coin praying earnestly for a 'heads' result. However, god does not intervene in such matters. I have not heard of or witnessed any divine intervention. Similarly, god does not cause earthquakes, volcanoes e.t.c. It's all attributing what we can't control or don't understand to a higher power.


----------



## Guest

Grosse Fugue said:


> Ok now that we've established that if you believe in God you won't be convinced otherwise and vice versa we can get back to talking about music.


A few of these posts really kind of puzzle me. Okay, I get it, this is a classical music forum. But the interesting thing about this medium of communication is that you can look at a topic, get a fairly good idea about its theme from the title, and decide whether to continue to read. The fact that this discussion has gone on has not interfered with anybody being able to discuss classical music.

Debate, even heated debate, is not bad. It has nothing to do with convincing one person that your view is the correct one. Often it serves as a great means of exposition, discovery, learning things. The idea that someone might have different opinions than you shouldn't cause you to flee those opinions like the plague. Ideas and opinions are often honed by challenge. And the fact that we can engage in debate speaks a lot to where we are as a people. It is when we stop listening that problems occur. We then tend to rely on our own prejudices to form opinions of others. Simple case in point - I had a conversation with an individual about my religion, and he was surprised to learn that my religion did not teach that true repentance required a release of blood by the sinner. He had been told that by someone. I asked whether he had ever bothered actually asking a Mormon, and he admitted he had not. Open communication, even if it gets heated, at least allows that, if things still come to blows, at least it is over correct information.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Dr Mike, thank you for your last couple of posts. You have been very clear and I better understand your position. I'll just pose one last question and leave you with a couple of my thoughts.
> 
> My last question is this. What do you hear when you pray?
> 
> My final thoughts are these:
> 
> Science does not have all the answers, but every time an answer does come along, religion bends itself to fit in with the new theory. I'd be surprised if you thought the universe was created in 6 days because intelligent theists now view the bible as allegorical.
> 
> Anything we can't fully explain or control we attribute to a higher power because humans can only operate on a level at which it's advantageous for us to operate. Ideas about death are a main component of faith because that's the state we have least control over.
> 
> Morality is innate in humans. It is in our best interest to look after each other. We don't need scripture to tell us not to kill, steal e.t.c. (except for criminals who are social constructs but that's a different story)
> 
> Theology was mankind's original attempt to answer the big questions. Now these questions are being answered, our earliest assumptions about the nature of the universe are being refuted. This is a positive thing as it allows us as a species to grow.
> 
> There may or may not be a god. However things happen by chance. I could be the most devout Christian and start flipping a coin praying earnestly for a 'heads' result. However, god does not intervene in such matters. I have not heard of or witnessed any divine intervention. Similarly, god does not cause earthquakes, volcanoes e.t.c. It's all attributing what we can't control or don't understand to a higher power.


I don't believe the earth was created in 6 24-hour days. I believe that the term "day" was applied at the end of each creative period. I have not fully explored this as much, but need to do some more research into what words were used in the earliest credible texts we have of Genesis. I wonder whether there is a similar misunderstanding, as I pointed out with the word "firmament," due to imperfect translation.

I look forward to new scientific discoveries, for the reason I mentioned in my last post. I don't see religion and science as mutually exclusive. Learning how a thing is made doesn't somehow require rejecting who made it. Just because my understanding of how it was made increases, I don't increasingly discard my belief that it was made by someone.

When I pray, answers come in various ways. Sometimes they come in terms of simply what I was praying for happening. Sometimes I have received distinct impressions - we are trying to sell our house, and my wife received a distinct impression that something would happen by the end of May (even though it had been on the market since last October). The last day of May, we had someone look at the house, and we are now in contract to sell with that person. Prior to that, we had received not a single offer. Sometimes I have a warm feeling wash over me telling me something is right. Sometimes I have an uneasy feeling when something is wrong. People may very well dismiss these as coincidence, or as simple psychological phenomena. That's fine for them, because the answers aren't for them anyway. They are for me, and I am satisfied they are real.

One final point for me as well. I have ignored Petawhac's comments since his bin Laden one, but I want to make one more point there, then I will sign off from this thread.

You can take the most vehement of enemies, and still find some common cause between them. Bin Laden may very well object to homosexuality, as do I. But what is important is what we do with those beliefs. Bin Laden would cut that person's head off. I would not. Bin Laden does not think the U.S.A. should be in Muslim lands, especially Iraq and Afghanistan. Peace protesters in the U.S.A. and Europe feel the same way. Bin Laden would kill Americans in the cause of his beliefs. Most peace protestors wouldn't. My point? Similarities of beliefs or intersecting concepts do not automatically result in moral equivalence. Americans believe that stealing is wrong. In fact, most people do. In Saudi Arabia, they also view stealing is wrong. In Saudi Arabia, you can have your hand cut off for stealing. Not in most western nations. And as most appropriate to this discussion, bin Laden believes my Christian faith is wrong. The atheists in this discussion believe my Christian faith is wrong. Bin Laden would cut my head off. I sure hope none of the atheists here would wish to do the same.

Additionally, similarity of certain beliefs also does not imply that both are on a similar course. I no more believe that an atheists rejection of my religious beliefs would eventually lead them to killing me any more than I hope they believe that my particular views on what is and isn't sinful will lead me to decapitate anyone I feel is violating God's commandments. Hyperbole is really not useful. Seeking to refute someone by making some kind of connection with something evil is not a valid way of debating. Most humans don't make it to those extremes of anti-social behavior, thank goodness (with or without a belief in God).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> Handel - Messiah, Saul, Salomon, Samson oratorios
> Haydn - The 7 Last Words of Christ on the Cross, The Creation
> Bach - St. Matthew and St. John Passion
> Brahms - Ein Deutsches Requiem
> 
> These are just right off the top of my head, and are restricted to only those directly drawn from scripture. If you'd like a longer list, I can do that (there would be even more oratorios from Handel).
> So you tell me. Or will you argue that these are neither good, nor art?


I would like to add that Handel was a religious person, but it was his charitable activities that history will likely say he was a good person. His later performances of _The Messiah_ was for the benefit (i.e. charity) of _The Foundling Hospital_ (an institution set up in Handel's time for the "education and maintenance of exposed and deserted young children"). The version of _The Messiah_ we often hear today recorded and performed is likely to be the version bequeathed by Handel to this institution. It is the version often used by HIP, for example by Rene Jacobs and Christopher Hogwood, which I have on recording.

From a musicological viewpoint (based on my general reading; I am no musicologist), Handel's artistic inspiration was inspired by the quality of *both* the libretto/texts and his singers. While there is absolutely no evidence that Handel deliberately wrote badly for singers that he did not like (there were certainly a few that he did not get along well with), Handel's artistic impetous required both imagery and a build up of written emotional tension from the text, and for the singer to express it. Both are inter-dependent. Arias were crafted for the exact capabilities of his singers, and there were numerous examples of last minute upheavals in conducting scores where changes/cuts were made when his tempermental singers did not sing (or when the score was revised years later for a new cast). The point here is to show that Handel, and perhaps all pragmatic performing composers, often had very practical considerations in mind, and often political too, when committing quill to paper. The leading primma donnas in his operas during _The Royal Academy_ years often had exact number of arias down to the same number of bars, in order not to upset the supporters of either camp, yet ingeniously crafted with all its expressive powers.


----------



## Petwhac

Yes let's get back to music.

Last thoughts.

DrMike probably is still sulking and will ignore my comments but that's his problem.

He has revealed the shallowness of his arguments in his last post but if his religious beliefs bring him happiness and peace of mind and if he has no wish to force other people to live under the doctrines and laws of his particular faith, then I say good luck to him and go in peace.

This thread was about music being the creation of divinity.

Classical music was born in the monasteries of western Europe.

Religion, Christianity in particular, has inspired or been the raison d'etre for great art for many centuries. Milton, Bach, Michaelangelo, Stravinsky, the list is long and impressive.

Is music _therefore_ the "creation of divinity'?

Of course not. It is the creation of people.

If Napoleon and what he stood for (at first) was the inspiration for Beethoven's 3rd Symphony does that mean it was the creation of Napoleon?

In the end all we have is our senses, our emotions and our reason.
We believe what we choose to.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I think, referring to a point I made earlier, people attribute events or things they cannot control or understand to a higher power.

The genius of Beethoven is something many people (including me) will never fully understand. Even I'm guilty of thinking about Mozart as a miracle of nature. He must have been touched by god, there's just no other explanation!

To compound the problem, many composers have attributed their own genius to a higher power! They believed their music would be heard by the ears of a divine creator. Ergo the scriptures have been inspiration to many pieces (especially choral works).

Spiritualism isn't a problem. There may be something spiritual in classical music. However, classical music is the pinnacle of human expression. The music we love most contains suitable amounts of emotion and creativity and strives to ask questions about the human condition. Religion is something inherent in all cultures (I think it's and evolutionary trait to ensure survival), so no doubt it works it's way into music. 

Divinity is not the creation of music. The concept of a divine creator has been the inspiration of some music. The issue of god's existence is irrelevant because the fact is we have the stories we need to inspire music from the Bible to The Hungry Caterpillar. (By the way, don't tell me how it ends, I haven't finished it!)


----------



## Boccherini

Edward Elgar said:


> How uncommonly refreshing! Thank you!
> 
> *[1]*That doesn't really answer the question though. Telling me what religion is _not_ does not tell me why religion is relevant today. Try telling me what religion is to try and persuade me that religion still has some degree of worth.
> 
> *[2]*How, when and where did god speak? Who did he speak to? Who documented these conversations? Is it even possible for a human being to hear god's voice or see god's face?
> 
> *[3]*These assertions that god told us to do some stuff but not to do other stuff 2000 years ago raises more questions than it answers.
> 
> *[4]*So by that logic it's impossible to care about me without commanding me not to be jealous of my neighbour's possessions? and I thought god was omnipotent!
> 
> *[5]*God had nothing to do with giving me life. That was a decision made by my parents. I don't see how god gave me life, and if he did why does he feel it necessary to command me not to do stuff I know is wrong anyway?
> 
> *[6]*I suppose it's good because it ties in with your "original sin" theory. Why did god create an imperfect being in his own image? This just begs more and more questions.
> 
> Plus, why did Jesus have a foreskin? If he was born perfect, he would have been born circumcised as the foreskin is an attachment of the devil's design.
> 
> *[7]*How can you be so sure?
> 
> *[7]*Again, how can you be so sure?
> 
> *[8]*So we should remain stupid and obedient, even in the face of evil. That's not good advice in my opinion.
> 
> *[9]*And yet it's fundamental to all the practices of a Christian! If you don't know what god wants, what was the reason behind the crusades, Spanish inquisition, discrimination of women and homosexuals, repression of scientific truth? If god didn't want any of that then where are you getting your information from? This is important because people live or die by what other people think god wants!
> 
> *[10]"*I fear that for theists, life is cheaper as they are sure an afterlife awaits.*"* What if we only get one life and the Christian sends the Muslim to eternal unconsciousness? Saying that, it's probably better than sending him to eternal torture. God, humans are sick!
> 
> *[11]*You seem to care a great deal about where you go after you die! Why don't you care where it is?


[1]Again, your question is irrelevant. You must presume that religion isn't only for the humanity, but part of God's wills.
[2]I have a tradition, which is documented in the Bible. Nowadays, no one can hear God's voices nor see God's face
[3]I assume that question/statement isn't for me.
[4]I don't think I fully understand you. God is an omnipotent, he cares what you're doing whether it's against his commandemts or not.
[5]You _think_ God's commandments are wrong, you don't _know_.
[6]Not for me.
[7]Tradition + Faithfulness.
[8]If it's according to God's wills, it's not foolish, but the opposite.
[9]Not for me. I'm personally getting my information from both Torah and Oral Torah.
[10]True, but it doesn't mean we're careless.
[11]Why should I? I know it's a great place.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Boccherini said:


> [1]Again, your question is irrelevant. You must presume that religion isn't only for the humanity, but part of God's wills.


Blind faith = Irrational superstition.



Boccherini said:


> [2]I have a tradition, which is documented in the Bible. Nowadays, no one can hear God's voices nor see God's face


Mmm. Convenient.



Boccherini said:


> [3]I assume that question/statement isn't for me.


It's more of an invitation to think for yourself.



Boccherini said:


> [4]I don't think I fully understand you. God is an omnipotent, he cares what you're doing whether it's against his commandemts or not.


But if god didn't tell me what to think, that would mean he doesn't care about me. That's the view you were asserting.



Boccherini said:


> [5]You _think_ God's commandments are wrong, you don't _know_.


You don't know if they are right. Moses smashed the stone tablets and had to write them out again, what stopped him from making a mistakes, especially with all the other little rules you have.

If the desert tribesmen 2000 years ago got god's message wrong, countless animals have suffered needlessly because you think it's the will of god that they should have their throats slit and let bleed to death. That's sick in case you didn't know.



Boccherini said:


> [6]Not for me.


You still didn't answer why god deems us worthy of commands. Why doesn't he just leave us to our own devices. I've been getting on fine without him!



Boccherini said:


> [7]Tradition + Faithfulness.


So if it was tradition to kill everyone who worked on the Sabbath, you'd do that right? And I suppose your faith would guide your hand? Scary.



Boccherini said:


> [8]If it's according to God's wills, it's not foolish, but the opposite.


So the next time Nazis oppress your people, you won't do anything about it? Come on!



Boccherini said:


> [9]Not for me. I'm personally getting my information from both Torah and Oral Torah.


But don't you see? What your people believe determines whether people live or die! And what you believe has not been proven! Therefore people may be dying needlessly! This is so frustrating!



Boccherini said:


> [10]True, but it doesn't mean we're careless.


You are a curious individual.



Boccherini said:


> [11]Why should I? I know it's a great place.


How?!?!?!


----------



## Boccherini

Edward Elgar said:


> *[1]*Blind faith = Irrational superstition.
> 
> Mmm. Convenient.
> 
> It's more of an invitation to think for yourself.
> 
> *[2]*But if god didn't tell me what to think, that would mean he doesn't care about me. That's the view you were asserting.
> 
> *[3]*You don't know if they are right. Moses smashed the stone tablets and had to write them out again, what stopped him from making a mistakes, especially with all the other little rules you have.
> 
> If the desert tribesmen 2000 years ago got god's message wrong, countless animals have suffered needlessly because you think it's the will of god that they should have their throats slit and let bleed to death. That's sick in case you didn't know.
> 
> *[4]*You still didn't answer why god deems us worthy of commands. Why doesn't he just leave us to our own devices. I've been getting on fine without him!
> 
> *[5]*So if it was tradition to kill everyone who worked on the Sabbath, you'd do that right? And I suppose your faith would guide your hand? Scary.
> 
> *[6]*So the next time Nazis oppress your people, you won't do anything about it? Come on!
> 
> *[7]*But don't you see? What your people believe determines whether people live or die! And what you believe has not been proven! Therefore people may be dying needlessly! This is so frustrating!
> 
> You are a curious individual.
> 
> *[8]*How?!?!?!


[1]Again, I have tradition.
[2]The fact that God didn't tell you what to think doesn't mean he doesn't care about you. If you're questioning the _manner_ which God should "communicate" with you, it's something else. In my religion non-jews have 7 commandments.
[3]Wrong. Moses re-wrote the stone tablets with the assistance of God. 
[4]Because your life's purposeful, meaningful, God wouldn't create you for the sake of temporary here-and-now.
[5]If we still have Sanhedrin and could punish representative punishments, you're perfectly right, we should have punished those who work on the Sabbath. Just to clarify, I'm not a Christian, I don't believe in total peacefulness.
[6]First of all, don't talk on 'next time'. Secondly, do you think we didn't do anything in order to live in the Holocaust? What a sick person would do nothing to survive in those circumstances? We did what we could, the rest depends on God.
[7]Again, all I have, regarding my faith, is Tradition + Faithfulness, the first is quite rational. Therefore, I don't search for more evidences.
[8]Read number [7].


----------



## MJTTOMB

Boccherini said:


> [3]Wrong. Moses re-wrote the stone tablets with the assistance of God.


So let me get this straight. You have a book that's been translated several times through languages that lose a massive portion of their original content in translation, and that book was written by man, with the "assistance of God". In said book, there is a story, in which the entire foundation of the first half of the book is written by God on two stone tablets at the top of a mountain. A feeble old man climbs the mountain and carries these tablets down by himself somehow, and then he destroys them upon reaching the Isrealites' campground, when he finds them breaking rules they didn't know they had yet. Then God helps Moses to re-write the commandments just because he's compassionate and loving for that whole half of the book. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch at all.

It's a book about man, by man, and for man, telling stories of man and recording the belligerent and inhumane rule of a barbaric people.


----------



## Edward Elgar

MJTTOMB, hit the nail on the head.

Boccherini, what if your tradition is based on lies? Have you ever stopped to question your beliefs? Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that there may be no afterlife?

Human suffering and animal cruelty has been inflicted based on what you think god wants. If god doesn't communicate with us any more, how do we know what he wants? How do you know he hasn't changed his mind about the way animals are slaughtered or on which day you shouldn't work?


----------



## Aramis

> Have you ever stopped to question your beliefs?


That is the hugest problem about all of you people. You never leave you beliefs to look at them from some distance and I mean all kind of people from Jews to atheists. So many diffrent beliefs and only one conclusion for all who look at them without the tabs on the eyes.


----------



## jimread

What a load of complete drivel.

Music is like any other art 1% inspiration, mostly from someone elses work followed by 99% perspiration.

Elgar being a fine example if his missis hadn't kept him in to write in the mornings he would have shot off on his bike to meet his biker lady friends.

If Mozart had been born in 1950 he'd have been the lead guitarist in a heavy metal band.


----------



## Petwhac

jimread said:


> What a load of complete drivel.
> 
> Music is like any other art 1% inspiration, mostly from someone elses work followed by 99% perspiration.
> 
> Elgar being a fine example if his missis hadn't kept him in to write in the mornings he would have shot off on his bike to meet his biker lady friends.
> 
> If Mozart had been born in 1950 he'd have been the lead guitarist in a heavy metal band.


Ha Ha Ha Ha. Heavy metal ha ha ha. I think given his genius for the stage it would be more likely Broadway!!


----------



## jimread

Ahh but by the 1970's Broadway was old hat, and heavy metal was the cutting edge and being dramatically staged 

Jim


----------



## Boccherini

MJTTOMB said:


> So let me get this straight. You have a book that's been translated several times through languages that lose a massive portion of their original content in translation, and that book was written by man, with the "assistance of God". In said book, there is a story, in which the entire foundation of the first half of the book is written by God on two stone tablets at the top of a mountain. A feeble old man climbs the mountain and carries these tablets down by himself somehow, and then he destroys them upon reaching the Isrealites' campground, when he finds them breaking rules they didn't know they had yet. Then God helps Moses to re-write the commandments just because he's compassionate and loving for that whole half of the book. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch at all.
> 
> It's a book about man, by man, and for man, telling stories of man and recording the belligerent and inhumane rule of a barbaric people.


True, there are quite a lot of translations of the Bible, but most of them were changing their original form into unauthorized transcriptions in relation to the real Bible (Not exactly the The Old Testament), but some of them were really trying to remain the same (King James's, JPS and more). As for the "assistance of God", I was not clear enough, you might think, according to Exodus 34:28, that Moses re-wrote the stone tablets by himself, but basically God has done that (according to several commentators) alone. However, there's quite a few commentators that would say that Moses re-wrote it with the "assistance of God", not that God couldn't have done that alone, of course; But basically it was God.

Do you think that the children of Israel were allowed to worship the molten Calfe (Exodus 32), after that God had saved them using "signs and wonders" (Deuteronomy 6:22) from Egypt? After they clearly proclaimed God as their one and own? (Exodus 24:7)

Yes, the Bible _might_ look a little barbaric, especially for those who don't know anything about history who listen to classical music and proclaim themselves as gentlemen.


----------



## Boccherini

Edward Elgar said:


> MJTTOMB, hit the nail on the head.
> 
> Boccherini, what if your tradition is based on lies? Have you ever stopped to question your beliefs? Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that there may be no afterlife?
> 
> Human suffering and animal cruelty has been inflicted based on what you think god wants. If god doesn't communicate with us any more, how do we know what he wants? How do you know he hasn't changed his mind about the way animals are slaughtered or on which day you shouldn't work?


If God wants us to "update" the commandments, you might right, we wouldn't have known, but that's basically another reason why he doesn't want to. In addition, the fact that God doesn't communicate with us through prophets, doesn't mean we're not capable to know what he wants since we (jews) have the "dynamic" Oral Torah which specifically guide us what to do whether it's 2000 BC or 2000 AD.


----------



## David58117

Oh look, more support for Speciation:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123532846/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0


----------



## dmg

I said it before: Religious faith instills intense emotion in people. Music can instill intense emotion in people. Therefore, people draw the conclusion that they're related somehow. It is a false presumption, but that is why people often create discussion topics like this.

Someone with strong religious faith feels an intense emotion. That same person listens to a powerful piece of music and feels a similar emotion. They then come to the conclusion that music must be of divine origin, when all they did was trigger similar euphoric emotional responses.

Changing subjects (sort of): This is why I think it's so difficult to show religious people the error in their ways. They're addicted to a drug. It's a naturally occurring drug that's manufactured right there in their brains, but it's a drug nonetheless. You can show them factual proof to their faces that their religion is wrong, and they'll refuse to believe it. When you see people doing weird chants and waiving their hands in the air and acting bizarre in religious gatherings, if you've never been on that side of it, it's flat out frightening. You think 'what in the HELL are they doing?' It's because their brains are being flooded with euphoria-causing chemicals. I think there may be a gene - a quick fix mutation - that our ancestors experienced to cope with difficult and emotionally intense situations, and religion is an expression of it.

When I discovered that depression runs in my father's side of the family, it made perfect sense why every single one of them were extremely religious. I'm not talking about 'I go to church occasionally and pray every now and then' religious - I'm talking 'I only listen to gospel music and pray every five minutes' religious. They cling to religion like a Xanax bottle. I have depression, too (I now treat it with medication and I'm OK), and I used to be religious - so I know what those feelings are like. It was an intense inner battle, though, because I KNEW it was wrong, but I felt so emotionally attached to it that I struggled with it for years. It isn't something that you can just say 'See? You're wrong!' and expect them to say 'Oh yeah! Thanks for showing me the error in my ways!'. That's like going up to a heroin addict and saying 'See what heroin can do to your body? It's bad!' and expecting them to immediately come off of it.

So you can provide all the links proving speciation, or all the brain scan images proving that homosexuality is not a choice, and they won't believe it. They'll create counter-arguments (that are bogus) and believe them whole-heartedly. They'll find one sliver of possible doubt , however minuscule, and cling to it like a piece of lumber from the sinking Titanic. They have to WANT to change, and want to change BADLY. Like a drug addict. They have to realize that what they're into is wrong, and even then it could take years, if at all.


----------



## Guest

Wow, I love how all of the little wannabe Dawkins and Hitchens on here are now throwing around their pseudo-intellectual analyses of how religious people have mental defects. You all, no doubt, have degrees in biology or psychology, or perhaps are experts in evolutionary genetics? Or do you just like to think that every trait in humans has some corresponding gene? I love the "religion" gene theory.


----------



## David58117

DrMike said:


> Wow, I love how all of the little wannabe Dawkins and Hitchens on here are now throwing around their pseudo-intellectual analyses of how religious people have mental defects. You all, no doubt, have degrees in biology or psychology, or perhaps are experts in evolutionary genetics? Or do you just like to think that every trait in humans has some corresponding gene? I love the "religion" gene theory.


As for myself, I said before I was finishing my 3rd year in biology/chemistry before I switched to nursing (I like the medical field, job security/opportunity, plus my wife is doing it as well). I plan to go back and finish once I complete this program.

I'm still very curious about why you made the comments you did earlier regarding speciation. You're a scientist, you work in the field, you MUST of heard about Diane Dodds experiment, about tiktaalik (2004), about island population studies, or read the article link I posted earlier today (I posted the abstract).

So no, I don't have my degree (yet), but I would very much be interested to read your rebuttal to why the experiment, transitional fossil findings don't matter.

And I think you and I are on the same page where I don't take evolution occurring as some sort of proof against God.


----------



## Guest

David58117 said:


> As for myself, I said before I was finishing my 3rd year in biology/chemistry before I switched to nursing (I like the medical field, job security/opportunity, plus my wife is doing it as well). I plan to go back and finish once I complete this program.
> 
> I'm still very curious about why you made the comments you did earlier regarding speciation. You're a scientist, you work in the field, you MUST of heard about Diane Dodds experiment, about tiktaalik (2004), about island population studies, or read the article link I posted earlier today (I posted the abstract).
> 
> So no, I don't have my degree (yet), but I would very much be interested to read your rebuttal to why the experiment, transitional fossil findings don't matter.
> 
> And I think you and I are on the same page where I don't take evolution occurring as some sort of proof against God.


I'm not sure how much can be taken from the Dodds experiment - flies were isolated for a period of time, given different diets, then allowed to mingle again, and they tended to match up with flies that they had been isolated with. But they were all still flies. You know, if you take people from different parts of the globe - Chinese, Africans, South Americans, Europeans - I think you will also find that, for the most part, they will match up with those from their geographic region. In fact, although there has been much intermingling over the millenia, there has been much isolation. And yet we all are still humans - Homo sapiens sapiens. An Inuit and an African can still mate and produce offspring.

Regarding tiktaalik, again, it is no smoking gun. It is all circumstantial. There were multiple differences between it and what potentially it sprang from, and what sprang from it, hypothetically. The larger rib cage, the wrist joint, etc. But what they have is an animal that looks a lot like other animals before and after. Centuries or more of domesticating the dog has resulted in quite the vast diversity of dogs. But they are all still dogs. Has anybody managed to create something other than a dog in this manner?

So you have animals that become isolated geographically who develop traits over time that make them better adapted to that particular region. That is still a far cry from developing into all different manners of life.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> So you have animals that become isolated geographically who develop traits over time that make them better adapted to that particular region. *That is still a far cry from developing into all different manners of life*.


What are your views on the primitive bird, _Archaeoptryx_? These primitive creatures appeared to be half reptilian dinosaurs and yet capable of flight (though probably lousy flight), with feather plumage. It had jaws with sharp teeth etc. No birds today have teeth in their jaws. It seemed to be quite a transitional creature. Thoughts?


----------



## David58117

DrMike said:


> I'm not sure how much can be taken from the Dodds experiment - flies were isolated for a period of time, given different diets, then allowed to mingle again, and they tended to match up with flies that they had been isolated with. But they were all still flies. You know, if you take people from different parts of the globe - Chinese, Africans, South Americans, Europeans - I think you will also find that, for the most part, they will match up with those from their geographic region. In fact, although there has been much intermingling over the millenia, there has been much isolation. And yet we all are still humans - Homo sapiens sapiens. An Inuit and an African can still mate and produce offspring.
> 
> Regarding tiktaalik, again, it is no smoking gun. It is all circumstantial. There were multiple differences between it and what potentially it sprang from, and what sprang from it, hypothetically. The larger rib cage, the wrist joint, etc. But what they have is an animal that looks a lot like other animals before and after. Centuries or more of domesticating the dog has resulted in quite the vast diversity of dogs. But they are all still dogs. Has anybody managed to create something other than a dog in this manner?
> 
> So you have animals that become isolated geographically who develop traits over time that make them better adapted to that particular region. That is still a far cry from developing into all different manners of life.


Mike, you're distorting what speciation is. It sounds like what you're after is something a long the lines of a dog turning into a cat - you're expecting Dianes fruit flies to turn into a butterfly, but that's a complete distortion.

Allopatric Speciation predicts that a population broken apart by a physical barrier will become reproductively isolated, that once the populations are reintroduced they will stay independent, allowing the mechanisms of evolution to work on two separate populations. By your own admission, this is what occurred.

I don't have my population genetics textbook any more, so I'll have to make do with what I have, here's wikipedias definition:

"Allopatric speciation, also known as geographic speciation, is the phenomenon whereby biological populations are physically isolated by an extrinsic barrier and evolve intrinsic (genetic) reproductive isolation, such that if the barrier should ever vanish, individuals of the populations can no longer interbreed."

Dianes fruit fly experiment is entirely what was to be expected.


----------



## Guest

David58117 said:


> Mike, you're distorting what speciation is. It sounds like what you're after is something a long the lines of a dog turning into a cat - you're expecting Dianes fruit flies to turn into a butterfly, but that's a complete distortion.
> 
> Allopatric Speciation predicts that a population broken apart by a physical barrier will become reproductively isolated, that once the populations are reintroduced they will stay independent, allowing the mechanisms of evolution to work on two separate populations. By your own admission, this is what occurred.
> 
> I don't have my population genetics textbook any more, so I'll have to make do with what I have, here's wikipedias definition:
> 
> "Allopatric speciation, also known as geographic speciation, is the phenomenon whereby biological populations are physically isolated by an extrinsic barrier and evolve intrinsic (genetic) reproductive isolation, such that if the barrier should ever vanish, individuals of the populations can no longer interbreed."
> 
> Dianes fruit fly experiment is entirely what was to be expected.


Again, this shows you can develop regional differences, but you still have a fly. You don't have a butterfly. So what is your point? I fully agree that by this mechanism, you can generate a vast diversity of life - but it hardly shows how you could expect to generate the entire spectrum of life that has ever, and will ever, live on this planet. Separate some flies over time, and voila - more flies.

But let me ask you this - suppose you take these various examples and extrapolate - if you only change a minor thing over time, how long to generate new species, completely different? Or if you were to have multiple changes that created something significantly different, wouldn't you need that incredibly rare event to happen at least twice, and in the case of sexually reproducing animals, you would need a male and a female? Because if a creature was significantly different than others, would it not make the process of mating more difficult, if, as Dodds shows, they tend to pair off with other animals similar to them?

No, she doesn't show a fly becoming a butterfly. But that is what an evolutionary explanation for all life on this planet ultimately requires. And even more dramatic than just fly to butterfly - single biochemical all the way to Homo sapiens sapiens.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

We are talking about millions of years of evolution. (That time frame is incomprehensible to the human mind, frankly). Chimpanzees appear to have split from some common ancestor what, 5 to 10 million years ago, yet despite having over 90% identical DNA as us. Evolution takes a long, long time but it appears "small" changes are enough for speciation.

I'm no natural scientist but just a general reader of fascinating topics.


----------



## David58117

DrMike said:


> Again, this shows you can develop regional differences, but you still have a fly. You don't have a butterfly. So what is your point? I fully agree that by this mechanism, you can generate a vast diversity of life - *but it hardly shows how you could expect to generate the entire spectrum of life that has ever, and will ever, live on this planet. Separate some flies over time, and voila - more flies. *
> 
> *But let me ask you this - suppose you take these various examples and extrapolate - if you only change a minor thing over time, how long to generate new species, completely different?* Or if you were to have multiple changes that created something significantly different, wouldn't you need that incredibly rare event to happen at least twice, and in the case of sexually reproducing animals, you would need a male and a female? Because if a creature was significantly different than others, would it not make the process of mating more difficult, if, as Dodds shows, they tend to pair off with other animals similar to them?
> 
> No, she doesn't show a fly becoming a butterfly. But that is what an evolutionary explanation for all life on this planet ultimately requires. And even more dramatic than just fly to butterfly - single biochemical all the way to Homo sapiens sapiens.


I'm a bit surprised, I thought you would of been aware that evolution works by other mechanisms as well. No population is closed, there are other factors influencing it - evolution doesn't work by rare bottlenecks or mutations alone.

The thing you're not understanding regarding the experiment, is that allopatric speciation predicted the population would become split once the barrier is removed - now that there are two seperate populations, and because they are not living in a closed environment, factors such as predation, genetic drift, gene flow, mutations, environmental factors, etc etc will act on each population.

Keep in mind Dodds experiment occurred over 8 generations...now give it a few billion years.


----------



## dmg

Recent research shows that a person on average has between 180 and 200 unique mutations - changes to your genome that are not present in either of your parents. Multiply that by the number of generations over millions of years, and by the number of siblings per generation. 

So it's not just a change here and there - every individual organism has quite a few changes.


----------



## Guest

David58117 said:


> I'm a bit surprised, I thought you would of been aware that evolution works by other mechanisms as well. No population is closed, there are other factors influencing it - evolution doesn't work by rare bottlenecks or mutations alone.
> 
> The thing you're not understanding regarding the experiment, is that allopatric speciation predicted the population would become split once the barrier is removed - now that there are two seperate populations, and because they are not living in a closed environment, factors such as predation, genetic drift, gene flow, mutations, environmental factors, etc etc will act on each population.
> 
> Keep in mind Dodds experiment occurred over 8 generations...now give it a few billion years.


I'm aware of all of those concerns. But consider a system where the reproductive cycle is even shorter than a fly, and where you can generate a lot of diversity in a very short period of time due to high rates of mutation - viruses. Viruses replicate very fast. RNA viruses are highly prone to error in their genomic replication. And in many hosts, there is a strong selection pressure exerted by the host. And yet you still get viruses. A vast diversity even within a single virus (e.g. HIV, hepatitis C virus, influenza), but still viruses.

And I realize the time span we are talking about is incredibly large. But think about some of these things. Suppose that all of this could explain the generation of life up until sexual reproduction enters the picture, and then preferential mating becomes an issue, as is pointed out by the Dodds study. That study seems to suggest that you would then only be able to make incredibly small, incremental changes over time in order to not generate something so different that it would be seen as unfavorable for mating with. Either that, or if some major change did occur, you would need it to happen multiple times, within a relatively small geographic region so as to assure that those with that change could find each other. Granted, similar pressures on a given population, if they were responsible for the change, might make this possibility more likely.

Comparisons of chimps and humans are repeatedly addressed. But there, the difference is about 2.7%. That amounts to 35 million single nucleotide changes, 5 million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Most of the differences arise from duplication events. That puts it in a little more perspective.


----------



## karenpat

I'm a Catholic art/art history student and for many years I've been of the conviction that every artform somehow is closely connected to God because it involves visible and/or audible beauty, and beauty is, I believe, one of the greatest proofs of God's existence. 

Not trying to push my opinion down your throats, just saying what I think....
I would think it highly likely that people who don't believe in God can regard beauty as something eternal or greater than themselves.


----------



## Edward Elgar

karenpat said:


> I would think it highly likely that people who don't believe in God can regard beauty as something eternal or greater than themselves.


We have evolved to perceive our environment in a way that is most beneficial to us. If we perceive something to be beautiful that means it will help maintain a healthy human species either physically or mentally. Beauty in music will help the composers we love to live forever. They are the true gods!


----------



## David58117

karenpat said:


> I'm a Catholic art/art history student and for many years I've been of the conviction that every artform somehow is closely connected to God because it involves visible and/or audible beauty, and beauty is, I believe, one of the greatest proofs of God's existence.
> 
> Not trying to push my opinion down your throats, just saying what I think....
> I would think it highly likely that people who don't believe in God can regard beauty as something eternal or greater than themselves.


That's a beautiful idea, but I don't think it's very thought out...

First, beauty is subjective - what do you say to those who find beauty in things such as in the picture below, or who somehow find beauty in obscene images and acts (such as child porn, violent pictures, or some incredibly ugly piece of art)?

Second, why does it have to be *your* God who beauty proves? There's 6.7 billion people in the world, according to adherents, 2.1 billion of those fall within the Christian category. What about the other 4.6 billion people?

Anyway, personally I think there are a lot of things greater than myself. "Beauty" has nothing to do with it, it's a subjective term, and fads fall in and out of style and differ across cultures. Even within a single lifetime, an individual may think something beautiful at one point, then otherwise the next.

---edit

I like your art. You are very talented.


----------



## Guest

dmg said:


> Recent research shows that a person on average has between 180 and 200 unique mutations - changes to your genome that are not present in either of your parents. Multiply that by the number of generations over millions of years, and by the number of siblings per generation.
> 
> So it's not just a change here and there - every individual organism has quite a few changes.


How many of those, though, are in non-coding regions? In introns? In other words, that do absolutely nothing to anything? Additionally, how many are synonymous mutations? The genetic code consists of combinations of 3 bases (A, T, C, or G) that encode one of 20 amino acids or a stop signal. There are 64 possible permutations of those 4 bases in sets of 3. This means that more than one combination of bases can encode a single amino acid. As a result, mutations are often characterized as synonymous - meaning there was a change in the base, but it did not result in a change in the amino acid encoded - or nonsynonymous - meaning the change in base also resulted in a change of the encoded amino acid.


----------



## David58117

DrMike said:


> I'm aware of all of those concerns. But consider a system where the reproductive cycle is even shorter than a fly, and where you can generate a lot of diversity in a very short period of time due to high rates of mutation - viruses. Viruses replicate very fast. RNA viruses are highly prone to error in their genomic replication. And in many hosts, there is a strong selection pressure exerted by the host. And yet you still get viruses. A vast diversity even within a single virus (e.g. HIV, hepatitis C virus, influenza), but still viruses.
> 
> And I realize the time span we are talking about is incredibly large. But think about some of these things. Suppose that all of this could explain the generation of life up until sexual reproduction enters the picture, and then preferential mating becomes an issue, as is pointed out by the Dodds study. That study seems to suggest that you would then only be able to make incredibly small, incremental changes over time in order to not generate something so different that it would be seen as unfavorable for mating with. Either that, or if some major change did occur, you would need it to happen multiple times, within a relatively small geographic region so as to assure that those with that change could find each other. Granted, similar pressures on a given population, if they were responsible for the change, might make this possibility more likely.
> 
> Comparisons of chimps and humans are repeatedly addressed. But there, the difference is about 2.7%. That amounts to 35 million single nucleotide changes, 5 million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Most of the differences arise from duplication events. That puts it in a little more perspective.


Regarding the virus paragraph - I don't understand your point. Viruses have a very low fidelity, evolution assumes that if a better, more fit individual comes along, the trait is going to stay within the population and have an opportunity to be passed on - not be mutated back during the next generation, which is what happens with viruses.

The middle paragraph - I'm again confused. Where do you get that preferential mating is an issue from the Dodds experiment? Do you mean that a change in phenotype may be so different that it turns off potential mates, dooming the "fit" individual to a lifetime of loneliness? If so - not all mutations are expressed, maybe they weren't expressed at the time of mating, maybe the mate didn't mind, maybe it was a turn on, etc etc..

Last paragraph - Could you explain this?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> Comparisons of chimps and humans are repeatedly addressed. But there, the difference is about 2.7%. That amounts to 35 million single nucleotide changes, 5 million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Most of the differences arise from duplication events. That puts it in a little more perspective.


I'm not sure what your point is. Difference in percentage is 2.7%, which is small, yet significant enough for speciation. Or was your point instead that in absolute number terms, there is in fact a large number; millions of changes going on, despite what seems to be a relative small difference in percentage terms?


----------



## Sid James

If beauty is the creation of a "divinity," then so is ugliness. Humans are capable of doing very good things as well as very bad. Sometimes, when I listen to a great piece of music, I think there is something divine there, but when I read about things like the Holocaust, I begin to seriously doubt that a "god" ever existed - could s/he allow such things to happen? & even in the affirmative mood of some of Bruckner's works, I also hear much doubt and even angst. Just go to see Beethoven done live - you'll be surprised how much "ugliness" and dissonance is in his music, which seems to get "sanitised" by the pristine sound engineering of a cd. Without beauty, there would be no ugliness & vice-versa. & then there is "ugly beauty," a title that Australian jazz saxophonist Bernie McGann gave one of his albums. I think this applies to much of the more contemporary music, such as that by Ligeti - he said his _Ramifications_ is actually about the decay of tonality. He tunes the violins a quarter-tone up to produce a very high sound - beautiful but ugly at the same time. Decay and death is just as much a part of our world as birth and life. Yin and yang...


----------



## karenpat

My last post was kind of subjective. I was not trying to make the point that "I know God exists and you have to agree with me because...." - just letting you know what I believe. I'm often asked how I can believe in God with so many wars going on and innocent people dying etc. I don't know why those things happen either, but I suppose you can choose to believe or choose not to, and respect other people's choices.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

karenpat said:


> My last post was kind of subjective. I was not trying to make the point that "I know God exists and you have to agree with me because...." - just letting you know what I believe. I'm often asked how I can believe in God with so many wars going on and innocent people dying etc. I don't know why those things happen either, but I suppose you can choose to believe or choose not to, and respect other people's choices.


You do not choose to believe. Atheists did not choose "disbelief" - they have realised that what they had been doing (suppose they were raised by religious parents) was futile, meaningless and shallow. I don't mean that it is to you - it's just that atheists did not feel the vibe (I'm glad I didn't).



DrMike said:


> Again, this shows you can develop regional differences, but you still have a fly. You don't have a butterfly. So what is your point? I fully agree that by this mechanism, you can generate a vast diversity of life - but it hardly shows how you could expect to generate the entire spectrum of life that has ever, and will ever, live on this planet. Separate some flies over time, and voila - more flies.
> 
> But let me ask you this - suppose you take these various examples and extrapolate - if you only change a minor thing over time, how long to generate new species, completely different? Or if you were to have multiple changes that created something significantly different, wouldn't you need that incredibly rare event to happen at least twice, and in the case of sexually reproducing animals, you would need a male and a female? Because if a creature was significantly different than others, would it not make the process of mating more difficult, if, as Dodds shows, they tend to pair off with other animals similar to them?
> 
> No, she doesn't show a fly becoming a butterfly. But that is what an evolutionary explanation for all life on this planet ultimately requires. And even more dramatic than just fly to butterfly - single biochemical all the way to Homo sapiens sapiens.


You seem to have a very weak grasp of what evolution and speciation are - and how it all works.

First of all, morphology is useless when you try to compare closely related species.

Secondly, you can have species that look almost exactly the same yet can have completely different genetic make up and be basically unrelated (convergent evolution; let alone mimicry) and you can have species that are very closely related and yet can look completely different (divergent evolution). The transition from genotype to phenotype is very complex and I don't think you should discuss it when you clearly do not want to understand it.

Lastly, I think you do not understand what sympatric and allopatric speciation are. You do not need changes that radically change the phenotype in allopatric speciation (the experiment with flies) - as long as the offspring is infertile - we have two different species.


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Lastly, I think you do not understand what sympatric and allopatric speciation are. You do not need changes that radically change the phenotype in allopatric speciation (the experiment with flies) - as long as the offspring is infertile - we have two different species.


Not true. You, perhaps, don't have as firm a grasp of speciation as you think. For one, it is known that brown bears and polar bears can mate and produce fertile offspring. In addition, theoretically, one hypothesis in human evolution holds that Homo sapiens sapiens may have interbred with other closely related hominids, including Homo neanderthalis.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Why does this discussion keep going on? No one's going to convince the other.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> Not true. You, perhaps, don't have as firm a grasp of speciation as you think. For one, it is known that brown bears and polar bears can mate and produce fertile offspring. In addition, theoretically, one hypothesis in human evolution holds that Homo sapiens sapiens may have interbred with other closely related hominids, including Homo neanderthalis.


Look, I don't think you actually get it. A "species" is a term made up by scientists - the definition varies (the same goes for the definition of life itself). Tell me, how does your post disprove speciation? It doesn't, it's meaningless semantics.


----------



## David58117

DrMike said:


> Not true. You, perhaps, don't have as firm a grasp of speciation as you think. For one, it is known that brown bears and polar bears can mate and produce fertile offspring. In addition, theoretically, one hypothesis in human evolution holds that Homo sapiens sapiens may have interbred with other closely related hominids, including Homo neanderthalis.


"Life: The Science of Biology" 7th edition:

Page 482:

"Deciding whether two populations constitute different species may be difficult because speciation is often a gradual process. Once a population becomes separated into two or more populations, the daughter populations may evolve independently for a long time before they become reproductively incompatible."


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Look, I don't think you actually get it. A "species" is a term made up by scientists - the definition varies (the same goes for the definition of life itself). Tell me, how does your post disprove speciation? It doesn't, it's meaningless semantics.


My point goes back to my original one - evolution can certainly generate diversity, but to claim that it can explain the emergence of all life from a single common ancestor isn't quite so clear cut.

My example of the polar bear/brown bear offspring is that, here, we have an example of diversity generated, yet the two can still mate and reproduce with one another. Different species. And then there is the thought that Homo sapiens sapiens might have been able to mate and reproduce with another species - Homo neanderthalis.

So you can separate a population, introduce changes, and you have a new species, which, as you point out, can oftentimes be simply a construct of scientists to categorize. But in the flies study, you still had flies. Granted, slightly different flies, flies that weren't attracted to their relatives separated by time and space, but flies nonetheless. Same with the bears. Diversity occurred, new species emerged better adapted to their surroundings. But still bears.

In terms of evolution, showing slight diversity emerging is no big deal. Easily proven. Where it gets fuzzy, then, is when you start to assert that disparate species have a common origin. I guess, rather than talking about speciation, it would then be more productive to talk in terms of actually creating a new genus. Or a new family.

But even beyond that, there is still the issue of how life would have even begun. Life from lifelessness. The generation of complex organic molecules, which then polymerized, and then replicated, and then formed cells, and then developed nuclei (not even taking into account the origin of the genetic code and the linking of nucleic acid to protein), then formed multicellular organisms, which then developed specialization of cells, which then resulted in the emergence of organisms with different organs, and the development of nervous systems, which then developed into animals that swam in the oceans, which then developed into creatures that could live outside of water, and somewhere in there throw in the emergence of sexual reproduction after you have a differentiation of the sexes, with females producing eggs and males producing sperm, then developed into a specialized type of animal that, rather than releasing its eggs, had them internally fertilized and allowed the reproductive process to occur inside the female, who also developed mammary glands for the nurturing of the young once it was born, which went through numerous different forms until it finally developed into a primate, which finally split off, only 5-6 million years ago into some early precursor of a human, until now. Now we have humans - multicellular eukaryotic organisms with a complex nervous system comprising a command center brain that directs the actions of the body via numerous nerves that travel throughout the body, sending signals to the heart to pump blood, the lungs to respirate, the liver and kidneys to filter, the muscles to expand and contract, process sensory signals received by the ears, eyes, mouth, skin, etc.. Within each cell is an elaborate system by which the particular ordering of nucleic acid base pairs in the nucleus encode the necessary information for everything in the entire organism. Different cells have different parts of this critical information turned on and turned off. As new proteins need to be made, conformational changes in this genetic material occur to allow intermediary messenger RNA to be transcribed, sent to the cytoplasm, where they encounter ribosomes that begin to decode them and assemble proteins. These proteins then are processed, and sent to their destinations, whether inside the cytoplasm, or secreted from the cell. These cells in the body can do anything from pass oxygen from the air to a red blood cell, to expanding and contracting, to killing off foreign pathogens. What's more, all of this develops from a single cell, formed by the fusion of an egg and a sperm.

So you will excuse me if an experiment that shows that flies that are separated by time and space get finicky in their mating practices doesn't quite impress me as "proof" of biological evolution.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Why does this discussion keep going on? No one's going to convince the other.


No one is really trying to convince the other. The discussion is about how flawed one's perspective might be.


----------



## David58117

DrMike said:


> My point goes back to my original one - evolution can certainly generate diversity, but to claim that it can explain the emergence of all life from a single common ancestor isn't quite so clear cut.
> 
> My example of the polar bear/brown bear offspring is that, here, we have an example of diversity generated, yet the two can still mate and reproduce with one another. Different species. And then there is the thought that Homo sapiens sapiens might have been able to mate and reproduce with another species - Homo neanderthalis.
> 
> So you can separate a population, introduce changes, and you have a new species, which, as you point out, can oftentimes be simply a construct of scientists to categorize. But in the flies study, you still had flies. Granted, slightly different flies, flies that weren't attracted to their relatives separated by time and space, but flies nonetheless. Same with the bears. Diversity occurred, new species emerged better adapted to their surroundings. But still bears.
> 
> In terms of evolution, showing slight diversity emerging is no big deal. Easily proven. Where it gets fuzzy, then, is when you start to assert that disparate species have a common origin. I guess, rather than talking about speciation, it would then be more productive to talk in terms of actually creating a new genus. Or a new family.
> 
> But even beyond that, there is still the issue of how life would have even begun. Life from lifelessness. The generation of complex organic molecules, which then polymerized, and then replicated, and then formed cells, and then developed nuclei (not even taking into account the origin of the genetic code and the linking of nucleic acid to protein), then formed multicellular organisms, which then developed specialization of cells, which then resulted in the emergence of organisms with different organs, and the development of nervous systems, which then developed into animals that swam in the oceans, which then developed into creatures that could live outside of water, and somewhere in there throw in the emergence of sexual reproduction after you have a differentiation of the sexes, with females producing eggs and males producing sperm, then developed into a specialized type of animal that, rather than releasing its eggs, had them internally fertilized and allowed the reproductive process to occur inside the female, who also developed mammary glands for the nurturing of the young once it was born, which went through numerous different forms until it finally developed into a primate, which finally split off, only 5-6 million years ago into some early precursor of a human, until now. Now we have humans - multicellular eukaryotic organisms with a complex nervous system comprising a command center brain that directs the actions of the body via numerous nerves that travel throughout the body, sending signals to the heart to pump blood, the lungs to respirate, the liver and kidneys to filter, the muscles to expand and contract, process sensory signals received by the ears, eyes, mouth, skin, etc.. Within each cell is an elaborate system by which the particular ordering of nucleic acid base pairs in the nucleus encode the necessary information for everything in the entire organism. Different cells have different parts of this critical information turned on and turned off. As new proteins need to be made, conformational changes in this genetic material occur to allow intermediary messenger RNA to be transcribed, sent to the cytoplasm, where they encounter ribosomes that begin to decode them and assemble proteins. These proteins then are processed, and sent to their destinations, whether inside the cytoplasm, or secreted from the cell. These cells in the body can do anything from pass oxygen from the air to a red blood cell, to expanding and contracting, to killing off foreign pathogens. What's more, all of this develops from a single cell, formed by the fusion of an egg and a sperm.
> 
> So you will excuse me if an experiment that shows that flies that are separated by time and space get finicky in their mating practices doesn't quite impress me as "proof" of biological evolution.


Strange - I just posted a quote from my college bio text book that explains your concern, yet you still insist on it.

Here's the copy and paste:

"Life: The Science of Biology" 7th edition:

Page 482:

"Deciding whether two populations constitute different species may be difficult because speciation is often a gradual process. Once a population becomes separated into two or more populations, the daughter populations may evolve independently for a long time before they become reproductively incompatible."

So the "but polar bears can mate with brown bears" problem is a construct of your mind only, and already discussed in my elementary biology text book from when I was a freshmen.

Anyway, with the big paragraph you're starting to get into the nonscientific "in awe of everything" argument. I've seen it in pretty much every online debate I've participated in, and meshing process that occurred over a few billion years into one single paragraph does nothing to contribute to the discussion. I'm sure if I condensed my puny 24 year old life into 1-2 sentences, the processes would be just as awe inspiring. But believe me - it happened! Just as the Dodds fruit fly experiment happened in the short span of 8 generations.

Regarding that experiment - are you purposely distorting the purpose of it? With each reference to it, you keep attributing some other goal to it, criticizing it for something it didn't intend to do. No, it didn't set out to "prove" evolution, no scientist are not standing back and saying "They're 'finicky' in their mating selection - evolution has been proven!" No no no!

The experiment set out to test *one specific process.* I know you're aware of what Allopatric speciation means - *that is what the experiment set out to test, and the outcome was as predicted, if allopatric speciation occurs.* So when you say "yeah but the flies were still flies" - that shows a complete misunderstanding of the experiment.

Going on - evolution is what works on the daughter populations. Allopatric speciation is the process that seperated them and more or less isolated their genes to a smaller group (the "finicky" mating part). That they can still mate doesn't matter (or polar bears/brown bears), as we learned in Bio 1 - "once a population becomes separated into two or more populations, the daughter populations may evolve independently for a long time before they become reproductively incompatible."

The problem you have with the experiment, is that you're looking at it as the end process of evolution, when it's just the beginning. I've never met anyone who understood it who said "they're still flies."


----------



## Petwhac

No one can _know_ that there is a God or Gods anymore that no one can_ know_ that there isn't.

We humans, whether we share a common ancestor with a carrot or whether we don't, we have to live together.

What the non-believer is tired of, is being expected to show 'respect' for the beliefs of a Christian, Buddist, Muslim, Hindu, etc, in a way that they are not expected to show the same respect for the beliefs of an Anarchist, Communist, Fascist.

The 'faithful' tell us abortion and homosexuality are a sin because in their belief system it is.
The Communists tell us private property is 'theft' because in_ their_ belief system it is.

One day we might know the truth about our origins or we might not.
Humankind is in it's infancy. We have only had writing for several thousand years. Flight for a hundred or so. How long since the discovery of DNA?

Give us a million years or so and see where we are and what we know.

That's if the zealots political or religious) haven't got us all nuked.


----------



## jimread

It seems to me that what people who support creationism fail to realise is time, or the amount of it needed to see any change at all.

I have my own anecdote that leads to separation and that is the urban fox and the rural fox, the urban fox needs to move quickly around corners and to be able to jump, the rural fox needs to move quickly in a straight line. The spinal bones in the urban fox are different from the rural one, the adaptation taking just a few years. 

The supple urban fox being the better survivor and is seen to be so by the females.

If it takes 10 million years (assuming the urban environment is present  for the two to separate into different species, so what! its a mere flea bite in the life of the planet.

Jim


----------



## wolf

Very well said, and why should a God create anything so awfully, terribly cruel as nature? Where snakes swallow nestlings alive, while anguished birdmoms suffer, parasitic insects lay eggs in other insects or animals, who are eaten alive from within. Why didn't he make them grasseaters, and with much less eggs and youngsters, so that the struggle for survival didn't have to be as cruel?

That an intelligent human being can believe such things must be due to fear of death.


----------



## Aramis

If one is interested in seeing how really it was with creation of universe:


----------



## jurianbai

Creationism website , http://www.creationism.org/


----------



## jimread

Recent programmes I have watched on the tele and listened to on R4 are now beginning to get to grips with infinity. Take one and add a zero and then keep doing it there being no upper limit. Take the idea a little further and the monkeys given time will write the works of Shakespeare and every other book that's ever been written.

We thought we knew that the universe was finite and bounded, yet when Hubble was pointed at a dark area of the sky for a week, the director's privelige as it turned out, more galaxy's appeared on the sensor, and even more when pointed at other 'dark' areas for even longer periods. 

If the monkeys can write books then the cognoscenti go on to explain that there are uncountable numbers of Earths, uncountable numbers of galaxy's and uncountable numbers of Universes. And even further something that our finite minds will have great difficulty in grasping, that there was no beginning and there will be no end, only a state of constant change.

To pick up on Wolf's comment about death, most animals are aware that in certain circumstances they must either fight or run or die. We as a species have been aware of our own deaths for some millions of years, we have very large brains which we are told are the most complex things in the universe, are they evolutions answer to death?

It may be that consciousness survives death I suspect from some experiences I have had that it does. It also fits in quite neatly with infinity and the law that governs it, Murphy's; 'If it is possible for something to happen then it will, even if the chances appear to be millions to one against'

Jim


----------



## Guest

jimread said:


> Recent programmes I have watched on the tele and listened to on R4 are now beginning to get to grips with infinity. Take one and add a zero and then keep doing it there being no upper limit. Take the idea a little further and the monkeys given time will write the works of Shakespeare and every other book that's ever been written.
> 
> We thought we knew that the universe was finite and bounded, yet when Hubble was pointed at a dark area of the sky for a week, the director's privelige as it turned out, more galaxy's appeared on the sensor, and even more when pointed at other 'dark' areas for even longer periods.
> 
> If the monkeys can write books then the cognoscenti go on to explain that there are uncountable numbers of Earths, uncountable numbers of galaxy's and uncountable numbers of Universes. And even further something that our finite minds will have great difficulty in grasping, that there was no beginning and there will be no end, only a state of constant change.
> 
> To pick up on Wolf's comment about death, most animals are aware that in certain circumstances they must either fight or run or die. We as a species have been aware of our own deaths for some millions of years, we have very large brains which we are told are the most complex things in the universe, are they evolutions answer to death?
> 
> It may be that consciousness survives death I suspect from some experiences I have had that it does. It also fits in quite neatly with infinity and the law that governs it, Murphy's; 'If it is possible for something to happen then it will, even if the chances appear to be millions to one against'
> 
> Jim


No, I don't think even the most dyed-in-the-wool evolutionary biologists would make the argument that, given enough time, monkeys could write the works of Shakespeare and every other book. Clearly, religion/creation aside, there is some peculiar aspect of our species (Homo sapiens sapiens) that has resulted in such things. Perhaps the larger skull/brain has allowed for higher thought - whatever the reason. Literature is not an evolutionary inevitability.

As to our species being aware of death for millions of years, that isn't really likely. Most scientists don't even put the age of Homo sapiens sapiens at 1 million years. Millions of years ago, the ancestral split that resulted in the divergence of the Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo (humanoid) genuses was just occurring.

I'm not sure that a notion of death as an abstract concept was inherent - certainly fear is something that most animals feel. We call it a survival instinct, but whether animals think of it in terms of death is something we just can't know.


----------



## Guest

wolf said:


> Very well said, and why should a God create anything so awfully, terribly cruel as nature? Where snakes swallow nestlings alive, while anguished birdmoms suffer, parasitic insects lay eggs in other insects or animals, who are eaten alive from within. Why didn't he make them grasseaters, and with much less eggs and youngsters, so that the struggle for survival didn't have to be as cruel?
> 
> That an intelligent human being can believe such things must be due to fear of death.


Well, I don't claim to be God, or anywhere near it, for that matter. But your idea of a better system doesn't seem plausible. First of all, if all animal life subsisted on only grass/vegetation, you would come to a crisis very quickly - your food supply would quickly dry up. Even if life were to reproduce less quickly, and at lower levels, you would still have a significant problem with food shortage very quickly. We keep talking about the dwindling food supply for humans, and we reproduce at a much slower rate than insects. Most humans bear only one offspring at a time, and then must undergo a minimum of a little over 9 months before they can have another child.

So while you would not have animals/insects killing each other for food, they would either be killing each other for the limited supply of food that they were all competing for, or dying of starvation.

Instead, the current system works much better, and seems like a very intelligent way to design it - some animals/insects are herbivores, some are carnivores, and some are omnivores. All keep a check on one another. If the fact that all life has to die at some point, and sometimes it isn't in the most pleasant of ways, is a sign of cruelty to you, then are you suggesting that a benevolent creator would allow everything to live forever, unmolested? Because that would then make even less sense. Then, no matter how low you kept the birth rate, eventually you would hit a point of complete overpopulation. And under that situation, you would be making the same argument, "If there was a God, why would he have done something so stupid as having every animal life on this planet eat the same thing, leading to massive food shortages and mass starvation?"


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> Well, I don't claim to be God, or anywhere near it, for that matter. But your idea of a better system doesn't seem plausible. First of all, if all animal life subsisted on only grass/vegetation, you would come to a crisis very quickly - your food supply would quickly dry up. Even if life were to reproduce less quickly, and at lower levels, you would still have a significant problem with food shortage very quickly. We keep talking about the dwindling food supply for humans, and we reproduce at a much slower rate than insects. Most humans bear only one offspring at a time, and then must undergo a minimum of a little over 9 months before they can have another child.


********. Either you are lying on purpose (I hope not) or you have no idea about the pyramid of productivity. Eating meat produces a lot of waste (each step takes roughly 0.1 of energy further - 90% goes to waste with each step; herbivores use about 10% of what plants produces and so on). Do you understand much is actually wasted by mass production of hamburgers? No, I'm not a vegetarian - I'm simply aware of the mechanics you are ignorant of.



> So while you would not have animals/insects killing each other for food, they would either be killing each other for the limited supply of food that they were all competing for, or dying of starvation.


You imply that a much smaller population of *herbivores* is an impossibility to an omnipotent God, how arrogant of you.



> Instead, the current system works much better, and seems like a very intelligent way to design it - some animals/insects are herbivores, some are carnivores, and some are omnivores. All keep a check on one another. If the fact that all life has to die at some point, and sometimes it isn't in the most pleasant of ways, is a sign of cruelty to you, then are you suggesting that a benevolent creator would allow everything to live forever, unmolested? Because that would then make even less sense. Then, no matter how low you kept the birth rate, eventually you would hit a point of complete overpopulation. And under that situation, you would be making the same argument, "If there was a God, why would he have done something so stupid as having every animal life on this planet eat the same thing, leading to massive food shortages and mass starvation?"


No, it's not. You are trying very hard for it to fit your idea, though. How is mass starvation possible with an omnipotent God or is he not as omnipotent as you make him out to be?


----------



## wolf

Although I DO think that DrMike have a point - I know exactly what you mean and it's logical, starvation is very anguishing! BUT, when a lion attacks a human being, it goes rather quick, from the attack, to the death. So we can assume that it is rather quick with the animals too. And the strange thing is that several people, that has been in the mouths of lions and tigers, and survived, tell about strang analgesic experiences, almost numbing, while the carnivore bite and claw! Probably due to an incredible increase in endorphines, enkefalines, human opioids! Some people have been astonished that the mouse do not run away from the cat, it seems hypnotized. But perhaps that is the same thing, it may not suffer so very much.

So why should there be snakes, eating small nestlings like that. Why didn't he make all snakes poisonous? Then it would get quick. Or more hawks and falcons, what are snakes good for? Why these parasitic insects at all? Why not spiders, that attack without nets? I do not think that any animal would choose to be slowly eaten from within.

As for the notion that conciousness can survive outside the body, there are proven "mediums" that absolutely refute that their ability has anything to do with spirits, that it's a totally natural, biologically based thing, only we have lost it. But I can agree with your thought, but I won't go into why, here. I don't want to explain away a God because I must, but a GOOD CREATOR, is impossible. Even the gnosticists in the first centuries A.D. believed in a BAD creator, and the good Jesus...


----------



## djpeters

*couldnt resist checking this thread again!*

Lets remember our noble divinely inspired patriarch Michael Walsh peace be upon him who started this thread!
Was he inspired by Divinity?  he seems to have inspired a few of you guys!

A great Sikh Guru once said "there is one God and his name is Truth"
As I'm sure you all know, there is a whole lot of truth in this Universe!
Beyond our philosophies.


----------



## djpeters

If Divinity is "Divination" How do we Divine?
Also What is Inspiration!!??

I'd love some good answers on this!

remember primary school art class now children, there is no wrong answer, just have a try!


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> ********. Either you are lying on purpose (I hope not) or you have no idea about the pyramid of productivity. Eating meat produces a lot of waste (each step takes roughly 0.1 of energy further - 90% goes to waste with each step; herbivores use about 10% of what plants produces and so on). Do you understand much is actually wasted by mass production of hamburgers? No, I'm not a vegetarian - I'm simply aware of the mechanics you are ignorant of.
> 
> You imply that a much smaller population of *herbivores* is an impossibility to an omnipotent God, how arrogant of you.
> 
> No, it's not. You are trying very hard for it to fit your idea, though. How is mass starvation possible with an omnipotent God or is he not as omnipotent as you make him out to be?


I'm not sure what your point is. What does the amount of energy derived/waste produced from different food sources have to do with the fact that if everything on the planet was competing for the same food source, that food source would quickly become scarce? That is simple supply/demand. So what if consumption of meat produces more waste than plants? And your example of hamburgers is really a poor one. That is a very specialized example, specific really to industrialized western nations. In many areas of the world, when an animal is killed for food, virtually every part of the animal is consumed. That means not just the actual meat, but the organs, the entrails, the blood - everything. And much of the animal world that is carnivorous does the same. Maybe one animal will come through and make the kill, and eat the parts that it prefers. Then another animal will come along, and so on, and so on. Then you have insects and other carrion animals that come in and clean up what is left. Every part can be consumed. So are you ignorant of that, or did you willingly overlook that?

And your omnipotent God ideas are very simplistic. Why stop at your assertions? If there were an omnipotent God, why, he could make us all able to survive off of ice cream that he caused to rain daily from the sky. For that matter, why even make us have to eat at all? After all, if he is omnipotent, he could do that. After all, he can do anything. Except that omnipotence does not mean he has to do everything. There are many things that I am capable of but don't do. Because he is omnipotent does not necessitate that he WILL do everything he is capable of.

It's not an either or - either there is God, or there is science. That is a false assumption. God being omnipotent doesn't mean that he does all kinds of unnatural things.


----------



## djpeters

Hi Dr Mike, feeling divine today?


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> I'm not sure what your point is. What does the amount of energy derived/waste produced from different food sources have to do with the fact that if everything on the planet was competing for the same food source, that food source would quickly become scarce? That is simple supply/demand. So what if consumption of meat produces more waste than plants? And your example of hamburgers is really a poor one. That is a very specialized example, specific really to industrialized western nations. In many areas of the world, when an animal is killed for food, *virtually every part of the animal is consumed*. That means not just the actual meat, but the organs, the entrails, the blood - everything. And much of the animal world that is carnivorous does the same. Maybe one animal will come through and make the kill, and eat the parts that it prefers. Then another animal will come along, and so on, and so on. Then you have insects and other carrion animals that come in and clean up what is left. Every part can be consumed. So are you ignorant of that, or did you willingly overlook that?


It's funny how contridactory what you're saying is. An omnipotent God cannot create a world whithout overpopulation of herbivores in case of no carnivores present. I call ******** - that's not omnipotence at all.

You don't understand food chains and yet you try to discuss it in public. Look up "food chains" and "entropy" and then come back because we clearly have a misunderstanding here - or rather - you do not understand what's being discussed. (Directed towards the bolded part the most.)



> And your omnipotent God ideas are very simplistic. Why stop at your assertions? If there were an omnipotent God, why, he could make us all able to survive off of ice cream that he caused to rain daily from the sky. For that matter, why even make us have to eat at all? After all, if he is omnipotent, he could do that. After all, he can do anything. Except that omnipotence does not mean he has to do everything. There are many things that I am capable of but don't do. Because he is omnipotent does not necessitate that he WILL do everything he is capable of.


You do understand that personality contradicts perfection, right? You do understand that suffering contradicts omnibenevolence-omnipotence-omniscience conjunction, right? And please, don't bring up Anselm and the other apologists as their arguments have been shred to pieces centuries ago.



> It's not an either or - either there is God, or there is science. That is a false assumption. God being omnipotent doesn't mean that he does all kinds of unnatural things.


Oh, the irony - fellow believer gave science the best weapon against superstitious belief such as religion - Ockham and his infamous razor. The most simple explanation is the most plausible one. Five hundred years ago that was God - nowadays it's science. Simon, ekhm, science says evolution...


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> It's funny how contridactory what you're saying is. An omnipotent God cannot create a world whithout overpopulation of herbivores in case of no carnivores present. I call ******** - that's not omnipotence at all.
> 
> You don't understand food chains and yet you try to discuss it in public. Look up "food chains" and "entropy" and then come back because we clearly have a misunderstanding here - or rather - you do not understand what's being discussed. (Directed towards the bolded part the most.)
> 
> You do understand that personality contradicts perfection, right? You do understand that suffering contradicts omnibenevolence-omnipotence-omniscience conjunction, right? And please, don't bring up Anselm and the other apologists as their arguments have been shred to pieces centuries ago.
> 
> Oh, the irony - fellow believer gave science the best weapon against superstitious belief such as religion - Ockham and his infamous razor. The most simple explanation is the most plausible one. Five hundred years ago that was God - nowadays it's science. Simon, ekhm, science says evolution...


What I do understand is that you throw out terms left and right that really have no relevance to what I said, and claim they somehow refute what I have said. All of your assertions are based on false assumptions about God. First of all, God's purpose is not to create a perfect life in the here and now on earth. This is but a stage. It is not about making life as simple and easy for us as possible. It is a period of learning, of making choices, accepting consequences, and growing in the process. There are hardships, because we don't really grow and learn if we face no opposition.

What is your point with any of your statements? What does entropy and the food cycle have to do with this discussion? Someone made the comment that if there was a loving God, he would have made everything herbivore, and I made the comment that if everything was an herbivore, we would have a shortage of food. Then you go into how much waste is generated from carnivores vs. herbivores. And then you come up with an outrageous litany of demands that an omnipotent god must meet if one were real. He is omnipotent, but he uses his powers to accomplish certain goals. Do you do everything you are capable of, or do you use your abilities in directed ways? I know how to use and fire a gun. But I don't go firing a gun all the time, and I don't go shooting people with that gun. Does my choice to not shoot a gun negate my ability to use it? When I design a scientific experiment, there are several different assays that I am highly proficient at performing, but I don't use them all, because it isn't necessary to use every one. Does my choice to not use every tool at my disposal negate my ability to use it? Does it mean I can't do it simply because I don't do it? That is absurd. Being omnipotent means that God has the ability to do all things. It doesn't mean he will do them. He does what is necessary to further his purposes. His purposes aren't to coddle us from cradle to grave. His purpose is to help us grow and develop. Now, that may mean we face some pain, some hardships, some tough times. Show me one great person that you can think of that never faced any kind of hardship.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> Instead, the current system works much better, and seems like a very intelligent way to design it - some animals/insects are herbivores, some are carnivores, and some are omnivores. All keep a check on one another. If the fact that all life has to die at some point, and sometimes it isn't in the most pleasant of ways, is a sign of cruelty to you, then are you suggesting that a benevolent creator would allow everything to live forever, unmolested? Because that would then make even less sense. Then, no matter how low you kept the birth rate, eventually you would hit a point of complete overpopulation. And under that situation, you would be making the same argument, "If there was a God, why would he have done something so stupid as having every animal life on this planet eat the same thing, leading to massive food shortages and mass starvation?"


The system does work well, though not due to a single "designer" (God) as implied by your first sentence. For example, when "India" (the land mass roughly speaking as we recognise today) broke apart from the super-continent _Gondwana _over 40 million years ago, and collided with Asia thus forming the Himalayan range of mountains, evidence of fossil are scattered all around that region showing prehistoric creatures that eventually died out because the climate and the food supply changed. Those creatures that adapted and evolved successfully lived on. The system is therefore not static, or current (using your word), but entire line of creatures can and do die out because of environmental reasons, and other new creatures take their place.

Why are there monotremes (egg laying mammals) only in Australia? In particular, why are there only two species of monotremes; the platypus and the echidna? Australia was once part of _Gondwana_, too. Did God decide only two species of monotremes fit the "grand design" when Gondwana broke up? Or do you more plausibly think there were once far more, many different species of monotremes that once lived on Gondwana and when it broke up, those that did not successfully evolve to new species died out?


----------



## Guest

djpeters said:


> If Divinity is "Divination" How do we Divine?
> Also What is Inspiration!!??
> 
> I'd love some good answers on this!
> 
> remember primary school art class now children, there is no wrong answer, just have a try!


When you are done trying to be cute, you can look up the terms and realize that, other than having similar roots, divinity and divination are not one and the same.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> What I do understand is that you throw out terms left and right that really have no relevance to what I said, and claim they somehow refute what I have said. All of your assertions are based on false assumptions about God. First of all, God's purpose is not to create a perfect life in the here and now on earth. This is but a stage. It is not about making life as simple and easy for us as possible. It is a period of learning, of making choices, accepting consequences, and growing in the process. There are hardships, because we don't really grow and learn if we face no opposition.


Pretty arrogant of you, telling your God what he is and isn't supposed to do. I think the terms omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience are clear. Christians claim they all describe God and yet the definitions of said words do not match with out world. How come?



> What is your point with any of your statements? What does entropy and the food cycle have to do with this discussion? Someone made the comment that if there was a loving God, he would have made everything herbivore, and I made the comment that if everything was an herbivore, we would have a shortage of food. Then you go into how much waste is generated from carnivores vs. herbivores.


I've proved you wrong. That's it. Nothing more to it. There would be no overpopulation suppose he is truly omnipotent - thus your argument holds no water. Quite frankly switching to eating GMO vegetables (ones that will contain sufficient amounts of essential amino-acids) is our only choice, if we want to feed population this big.



> And then you come up with an outrageous litany of demands that an omnipotent god must meet if one were real. He is omnipotent, but he uses his powers to accomplish certain goals. Do you do everything you are capable of, or do you use your abilities in directed ways? I know how to use and fire a gun. But I don't go firing a gun all the time, and I don't go shooting people with that gun. Does my choice to not shoot a gun negate my ability to use it? When I design a scientific experiment, there are several different assays that I am highly proficient at performing, but I don't use them all, because it isn't necessary to use every one. Does my choice to not use every tool at my disposal negate my ability to use it? Does it mean I can't do it simply because I don't do it? That is absurd. Being omnipotent means that God has the ability to do all things. It doesn't mean he will do them. He does what is necessary to further his purposes. His purposes aren't to coddle us from cradle to grave. His purpose is to help us grow and develop. Now, that may mean we face some pain, some hardships, some tough times. Show me one great person that you can think of that never faced any kind of hardship.


You still haven't proved how the conjunction of omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience is compatible with our world. You still haven't proved how personality is compatible with perfection.


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Pretty arrogant of you, telling your God what he is and isn't supposed to do. I think the terms omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience are clear. Christians claim they all describe God and yet the definitions of said words do not match with out world. How come?
> 
> I've proved you wrong. That's it. Nothing more to it. There would be no overpopulation suppose he is truly omnipotent - thus your argument holds no water. Quite frankly switching to eating GMO vegetables (ones that will contain sufficient amounts of essential amino-acids) is our only choice, if we want to feed population this big.
> 
> You still haven't proved how the conjunction of omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience is compatible with our world. You still haven't proved how personality is compatible with perfection.


It isn't arrogant of me because I am not telling God what he is supposed to do. He has told us what he will do. What is your definition of benevolence? I don't consider it benevolent to keep someone from ever experiencing anything bad. They may be blissfully ignorant of evil and bad, but they are still ignorant, and in the long run, ignorance produces the greater damage. How can you be good if you don't know there is evil? How can there even be the concept of good if there is no evil? How do you know anybody can be good if they are never given the opportunity to do evil? If there were no evil, then God could not be good. So for God to do away with all evil makes it impossible for anybody to be good.

You have proved nothing. You create your own speculations and assumptions of what God is, based on I'm not sure what. You then make your arguments against your own speculations and assumptions, and then, wow, you are able to refute your constructs. Problem is your speculations and assumptions don't even approximate what I have come to know about God. You haven't refuted my beliefs because you haven't even addressed my beliefs. I don't know what beliefs you have been arguing against, and I even speculate that you can't find a religion that meets all your assumptions of their faith.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> It isn't arrogant of me because I am not telling God what he is supposed to do. He has told us what he will do. What is your definition of benevolence? I don't consider it benevolent to keep someone from ever experiencing anything bad. They may be blissfully ignorant of evil and bad, but they are still ignorant, and in the long run, ignorance produces the greater damage. How can you be good if you don't know there is evil? How can there even be the concept of good if there is no evil? How do you know anybody can be good if they are never given the opportunity to do evil? If there were no evil, then God could not be good. So for God to do away with all evil makes it impossible for anybody to be good.
> 
> You have proved nothing. You create your own speculations and assumptions of what God is, based on I'm not sure what. You then make your arguments against your own speculations and assumptions, and then, wow, you are able to refute your constructs. Problem is your speculations and assumptions don't even approximate what I have come to know about God. You haven't refuted my beliefs because you haven't even addressed my beliefs. I don't know what beliefs you have been arguing against, and I even speculate that you can't find a religion that meets all your assumptions of their faith.


Fine, define omnibenevolence, define omnipotence, define omniscience. Or simply link to the definitions you adhere to.


----------



## Boccherini

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Fine, define omnibenevolence, define omnipotence, define omniscience. Or simply link to the definitions you adhere to.


Yes, these terms ostensibly contradictory; The term "omnibenevolence", which might be problematic due to the term "evil", means that God is good, forever. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that God's ways are exactly presented according to one's vision/comfort as direct goodness. And if God's acts are evil, and it's plain waste to search for the exact reasons, it doesn't necessarily mean that he couldn't have done that otherwise.


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Fine, define omnibenevolence, define omnipotence, define omniscience. Or simply link to the definitions you adhere to.


You are the one making all the logical jumps based on your assumptions. So why don't we start from there. Show me an example of a religion that conceives of God's goodness in the way you have characterized it here. To my knowledge, most religions that believe in a God, or those that believe in a benevolent, good, loving God don't conceive of that goodness in the absolute way that you do. Most believe that God can both love and punish. Obviously they acknowledge that bad things can still happen in this world. You apply absolutist terms because they fit your argument. You like to define good in your own terms and then apply them to God. Your definition does not allow an all powerful and a benevolent God, because you would consider any constraint on his power as proof he did not exist. God's ways are good. His purposes are good. He strives for us to be good. But he won't force us to be good, because that is not a worthy goal. Who is the better citizen, the one who knows the laws and cheerfully abides by them, or the one who abides by them only because they have a gun to their head at all times? And what is the good way to govern those people? To teach them how to act, let them know the consequences for bad choices, and then let them go choose for themselves? Or is it a greater "good" to control their every move, to not allow them to deviate from the "good" at all? Which of those two would you consider the good way?

How is God benevolent? He sent us to earth so that we could gain a body, and to learn for ourselves the better choices to make. To learn and to grow, and to make the choices that will lead to even greater happiness after this life. He is good because he made this all possible for us. And because he knew that we would all fall short, and so he was willing to allow his son to come down and pay the price for our mistakes, even though he led a perfect life. His mercy was such that he lets us be forgiven at a much lower price than what is truly owed for our mistakes. And in spite of all of our mistakes, if we follow his commandments, we can receive even greater blessings after this life. This life isn't meant to be a blissful sojourn. It is a learning and trial period. And sometimes it is hard. But complaining about how hard and painful it is, and how unloving God must be to let us endure it is about as short-sighted as the child who thinks that his parents hate him because they force him to go to school and to study. He thinks his parents don't love him because they make him do work, sometimes hard work. Sometimes they let him make mistakes, because they know if they try to stop him from making every mistake, at some point, not having learned the lesson when the consequences were fairly small, he will make an even bigger mistake that will have greater consequences. And all the while the child thinks these are all proof that his parents don't love him, neglecting to see the bigger picture, or sometimes attributing his own mistakes to his parents.

That's how I view my all-wise, perfect, all-powerful, good, merciful, and just God.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

> You apply absolutist terms


No, I don't. I bring up the terms Christians use to describe their God. I've asked you to define these terms or link to definitions you adhere to.

Tell me, why haven't you done what I've asked you to? Are you afraid of something?

Define omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omnipresence.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Still waiting.


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> No, I don't. I bring up the terms Christians use to describe their God. I've asked you to define these terms or link to definitions you adhere to.
> 
> *Tell me, why haven't you done what I've asked you to?*


Because I don't jump at your beck and call. I already explained my conception of God. If you want a more detailed description of my specific beliefs, I invite you to visit this website:
www.mormon.org



> Are you afraid of something?


Hardly. I took two years of my life to go be a missionary, telling people every day about my beliefs. I had discussions of my faith with theologians and other scholars. It seems laughable that I would be afraid, being anonymous on here, to share these things with another anonymous individual.



KaerbEmEvig said:


> Still waiting.


And so you shall.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> Because I don't jump at your beck and call. I already explained my conception of God. If you want a more detailed description of my specific beliefs, I invite you to visit this website:
> www.mormon.org
> 
> Hardly. I took two years of my life to go be a missionary, telling people every day about my beliefs. I had discussions of my faith with theologians and other scholars. It seems laughable that I would be afraid, being anonymous on here, to share these things with another anonymous individual.
> 
> And so you shall.


Ok, as I understand it. You won't define these terms. I think it would be appropriate to admit you were proven wrong.

I've been using the generally accepted definitions of said terms, proved them to be incompatible with our world. Your only response was that I was making up a straw-man argument - you did not support that claim by providing different - correct - definitions, tough.

If you can't do that - I think it is better to stay away from debates, when you can't handle being proven wrong.


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Ok, as I understand it. You won't define these terms. I think it would be appropriate to admit you were proven wrong.
> 
> I've been using the generally accepted definitions of said terms, proved them to be incompatible with our world. Your only response was that I was making up a straw-man argument - you did not support that claim by providing different - correct - definitions, tough.
> 
> If you can't do that - I think it is better to stay away from debates, when you can't handle being proven wrong.


No, you haven't won anything. We don't need diverse definitions. My issue is not what the terms mean, but what you imply they mean. You stated if there were a God, and that if that God created an all herbivore world, then that God's omnipotence necessarily require he make a never ending food supply. My argument is that omnipotence means nothing of the sort. Omnipotence means that God COULD do that, if he so chose. But it doesn't follow that he would do that, or that he must. My examples that I supplied made the point that failure to act does not automatically prove inability to act. If a monk takes a vow of silence, we wouldn't say he can't speak, simply that he won't speak. If I close my eyes, it doesn't mean I am blind, rather that I don't choose to see.

God acts in the way that he commands us to act - to make conscious decisions when given choices, and to act in order. You present a picture of a God that is a slave to his omnipotence, forced to act out every possible thing that he can do. God has a perfect plan for his children, and he uses his omnipotence to do those things that help us to fulfill that plan. His power is omnipresent in all the world around us. He is perfectly loving, because he continues to love us despite all the mistakes we make. But he is also perfectly just, and thus requires us to face the consequences of our actions, even when those consequences may be unpleasant.

Your construct of God is a being that does everything, because he can do everything, and who must serve as the eternal coddler, the eternal nanny, because, in your mind, anything less would be seen as short of perfect love for us. You don't think it is possible to love someone and yet still allow them to suffer at any point in their life. You fail to see that we learn, not only from our joys, but also from our pains. You think that, because there is suffering in this world, there can't possibly be a loving God.

I never said that God couldn't create an unlimited herbivore food supply. I said that the system that he did establish is a much more efficient system. An all herbivore system is not a more efficient system - by your own admission, it would require some outside source constantly intervening to replenish a finite resource. That requires a greater input of energy, which doesn't seem like it would be more efficient. Why would this make more sense than the system in place now?

Again - you won nothing. You proved nothing. Your comments were flawed, and your assumptions were faulty. Omnipotence implies ability, not action.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Five paragraphs and you still haven't defined these terms. I think that says it all - you are afraid to lose. Or rather, you won't admit you have lost.

It's funny how you assert things I didn't say to support your claims:



> You stated if there were a God, and that if that God created an all herbivore world, then that God's omnipotence necessarily require he make a never ending food supply.


No, I did not (show it to me then!). On the other hand you stated that an omnipotent God is unable to create an all herbivore world that doesn't run out of food. This is the part of your post that started the topic of an all herbivore environment:



> Well, I don't claim to be God, or anywhere near it, for that matter. But your idea of a better system doesn't seem plausible. *First of all, if all animal life subsisted on only grass/vegetation, you would come to a crisis very quickly - your food supply would quickly dry up.* Even if life were to reproduce less quickly, and at lower levels, you would still have a significant problem with food shortage very quickly. We keep talking about the dwindling food supply for humans, and we reproduce at a much slower rate than insects. Most humans bear only one offspring at a time, and then must undergo a minimum of a little over 9 months before they can have another child.
> 
> So while you would not have animals/insects killing each other for food, they would either be killing each other for the limited supply of food that they were all competing for, or dying of starvation.


Which I called ******** because that's what it is.



> God has a perfect plan for his children, and he uses his omnipotence to do those things that help us to fulfill that plan.


You do understand that an omnipotent, omniscient demiurge and the concept of free will are incompatible? So is the so called divine plan and free will. Evenmoreso - an all-just, omniscient God who sends people to Hell cannot exist. An omniscient demiurge must have had the knowledge of all my future sins at the time of creation and yet chose to create me - a sinner who will perish in Hell. He is the first cause - he must then be the cause of my sins for I did not want to be created in the first place. How is that just? Let alone "all-just".



> I never said that God couldn't create an unlimited herbivore food supply. I said that the system that he did establish is a much more efficient system. An all herbivore system is not a more efficient system - by your own admission, it would require some outside source constantly intervening to replenish a finite resource. That requires a greater input of energy, which doesn't seem like it would be more efficient. Why would this make more sense than the system in place now?


More efficient - agreed. Yet you were supposed to prove that it is not cruel. An omnipotent, omniscient, *omnibenevolent* God creates cruel nature because it's efficient - good joke.


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Five paragraphs and you still haven't defined these terms. I think that says it all - you are afraid to lose. Or rather, you won't admit you have lost.
> 
> It's funny how you assert things I didn't say to support your claims:
> 
> No, I did not (show it to me then!). On the other hand you stated that an omnipotent God is unable to create an all herbivore world that doesn't run out of food. This is the part of your post that started the topic of an all herbivore environment:
> 
> Which I called ******** because that's what it is.
> 
> You do understand that an omnipotent, omniscient demiurge and the concept of free will are incompatible? So is the so called divine plan and free will. Evenmoreso - an all-just, omniscient God who sends people to Hell cannot exist. An omniscient demiurge must have had the knowledge of all my future sins at the time of creation and yet chose to create me - a sinner who will perish in Hell. He is the first cause - he must then be the cause of my sins for I did not want to be created in the first place. How is that just? Let alone "all-just".
> 
> More efficient - agreed. Yet you were supposed to prove that it is not cruel. An omnipotent, omniscient, *omnibenevolent* God creates cruel nature because it's efficient - good joke.


Other than you patting yourself on the back for thinking you are winning arguments here (which seems to enjoy the support of . . . you), I'm not sure what you think you are asserting in all of this.

So it is bad to allow someone to do something if you already know they won't succeed? Really? So God can't possibly be good if he created us, knowing we wouldn't be perfect? Or that we might fail miserably? I've already give my beliefs on this matter, so continuing to repeat myself is nothing more than an exercise in futility on my part, because then you'll merely claim that I'm not saying what in fact I have already said.

What amuses me so much is that, as I have said before, many atheist arguments here have attacked religious beliefs because they can't answer each and every question. You think that because a person can't absolutely prove that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, then their whole belief system falls apart. And yet when you challenge atheists to completely and absolutely prove claims of an evolutionary origin of all life, as well as prove the original life that sparked from lifelessness, or how the universe and this planet came to be, they duck the questions stating some circumstantial evidence of evolution, and then wave their hands and say, well, we just don't have the tools yet to prove all these things, but trust us, some day it will all be explained.

Since you seem to be an expert not only in biological systems, ecology, zoology, and philosophy, why don't you explain your contention that a completely herbivore animal kingdom is feasible. You mentioned before the wonders of genetically modified crops as one solution for food shortages. But that assumes that an entirely plant-eating animal kingdom would have been able to evolve to a human capable of developing such crops. That would be highly theoretical, since it didn't turn out that way. Humans, from a purely evolutionary perspective, aren't omnivores now by choice, so much as that is what we have evolved as. Competition for resources, especially food, is potentially a very important natural selection pressure driving evolution. So while eating plants might be more efficient, competition for a finite food source would select for a species capable of surviving on something other than plants. In fact, the ability to feed on the broadest amount of food sources would confer the greatest advantage looking at this one particular selection pressure - so omnivores would have the greatest advantage. Of course, then, you might also select more and more for plants with evolved protections - poisonous, thorns, etc. Easily eaten plants would go the quickest, and those with advantageous mutations that conferred protection would start out as minorities, but, like antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, would become dominant as other less defensive plants are consumed. So then again you would have pressure on plant eaters to seek out other food sources.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> ... And yet when you challenge atheists to completely and absolutely prove claims of an evolutionary origin of all life, as well as prove the original life that sparked from lifelessness, or how the universe and this planet came to be, they duck the questions stating some circumstantial evidence of evolution, and then wave their hands and say, well, we just don't have the tools yet to prove all these things, but trust us, some day it will all be explained.


Why don't you ask your fellow natural scientists, who are also atheists/agnostic? I'm sure they _would_ be more persuasive scientifically than us lesser non-natural-scientific minds here.

I think you have found your neck of the woods in this forum here to champion your religion, which is all fine; this is all about discussion. But I doubt you would show similar zeal in your own scientific community.

Circumstantial evidence of evolution, as you describe it, is still far more persuasive to me than stating that there is a God who communicates directly with prophets and believers even to this day, on many matters from the sale of one's family home to whether or not to declare war on another country.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> Other than you patting yourself on the back for thinking you are winning arguments here (which seems to enjoy the support of . . . you), I'm not sure what you think you are asserting in all of this.


Call it what you want - you still haven't addressed what has been asked of you - that is defined omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. To me that's synonymous to admiting defeat.



> *So it is bad to allow someone to do something if you already know they won't succeed?* Really? So God can't possibly be good if he created us, knowing we wouldn't be perfect? Or that we might fail miserably? I've already give my beliefs on this matter, so continuing to repeat myself is nothing more than an exercise in futility on my part, because then you'll merely claim that I'm not saying what in fact I have already said.


Yet another straw-man on your part. That's not what I said and you certainly know that - you are twisting my words. I said that since God is supposedly the cause of my very existence, that he knew I will perish in Hell for my sins before he had created me for he is omniscient, thus he cannot be all-just (this is exactly what Nazis were doing to the Jews and Poles and you call that just - tormenting someone for something he isn't responsible of?). That's not love either - far from omnibenevolence.

I am not asking you about your beliefs - I am asking you to define the terms omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience because you have accused me of misinterpreting them. I want you to prove that claim here and now by citing the definitions you and your fellow Christians adhere to.



> What amuses me so much is that, as I have said before, many atheist arguments here have attacked religious beliefs because they can't answer each and every question. You think that because a person can't absolutely prove that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, then their whole belief system falls apart.


Yet another straw-man. When exactly did I ask you to prove that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient? I have merely asked you to define these terms.



> And yet when you challenge atheists to completely and absolutely prove claims of an evolutionary origin of all life, as well as prove the original life that sparked from lifelessness, or how the universe and this planet came to be, they duck the questions stating some circumstantial evidence of evolution, and then wave their hands and say, well, we just don't have the tools yet to prove all these things, but trust us, some day it will all be explained.


No, the most common response is that you are simply unable to understand the arguments for the theory of evolution and abiogenesis, which seems to be the case with you.



> Since you seem to be an expert not only in biological systems, ecology, zoology, and philosophy


Well, certainly when comapred to you. You are pretty much ignorant of all these things.



> why don't you explain your contention that a completely herbivore animal kingdom is feasible.


Tiresome - another straw-man? not again! When did I say such a system was feasible in nature? I have simply poited out that such a system shouldn't have been a problem for a supposedly omnipotent God. Such a system would certainly be less cruel than what we've got now.

We are talking about the "what if God did exist" hypothetical scenario here.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Why don't you ask your fellow natural scientists, who are also atheists/agnostic? I'm sure they _would_ be more persuasive scientifically than us lesser non-natural-scientific minds here.
> 
> I think you have found your neck of the woods in this forum here to champion your religion, which is all fine; this is all about discussion. But I doubt you would show similar zeal in your own scientific community.
> 
> Circumstantial evidence of evolution, as you describe it, is still far more persuasive to me than stating that there is a God who communicates directly with prophets and believers even to this day, on many matters from the sale of one's family home to whether or not to declare war on another country.


Everybody that I work with is well aware of my religion. The difference between there and here is that nobody there feels the need to constantly try and "disprove" my beliefs.

So you think I have staked out my "neck of the woods" here to champion my religion? What would you say, then, of the numerous people who have felt the need to come in and try to refute and ridicule my religion, and religion in general?

What is the more ridiculous thing - to defend beliefs that one firmly holds, or to endlessly criticize/ridicule the beliefs of another person, knowing full well that disproving them isn't possible. Am I to believe that individuals like GiveMeBreak are genuinely concerned for me and are doing this purely to help me? No, his comments are to impress himself and make him think that he is successfully fighting at the forefront of the great struggle to convince religious people that they are intellectually flawed. At the end of the day, what is the more worthwhile endeavor - to defend your beliefs, or to belittle the faith of others?


----------



## David58117

DrMike said:


> And yet when you challenge atheists to completely and absolutely prove claims of an evolutionary origin of all life, as well as prove the original life that sparked from lifelessness, or how the universe and this planet came to be, they duck the questions stating some circumstantial evidence of evolution, and then wave their hands and say, well, we just don't have the tools yet to prove all these things, but trust us, some day it will all be explained.


I'm sorry, but - what discussion have you been following?

No offense, but post after post in discussion with me you've demonstrated you don't understand evolutionary theory. You've twisted the experiment I presented, and then attacked it because it didn't address what you thought it should. You've kept repeating the line "The flies are still flies" which shows a complete misunderstanding/distortion of it. And when I pointed out repeatedly that the purpose of the experiment was to show *one specific type of speciation, and that it was successful,* you ignore it. This is after you make 3 specific claims in this discussion that evolution falls apart when trying to explain speciation. As the experiment shows, *no it does not.*

And then you present some "road block" that was addressed in my elementary biology text book from when I was a college freshmen. I gave a direct quote from my text book, provided references, yet you continued using the failed example.

On top of that, in attempt to refute evolution, you give an example of something that doesn't have the genetic fidelity required for evolution. Why someone at your level of education would use an example that doesn't allow for it, and then claim essentially "see, it doesn't happen here, something is off," - is just beyond me. Were you expecting me to say "you're right, it should happen there but it doesn't, something is wrong!" and agree with you?

I honestly don't know what to make of my discussion with you. You're a Biologist at the Ph.D level, you work in the field, yet you misrepresent basic principals that I learned during my first three years of my degree. It's not like I'm just pulling from memory (it's been about 2 years since I switched to nursing) - I'm sitting here with my old textbooks, spending time going through them, and then responding with what I find. Often with a wife yelling in the other ear I'm spending too much time on here.

The part that bothers me, is that people are going to see your claims, notice the "Dr" in front of your name, and take them to be accurate. That's all I care about - I don't care what religion you are, I don't care about trying to "disprove" God, I don't care about trying to convert you - I'm only interested about being honest with the science. Attacking an experiment because it doesn't show something it didn't set out to, is not being honest. Neither is using examples that don't apply (the virus example), or putting forth a road block that doesn't exist (the polar bear/brown bear example).

Anyway, this thread has turned down hill pretty quickly. The "I won, you lose" stance employed here is just painful and embarrassing to read. In real life I've cut friends who believed that "militant Atheism" somehow benefited the discussion, so I think I'll do the same here. Life is too short.

I'm very impressed that you continued this and "debated" with person after person.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> No, his comments are to impress himself and make him think that he is successfully fighting at the forefront of the great struggle to convince religious people that they are intellectually flawed. At the end of the day, what is the more worthwhile endeavor - to defend your beliefs, or to belittle the faith of others?


Says the guy who has been quoting me time and time again and not respoding to what I have said even once. I think it's time you stop your lies. You have lied about the fruit fly experiment, you have lied about speciation and now you are asserting I said things I did not say. Yes, I believe you are lying on purpose.

You've claimed one thing and were shown to be wrong, you've claimed yet another thing to be once again shown you were not right. How about you start dealing with facts because right now you sound ridiculous.



David58117 said:


> Anyway, this thread has turned down hill pretty quickly. The "I won, you lose" stance employed here is just painful and embarrassing to read. In real life I've cut friends who believed that "militant Atheism" somehow benefited the discussion, so I think I'll do the same here. Life is too short.


It may seem childish but I do have a problem with DrMike. He has been knowingly lying about the theory of evolution, about speciation and so on. Now he is asserting I said things I did not say. I have asked him to prove his claims and he was unable to do that. This is why I am asking him to admit he was wrong. You can't simply lie your way out of things.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> At the end of the day, what is the more worthwhile endeavor - to defend your beliefs, or to belittle the faith of others?


DrMike

Answer these questions truthfully please.

1.Do you believe that the laws of your God should be followed by _everyone _(ideally)? Not just your fellow believers?

2.If you or members of your faith gained political power can you envisage a scenario in which the homosexual act, adultery, or abortion is _illegal and punishable_?

3. Have you ever 'belittled' the beliefs of Alchemists? Astrologers? Satanists? Marxists? Anarchists? Militant Islamists? - even in your thoughts?

When you have answered these questions we will be better placed to _respect _or _belittle_ your beliefs.


----------



## Guest

David58117 has brought up some issues, and I'll reiterate what I have said in the past, hopefully saying it better than I did in the past.

My point with the Dodds experiment is not what it proved, but how it is extrapolated. Yes, this experiment proved speciation. A single population, split up and isolated over time resulted in the emergence of two separate populations/species of fruit flies that would then only breed amongst themselves. This is clearly a potential method for speciation to occur. And as I have said before, I fully believe that these types of events can occur naturally to generate vast diversity.

But my "it is still a fly" comment gets to the broader issue. The issue that resulted in examples like the Dodds experiment being brought up is how you get all life from the simple, earliest life. So while the Dodds experiment needs to be looked at in the narrow area it is focused on, clearly such experiments then become extrapolated to be used as evidence for the entire concept of evolution as the driving force behind all life on this planet. And my point is that yes, you can create new species this way (and certainly there are numerous other mechanisms), but what you have created is just another species of fly. But to generate all life, you have to change enough to generate a new genus, a new family, a new kingdom, etc. The problem is overinterpretation of a result. I have stated clearly before now that I have no issue with evolution on the scale of the Dodds experiment. 

The fossil record provides us with numerous examples of different creatures that appear to represent different stages in development. But it is based on looking at fossilized remnants. Do they really represent different stages in an evolutionary spectrum, or simply similar species with slight differences? And we can't know. We can speculate. We can generate hypotheses based on what we believe might have happened. And I know that this isn't what the Dodds experiment specifically addresses, but when you talk in these larger scales, experiments like Dodds' are brought into the discussion to support the evolution claim.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> DrMike
> 
> Answer these questions truthfully please.
> 
> 1.Do you believe that the laws of your God should be followed by _everyone _(ideally)? Not just your fellow believers?
> 
> 2.If you or members of your faith gained political power can you envisage a scenario in which the homosexual act, adultery, or abortion is _illegal and punishable_?
> 
> 3. Have you ever 'belittled' the beliefs of Alchemists? Astrologers? Satanists? Marxists? Anarchists? Militant Islamists? - even in your thoughts?
> 
> When you have answered these questions we will be better placed to _respect _or _belittle_ your beliefs.


1. I believe that God's commandments are for all people. However, my religion also believes the following, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

2. There are Mormons in significant political offices. Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid are Mormons. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. His father had been governor of Michigan. I don't foresee the homosexual act or adultery becoming criminal acts anymore (I say this, because in some places they have been before, but this was not due to the actions of my church). I do believe abortion, though, is wrong, and should be illegal. The difference between abortion and the other two (homosexuality and adultery) is that abortion involves an act against another human life that has no ability to consent, unlike homosexuality and adultery.

3. I don't recall ever belittling any of those issues that you addressed. I have debated them (except for alchemy, because I'm not aware of anybody that still practices alchemy, so honestly it doesn't come up in my thoughts that often, except when I watch movies set in middle ages). Debating, or raising serious concerns or issues is one thing. Several people here, on both sides of the issue, have demonstrated an ability to do that. Belittling is something else entirely. Additionally, you brought together a pretty confusing mix of issues there. Some are deeply held beliefs, others are merely models of governance. For example, one could be religious or atheist and still be a Marxist, or an Anarchist. Those are more preferences in government. How does that rise to this level? Militant Islam is something else as well. I will criticize any belief system that holds that I should be killed for my belief system.


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Says the guy who has been quoting me time and time again and not respoding to what I have said even once. I think it's time you stop your lies. You have lied about the fruit fly experiment, you have lied about speciation and now you are asserting I said things I did not say. Yes, I believe you are lying on purpose.
> 
> You've claimed one thing and were shown to be wrong, you've claimed yet another thing to be once again shown you were not right. How about you start dealing with facts because right now you sound ridiculous.
> 
> It may seem childish but I do have a problem with DrMike. He has been knowingly lying about the theory of evolution, about speciation and so on. Now he is asserting I said things I did not say. I have asked him to prove his claims and he was unable to do that. This is why I am asking him to admit he was wrong. You can't simply lie your way out of things.


Look, if that is what your ego requires, then you are going to believe whatever it is you want. You haven't proven anything. You haven't shown that anything I said was wrong. You stated that you believed I was wrong - that is a far cry from proof.

You have turned my comment that the current system is a better system than an all herbivore system into some dispute over the omnipotence of God. How you made that leap, I don't know, but now you seem to be obsessed with it. So let's look at it this way. Either God exists or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then who cares. If he does, then obviously he didn't choose to make this planet one that was inhabited by all herbivores and provide them with an inexhaustible food supply. Yes, an omnipotent God could certainly do something like that. But the fact of the matter is that such a system does not exist on this planet. And that does not prove he doesn't exist. Just as much as, if such a system did exist, it wouldn't be proof that he did exist. So, for the sake of argument, if you assume that God DOES exist, does this then prove that he is not omnipotent? If that is how you wish to define it, then whatever. The ability to create the entire universe, with untold planets and stars, with this planet brimming with a broad diversity of life, and all the spiritual implications as well - the life after death, forgiveness of sins, etc. - if that all pales in comparison to his not creating a planet of herbivores that have an inexhaustible food supply, well, then you win - He isn't omnipotent.

Regarding his being omnibenevolent, you bring up the idea that he knows everything, and that he knows all of our fates, and the fact that he would create people that he would know beforehand would sin and not repent and face a punishment, and this would negate his goodness (I don't believe in hell in the way that you describe it, or that many Christian denominations describe it, but that distinction is not germane to this particular point, so we can skip over it for now). I'm not in agreement with that. I believe in the standard definition of omnibenevolence, just not how you are applying it. Consider this scenario - most people cannot predict the future, or know the fate of children that they bring into this world. However, in certain narrow circumstances, they can. Take, for example, two couples, each expecting a child, each have extensive prenatal care and surveillance. Both are determined to be carrying children that have Down's syndrome - Trisomy 21. This is verified by amniocentesis. No question about it. Now, while Down's syndrome is not as horrible as other genetic defects, it virtually guarantees a difficult life, with suffering, struggles, etc. Both sets of parents know ahead of time what will happen to their child. There is no curing it. One couple decides to abort. The other decides to keep the child. Which couple is good? Which couple is bad? Is it proof that the second couple is not good or loving, because they kept the child, knowing full well what would happen to the child? Is the other couple good because they aborted the child? Obviously it is an imperfect comparison, because to engage in sin is voluntary, but, as you depict the scenario, with God knowing beforehand all that the individual will do, then it might as well be the same as a birth defect - call it a spiritual birth defect. Is God bade for continuing to grant existence to that individual?

Now, my problem with the scenario is that I don't view our existences emerging from nowhere. God is our spiritual father, but we are all eternal, progressing through various stages throughout eternity. There really is no beginning, just starts to different periods of our development. Currently we are at the stage where we have come to this earth and become mortal. We existed before, and we will exist after. Choosing wrong in this existence doesn't consign one to a place filled with fire, constantly being poked by a red gentleman holding a pitchfork. For an (imperfect) example, it is like education. If you study hard, and do well, greater opportunities are open to you. If you don't, you will not progress as far. But it isn't an all or nothing venture. The notion that you must either end up a genius, or your existence has no justification, is rubbish. The same for our eternal souls. This concept that if we aren't absolutely perfect, then it is incumbent of an omnibenevolent God to simply snuff us out of existence before we have the chance to not be perfect in order to maintain his omnibenevolence is ridiculous. Everybody will receive some reward for their actions. But for those who wish the highest reward and blessings, then they must meet God's requirements.

And central to all of this is that we be allowed to make choices for ourselves - even if that means that sometimes they will be the wrong ones. God doesn't come in and prevent us from making wrong choices, rather he has provided a way for us to correct our mistakes and be forgiven, so that we can learn.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> DrMike
> 
> Answer these questions truthfully please.
> 
> 1.Do you believe that the laws of your God should be followed by _everyone _(ideally)? Not just your fellow believers?
> 
> 2.If you or members of your faith gained political power can you envisage a scenario in which the homosexual act, adultery, or abortion is _illegal and punishable_?
> 
> 3. Have you ever 'belittled' the beliefs of Alchemists? Astrologers? Satanists? Marxists? Anarchists? Militant Islamists? - even in your thoughts?
> 
> When you have answered these questions we will be better placed to _respect _or _belittle_ your beliefs.


And right back at you:
1. Do you believe that scientific consensus should be believed by everyone? What about skeptics? Bear in mind that some of the greatest scientific discoveries came from scientists who chose to believe in something other than the consensus.

2. If atheists gained political power, can you envision a scenario where religion is barred from all public discourse? When publicly professing your religion or wearing religious symbols in public is illegal and punishable? When questioning scientific findings from a religious perspective is banned?

3. Have you ever "belittled" the beliefs of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Greek or Roman polytheists, believers in intelligent design, flat earthers, Wiccans, Druids, or Scientologists? Even in your thoughts?

And finally, referring to your last line, if you don't like any of my answers, are you saying that you have free reign to belittle me? And vice versa, if I don't like any of your answers, are you granting me free license to belittle you? Because, for me, if you honestly believe something, if I think it is wrong, I may state my objections to it, which you are free to do with me as well, but I don't see belittling as a valid reaction.

Were you to be transported back in time to when people thought that an effective medical procedure was to bleed a person, or attach leeches to their body, would you go around belittling them, or would you explain to them why you don't believe those to be valid medical procedures? Do you feel you have license to belittle any belief that doesn't meet whatever threshold you hold for respectful disagreement?


----------



## Aramis

> We existed before, and we will exist after.


What about those who never existed?

The existence of our kind began somewhere in time and it will end somewhere in time. And the number of human beings that existed by that time will be limited. Isn't that unjust that this infinite numbers of beings will never exist?


----------



## Guest

Regarding the original question posted in this thread: Is Music the Creation of Divinity?

It comes down to whether you believe in a Divinity, or not. 

Obviously music is the immediate product of its composer. I'm not aware of instances where people have claimed to have received a piece of music handed down to them from heaven. Someone can correct me here if there has been such an assertion.

But what is the ultimate source?

If there is no God, and all life arose through the forces of evolution, then music is the creation, or the product, of evolution. Could you envision the creation of music without the development of vocal chords to sing? Or the opposable thumb to grip writing instruments or hold a violin bow? Or without the development of a central nervous system, and a brain, that could conceive of such things? Or without the ear to hear music? So in that sense, it is the product of a number of genetic selections that produced the necessary tools and skills to create music. And furthermore, you could also argue that it is the creation of nature itself. How many composers have sought to do nothing more than to distill their surroundings into a work that could be reproduced by voices and/or musical instruments? Beethoven's Pastoral symphony. Vivaldi's Four Seasons. Debussy's La Mer. 

If there is a God, then the abilities to create music come from him, just as without God, they came from evolution. A God would also certainly be able to inspire an individual. So either directly, or indirectly, if God does in fact exist, then music, being the creation of his creations, ultimately would come from him.


----------



## Guest

Aramis said:


> What about those who never existed?
> 
> The existence of our kind began somewhere in time and it will end somewhere in time. And the number of human beings that existed by that time will be limited. Isn't that unjust that this infinite numbers of beings will never exist?


By your first question, I'm assuming you mean those that never existed on this earth?

As I said, everything is eternal. This earth has a finite existence. But this earth is not all there is.


----------



## Aramis

Yes, but I mean beings like us, human beings.

The potential number of beings is unlimited. Beings, or in other words that will better describe what I mean: number of awareness or... human souls.

So the number of us, the beings sent to this earth as a humans, is obviously limited. You say: ". But this earth is not all there is". What do you mean? That there are infinite numbers of beings like us only part of which has been embodied and sent to this world? I never heard such theory in any Christian movement.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> And right back at you:
> 1. Do you believe that scientific consensus should be believed by everyone? What about skeptics? Bear in mind that some of the greatest scientific discoveries came from scientists who chose to believe in something other than the consensus.
> 
> 2. If atheists gained political power, can you envision a scenario where religion is barred from all public discourse? When publicly professing your religion or wearing religious symbols in public is illegal and punishable? When questioning scientific findings from a religious perspective is banned?
> 
> 3. Have you ever "belittled" the beliefs of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Greek or Roman polytheists, believers in intelligent design, flat earthers, Wiccans, Druids, or Scientologists? Even in your thoughts?
> 
> And finally, referring to your last line,* if you don't like any of my answers,* are you saying that you have free reign to belittle me? And vice versa, if I don't like any of your answers, are you granting me free license to belittle you? Because, for me, if you honestly believe something, if I think it is wrong, I may state my objections to it, which you are free to do with me as well, but I don't see belittling as a valid reaction.
> 
> Were you to be transported back in time to when people thought that an effective medical procedure was to bleed a person, or attach leeches to their body, would you go around belittling them, or would you explain to them why you don't believe those to be valid medical procedures? Do you feel you have license to belittle any belief that doesn't meet whatever threshold you hold for respectful disagreement?


*Firstly, what answers?*

I'm very sorry but you did not answer _one _question of mine as I suspected would be the case. You merely asked _me_ the questions.

I will answer first.

1. Of course not.

2. I believe it has happened in the past to a greater or lesser extent already( Soviet Bloc/China) It is a bad thing and it is to be resisted. *I condemn it.*

3. Of course I have. If I find someones beliefs objectionable I don't have to respect them.
White supremacists? Nazis? As for Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Greek or Roman polytheists, believers in intelligent design etc- if their teachings contain anything I find objectionable ( stoning adulterers, sacrificing virgins, Jihad etc) I will happily disparage, belittle or deprecate. *How could I not.*

*Now PLEASE just answer my questions as I have yours.*

1.Do you believe that the laws of your God should be followed by everyone (ideally)? Not just your fellow believers?

2.If you or members of your faith gained political power can you envisage a scenario in which the homosexual act, adultery, or abortion is illegal and punishable?

3. Have you ever 'belittled' the beliefs of Alchemists? Astrologers? Satanists? Marxists? Anarchists? Militant Islamists? - even in your thoughts?

I await


----------



## Guest

Aramis said:


> Yes, but I mean beings like us, human beings.
> 
> The potential number of beings is unlimited. Beings, or in other words that will better describe what I mean: number of awareness or... human souls.
> 
> So the number of us, the beings sent to this earth as a humans, is obviously limited. You say: ". But this earth is not all there is". What do you mean? That there are infinite numbers of beings like us only part of which has been embodied and sent to this world? I never heard such theory in any Christian movement.


By beings, I do mean human beings. Beings like us.

God is eternal, and his works are eternal. This particular planet is finite. Yes, there are other worlds.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> *Firstly, what answers?*
> 
> I'm very sorry but you did not answer _one _question of mine as I suspected would be the case. You merely asked _me_ the questions.
> 
> I will answer first.
> 
> 1. Of course not.
> 
> 2. I believe it has happened in the past to a greater or lesser extent already( Soviet Bloc/China) It is a bad thing and it is to be resisted. *I condemn it.*
> 
> 3. Of course I have. If I find someones beliefs objectionable I don't have to respect them.
> White supremacists? Nazis? As for Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Greek or Roman polytheists, believers in intelligent design etc- if their teachings contain anything I find objectionable ( stoning adulterers, sacrificing virgins, Jihad etc) I will happily disparage, belittle or deprecate. *How could I not.*
> 
> *Now PLEASE just answer my questions as I have yours.*
> 
> 1.Do you believe that the laws of your God should be followed by everyone (ideally)? Not just your fellow believers?
> 
> 2.If you or members of your faith gained political power can you envisage a scenario in which the homosexual act, adultery, or abortion is illegal and punishable?
> 
> 3. Have you ever 'belittled' the beliefs of Alchemists? Astrologers? Satanists? Marxists? Anarchists? Militant Islamists? - even in your thoughts?
> 
> I await


Did you not see post #572?


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> Did you not see post #572?


My mistake, sorry.
And thank you for your answers. I shall respond soon.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> If I find someones beliefs objectionable I don't have to respect them.
> White supremacists? Nazis? As for Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Greek or Roman polytheists, believers in intelligent design etc- if their teachings contain anything I find objectionable ( stoning adulterers, sacrificing virgins, Jihad etc) I will happily disparage, belittle or deprecate. *How could I not.*



I'm not talking about respecting beliefs, I'm talking about respecting the person. Obviously there are times when beliefs that you don't respect also would lead to lack of respect for those who espouse them - Nazism, white supremacy, racism in general, etc.

But leaving aside those examples, why would it be necessary to belittle a person for their beliefs, or belittle the beliefs themselves, unless they somehow directly impact you? There are numerous things in this world that are more than likely ridiculous - and yet we don't spend our time constantly belittling them all. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is no higher power. In some remote location on the planet lives person X, a humble individual who does not have extensive education, knows nothing of intense scientific debates, is a farmer who provides for his family, and lives his religion (for the sake of this argument, any well-recognized religion among the monotheist religions). He believes that he must live a good life, do good to others, and if he does so, he will be blessed with better crops, and his family will be blessed, and he will have a wonderful existence with his deity after he leaves this life. Is this man worthy of being belittled simply because you object to his beliefs?

You mention this idea of objectionable beliefs that you would belittle, but you give some pretty extreme examples - stoning adulterers, sacrificing virgins, Jihad. Does a belief need to reach this level of violence before you would begin to belittle, or is the threshold lower? I get it - you would mock Nazis, white supremacists, people who stone adulterers and sacrifice virgins, and wage war against those of different religious beliefs. And you probably won't get much criticism for doing so. But what more minor offenses would hit your hot button?

Religion and science don't have to be at war - despite what Hawking, Dawkins, and Hitchens claim - because there is no victory. The two are not anathema. There is no need to be all one or the other. You certainly can be, but if you are looking for complete proof that one side is 100% right while the other is completely wrong, you will never find it.

I am not trying to tear down science in these discussions - my profession is science. I am simply defending religion, specifically my own, from claims that science is all and religion is nothing. Science is not all. Science is our attempt to explain the phenomena that we see around us. In a lot of areas, we have made great strides in coming up with very good explanations for what we observe. In others, not so much. In so many instances, we have done a good enough job explaining natural phenomenon that we can then take that knowledge and utilize it - understanding physics to the point that we can build airplanes, or even travel into outer space, or split an atom; knowing enough about genetics and the machinery of the cell that we can engineer microorganisms to produce life-saving products like insulin, or engineer crops to be more resistant to harsh conditions. In other areas, we are still trying to figure things out - but that doesn't stop people from making broad assertions based on what we do know. I tend to think that evolution falls in this latter category. We have so many tantalizing bits of information that seem to point in this direction - the Dodds fly experiment, the genetic similarities of species, fossilized remains of life forms that may represent different stages of the evolutionary cycle. But they have not yet brought everything together. One of the hallmarks of good science is reproducibility. We know what the genetic code is and that nucleic acids can be transcribed to generate proteins because we can reproducibly accomplish this in the lab. We know that isolating fruit fly populations can result in two distinct species of fruit flies. We know that chimpanzees and human share a very high genetic homology. Because we can reproduce that data. But we can't reproduce the creation of life from nothing - we can come up with different scenarios of what we think the early earth environment was like, and in some of those situations we can spontaneously form certain molecules that are fundamental to life, but we cannot create that life from lifelessness.

Really, though, the place where science fails most miserably is where it oversteps the bounds or the scope of its capabilities. When it intervenes in political debate, when it attempts to disprove what it cannot. And, most importantly, when it attempts to be anything but impartial and objective. If numerous religions have no objection to scientists in their midst, why do scientists find it so objectionable that religious people be in their ranks? Oh, I know they won't overtly push them out, but it is hardly a pleasant, cordial relationship. Admitting as a scientist, at least in the U.S., that you are devoutly religious is probably going to cause more ridicule than revealing that you vote Republican. And yet, and using my own religion as an example, there have been several noteworthy scientists that were also devout members, and this was not a concern for members.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

DrMike said:


> Religion and science don't have to be at war- despite what Hawking, Dawkins and Hitchens claim- because there is no victory. The two are not anathema. There is no need to be all one or the other.


Yeah. That reminded me of this post, which deserved more focus than it evidently got...


Elgarian said:


> The problem lies not with science and/or religion as such, but with fundamentalism. The problems arise from the intolerance that's generated by fundamentalism of all kinds - and there are plenty of advocates of scientific fundamentalism ('scientism') whose intolerance is just as frightening as that of any Biblical literalist.


One of the challenges of the ENTIRE field of philosophy is reconciling the tangible and the metaphysical. I suppose there are those who would deny the metaphysical entirely- but I think most people reserve a place for the contemplation of the "more things in heaven and earth, Horatio" that's mentioned in _Hamlet_.

Aesthetics, for instance. I think that since it's likely that virtually all of us are Classical Music enthusiasts, I'd say that there's one source for contemplation that would be a little resistant to explanation from a positivistic (or, if you prefer, "scientistic") perspective...


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> But leaving aside those examples, why would it be necessary to belittle a person for their beliefs, or belittle the beliefs themselves, unless they somehow directly impact you?
> 
> You mention this idea of objectionable beliefs that you would belittle, but you give some pretty extreme examples - stoning adulterers, sacrificing virgins, Jihad. Does a belief need to reach this level of violence before you would begin to belittle, or is the threshold lower? I get it - you would mock Nazis, white supremacists, people who stone adulterers and sacrifice virgins, and wage war against those of different religious beliefs. And you probably won't get much criticism for doing so. But what more minor offenses would hit your hot button?


I have no problem with much of what you say and you have a well considered and thought provoking argument. However, what troubles me is this;

In your post before this one you said _"I don't foresee the homosexual act or adultery becoming criminal acts anymore (I say this, because in some places they have been before, but this was not due to the actions of my church). I do believe abortion, though, is wrong, and should be illegal. The difference between abortion and the other two (homosexuality and adultery) is that abortion involves an act against another human life that has no ability to consent, unlike homosexuality and adultery." _

I must assume that you value humans more than you do any other life form. Or presumably you would not sanction the killing of any animal or plant. Now, that is Ok and most people, including atheists would probably share your species-centric view. Obviously vegetarians or animal rights activists may draw the line elsewhere.
The question is, _*why*_ do you think humans are a special case.
If it is because God, via prophets and scripture has said human life is 'sacred' in a way that bovine or insect life isn't then we may run into a problem.
The problem is that, to my knowledge and correct me if I'm wrong, the source of your belief in the sanctity of human life also forbids the homosexual act or adultery.
Can you cherry pick which sins you tolerate?
Isn't the word of God absolute? Mustn't you make homosexuality illegal?

You said you don't foresee them becoming a criminal act but do you think they _should_ be criminal?

I'm sure you are not an extremist but an ideological belief system will eventually result in intolerance and persecution.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> But we can't reproduce the creation of life from nothing - we can come up with different scenarios of what we think the early earth environment was like, and in some of those situations we can spontaneously form certain molecules that are fundamental to life, but we cannot create that life from lifelessness.


There are many theories, perhaps not proven, but theories attempting to explain life from lifelessness. Regardless if these theories may or may not be proven one day, there still has to be a scientific explanation about how life could have arisen from inanimate materials.

Or did God simply wish "let there be life", and there was life? I just think it primitive of many (not necessarily you, for I don't know you in real life) to think that God created life by a wish of fancy. (I'm referring to folks whom I have spoke with and met in real life). The fact that thousands of pages have been written on this subject (abiogenesis etc.) and perhaps none have been proven rigorously, but point to many general directions of answer, seem more plausible than one of creationism.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> By beings, I do mean human beings. Beings like us.
> 
> God is eternal, and his works are eternal. This particular planet is finite. Yes, there are other worlds.


Do you think/does your religion accommodate the possibility of intelligent aliens from other worlds? (The Catholic church in Rome issued something last year/recently that they now do). I have an open mind to these things.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> I have no problem with much of what you say and you have a well considered and thought provoking argument. However, what troubles me is this;
> 
> In your post before this one you said _"I don't foresee the homosexual act or adultery becoming criminal acts anymore (I say this, because in some places they have been before, but this was not due to the actions of my church). I do believe abortion, though, is wrong, and should be illegal. The difference between abortion and the other two (homosexuality and adultery) is that abortion involves an act against another human life that has no ability to consent, unlike homosexuality and adultery." _
> 
> I must assume that you value humans more than you do any other life form. Or presumably you would not sanction the killing of any animal or plant. Now, that is Ok and most people, including atheists would probably share your species-centric view. Obviously vegetarians or animal rights activists may draw the line elsewhere.
> The question is, _*why*_ do you think humans are a special case.
> If it is because God, via prophets and scripture has said human life is 'sacred' in a way that bovine or insect life isn't then we may run into a problem.
> The problem is that, to my knowledge and correct me if I'm wrong, the source of your belief in the sanctity of human life also forbids the homosexual act or adultery.
> Can you cherry pick which sins you tolerate?
> Isn't the word of God absolute? Mustn't you make homosexuality illegal?
> 
> You said you don't foresee them becoming a criminal act but do you think they _should_ be criminal?
> 
> I'm sure you are not an extremist but an ideological belief system will eventually result in intolerance and persecution.


No, I don't think homosexual acts or adultery should be illegal. And it isn't an issue of me tolerating them. I don't tolerate them in myself. And were someone to perform such things in my own home (or attempt to), I would not tolerate that either. But my job is not to police the actions of others. My job is to help others understand God's commandments, and what he expects of them, and then whether they choose to obey them is between them and God. Judgment and punishment for these types of acts are for God to decide. A firmly held belief in my religion is that God will forgive who he will forgive, but we are required to forgive all men. Where I do act to restrict is in areas where others are unwillingly affected. I see abortion as one such area, as a specific example. I would also oppose any type of law that seeks to grant some special consideration for actions I believe to be immoral.

My particular religion is very much focused on the family as the eternal unit. We believe that families can exist together beyond this life - more than the typical wedding vow of "till death do us part." The family is sacred, and the power to bring new life into this world is also sacred, where God is essentially entrusting his spirit children to the care of the parents. We also believe that our character, including gender, is something eternal. Homosexual acts and adultery, or any sex outside of marriage, violate these sacred and eternal principles.

Yes, I believe human life to be sacred, and much of my belief in this matter is informed by my religion. However, and while I am not a vegetarian, I believe that all life comes from God, and that we need to be wise stewards of his creations. I do eat meat, and I don't condemn others who do. However, I personally have a problem with sport hunting that serves no purpose other than to mount a head on a wall. That, to me, is wasting God's creations for no useful purpose.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> There are many theories, perhaps not proven, but theories attempting to explain life from lifelessness. Regardless if these theories may or may not be proven one day, there still has to be a scientific explanation about how life could have arisen from inanimate materials.
> 
> Or did God simply wish "let there be life", and there was life? I just think it primitive of many (not necessarily you, for I don't know you in real life) to think that God created life by a wish of fancy. (I'm referring to folks whom I have spoke with and met in real life). The fact that thousands of pages have been written on this subject (abiogenesis etc.) and perhaps none have been proven rigorously, but point to many general directions of answer, seem more plausible than one of creationism.


Like I said, I very much believe that, were these things to be made known to us, and if we had a complete knowledge of all things, we would see that God, in his actions, works according to eternal laws, including physical laws. I view his omnipotence as meaning he has a firm grasp of all of these laws. So I would not deny that potentially one of these theories might be valid, but would speculate that it was driven by God. My contention is more that God directed the creation of this planet and the generation of life on it. How did he do it? I don't know. I hesitate to say intelligent design, because honestly I have not studied all that that means (and, believe it or not, I don't support teaching intelligent design in science classes, because it isn't science, it is religion, and does not belong in a science class, any more than discussing evolution would belong in a theology class).


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Do you think/does your religion accommodate the possibility of intelligent aliens from other worlds? (The Catholic church in Rome issued something last year/recently that they now do). I have an open mind to these things.


I believe that God is God over all the universe, and that where he has created man, he has always created him in his own image, as we are. As such, I believe that other intelligent beings in the universe would probably look like us. Now, I don't have a specific doctrine of my religion to back this up, and it is mostly my feelings on the issue, but that is the conclusion that I have come to based on my beliefs.


----------



## David58117

DrMike said:


> My point with the Dodds experiment is not what it proved, but how it is extrapolated. Yes, this experiment proved speciation. A single population, split up and isolated over time resulted in the emergence of two separate populations/species of fruit flies that would then only breed amongst themselves. This is clearly a potential method for speciation to occur. And as I have said before, I fully believe that these types of events can occur naturally to generate vast diversity.
> 
> But my "it is still a fly" comment gets to the broader issue. *The issue that resulted in examples like the Dodds experiment being brought up is how you get all life from the simple, earliest life.* So while the Dodds experiment needs to be looked at in the narrow area it is focused on, clearly such experiments then become extrapolated to be used as evidence for the entire concept of evolution as the driving force behind all life on this planet. And my point is that yes, you can create new species this way (and certainly there are numerous other mechanisms), but what you have created is just another species of fly. But to generate all life, you have to change enough to generate a new genus, a new family, a new kingdom, etc. The problem is overinterpretation of a result. I have stated clearly before now that I have no issue with evolution on the scale of the Dodds experiment.


Wait - I'm the person who brought the experiment into this discussion, and I didn't do it to extrapolate some further meaning from it as you insist.

Going back to my initial post in this discussion with you (post 472), I provided 3 quotes of yours, which include:

"So while evolution very clearly is evident in producing variety within a species, where is the evidence of the natural emergence of new species arising from old?

So it is possible to say that evolution is absolutely possible on some scale, but quite possibly it breaks down at some level - say, when we try to explain speciation."

*That* is the reason I brought up the experiment, to refute your claims regarding the lack of evidence for speciation. It wasn't to blindly toss it forth and say "see, evolution is happening here, so I'm right you're wrong," no - it was a narrow example to refute a narrow claim.



DrMike said:


> But my "it is still a fly" comment gets to the broader issue.


I don't understand how you claim that I'm extrapolating some further meaning from the experiment, but then you toss out a comment that "gets to the broader issue." There is no broader issue, the experiment was narrow (as you said in your post), and it was successful. It only sought to demonstrate one narrow mechanism of evolution. "It is still a fly" implies that it set out to show something which it certainly did not. That's why I claim the phrase shows a misunderstanding of the experiment.



DrMike said:


> And my point is that yes, you can create new species this way (and certainly there are numerous other mechanisms), but what you have created is just another species of fly. But to generate all life, you have to change enough to generate a new genus, a new family, a new kingdom, etc. The problem is overinterpretation of a result.


Again, you're expecting something which the experiment didn't set out to show. Phrases such as "what you have created" have no purpose in this discussion, because it implies the outcome of the experiment was the *end product* of evolution, when in reality, *it was just the beginning.* You should be aware the flies were in a closed, highly controlled environment - the were no predators, no variety of selective pressures, a small number of flies in the population, a steady food supply, and it occurred over a very short period of time.

What to take from the experiment is that allopatric speciation occurred - now the other mechanisms of evolution can act on the daughter populations. That's what I believe you're missing, and trying to attribute to the narrow experiment.



DrMike said:


> The fossil record provides us with numerous examples of different creatures that appear to represent different stages in development. But it is based on looking at fossilized remnants. Do they really represent different stages in an evolutionary spectrum, or simply similar species with slight differences?


If "slight differences" include differing bone structures, that, for example, follow the development of the lungs. But I don't want to talk about this, as neither you or myself are experts in this field.



DrMike said:


> And I know that this isn't what the Dodds experiment specifically addresses, but when you talk in these larger scales, experiments like Dodds' are brought into the discussion to support the evolution claim.


Yes..precisely because it does support the evolutionary claim. It's one of the mechanisms of evolution, it's something that splits a population and allows for the other mechanisms of evolution to occur...why wouldn't it be something that supports evolution?

Do species have genetic variety? Yes...
Do selective pressures affect a population? Yes...
Do mutations occur? Yes...
Does gene flow occur between populations? Yes...

*That's where evolution occurs - not in some narrow, short, highly controlled experiment.*


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> There are many theories, perhaps not proven, but theories attempting to explain life from lifelessness.


At the risk of possible over-concern regarding semantics, such unproven thoughts are _hypotheses_, NOT theories.

However, I found this statement pretty revealing:


HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Regardless if these theories may or may not be proven one day, there still has to be a scientific explanation about how life could have arisen from inanimate materials.


There HAS to be, yes? Regardless of how much we learn about the complexity of life even at its lowest levels, there just *HAS* to be a scientific explanation for it.

This is the scientistic equivalent of a faith-statement. Now, nothing intrinsically wrong with faith-statements... I make a few of them myself! They should, however, be recognized for what they are--


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Thanks for your charming and condesceding note, my dear Lord of Moderators.

When an apple falls on your head from an apple tree, there has to be an explanation that can be explained by science why the apple didn't float upwards towards the sky instead. Get my drift?

When your government decided to bail out a few industries in America, coupled with the economic crises of the last few years, together with the prolonged war/military presence in the middle east, there has to be an explanation that can be explained by economics why the American dollar has been below its past average trading value for the last two decades. Get my drift?

I wonder rather not say "God devalued the American dollar", nor "God made the apple red".

P.S.
Congratulations on your more useful activity of late, which was deleting the entire thread when member Aramis made some comment about the eyes of the people of a country. Your talent is best kept at that task. Or did God delete that thread? Maybe there can be some explanation that can be explained instead by human activites on what happened to that thread? This is just a hypothesis of course. I'll let you turn that into a theory, if you have a few moments when things aren't too heated around here. I'm sure you can also rigorously prove that theory.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Thanks for your charming and condescending note, my dear Lord of Moderators.


As for the first word of the sentence, you're welcome.

As for the remainder of the sentence- I'm scarcely "Lord of Moderators." I don't even think of myself as "'Sir' of Moderators." At this point, I'm a participant in the discussion- no more worthy of respect than any other participant... but certainly _no less so_.


HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Your talent is best kept at that task.


Oh, I think my admittedly modest set of talents can be applied to fair use here, so long as there remains the tendency to mischaracterize and misapprehend my thoughts.

Here I'll reference a point made earlier by another...


jhar26 said:


> Life on Earth is a miracle itself which we have come to accept as normal because we're used to it.


Now, people who hew to the teleological argument for the existence of God (and for the record, I believe the 'causality' argument to be the stronger case) conclude that the miraculous complexities of life can be best explained through the action of a Supreme Being. If that's the case (and let's be clear, _I'm_ not saying it is or isn't)- then ALL of the inquiries of science will not be fruitful in generating a materialistic argument for the creation of life from non-life.

Lots of decent, forthright, righteous, honest, and yes, even intelligent people believe this to be the case. 
You may disagree with their perspective if you wish... but they deserve better than a sneer--


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> No, I don't think homosexual acts or adultery should be illegal. And it isn't an issue of me tolerating them. I don't tolerate them in myself. And were someone to perform such things in my own home (or attempt to), I would not tolerate that either. But my job is not to police the actions of others. My job is to help others understand God's commandments, and what he expects of them, and then whether they choose to obey them is between them and God. Judgment and punishment for these types of acts are for God to decide. A firmly held belief in my religion is that God will forgive who he will forgive, but we are required to forgive all men. Where I do act to restrict is in areas where others are unwillingly affected. I see abortion as one such area, as a specific example. I would also oppose any type of law that seeks to grant some special consideration for actions I believe to be immoral.
> 
> My particular religion is very much focused on the family as the eternal unit. We believe that families can exist together beyond this life - more than the typical wedding vow of "till death do us part." The family is sacred, and the power to bring new life into this world is also sacred, where God is essentially entrusting his spirit children to the care of the parents. We also believe that our character, including gender, is something eternal. Homosexual acts and adultery, or any sex outside of marriage, violate these sacred and eternal principles.
> 
> Yes, I believe human life to be sacred, and much of my belief in this matter is informed by my religion. However, and while I am not a vegetarian, I believe that all life comes from God, and that we need to be wise stewards of his creations. I do eat meat, and I don't condemn others who do. However, I personally have a problem with sport hunting that serves no purpose other than to mount a head on a wall. That, to me, is wasting God's creations for no useful purpose.


I believe you are a well meaning person and many of your faith's teachings are probably quite benign.
But the fact is you have admitted that you would discriminate against a person because of their sexual orientation. You would not recognise a gay marriage. You would not tolerate a homosexual act (kissing?) in your home. How is that different from discriminating against skin colour? Do you think homosexuals are, perverts? Corrupted? Unwell? Weak?
Sorry to keep going back to this point but it illustrates the dangers of _doctrine._

Doctrines written down by mortals in societies as full of ignorance and prejudice as they are now. Have we learned nothing?

The Italian for left handed is 'sinistra' - sinister! Do people still believe that? No. Perhaps homosexuality is not a sin or a disease or a weakness. Perhaps people are born with a sexual orientation as they are born with an ability to run faster or with white skin or with a musical ear.

I live in England where we have a large Muslim population. Last night I heard the appalling statistic that around 10% of parents of Muslim school children were withdrawing them from _music classes_ because it conflicts with their faith!! That is actually*a large number of young students.
Music is part of the national curriculum in this country and those parents are breaking the law. Somewhere in their holy books there is a passage that many take to mean that music should be proscribed.

Their God's law trumps the law of England for them.
How divisive is that?
That is where religious doctrine will lead, must lead.

Once again I ask you, are you 'cherry picking' which laws you strictly adhere to and which you are more lenient with?

Whether one is an atheist or deeply pious society must remain SECULAR.

We must keep people's private religious beliefs out of public life.

We must not teach creationism or intelligent design in biology lessons.
We can say that evolution is not proven but religious beliefs must be discussed only in theology or philosophy lessons.

I once again refer you to Russell's Celestial Teapot argument.
You may as well teach 'Teapotism' as an alternative theory to evolution.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Petwhac said:


> You would not recognise a gay marriage.


Most Americans don't recognize gay marriage.

There is a Federal Law (Defense of Marriage Act) 
that statutorily defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Most major politicians on the national scene, on both sides of the aisle, 
(including the current occupant of the White House) give at least lip service in support of this Law.

(But we digress...)


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> I believe you are a well meaning person and many of your faith's teachings are probably quite benign.
> But the fact is you have admitted that you would discriminate against a person because of their sexual orientation. You would not recognise a gay marriage. You would not tolerate a homosexual act (kissing?) in your home. How is that different from discriminating against skin colour? Do you think homosexuals are, perverts? Corrupted? Unwell? Weak?
> Sorry to keep going back to this point but it illustrates the dangers of _doctrine._
> 
> Once again I ask you, are you 'cherry picking' which laws you strictly adhere to and which you are more lenient with?


My religion also teaches that we should not use tobacco, alcohol, or harmful drugs. I don't allow people to drink alcohol in my house, or to smoke. 
There is no homosexual marriage. There is marriage. Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. There is a movement to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships. If this movement is successful, and it is legalized, then I would not do anything to violate the law. But I will fight against this movement, because it is against some of my fundamental beliefs. I don't discriminate against gay people. I oppose their redefining marriage. My opposition will never rise to anything other than political opposition. I wish I could say the same for those on the other side - many in my church were intimidated, received threatening letters filled with white powder (intended to produce an anthrax scare), vandalism of church property, and publicizing of their names and addresses if they contributed financially to the proposition in California that banned gay marriage. I will never commit any kind of act of violence against anybody for being gay. That is against my religious beliefs. As I stated in another post, we fully believe that God requires us to forgive all men. I am not cherry-picking - my responsibility is not to enforce all of God's laws. I can share them with others, invite them to follow them, but it is then not up to me to enforce them at an individual level. I can not allow them in my own house, and I can remove myself if something is occurring in my presence. It is not the same as racial discrimination.

I see homosexual acts as a sin. We all sin. Everybody. I don't see gays as perverts, corrupted, or unwell. Maybe weak, but only in the sense that we all are weak, and we all fall short of perfection. I include myself in this.


----------



## Guest

David58117 said:


> Wait - I'm the person who brought the experiment into this discussion, and I didn't do it to extrapolate some further meaning from it as you insist.
> 
> Going back to my initial post in this discussion with you (post 472), I provided 3 quotes of yours, which include:
> 
> "So while evolution very clearly is evident in producing variety within a species, where is the evidence of the natural emergence of new species arising from old?
> 
> So it is possible to say that evolution is absolutely possible on some scale, but quite possibly it breaks down at some level - say, when we try to explain speciation."
> 
> *That* is the reason I brought up the experiment, to refute your claims regarding the lack of evidence for speciation. It wasn't to blindly toss it forth and say "see, evolution is happening here, so I'm right you're wrong," no - it was a narrow example to refute a narrow claim.
> 
> I don't understand how you claim that I'm extrapolating some further meaning from the experiment, but then you toss out a comment that "gets to the broader issue." There is no broader issue, the experiment was narrow (as you said in your post), and it was successful. It only sought to demonstrate one narrow mechanism of evolution. "It is still a fly" implies that it set out to show something which it certainly did not. That's why I claim the phrase shows a misunderstanding of the experiment.
> 
> Again, you're expecting something which the experiment didn't set out to show. Phrases such as "what you have created" have no purpose in this discussion, because it implies the outcome of the experiment was the *end product* of evolution, when in reality, *it was just the beginning.* You should be aware the flies were in a closed, highly controlled environment - the were no predators, no variety of selective pressures, a small number of flies in the population, a steady food supply, and it occurred over a very short period of time.
> 
> What to take from the experiment is that allopatric speciation occurred - now the other mechanisms of evolution can act on the daughter populations. That's what I believe you're missing, and trying to attribute to the narrow experiment.
> 
> If "slight differences" include differing bone structures, that, for example, follow the development of the lungs. But I don't want to talk about this, as neither you or myself are experts in this field.
> 
> Yes..precisely because it does support the evolutionary claim. It's one of the mechanisms of evolution, it's something that splits a population and allows for the other mechanisms of evolution to occur...why wouldn't it be something that supports evolution?
> 
> Do species have genetic variety? Yes...
> Do selective pressures affect a population? Yes...
> Do mutations occur? Yes...
> Does gene flow occur between populations? Yes...
> 
> *That's where evolution occurs - not in some narrow, short, highly controlled experiment.*


I didn't say that you specifically were trying to apply the Dodds experiment to the broader issue. I'm saying that, in the grand evolution debate, the Dodds experiment is included as a piece of the puzzle to explain the entire spectrum of life on this planet. The experiment was carried out in a vacuum, with a very finite scope. But the intention behind the experiment was to provide mechanisms for the origin of life from a natural evolution perspective. People who are experts in this field view it in that context. I know you continue to argue the semantics of what I said here, and are ignoring my larger argument, but are you really trying to say that the Dodds experiment is completely outside the evolution debate? Are you truly saying that it should not be considered in the broader theory?

Yes, I get it, it is a mechanism to isolate population and allow evolutionary forces to act on them. So should I only see it as, "If you split up a population long enough, they become different?" So how would you like me to consider these results? I already know this is so. Humans that developed in Africa ended up slightly different from those in Asia, or Europe, or the Americas. But how do you get everything from E. coli to zebras to cabbage to sea cucumbers to crocodiles to humans, all from some common ancestor? Actually, from some primordial spontaneous life, possibly a self-catalyzing RNA molecule, which itself randomly and spontaneously formed. And furthermore, how do you get all of that from . . . nothing? You first have to produce life, then generate this incredibly broad diversity, with nothing but chance mutations combined with environmental factors? You keep pounding this Dodd experiment, and then tell me I can't interpret it in any way other than the very narrow scope in which it was carried out. Okay. So why insert it into this discussion? I get it, it sets up a way for evolution to act on separate populations of the same species. Will you then over times get something other than a fly from these separated populations? Has there been proof that evolution will take these separated populations and produce two completely divergent lines of life, that neither resemble the original flies, nor the population that split off in the other direction?

Absolute adherents to evolution only (no God) will state that evolution is a scientific certainty. People like Hawking claim that science will soon permanently vanquish God. Dawkins and Hitchens tell us why belief in God is bad, and the cause of all human sorrow. But when you actually start calling them on some of their scientific validation of evolution, they tell you you aren't interpreting it correctly, and that you have to look at the evidence purely in the context the experiment was conducted in. So in the end you have a bunch of very narrowly defined experiments that they tie together and extrapolate from, but most of what they have is one monumental circumstantial evidence case. This experiment, designed with our parameters, shows that our idea could happen. These fossils look similar. These species have X% genetic homology. Bam! Evolution is real! God is a myth! How ignorant of you to dare believe in something you cannot prove! You should believe us and our very complex theory that is based on much speculation and extrapolation, and some pretty big leaps of faith, like how all life sprang from a single life, which sprang from lifelessness!


----------



## Morris Billy

One of my composition teachers once told me, "The greatest tool in creating music is your own intuition." I believe this to be very true. I feel that I understand music very well, but sometimes I just throw the knowledge out the window and go with my instinct. If you have a knowledge of music from listening to it and some innovation, that's all you need to create truly "inspired" music.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> My religion also teaches that we should not use tobacco, alcohol, or harmful drugs. I don't allow people to drink alcohol in my house, or to smoke.
> There is no homosexual marriage. There is marriage. Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. There is a movement to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships. If this movement is successful, and it is legalized, then I would not do anything to violate the law. But I will fight against this movement, because it is against some of my fundamental beliefs. I don't discriminate against gay people. I oppose their redefining marriage. My opposition will never rise to anything other than political opposition. I wish I could say the same for those on the other side - many in my church were intimidated, received threatening letters filled with white powder (intended to produce an anthrax scare), vandalism of church property, and publicizing of their names and addresses if they contributed financially to the proposition in California that banned gay marriage. I will never commit any kind of act of violence against anybody for being gay. That is against my religious beliefs. As I stated in another post, we fully believe that God requires us to forgive all men. I am not cherry-picking - my responsibility is not to enforce all of God's laws. I can share them with others, invite them to follow them, but it is then not up to me to enforce them at an individual level. I can not allow them in my own house, and I can remove myself if something is occurring in my presence. It is not the same as racial discrimination.
> 
> I see homosexual acts as a sin. We all sin. Everybody. I don't see gays as perverts, corrupted, or unwell. Maybe weak, but only in the sense that we all are weak, and we all fall short of perfection. I include myself in this.


Marriage as defined where? in the Bible?

Perhaps marriage could be redefined.

Many citizens used to be quite content that black people shouldn't vote. There was no law that gave them the right to vote. I'm sure many in your church sat idle watching protesters march or even riot. Did they turn to they're holy books and look for passages where it said
people of different skin colours should have the *same rights*? I bet not.

Should not people of different sexual orientations have the same rights?

_Your_ opposition will never be violent but history has shown us time and time again that religious doctrine 'allows' the most terrible crimes to be committed in the name of God.

'Those on the other side' who are violent are but a drop in the ocean. Just as the black people who were violent in the face of discrimination were a tiny minority.

If you don't allow things you don't believe to occur in your house. I suppose that's OK. But
What happens when your fellow believers gain political power and your _house _becomes your _country?_ Then your deeply held beliefs may be forced upon me. No? And how can I argue against the will of God?


----------



## Petwhac

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Most Americans don't recognize gay marriage.
> 
> There is a Federal Law (Defense of Marriage Act)
> that statutorily defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
> 
> Most major politicians on the national scene, on both sides of the aisle,
> (including the current occupant of the White House) give at least lip service in support of this Law.
> 
> (But we digress...)


Please see my post to DrMIKE

Until the 1960s most Americans didn't recognize a black person's right to vote.

Many Federal Laws have been changed as people have become more, let us say ENLIGHTENED.


----------



## Earthling

Petwhac said:


> Until the 1960s most Americans didn't recognize a black person's right to vote.
> 
> Many Federal Laws have been changed as people have become more, let us say ENLIGHTENED.


And in some states, up to the 1970s, interracial marriage.


----------



## Earthling

Petwhac said:


> Marriage as defined where? in the Bible?


So does that mean I can have several wives and concubines too?  It doesn't get any more biblical than _that_.


----------



## jurianbai

so... black american issue, which is more about race and influence by slavery/imperialism background is compared to homosexuality issue?


----------



## Petwhac

jurianbai said:


> so... black american issue, which is more about race and influence by slavery/imperialism background is compared to homosexuality issue?


Problem?

It is a question of rights.


----------



## Earthling

jurianbai said:


> so... black american issue, which is more about race and influence by slavery/imperialism background is compared to homosexuality issue?


Why not ask Coretta Scott King?


----------



## Aramis

> Until the 1960s most Americans didn't recognize a black person's right to vote.


Not all changes in the way people see some things are for better. In 60's most of people didn't recognize undressed ladies acting like cheap porn actress in mainstream music TV station. Or some plastic whores considered to be "stars" and symbols of success despite the fact that they don't do anything valueable. Is this enlightement too?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Petwhac said:


> Many Federal Laws have been changed...


Agreed. No doubt.

However, a person from outside of America reading about the 'gay marriage' issue juxtaposed with African-American Civil Rights might conclude that the Defense of Marriage Act is some musty antebellum artifact from backward times. In fact, it was passed less than five years ago.

Hoping not to get into a firefight over whether this is right or wrong (but if pressed on the issue, I'll admit to being a 10th Amendment fan-boy, and would prefer to leave this issue to the respective states)- here is the political reality:

Virtually everywhere in the USA where this issue is put to referendum (even unabashed 'progessive' states like Oregon & California) it is _voted down_.

Almost no major politician with credible National ambitions takes a public stand in dissent of the Defense of Marriage Act.

This is not to say that the situation is hopeless for gay marriage advocates, for there are those politicians who have publicly stated their approval of the Act, but are in the process of secretly hoping (and even possibly arranging) that the Law be overturned through the Courts...


----------



## jurianbai

LOL. Ok then. I just curious why American like to use this comparison. ... well, blame it to Abraham Lincoln then. 

Earthling, I raise my eyebrow when hear same sex marriage, not because of homophobic (as in your complicated Coretta Scoot King article, which can be answered easily in internet, find a "is racist and homophobic the same thing?" ). But because in my limited common sense, it is not natural. When I hear marriage, I also think about sex and later reproduction then raising children. When I think about it in SSM, I found it unnatural. Didn't we invest so many law to protect something that natural? 

however, perhaps like many Americans, I will not opposed SSM just for the sake of human right, and that is all about. Same sex marriage more concern about marrying the person whom he like to marry, but not fix the unnatural thing. Mean we put human justice and ego over nature. And I hope in the future there will be no social impact for legalizing this. 

so... I then suspect Abraham Lincoln is correct in fixing broken thing while Obama will be incorrect by broken a thing.


----------



## Wumbo

> But because in my limited common sense, it is not natural.


What's natural about marriage in general though? It's a social construct. You might call 'coupling' natural (which for a very long time has occurred between opposite and same sex relationships), but marriage is just a set of laws which grants special privileges to people the government can recognize as in a stable relationship.

Anyway, I'm having trouble relating this back to Classical music. What are you guys doing? hahaha. Maybe we should list great composers who were suspected to be homosexual and lived tortured lives likely because of it? Haha... Pyotr Tchaikovsky. Poor Tchaikovsky.


----------



## dmg

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm










Yes, it is perfectly natural to a homosexual that they be homosexual. That is how they are built. Physically built. In their BRAINS.

Of course, the religious will continue to deny factual evidence so they can continue to get their 'fix', even at the expense of others' rights.

'It is icky to me, therefore it must be wrong!'


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> Marriage as defined where? in the Bible?
> 
> Perhaps marriage could be redefined.
> 
> Many citizens used to be quite content that black people shouldn't vote. There was no law that gave them the right to vote. I'm sure many in your church sat idle watching protesters march or even riot. Did they turn to they're holy books and look for passages where it said
> people of different skin colours should have the *same rights*? I bet not.
> 
> Should not people of different sexual orientations have the same rights?
> 
> _Your_ opposition will never be violent but history has shown us time and time again that religious doctrine 'allows' the most terrible crimes to be committed in the name of God.
> 
> 'Those on the other side' who are violent are but a drop in the ocean. Just as the black people who were violent in the face of discrimination were a tiny minority.
> 
> If you don't allow things you don't believe to occur in your house. I suppose that's OK. But
> What happens when your fellow believers gain political power and your _house _becomes your _country?_ Then your deeply held beliefs may be forced upon me. No? And how can I argue against the will of God?


Ah, so because some of my faith might - in opposition to what we believe - use their personal beliefs to repress others, the whole system is in peril? Sorry, everybody has the potential to do that, be they Christian, Muslim, or atheist. What happens if enough militant atheists gain political power and seek to change the U.S. constitution to no longer allow religious freedom?

We already put all kinds of constraints on marriage. We put age limits. We limit the number of people you can marry at a time. We restrict it to only members of the same species. We restrict close relatives from getting married. In none of those situations are we describing it as discrimination.

If marriage is purely a religious construct, why do gays want it? Why not civil unions?

Marriage is not only religiously defined, it is also historically defined. That is the definition. Denying people political rights because of the color of their skin is not akin to refusing to redefine marriage to suit the desires of a new aggrieved class. Government has chosen to endorse marriage because it is very beneficial to society. Study after study has shown that children raised in intact homes with a mother and a father are much less likely to not be in poverty, even if their parents lived at or below the poverty line. Children raised with a mother and father are more well-adjusted. Unwed mothers are much more likely to live off of welfare. Children raised in a home with both the mother and father present are less likely to commit crime and be imprisoned.

And the underlying issue you are getting at here is whether or not religious beliefs should have influence on political thought. Absolutely they should. Belief systems underpin political thought. I cannot tell you what to believe. But I can make political decisions based on what I believe. All political decisions essentially impose the will of one group on all. Government in general requires the sacrifice of absolute liberty for some security. That means we accept that others may decide how things will be. We put in safeguards to ensure that certain boundaries are not crossed, but other than that, we don't limit what reasoning we can use in making decisions. And because people use their religious and moral beliefs to inform their decisions doesn't mean that they are going to subjugate all to their beliefs. My faith firmly believes that, while we are still governed by men, we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. My church believes the U.S. constitution was inspired of God, and we believe in the principles set forth in it. We won't force others into our belief (even if this were not restricted by law), but we also will work, within the limits of the constitution, to ensure that our rights and values are given their fair shake.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> Ah, so because some of my faith might - in opposition to what we believe - use their personal beliefs to repress others, the whole system is in peril? Sorry, everybody has the potential to do that, be they Christian, Muslim, or atheist. What happens if enough militant atheists gain political power and seek to change the U.S. constitution to no longer allow religious freedom?
> 
> We already put all kinds of constraints on marriage. We put age limits. We limit the number of people you can marry at a time. We restrict it to only members of the same species. We restrict close relatives from getting married. In none of those situations are we describing it as discrimination.
> 
> If marriage is purely a religious construct, why do gays want it? Why not civil unions?
> 
> Marriage is not only religiously defined, it is also historically defined. That is the definition. Denying people political rights because of the color of their skin is not akin to refusing to redefine marriage to suit the desires of a new aggrieved class. Government has chosen to endorse marriage because it is very beneficial to society. Study after study has shown that children raised in intact homes with a mother and a father are much less likely to not be in poverty, even if their parents lived at or below the poverty line. Children raised with a mother and father are more well-adjusted. Unwed mothers are much more likely to live off of welfare. Children raised in a home with both the mother and father present are less likely to commit crime and be imprisoned.
> 
> And the underlying issue you are getting at here is whether or not religious beliefs should have influence on political thought. Absolutely they should. Belief systems underpin political thought. I cannot tell you what to believe. But I can make political decisions based on what I believe. All political decisions essentially impose the will of one group on all. Government in general requires the sacrifice of absolute liberty for some security. That means we accept that others may decide how things will be. We put in safeguards to ensure that certain boundaries are not crossed, but other than that, we don't limit what reasoning we can use in making decisions. And because people use their religious and moral beliefs to inform their decisions doesn't mean that they are going to subjugate all to their beliefs. My faith firmly believes that, while we are still governed by men, we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. My church believes the U.S. constitution was inspired of God, and we believe in the principles set forth in it. We won't force others into our belief (even if this were not restricted by law), but we also will work, within the limits of the constitution, to ensure that our rights and values are given their fair shake.


Just one question. Do you believe that infertile people should not be allowed to marry people?


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> Ah, so because some of my faith might - in opposition to what we believe - use their personal beliefs to repress others, the whole system is in peril? Sorry, everybody has the potential to do that, be they Christian, Muslim, or atheist. *What happens if enough militant atheists gain political power and seek to change the U.S. constitution to no longer allow religious freedom?*
> 
> We already put all kinds of constraints on marriage. We put age limits. We limit the number of people you can marry at a time. We restrict it to only members of the same species. We restrict close relatives from getting married. In none of those situations are we describing it as discrimination.
> 
> *If marriage is purely a religious construct, why do gays want it? Why not civil unions?*
> 
> Marriage is not only religiously defined, it is also historically defined. That is the definition. Denying people political rights because of the color of their skin is not akin to refusing to redefine marriage to suit the desires of a new aggrieved class. Government has chosen to endorse marriage because it is very beneficial to society. Study after study has shown that children raised in intact homes with a mother and a father are much less likely to not be in poverty, even if their parents lived at or below the poverty line. Children raised with a mother and father are more well-adjusted. Unwed mothers are much more likely to live off of welfare. Children raised in a home with both the mother and father present are less likely to commit crime and be imprisoned.
> 
> And the underlying issue you are getting at here is whether or not religious beliefs should have influence on political thought. Absolutely they should. Belief systems underpin political thought. I cannot tell you what to believe. But I can make political decisions based on what I believe. All political decisions essentially impose the will of one group on all. Government in general requires the sacrifice of absolute liberty for some security. That means we accept that others may decide how things will be. We put in safeguards to ensure that certain boundaries are not crossed, but other than that, we don't limit what reasoning we can use in making decisions. And because people use their religious and moral beliefs to inform their decisions doesn't mean that they are going to subjugate all to their beliefs. My faith firmly believes that, while we are still governed by men, we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. My church believes the U.S. constitution was inspired of God, and we believe in the principles set forth in it. We won't force others into our belief (even if this were not restricted by law), but we also will work, within the limits of the constitution, to ensure that our rights and values are given their fair shake.


If atheists did that it would of course be wrong. The thing is, their views were not given to them by a supernatural omnipotent being who's commandments cannot be questioned and who's laws trump all man made laws.
Atheists cannot hold up a holy book and say GOD says homosexuality, eating pork, shaving your face, playing music,.....is forbidden...final!!

People must live together with shared principals of fairness and equality. Children should be given unconditional love by whoever is bringing them up. And filling their heads with notions of sin, devil, hell fire is not _necessarily_ the best way to do it.

I don't relish the prospect of militant atheists ( whatever that is ) telling anyone what to do. 
What I think we should strive for is SECULARISM in public affairs.

As to your other question, I suggest you ask gays.


----------



## David58117

DrMike said:


> I didn't say that you specifically were trying to apply the Dodds experiment to the broader issue. I'm saying that, in the grand evolution debate, the Dodds experiment is included as a piece of the puzzle to explain the entire spectrum of life on this planet. The experiment was carried out in a vacuum, with a very finite scope. But the intention behind the experiment was to provide mechanisms for the origin of life from a natural evolution perspective. People who are experts in this field view it in that context. I know you continue to argue the semantics of what I said here, and are ignoring my larger argument, but are you really trying to say that the Dodds experiment is completely outside the evolution debate? Are you truly saying that it should not be considered in the broader theory?
> 
> Yes, I get it, it is a mechanism to isolate population and allow evolutionary forces to act on them. So should I only see it as, "If you split up a population long enough, they become different?" So how would you like me to consider these results? I already know this is so. Humans that developed in Africa ended up slightly different from those in Asia, or Europe, or the Americas. But how do you get everything from E. coli to zebras to cabbage to sea cucumbers to crocodiles to humans, all from some common ancestor? Actually, from some primordial spontaneous life, possibly a self-catalyzing RNA molecule, which itself randomly and spontaneously formed. And furthermore, how do you get all of that from . . . nothing? You first have to produce life, then generate this incredibly broad diversity, with nothing but chance mutations combined with environmental factors? You keep pounding this Dodd experiment, and then tell me I can't interpret it in any way other than the very narrow scope in which it was carried out. Okay. So why insert it into this discussion? I get it, it sets up a way for evolution to act on separate populations of the same species. Will you then over times get something other than a fly from these separated populations? Has there been proof that evolution will take these separated populations and produce two completely divergent lines of life, that neither resemble the original flies, nor the population that split off in the other direction?
> 
> Absolute adherents to evolution only (no God) will state that evolution is a scientific certainty. People like Hawking claim that science will soon permanently vanquish God. Dawkins and Hitchens tell us why belief in God is bad, and the cause of all human sorrow. But when you actually start calling them on some of their scientific validation of evolution, they tell you you aren't interpreting it correctly, and that you have to look at the evidence purely in the context the experiment was conducted in. So in the end you have a bunch of very narrowly defined experiments that they tie together and extrapolate from, but most of what they have is one monumental circumstantial evidence case. This experiment, designed with our parameters, shows that our idea could happen. These fossils look similar. These species have X% genetic homology. Bam! Evolution is real! God is a myth! How ignorant of you to dare believe in something you cannot prove! You should believe us and our very complex theory that is based on much speculation and extrapolation, and some pretty big leaps of faith, like how all life sprang from a single life, which sprang from lifelessness!


Dr Mike, these circles we keep going in are giving me a headache.

"I'm saying that, in the grand evolution debate, the Dodds experiment is included as a piece of the puzzle to explain the entire spectrum of life on this planet."

Yes, because it's a mechanism of evolution, *of course* it's going to be listed in the evolution section in textbooks, or taught to classes (like it was me) during a lecture on evolution, specifically *Speciation.* I don't understand you're line of thought, it makes absolutely no sense to say "yeah but people are using it as a piece in the puzzle to explain evolution" - HELLO!! IT'S A MECHANISM OF EVOLUTION!!! You are aware there are about 5 mechanisms to it, right? And that what this experiment covered, just happened to be one?

"The experiment was carried out in a vacuum, with a very finite scope."

Yes, that's how science works, you should be aware of that. It sets out to focus on one specific area, and then takes out whatever it can that would interfere with it. The experiment focus on allopatric speciation.

"But the intention behind the experiment was to provide mechanisms for the origin of life from a natural evolution perspective."

The intention was so test whether one of the mechanisms of evolution would occur, and it did!

"I know you continue to argue the semantics of what I said here, and are ignoring my larger argument, but are you really trying to say that the Dodds experiment is completely outside the evolution debate? Are you truly saying that it should not be considered in the broader theory?"

I'm sorry, but I shouldn't have to explain why an experiment that demonstrates one of the mechanisms of evolution would be included in a discussion of evolution. I really don't understand your point, or your larger argument. I've discussed many of the issues you brought up, refuted them with text book passages when I found them, so the me ignoring some larger point statement, baffles me.

"But how do you get everything from E. coli to zebras to cabbage to sea cucumbers to crocodiles to humans, all from some common ancestor? Actually, from some primordial spontaneous life, possibly a self-catalyzing RNA molecule, which itself randomly and spontaneously formed. And furthermore, how do you get all of that from . . . nothing?"

Ok...but we're talking about speciation. I jumped in because of your comments regarding the lack of proof for it. You went from "evolution falls apart when trying to explain speciation" to "the experiment (that explains speciation) is proof of speciation" all within only a few days. Rather than jump on to a different topic and get distracted with it, I would rather focus on why I joined this discussion.

"You keep pounding this Dodd experiment, and then tell me I can't interpret it in any way other than the very narrow scope in which it was carried out....Will you then over times get something other than a fly from these separated populations?"

Because it's only *one* mechanism of evolution. You're wanting to interpret it as evolution in full force, when it purposely cut out the bulk of how evolution works.

"Has there been proof that evolution will take these separated populations and produce two completely divergent lines of life, that neither resemble the original flies, nor the population that split off in the other direction?"

You mean has there been an experiment that followed a population in nature over the course of a few millions years? Hmm, I don't believe so...

Words like "proof" throw me off..

"People like Hawking claim that science will soon permanently vanquish God. Dawkins and Hitchens tell us why belief in God is bad, and the cause of all human sorrow."

I've only read "The Selfish Gene" and the "Ancestors Tale," neither of which talked about religion as far as I can remember. I'm aware he wrote "The God Delusion," which I happily skipped (although some of my Atheist friends gobbled it up) - I can understand why he wrote it and where he is coming from - being taken out of context constantly decade after decade, people without training in science constantly making claims they're unqualified to make, and points constantly being ignored - would get very old. Seeing religion from *that side of the equation for the bulk of your career* would probably leave a bitter taste with someone after awhile.

If you want, you could send me your experimental results, let me vocally misinterpret them for 30 years or so, and then we'll see how strong your opinion of me is. But that would still pale in comparison to what Dawkins faced...

The rest of your paragraph I don't understand...it's as if you think Dawkins/Hitchens are conducting the experiments themselves...

Anyway, this has been fun, but I think I'm starting to get tired of this. I really don't see how you do it Mike...I got a wife complaining in one ear, and I'm trying to keep music going through the other. I'm tired of typing "experiment," "Allopatric Speciation," "fly," "Dodd," "Atheist," "evolution," etc etc.

Mahler is calling.....


----------



## jurianbai

Wumbo said:


> What's natural about marriage in general though? It's a social construct. You might call 'coupling' natural (which for a very long time has occurred between opposite and same sex relationships), but marriage is just a set of laws which grants special privileges to people the government can recognize as in a stable relationship.


the natural is to contribute in producing offspring I think. that's to help nature go into well ecosystem, and we create many laws in support something natural. so again I think legalizing same sex marriage is just to serve paper works, for status only, because without these they still can have sex, stay together etc.

seriously do you think gay is natural? I am not talking about religion.


----------



## Aramis

> seriously do you think gay is natural? I am not talking about religion.


Well, it surely isn't effect of chemical wastes or mad scientist experiments. It is natural, but so is sadism or schizophrenia.


----------



## David58117

jurianbai said:


> seriously do you think gay is natural? I am not talking about religion.


It happens in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals


----------



## jurianbai

ok, I see the mistake/confusion in my question. it is not about natural as by birth or not. 

let's see, the question is, do you think gay is natural in relation that heterosexuality can have 'straightforward' sex 'procedure' (because their 'facility' is 'clicked each other') and then ended up can produce another human? and then socially they can give this model to their children?


----------



## jurianbai

David58117 said:


> It happens in nature.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals


actually I just browse this a second ago. What I looking for is, is there homosexuality in animals that 'exclusively' about sex? I read mostly about behaviour (maybe I missed something).

the relation about homosexuality in animal is, can homosexuality in animal (mamals to be precise, so don't present me amoeba) produce offspring? or they still rely on heterosexuality to help on this job?


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Just one question. Do you believe that infertile people should not be allowed to marry people?


What does infertility have to do with it? Yes. The examples I gave are reasons why governments view families as favorable. But as I said before, marriage is between a man and a woman, and is not contingent on whether they can bear children.


----------



## David58117

jurianbai said:


> actually I just browse this a second ago. What I looking for is, is there homosexuality in animals that 'exclusively' about sex? I read mostly about behaviour (maybe I missed something).
> 
> the relation about homosexuality in animal is, can homosexuality in animal (mamals to be precise, so don't present me amoeba) produce offspring? or they still rely on heterosexuality to help on this job?


Yes, homosexual animals can still produce offspring - just not with the same sex partner.

But does it matter? I'm sure a good portion of homosexual people have kids.


----------



## Petwhac

I think it is soon time to leave this debate before it descends into 'what is natural'. 
I'll leave it to those who claim to 'know' what is natural. Informed by their own prejudice.

I've enjoyed the debate DrMike but maybe we should get back to our _shared_ love of music.

My parting 'shot' though.

Is Music the creation if a Divinity?

Well let's take all the homosexuals out of the history of music and art, theatre, literature. Then we'll see how impoverished our culture would be.


----------



## rojo

WARNING

This thread is getting way, way off-topic.

I'm sure we're all for good and insightful debate, but some of the latest posts are borderline offensive.

Please keep this thread on track, we don't want to have to close it.


----------



## Aramis

rojo said:


> This thread is getting way, way off-topic.


----------



## David58117

rojo said:


> WARNING
> 
> This thread is getting way, way off-topic.
> 
> I'm sure we're all for good and insightful debate, but some of the latest posts are borderline offensive.
> 
> Please keep this thread on track, we don't want to have to close it.


I think it's great it stayed open. Thanks for allowing these discussions to occur here, you guys are great!


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> What does infertility have to do with it? *Yes.* The examples I gave are reasons why governments view families as favorable. But as I said before, marriage is between a man and a woman, and is not contingent on whether they can bear children.


Yes as in they shouldn't be allowed to marry someone? It is an important question because marriage assumes that the couple will reproduce - this is the sole reason of giving them any benefits. Otherwise I don't see why homosexual couples shouldn't be given the same benefits, if infertile couples can have them.


----------



## Earthling

jurianbai said:


> But because in my limited common sense, it is not natural. When I hear marriage, I also think about sex and later reproduction then raising children.


By this logic all couples should be tested to make sure they are not infertile. There are many married heterosexual couples who do not have children, cannot have children or do not want children. When my father got a vasectomy after me and my sister were born, should that have nullified his marriage to his wife?

The definition and purpose of marriage has changed many times over the course of the millennia. Originally marriage had little to do with the love of two individuals but rather was a contract between two families, and the forming of alliances between clans. The bride and groom in question had little choice in the matter. Polygamy used to be common practice. The notion of female subjugation ("to love and obey") is thankfully a notion that is slowly dying out. There is no permanently fixed ideal of marriage in a Platonic realm somewhere. It has always been a social convention.

An important reason why gays want the right to marriage extended to them (not "gay marraige, but just "marriage") is also to have the same rights any married hetero couple might have (even some unmarried heteros for that matter)-- in regards to health insurance coverage, or when their loved one is in the hospital, the right to adoption, etc. etc. --things that hetero married couples take for granted.

The real problem people have with homosexuality is always about sex sex sex. As if sex is the only thing that gay people have on their mind, as if that were the centre of their universe. Most gay people have ordinary lives like everybody else, with the same fears, likes, dislikes, feelings, thoughts, etc. as straight human beings. It seems to me that heteros are more obsessed with sex than gays! They just want to get on with life without discrimination. Apparently that is too much to ask for people obsessed with sexual purity, and trying to come up with anything to justify it (a god or nature-- incidentally the _exact _same arguments used against interracial marriage). Why should I interfere with two adults who love one another and want to live together? I can think of no reason why I should even care about what goes on in their bedroom.

It doesn't matter because many countries are beginning to understand this and they are changing. And eventually the US will get it too (well, at least in law), just as it did with the institution of slavery and racism (ideologically intertwined in the US), integration in schools, interracial marriage, etc. etc. etc. There will still be bigots who will have every ideology under the sun to justify their beliefs, but more and more society will find such views reprehensible. Too bad, huh?


----------



## jurianbai

I just want to know is homosexual practise can produce offspring ? David58117 and Earthling, I think you are clever enough to know my question and please do not answer with different thing (like post #628, remember how you argue with DrMike and hate to be answered by another thing)

My stance is like this, I am not opposed homosexuality, it is human right ok. I am just feel that legalizing same sex marriage is a bit .. overrated, not necessery.

I imagine if I am a politician that opposed SSM, my trick will be something like this:

Same sex marriage will less contribute to community in area of producing offspring (this is the issue I addressed as 'not natural'). Today, having couple raise their children is quite a big factor in rich country, where their citizen's fertility rate (not the same thing as in 'impotent') drop (like in Singapore). So,... why we endorse same sex marriage by legalizing it? If this is a matter of human right, I will (as a politician) always say we respect the community , but will not endorse it. *If* then we agree, that homosexuality is something like schizophrenia or sadism (that is a 'handicap'), then why not put resources try to fix it, rather than support it? No religion issue involved.

well, there is a (long wait) warning already, I also like to bailed out a.s.a.p......


----------



## Earthling

jurianbai said:


> I am just feel that legalizing same sex marriage is a bit .. overrated, not necessery.


But you probably feel its "overrated" because you aren't gay and, say (for example) aren't allowed to put your same sex partner on your insurance policy, or say (for another example) that you have no rights whatsoever to see your partner in hospital or (for yet another example) you and your partner cannot adopt a child simply because your partner has the same genitalia as you.

Its very easy for people to declare certain rights "overrated" or "unnecessary" for others, when you aren't in their shoes.


----------



## dmg

Why does something require the production of offspring to be natural? I read a study a while back that showed the possibility of a gene that increases fertility in women, but causes homosexuality in men.

They can reproduce by surrogate parenting, _in vitro_ fertilization, etc. Homosexual parents can also adopt children (so long as the government allows).


----------



## David58117

jurianbai said:


> I just want to know is homosexual practise can produce offspring ? David58117 and Earthling, I think you are clever enough to know my question and please do not answer with different thing (like post #628, remember how you argue with DrMike and hate to be answered by another thing)
> 
> My stance is like this, I am not opposed homosexuality, it is human right ok. I am just feel that legalizing same sex marriage is a bit .. overrated, not necessery.
> 
> I imagine if I am a politician that opposed SSM, my trick will be something like this:
> 
> Same sex marriage will less contribute to community in area of producing offspring (this is the issue I addressed as 'not natural'). Today, having couple raise their children is quite a big factor in rich country, where their citizen's fertility rate (not the same thing as in 'impotent') drop (like in Singapore). So,... why we endorse same sex marriage by legalizing it? If this is a matter of human right, I will (as a politician) always say we respect the community , but will not endorse it. *If* then we agree, that homosexuality is something like schizophrenia or sadism (that is a 'handicap'), then why not put resources try to fix it, rather than support it? No religion issue involved.
> 
> well, there is a (long wait) warning already, I also like to bailed out a.s.a.p......


Nope, same sex practice can't produce offspring. That's not a big shock though.

I have a question for you though - instead of allowing "marriage," would you allow for same sex couples to have all the benefits of a married couple, just not be "married?"


----------



## jurianbai

so long talk, homosexuality can't produce offspring in natural way right? (answered, edit)

so Earthling, legalizing SSM is mainly for paper work and human right, regarless the fact that some of their practise less contributing to community? that's why I think it is not supposed to be endorse, they less help in maintained population  , it is a big problem in Singapore. but again... human right rulez in US.

(I interested to ask because most of people overhere (vs DrMike) like a straightforward answer, my agenda is only to try my argument here) now I will really quiiitee...

edit for David:
that's maybe a solution, to fill in their social need. it is discriminating though. but my theory is, by pressing hard on this, in the future maybe we can benefit, regarding sponsoring the citizen to do their job ... produce children.


----------



## David58117

What about saying: 

Homosexuals can be married, but they each have to produce one child via a heterosexual act? 

You get your population contribution, they get their marriage, everyone's happy!


----------



## jhar26

David58117 said:


> What about saying:
> 
> Homosexuals can be married, but they each have to produce one child via a heterosexual act?
> 
> You get your population contribution, they get their marriage, everyone's happy!


Overpopulation is already the biggest problem that humanity is facing as it is.


----------



## Petwhac

Earthling said:


> By this logic all couples should be tested to make sure they are not infertile. There are many married heterosexual couples who do not have children, cannot have children or do not want children. When my father got a vasectomy after me and my sister were born, should that have nullified his marriage to his wife?
> 
> The definition and purpose of marriage has changed many times over the course of the millennia. Originally marriage had little to do with the love of two individuals but rather was a contract between two families, and the forming of alliances between clans. The bride and groom in question had little choice in the matter. Polygamy used to be common practice. The notion of female subjugation ("to love and obey") is thankfully a notion that is slowly dying out. There is no permanently fixed ideal of marriage in a Platonic realm somewhere. It has always been a social convention.
> 
> An important reason why gays want the right to marriage extended to them (not "gay marraige, but just "marriage") is also to have the same rights any married hetero couple might have (even some unmarried heteros for that matter)-- in regards to health insurance coverage, or when their loved one is in the hospital, the right to adoption, etc. etc. --things that hetero married couples take for granted.
> The real problem people have with homosexuality is always about sex sex sex. As if sex is the only thing that gay people have on their mind, as if that were the centre of their universe. Most gay people have ordinary lives like everybody else, with the same fears, likes, dislikes, feelings, thoughts, etc. as straight human beings. It seems to me that heteros are more obsessed with sex than gays! They just want to get on with life without discrimination. Apparently that is too much to ask for people obsessed with sexual purity, and trying to come up with anything to justify it (a god or nature-- incidentally the _exact _same arguments used against interracial marriage). Why should I interfere with two adults who love one another and want to live together? I can think of no reason why I should even care about what goes on in their bedroom.
> 
> It doesn't matter because many countries are beginning to understand this and they are changing. And eventually the US will get it too (well, at least in law), just as it did with the institution of slavery and racism (ideologically intertwined in the US), integration in schools, interracial marriage, etc. etc. etc. There will still be bigots who will have every ideology under the sun to justify their beliefs, but more and more society will find such views reprehensible. Too bad, huh?


At last, the voice of reason.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

jhar26 said:


> Overpopulation is already the biggest problem that humanity is facing as it is.


In the third world. As it is western civilisation cannot sustain its population.


----------



## Guest

David58117 said:


> Nope, same sex practice can't produce offspring. That's not a big shock though.
> 
> I have a question for you though - instead of allowing "marriage," would you allow for same sex couples to have all the benefits of a married couple, just not be "married?"


That is actually a canard - there are already legal means by which a same sex partner can have many of the privileges afforded a spouse as pertains to visitations and things along those lines. As far as adoption and tax benefits, that is less allowed. I would not be opposed to the tax equity, allowing for a joint filing status. Adoption is a different matter. Children need examples of both sexes as they grow.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> I think it is soon time to leave this debate before it descends into 'what is natural'.
> I'll leave it to those who claim to 'know' what is natural. Informed by their own prejudice.
> 
> I've enjoyed the debate DrMike but maybe we should get back to our _shared_ love of music.
> 
> My parting 'shot' though.
> 
> Is Music the creation if a Divinity?
> 
> Well let's take all the homosexuals out of the history of music and art, theatre, literature. Then we'll see how impoverished our culture would be.


If you mean by this that homosexuals are not the creation of Divinity, and therefore any contribution by them would not be of divine origin, well that doesn't match my beliefs. All are God's creation, whether they choose to keep his commandments or not. And God still gives individuals blessings, even if they don't follow all of his commandments. They don't receive all the blessings they potentially could, were they to follow all of his commandments, but God's love still extends to them, and he still gives them some blessings, according to what commandments they do keep.


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> In the third world. As it is western civilisation cannot sustain its population.


Western civilization for the most part is choosing not to sustain its population. In many European countries, people are choosing to have less children, to the point that they have now dropped to a birth rate that is being outpaced by the death rate. This is not for lack of food and water and other basic resources. In addition, as our knowledge and skills grow, and we create more and more crops that can thrive in harsh environments, our ability to produce more food on less land will increase. Much of this already exists, and is just waiting to be implemented.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> Western civilization for the most part is choosing not to sustain its population. In many European countries, people are choosing to have less children, to the point that they have now dropped to a birth rate that is being outpaced by the death rate. This is not for lack of food and water and other basic resources. In addition, as our knowledge and skills grow, and we create more and more crops that can thrive in harsh environments, our ability to produce more food on less land will increase. Much of this already exists, and is just waiting to be implemented.


I know that. I'm just saying that the dillema of homosexuals having their own biological offspring is a dillema that Europe is concerned with and Europe isn't the cause of overpopulation.

As for your opinion of civil unions and their benefits. I'm glad we share the same view on this. I, too, am skeptical about adopting children by homosexual couples. Not for the same reasons, though (I'm more concerned about the potential discrimination those children may face).


----------



## Petwhac

KaerbEmEvig said:


> I know that. I'm just saying that the dillema of homosexuals having their own biological offspring is a dillema that Europe is concerned with and Europe isn't the cause of overpopulation.
> 
> As for your opinion of civil unions and their benefits. I'm glad we share the same view on this. I, too, am skeptical about adopting children by homosexual couples. Not for the same reasons, though (*I'm more concerned about the potential discrimination those children may face*).


The same can be said of mixed race children can it not.
The problem lies with bigotry and prejudice in society.

And DrMike, yes, children need role models in the home, in school. But the fact that they have 2 parents of different genders guarantees nothing.

How many orphans would love to have a stable home life with loving parents/guardians?

We used to live below a lesbian couple who had a son from one of their previous relationships/marriage. A nicer, more caring and decent family you could not find.


----------



## Earthling

Petwhac said:


> And DrMike, yes, children need role models in the home, in school. But the fact that they have 2 parents of different genders guarantees nothing.


_
Just to add to this thought:_ A very high percentage of children _in fact_ do not have "examples of both sexes." If we followed such reasoning, then single parents (from giving birth out of wedlock or later through separation or divorce) ought not to be allowed any more than a homosexual couple adopting a child, or a homosexual couple that has children from a previous relationship.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

jurianbai said:


> so long talk, homosexuality can't produce offspring in natural way right? (answered, edit)
> 
> so Earthling, legalizing SSM is mainly for paper work and human right, regarless the fact that some of their practise less contributing to community? that's why I think it is not supposed to be endorse, they less help in maintained population  , it is a big problem in Singapore. but again... human right rulez in US.
> 
> (I interested to ask because most of people overhere (vs DrMike) like a straightforward answer, my agenda is only to try my argument here) now I will really quiiitee...
> 
> edit for David:
> that's maybe a solution, to fill in their social need. it is discriminating though. but my theory is, by pressing hard on this, in the future maybe we can benefit, regarding sponsoring the citizen to do their job ... produce children.


I like your "Sing-lish". 

The fundamental point here is about recognising human rights, regardless of sexual orientation between consenting adults. Your point is that homosexuality is unnatural in the sense that same sex couples obviously cannot produce children, and on that basis not grant them social recognition by way of marriage. Human rights also "rulez" in Singapore, to a large degree, not just in the US. What about married heterosexual couples in Singapore who choose not to have children?

I think the word "marriage" will always remain to define the union between a man and a woman. Politicians will take some nerve and society will take some time to amend that. Regardless, other legal avenues are around and are in place for debate to give legal equality between heterosexual and same sex couples. Here in Australia, this involves giving same sex couples the same right to nominate each other in life/health insurance policies as a family unit, inheritance in pension funds, calculation of taxation etc. This I think, is a step in the right direction and long over due. The terms "civil union" have been suggested to give same sex couples the same legal definiton as married heterosexual couples. Legal recognition should be on par, that's my view.

I suspect based on scanty statistics that I have read, relatively few same sex couples want to adopt children anyway. Even for those small minority who do, it does raise some difficult questions whether two parents of the same sex can give one child the level of care and love as assumed by a heterosexual couple. Some members above have mentioned that there are numerous single parent households and children form divorced/separated parents. Of course, there are well raised children from such family units and there are poorly raised children from heterosexual family units. I think it is possible to raise children relatively well by same sex couples, though socially, this is again difficult to assess; for there are simply few statistics to indicate that. Applying moral judgements will always be subjective, and if moral judgements form the basis for political decisions, then I suspect it will take an even longer time to approve this from the civil union/marriage debate because of the subjectivity of the majority versus powerful lobby groups. But I do like to conclude that it is by no means socially easy for the child growing up, attending schools and gaining identity because of the rest of the vast majority of children from heterosexual family units.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I like your "Sing-lish".
> 
> The fundamental point here is about recognising human rights, regardless of sexual orientation between consenting adults. Your point is that homosexuality is unnatural in the sense that same sex couples obviously cannot produce children, and on that basis not grant them social recognition by way of marriage. Human rights also "rulez" in Singapore, to a large degree, not just in the US. What about married heterosexual couples in Singapore who choose not to have children?
> 
> I think the word "marriage" will always remain to define the union between a man and a woman. Politicians will take some nerve and society will take some time to amend that. Regardless, other legal avenues are around and are in place for debate to give legal equality between heterosexual and same sex couples. Here in Australia, this involves giving same sex couples the same right to nominate each other in life/health insurance policies as a family unit, inheritance in pension funds, calculation of taxation etc. This I think, is a step in the right direction and long over due. The terms "civil union" have been suggested to give same sex couples the same legal definiton as married heterosexual couples. Legal recognition should be on par, that's my view.
> 
> I suspect based on scanty statistics that I have read, relatively few same sex couples want to adopt children anyway. Even for those small minority who do, it does raise some difficult questions whether two parents of the same sex can give one child the level of care and love as assumed by a heterosexual couple. Some members above have mentioned that there are numerous single parent households and children form divorced/separated parents. Of course, there are well raised children from such family units and there are poorly raised children from heterosexual family units. I think it is possible to raise children relatively well by same sex couples, though socially, this is again difficult to assess; for there are simply few statistics to indicate that. Applying moral judgements will always be subjective, and if moral judgements form the basis for political decisions, then I suspect it will take an even longer time to approve this from the civil union/marriage debate because of the subjectivity of the majority versus powerful lobby groups. But I do like to conclude that it is by no means socially easy for the child growing up, attending schools and gaining identity because of the rest of the vast majority of children from heterosexual family units.


I wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## jurianbai

@Harpsicordconcerto:
Homosexual marriage I think still unavailable in Singapore. But they use 'value' (=religion) as a shield, this is again I think is political, since in US there already a church endorsed it. For heterosexual marriage that choose not to have children so far the goverment haven't found idea to 'punish' them. But.. there already some 'discriminating' rulez like a day off for father, long maternity leave, extra bonus, and quite obvious for foreigner (like me), if you have (boy) children, it is more likely to be granted permanent residency or citizenship. There is also some Chinese influence here, children = money.

btw, seeing the progress how SSM going on in US I think there is no more to be done, as said, it is about human right. my theory is actually extreme, in the future if SSM become popular and an option, there could be a significant factor on failing to sustain enough population. And then there will be extra social job to be done, that is redefined what do you mean by saying 'I am your father', because now it has extra definition as in stepfather, or in case of using alien sperm inplant in female (without proper 'procedure'), then the definition (of father) going complicated.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

jurianbai said:


> @Harpsicordconcerto:
> my theory is actually extreme, *in the future if SSM become popular and an option, there could be a significant factor on failing to sustain enough population*. And then there will be extra social job to be done, that is redefined what do you mean by saying 'I am your father', because now it has extra definition as in stepfather, or in case of using alien sperm inplant in female (without proper 'procedure'), then the definition (of father) going complicated.


No, same sex couples it not likely at all to be a _signifcant_ factor that causes a population's fertility rate to drop, nor is homosexuality a choice/option as suggested by your first sentence quoted above. Homosexuals are a minority in any given population, though not necessarily an insignifcant minority. Statistics do vary for a number of reasons, even in moderately tolerant societies like in Australia. Obviously, the burden of fertility rests on heterosexual couples, and that is the significant reason why many developed countries' populations, Australia included, are ageing.


----------



## Guest

Populations in Europe are dropping below the sustainability rate (except for the notable exception among Muslim populations) because people simply aren't having nearly as many children as they once did. Children are more and more viewed as a burden, and birth control and abortion are dropping the number of children born. In addition, people are putting off until later age having children.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> Populations in Europe are dropping below the sustainability rate (except for the notable exception among Muslim populations) because people simply aren't having nearly as many children as they once did. Children are more and more viewed as a burden, and birth control and abortion are dropping the number of children born. In addition, people are putting off until later age having children.


Show me statistics that prove that abortion is the villian here. Abortion is legal in the Netherlands and yet this country has the lowest count of abortion per capita in the whole EU.


----------



## Wumbo

> I have a question for you though - instead of allowing "marriage," would you allow for same sex couples to have all the benefits of a married couple, just not be "married?"


"You can have something like us... But you're still not as good as us so we have to call it something different." Isn't that a little offensive? Aren't social movements like this (for example black rights movements) meant to break down walls of separating and segregating each other? "You can have fountains like we use, but you have to use different ones." Every legal change you make to marriage will have to have a separate vote and process for whatever gaymarriage is. That's absolutely absurd. If marriage is recognised by law (and it has been for a long time) then it follows that it has to be secular by the word of the law. There can't be any arguments made by quoting from the bible "man and woman" or whatever prejudice nonsense.

Imagine a concert hall saying "We have two concert halls, but gays can only perform in their concert hall. It's fair because we're providing something for them, right?" But the implications of actual practice are clearly far more treacherous. The same, I believe goes with a special gay marriage. Having to go to a special gay church could be a byproduct of that. Law changes that don't affect both systems. Huge redundancy in the bureaucracy for trying to provide for both. Officials may not care as much about the gaymarriage laws as much as they care about the marriage laws. All sorts of discrimination can occur, as bad as it is now.

(I tried my best to loosely connect this back to classical, but I really don't understand.)


----------



## Earthling

Wumbo said:


> "You can have something like us... But you're still not as good as us so we have to call it something different." Isn't that a little offensive? Aren't social movements like this (for example black rights movements) meant to break down walls of separating and segregating each other?


Good post, *Wumbo*. "Marriage" under civil law is secular institution anyway, not a religious one. For all intents and purposes, heterosexual married couples are, in the eyes of civil law just "civil unions." The law ought not be interested in any religious connotations that such a union _may or may not_ imply personally for the couple involved (by such logic, atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either, if we are to define "marriage" as a strictly religious institution).

If churches wish to define for themselves marriage as between a man and a woman, no one is stopping them. Personally I don't even like the term "gay marriage." Its just "marriage"-- between two adults. Why should I care what is or is not between their legs? Am _I_ supposed to feel _threatened _by the prospect of a gay couple being married?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> Children are more and more viewed as a burden ...


Yes, indeed. The word "burden" has really taken on its own meaning with children in many developed economies. Here in Australia, it has become a significant political issue on the financial burden of raising children. The government is subsidizing the cost of child care services (i.e. for those parents who have employment during the day and are paying for the relatively expensive professional services of a child caring facility, not a babysitter). Ask and contrast with any parent today the cost of raising a child versus the generation of our parents, for example, and there is hardly a doubt that the cost of raising children today has become a significant financial burden. Factor in furture education costs ... so, what happens? Many younger couples choose to have less children. This does not explain all, but it is not an insignificant factor, as least here in Australia.


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Show me statistics that prove that abortion is the villian here. Abortion is legal in the Netherlands and yet this country has the lowest count of abortion per capita in the whole EU.


I'm not sure if you just want to be argumentative with me here, or what, but I did not state that abortion is the sole villain in this drop in the birth rate, but one of many factors. How does the abortion rate compare to when the birth rate was actually exceeding the death rate, however long ago that was?


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> I'm not sure if you just want to be argumentative with me here, or what, but I did not state that abortion is the sole villain in this drop in the birth rate, but one of many factors. How does the abortion rate compare to when the birth rate was actually exceeding the death rate, however long ago that was?


In my opinion it negiligible.


----------



## wolf

DrMike said:


> I'm not sure if you just want to be argumentative with me here, or what, but I did not state that abortion is the sole villain in this drop in the birth rate, but one of many factors. How does the abortion rate compare to when the birth rate was actually exceeding the death rate, however long ago that was?


Better sterilize muslim women in Europe, what's wrong with not overpopulating the earth? What's the point in forcing unwanted kids on the dutch population? And you should study the reasons for the dramatically lowered murder figures in US in the 90's. Forget "cop power", the drug war caused the explosion in violence. One of the reasons (not the only one of course), were that a generation of unwanted kids, who now would've grown up, just weren't there. In fact, in states and cities were abortions were few all the time, the violence increased. In the cities (like NYC), where women had taken advantage of the abortion laws, there were almost always a dramatically lowered murder rate.

This has nothing to do with the main question. It's a fruitless discussion, as we atheists can buy your christain argument, if you ever gave us one. But you can never do the same, as you have to defend your faith. Otherwise you would be miserable, better to quarrel in a forum, than being condemned by your church, your family etc. Not to mention the anguish you yourself will have to go through. I have been there, I understand you, luckily I finally denied Jesus/God in my teens, and it must be harder if you are older.

But it was worth it, being true to yourself, science and the world, instead of being true to some invented "CREATOR" whose main purpose lies in his wish to punish us all.


----------



## Guest

wolf said:


> Better sterilize muslim women in Europe, what's wrong with not overpopulating the earth? What's the point in forcing unwanted kids on the dutch population? And you should study the reasons for the dramatically lowered murder figures in US in the 90's. Forget "cop power", the drug war caused the explosion in violence. One of the reasons (not the only one of course), were that a generation of unwanted kids, who now would've grown up, just weren't there. In fact, in states and cities were abortions were few all the time, the violence increased. In the cities (like NYC), where women had taken advantage of the abortion laws, there were almost always a dramatically lowered murder rate.
> 
> This has nothing to do with the main question. It's a fruitless discussion, as we atheists can buy your christain argument, if you ever gave us one. But you can never do the same, as you have to defend your faith. Otherwise you would be miserable, better to quarrel in a forum, than being condemned by your church, your family etc. Not to mention the anguish you yourself will have to go through. I have been there, I understand you, luckily I finally denied Jesus/God in my teens, and it must be harder if you are older.
> 
> But it was worth it, being true to yourself, science and the world, instead of being true to some invented "CREATOR" whose main purpose lies in his wish to punish us all.


Coincidence is hardly science. I see you are a disciple of the "Freakonomics" book. Some pop book purporting to be serious economic analysis, based on some shaky analysis. There has been much significant refutation of their assertions. One particular example is this: the authors claimed that the lag between the legalization of abortions and the drop in the murder rate was due to the fact that you had to wait until the would-be offenders reached their teens before you would see an affect. In fact, they didn't actually look at the age of convicted murderers as the crime rate dropped, or they would have seen that murder rates dropped first among the oldest populations of murderers, and worked its way down. By the Freakonomics model, it should have been the opposite. How would more abortions lead to first less older murderers, and decreases in the youngest aged murderers were observed last?

But I'm glad you got to lash out against religion, for whatever that did for you. If your last experience with religion was as a teenager, and that is what you base your understanding of what I have to "go through," I'd humbly suggest that you really have no clue what I am going through, particularly since my view of God is not one whose main purpose is to punish us all.


----------



## wolf

DrMike said:


> Coincidence is hardly science. I see you are a disciple of the "Freakonomics" book. Some pop book purporting to be serious economic analysis, based on some shaky analysis. There has been much significant refutation of their assertions. One particular example is this: the authors claimed that the lag between the legalization of abortions and the drop in the murder rate was due to the fact that you had to wait until the would-be offenders reached their teens before you would see an affect. In fact, they didn't actually look at the age of convicted murderers as the crime rate dropped, or they would have seen that murder rates dropped first among the oldest populations of murderers, and worked its way down. By the Freakonomics model, it should have been the opposite. How would more abortions lead to first less older murderers, and decreases in the youngest aged murderers were observed last?
> 
> But I'm glad you got to lash out against religion, for whatever that did for you. If your last experience with religion was as a teenager, and that is what you base your understanding of what I have to "go through," I'd humbly suggest that you really have no clue what I am going through, particularly since my view of God is not one whose main purpose is to punish us all.


It was one of the reasons, not the main one. Coming to terms with the drug war folly was the main thing. In Europe we have witnessed the idiocy so long, and after leaving the drug wars, no country who did, is displeased. Switzerlands dealers are much fewer, since they cannot afford standing in street corners, waiting for curious teenagers. Or how do you explain that 84% of the ppl 86% of the cops, and 88% of the shopkeepers hail legal heroin? Only Russia, Sweden and a couple of other countries try to mimic the US folly.

OK, let's say that the abortion thing was no big deal, do you honestly believe that those kids - who would have been born UNWANTED - would have been happy, compared to the kids that are wanted?

As for beeing "only" a teenager at the time I threw out the christian idiocy, I knew my Bible all right. I still do, cause I remember the whole crap! And if you know your bible, there is nothing in it that isn't connected with a punishing God. That "Jesus love" thing originated with St Paul, and even in his blasted letters there are talk of punishment all the time. Since the christians felt uncomfortable and just ignored the brutality and spoke of love (and MONEY of course!), they firmly ignore all the ghastly "hell talk" and speak of "Jesus love". Luckily there are only about 7% christians left in my country.


----------



## Guest

wolf said:


> It was one of the reasons, not the main one. Coming to terms with the drug war folly was the main thing. In Europe we have witnessed the idiocy so long, and after leaving the drug wars, no country who did, is displeased. Switzerlands dealers are much fewer, since they cannot afford standing in street corners, waiting for curious teenagers. Or how do you explain that 84% of the ppl 86% of the cops, and 88% of the shopkeepers hail legal heroin? Only Russia, Sweden and a couple of other countries try to mimic the US folly.
> 
> OK, let's say that the abortion thing was no big deal, do you honestly believe that those kids - who would have been born UNWANTED - would have been happy, compared to the kids that are wanted?
> 
> As for beeing "only" a teenager at the time I threw out the christian idiocy, I knew my Bible all right. I still do, cause I remember the whole crap! And if you know your bible, there is nothing in it that isn't connected with a punishing God. That "Jesus love" thing originated with St Paul, and even in his blasted letters there are talk of punishment all the time. Since the christians felt uncomfortable and just ignored the brutality and spoke of love (and MONEY of course!), they firmly ignore all the ghastly "hell talk" and speak of "Jesus love". Luckily there are only about 7% christians left in my country.


I love the talk about being unwanted - the implication is that all children that would have been aborted, but weren't, end up unwanted. Why not put them up for adoption? Adoption is very difficult and costly in the U.S. Were it not so, more people would adopt. Those aborted babies could certainly be wanted by someone. Only problem is you can't compare a child that wasn't to a child that is. You can speculate that all the aborted children, were they to be allowed to live, would be unwanted and unhappy. Pure speculation. Abortion is viewed by this group as a form of birth control. What of couples who don't want to have abortions, but don't want more children, and yet their other form of contraception fails them - those would then also be unwanted. How does their happiness compare? What is the crime rate among these "unwanted" or "accident" pregnancies?

I suspect more that abortions, if they play any factor whatsoever in murder rates, are more correlative than causative. I suspect that a lot of the factors that actually do have an impact on murder rates may be somehow linked with abortion.

In fact, one study even suggested that having more children and having responsible fathers for those children diminished the murder rate - males that took on responsibility for fathering a child were less likely to commit crimes like murder.

You may wish for all Christians, and other religious groups, to just go away, but the fact of the matter is that problems between humans transcend any one cause. Do away with all religion, and you will still come up with conflicts. The battlefields will then shift to science - who has the correct theory behind the scientific origins of the earth, or the development of life, or the universe(s). Look at issues like global warming. Many have turned it into their religion, and will not accept any challenge to the status quo opinion. They follow, sometimes quite fanatically, whatever the consensus tells them. Some even commit violence to further scientific theories. Life without religion will not be the utopia that some think it will be.


----------



## Petwhac

Alas, DrMike, you are quite right in your last paragraph.
Humans are deeply tribal. They love to 'belong' and will divide (sometimes violently) along the most trivial lines. Political parties, sports teams , fashion, skin colour and religion to name few.
However it is only a religion which gives it's 'tribe' authority that originates in the supernatural. And therefore it is the more dangerous as minds are more resistant to change.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> Alas, DrMike, you are quite right in your last paragraph.
> Humans are deeply tribal. They love to 'belong' and will divide (sometimes violently) along the most trivial lines. Political parties, sports teams , fashion, skin colour and religion to name few.
> *However it is only a religion which gives it's 'tribe' authority that originates in the supernatural. And therefore it is the more dangerous as minds are more resistant to change.*


Really? Can you substantiate that claim? As has been pointed out here before, there are instances when some of the worst brutality perpetrated was done under the auspices (albeit falsely) of science. When the Nazis attempted to exterminate Jews, they used "scientific" justifications, not religious ones. When they forcibly sterilized "undesirables" it was out of some desire to not "pollute" the gene pool. The atrocities that occurred in the USSR under Stalin and in China under Mao and in Cambodia under Pol Pot were done with not an eye to religion - quite the opposite, in fact. Religion was done away with, and the authority of the state as the supreme power, not some supernatural entity, dispatched millions of people to their deaths. Now we have people seeking population control citing scientific justification for their ideas.

One of the easiest ways to create an intransigent mind is to tell a person that science proves their mindset. Any person who believes that they hold the sole truth AND are authorized to compel compliance to that truth has the potential to oppress - whether those ideas are religiously derived, or otherwise.

Science and secularism are potentially just as deadly authorities as any religion.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> Really? Can you substantiate that claim? As has been pointed out here before, there are instances when some of the worst brutality perpetrated was done under the auspices (albeit falsely) of science. *When the Nazis attempted to exterminate Jews, they used "scientific" justifications, not religious ones.* When they forcibly sterilized "undesirables" it was out of some desire to not "pollute" the gene pool. The atrocities that occurred in the USSR under Stalin and in China under Mao and in Cambodia under Pol Pot were done with not an eye to religion - quite the opposite, in fact. Religion was done away with, and the authority of the state as the supreme power, not some supernatural entity, dispatched millions of people to their deaths. Now we have people seeking population control citing scientific justification for their ideas.
> 
> One of the easiest ways to create an intransigent mind is to tell a person that science proves their mindset. Any person who believes that they hold the sole truth AND are authorized to compel compliance to that truth has the potential to oppress - whether those ideas are religiously derived, or otherwise.
> 
> Science and secularism are potentially just as deadly authorities as any religion.


This is _exactly_ my point. Nazi ideology, eugenics, racism and the like have all been discredited. Most people, thankfully see their lies for what they were.
People can and do commit atrocities in the name of other things besides religion.
But as you so eloquently testify, your religion can't be discredited._ You_ won't change _your_ mind because your beliefs were given to you by God not some scientist or megalomaniac.
Science may hold truth until a newer truth supersedes it. Religion is stuck in it's scriptures.
I doubt if one day a Christian theologian is going to assert that Jesus was no more than an ordinary man with a lot of opinions on how people should run their lives. Even if he talked a lot of sense. 
All forms of ideology are undesirable. Scientific or religious.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I think religion will have a place in future generations to come only as a source of personal emotional assurance for believers. The religious will probably believe less about the obviously incompatible, such as the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and the ascension/assumption of the virgin Mary etc. despite being the central doctrine of Christianity, for example. This will probably reduce some religion to "moderatism", without the blind faith prescription earlier centuries demanded.


----------



## Boccherini

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> *I think religion will have a place in future generations to come only as a source of personal emotional assurance for believers. *The religious will probably believe less about the obviously incompatible, such as the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and the ascension/assumption of the virgin Mary etc. despite being the central doctrine of Christianity, for example. This will probably reduce some religion to "moderatism", without the blind faith prescription earlier centuries demanded.


First of all, why hasn't it happened by now?
Secondly, I don't know what a specific religion you're refering to (or all religions?), but at least in my religion, nothing has changed; "Religion is stuck", as said above; But that's not quite correct either because even though in terms of the degree of obligations and communication toward God it's true, nothing has changed, and that might be one of the reasons why religion is so powerful. However, in terms of humane progression which often leads to new needs, religion (at least mine) is very dynamic. "Dynamic", not in terms of re-writing the Bible or anything similar, but by developing it inside the framework of religion/God's primary intention.

However, concerning those who might define themselves as religious, but don't actually implement it properly and their life looks exactly like seculars', you're slightly right. These people often feel the need of emotional assurance when, say, someone in their family is dying; Therefore, they act exactly or approximately like religious ones. Though, thier odd way of being religious is definitely inappropriate.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Boccherini said:


> First of all, why hasn't it happened by now?
> Secondly, I don't know what a specific religion you're refering to (or all religions?), but at least in my religion, nothing has changed; "Religion is stuck", as said above; But that's not quite correct either because even though in terms of the degree of obligations and communication toward God it's true, nothing has changed, and that might be one of the reasons why religion is so powerful. However, in terms of humane progression which often leads to new needs, religion (at least mine) is very dynamic. "Dynamic", not in terms of re-writing the Bible or anything similar, but by developing it inside the framework of religion/God's primary intention.
> 
> However, concerning those who might define themselves as religious, but don't actually implement it properly and their life looks exactly like seculars', you're slightly right. These people often feel the need of emotional assurance when, say, someone in their family is dying; Therefore, they act exactly or approximately like religious ones. Though, thier odd way of being religious is definitely inappropriate.


Yes, the devout have been so all along, I guess.

My sentence was not entirely well written. Your final paragraph was what I was trying to say. It's purely just a speculation based on some people who I know; "semi-religious", and it is this "moderatism" that I am speculating will probably take an increasing proportion in some societies where Christianity is a significant religion, particularly those societies that are moderately tolerant of a cross section of religions and cultures. But do I think this will also apply to Muslim states? Probably not.

As for your religion being "dynamic", I think it is man's _interpretation_ of your God's teachings within the context of each generation that is "dynamic". Precisley on matters like the resurrection and ascension/assumption of the divine, which are clearly incompatible with biology, these are the real issues that need "dynamic" interpretation as time moves on.


----------



## Boccherini

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Yes, the devout have been so all along, I guess.
> 
> My sentence was not entirely well written. Your final paragraph was what I was trying to say. It's purely just a speculation based on some people who I know; "semi-religious", and it is this "moderatism" that I am speculating will probably take an increasing proportion in some societies where Christianity is a significant religion, particularly those societies that are moderately tolerant of a cross section of religions and cultures. But do I think this will also apply to Muslim states? Probably not.
> 
> As for your religion being "dynamic", *I think it is man's interpretation of your God's teachings within the context of each generation that is "dynamic". *Precisley on matters like the resurrection and ascension/assumption of the divine, which are clearly incompatible with biology, these are the real issues that need "dynamic" interpretation as time moves on.


True. Its concept's name is, in my religion, _Oral Torah_.
As for the resurrection that should or shouldn't be interpretaed over time, I think it's, again, comes from the assumption that you can rationally understand every divine process, which according to my religion, is erroneous.


----------



## Toccata

I'm wondering how long this thread would have been if the target of religious criticism had been Islam instead of (mainly) Christianity. I reckon by long before now the head office of Magle International (organ an all) would have been blown up, and all the Mods on this site would be holed up in some miserable place with "contracts" on their heads.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Opal said:


> I'm wondering how long this thread would have been if the target of religious criticism had been Islam instead of (mainly) Christianity. I reckon by long before now the head office of Magle International (organ an all) would have been blown up, and all the Mods on this site would be holed up in some miserable place with "contracts" on their heads.


A comment from the devil himself, on post number 666!!!


----------



## Petwhac

It's time to apply Occam's Razor.
All the competing views on the origin of life, the cosmos, and everything, from Christianity, Islam, Zen Buddhism, Sikhism , Scientology, Atheism, Paganism, The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc etc...... Well they can't _all_ be right.

They can,however,* all be wrong*.

And by the way, *Boccherini* your sentence _"Therefore, they act exactly or approximately like religious ones. Though, thier odd way of being religious is definitely inappropriate._" Just goes to show how intolerant one can become when one bases one's views on one's own feelings. *Inappropriate?* Shame on you.


----------



## Boccherini

Petwhac said:


> And by the way, *Boccherini* your sentence _"Therefore, they act exactly or approximately like religious ones. Though, thier odd way of being religious is definitely inappropriate._" Just goes to show how intolerant one can become when one bases one's views on one's own feelings. *Inappropriate?* Shame on you.


No one, who's religious, would actually listen to irreligious - according to his incorrectly-claimed religion - who misrepresents that specific religion; That's an absurd. It's like saying that a murderer could re-define moral terms.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> It's time to apply Occam's Razor.
> All the competing views on the origin of life, the cosmos, and everything, from Christianity, Islam, Zen Buddhism, Sikhism , Scientology, Atheism, Paganism, The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc etc...... Well they can't _all_ be right.
> 
> They can,however,* all be wrong*.
> 
> And by the way, *Boccherini* your sentence _"Therefore, they act exactly or approximately like religious ones. Though, thier odd way of being religious is definitely inappropriate._" Just goes to show how intolerant one can become when one bases one's views on one's own feelings. *Inappropriate?* Shame on you.


No, I agree with Boccherini. If a person is following their own unique belief system, then however they choose to define worship would be appropriate for them. But if you choose to identify with a particular religion, or religious philosophy, then acting contrary to the tenets of that system is certainly inappropriate. You don't get to redefine for yourself a system already in place and claim that it is still valid and appropriate. I can't self-identify as an atheist and still go an pray to God under extreme circumstances. I realize that there is no organized atheism organization that would excommunicate me, but it is not really appropriate. If one self-identifies as a Catholic, and yet chooses to disregard certain core beliefs of Catholicism, that isn't appropriate. It would be just as inappropriate as an individual who shuns their parents, and has nothing to do with them; and then, when some critical need arises, goes back to the parents seeking aid, claiming to have loved them all along.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> No, I agree with Boccherini. If a person is following their own unique belief system, then however they choose to define worship would be appropriate for them. But if you choose to identify with a particular religion, or religious philosophy, then acting contrary to the tenets of that system is certainly inappropriate. You don't get to redefine for yourself a system already in place and claim that it is still valid and appropriate. I can't self-identify as an atheist and still go an pray to God under extreme circumstances. I realize that there is no organized atheism organization that would excommunicate me, but it is not really appropriate. If one self-identifies as a Catholic, and yet chooses to disregard certain core beliefs of Catholicism, that isn't appropriate. It would be just as inappropriate as an individual who shuns their parents, and has nothing to do with them; and then, when some critical need arises, goes back to the parents seeking aid, claiming to have loved them all along.


Whoever said people behave in rational ways.
It is not for one Catholic to tell another how to practice their religion is it?
It's not one Christian to tell another how to practise their religion. Oh hang on, Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Greek Orthodox..... come on what are you saying.
A system already in place? Put in place when and by whom? Aren't you all still arguing over what your bible means in the first place.

If religion has any use whatsoever it is to help those who want it to better deal with what life throws at them. It's whatever gets you through the night buddy.

A Jewish friend of mine who was non-religious one day started to become observant.
I was challenging him on what I saw as the hypocrisy of some Jews who would drive to near the Synagogue on a Saturday (driving being forbidden on the Sabbath) and walk the rest of the way so fellow worshipers would not see their transgression.
I said, "Surely God must see their false ways and be angry at their hypocrisy". 
He said " Ah, but at least they are going to synagogue, it's better than not going, even if they drove part of the way".

Anyway, I digress. Of course people love their parents all along, and often hate them at the same time. *Welcome to the human condition*.


----------



## Boccherini

Petwhac said:


> A Jewish friend of mine who was non-religious one day started to become observant.
> I was challenging him on what I saw as the hypocrisy of some Jews who would drive to near the Synagogue on a Saturday (driving being forbidden on the Sabbath) and walk the rest of the way so fellow worshipers would not see their transgression.
> I said, *"Surely God must see their false ways and be angry at their hypocrisy". *
> He said " Ah, but at least they are going to synagogue, it's better than not going, even if they drove part of the way".


Your friend is just an example of what I was stating before about people who proclaim themselves as religious but don't actually implement their religion properly. Then, when I said it's inappropriate, you disagreed, even though the bolded text above proves the opposite.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> Whoever said people behave in rational ways.
> It is not for one Catholic to tell another how to practice their religion is it?
> It's not one Christian to tell another how to practise their religion. Oh hang on, Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Greek Orthodox..... come on what are you saying.
> A system already in place? Put in place when and by whom? Aren't you all still arguing over what your bible means in the first place.
> 
> If religion has any use whatsoever it is to help those who want it to better deal with what life throws at them. It's whatever gets you through the night buddy.
> 
> A Jewish friend of mine who was non-religious one day started to become observant.
> I was challenging him on what I saw as the hypocrisy of some Jews who would drive to near the Synagogue on a Saturday (driving being forbidden on the Sabbath) and walk the rest of the way so fellow worshipers would not see their transgression.
> I said, "Surely God must see their false ways and be angry at their hypocrisy".
> He said " Ah, but at least they are going to synagogue, it's better than not going, even if they drove part of the way".
> 
> Anyway, I digress. Of course people love their parents all along, and often hate them at the same time. *Welcome to the human condition*.


Can I claim to be a vegan and yet eat bacon every other week?

The fact of the matter is that many of these established religions have very well defined standards and beliefs. If a person finds that they don't agree with them, in part or in full, they are under no obligation to continue to join themselves to that group. And yes, while some compliance is certainly better than no compliance, it is still not fully correct. With religion, though, there is, with many different ones (I can't speak for the entire spectrum) the acknowledgment that perfection is something to be strived for, but probably not attained. But still, certain standards are expected to be met to enjoy the fellowship in many religions.

With the example of your friend, there is the point that going to synagogue is more important than not going. But at the same time it appears that his motives are not what they should be - what concerned him more, how he felt God would see him or how he felt others would see him? An important Old Testament scripture applies here, where the prophet Samuel rebukes King Saul for offering a sacrifice without the authority to do so. Saul thought that the sacrifice was the more important thing, and Samuel was late, so Saul probably reasoned that offering a sacrifice, even if done inappropriately, was more important than not offering a sacrifice. Samuel rebuked him by saying that to obey is more important than sacrifice. In the example of your friend, you could argue that attending synagogue was not more important than honoring the sabbath.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> The fact of the matter is that many of these established religions have very well defined standards and beliefs.


What are your views about women in clergy?


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> What are your views about women in clergy?


My views are those of my religion, which does not have women in clergy.


----------



## Toccata

DrMike said:


> My views are those of my religion, which does not have women in clergy.


Since you are the only one still arguing the religious cause (and this has been the case for a long while now, with the "smart money" having cleared off ages ago, in many cases completely from the entire forum) I repeat my earlier question whether you are answering these various criticisms from a purely personal viewpoint or whether you are actually drawing on the resources of the Mormon Church to provide answers, with you simply acting as a convenient proxy?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Petwhac said:


> However it is only a religion which gives it's 'tribe' authority that originates in the supernatural. And therefore it is the more dangerous as minds are more resistant to change.


There is a dissent to this viewpoint...



> In places where antitheism has held sway, blood has flowed without restraint. [Stalin's] Russia, [Mao's] China, and [Pol Pot's] Cambodia provide the gruesome tale of the tape. Ravi Zaharias


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chi_townPhilly said:


> There is a dissent to this viewpoint
> 
> In places where antitheism has held sway, blood has flowed without restraint. [Stalin's] Russia, [Mao's] China, and [Pol Pot's] Cambodia provide the gruesome tale of the tape. *Ravi Zaharias*
> 
> ...


Zaharias missed the point.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did not kill in the name of antitheism per se, unlike numerous who _have_ killed in the name of religion. These three had their own megalomaniac agendas. Stalin (an atheist) was motivated by his own lust for absolute powerful and paranoia under the blanket of extreme socialism, as did the other two. None were out to exterminate their people soley because they hated the various religions, and wanted all to be atheists. Even if they were brought up as religious, I doubt that would have made any difference. It is a fallacy to associate antitheism with concepts of mass collectivization and absolute power just because those leaders happened to be atheists. Sure, religion was banned under Pol Pot and not at all encouragd by Stalin and Mao, but that was in the "interest" of socialism and dictatorial paranoia that they did what they did in terms of human lives lost.

Just the same, Saddam Hussein in more recent times was a Muslim. I also very much doubt if any of his dictatorial killings would have ceased if he was an atheist, although he did justify his actions in the name of _Allah_.

Are Russia and China any significantly more religious today than America or Iran? No. Are there mass lives lost today in the name of religion or atheism? No.


----------



## Petwhac

Boccherini said:


> Your friend is just an example of what I was stating before about people who proclaim themselves as religious but don't actually implement their religion properly. Then, when I said it's inappropriate, you disagreed, even though the bolded text above proves the opposite.


How many people who call themselves Christian would go to jail rather than be conscripted to the military? How many are_ not _pacifists? How many have _not_ given away all their possessions? How many would invite homeless person to their supper table?


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> Can I claim to be a vegan and yet eat bacon every other week?


Indeed you can. Just on alternate weeks.

That's perfectly reasonable. And you are still doing your bit for animal welfare.


----------



## Boccherini

Petwhac said:


> How many people who call themselves Christian would go to jail rather than be conscripted to the military? How many are_ not _pacifists? How many have _not_ given away all their possessions? How many would invite homeless person to their supper table?


I'm not sure what you're pointing at; And I'm not sure I could provide you a proper response since I'm not a Christian, if that's what you thought.


----------



## Guest

Opal said:


> Since you are the only one still arguing the religious cause (and this has been the case for a long while now, with the "smart money" having cleared off ages ago, in many cases completely from the entire forum) I repeat my earlier question whether you are answering these various criticisms from a purely personal viewpoint or whether you are actually drawing on the resources of the Mormon Church to provide answers, with you simply acting as a convenient proxy?


Where the opinions were my own, I have so stated. Regarding this specific example (women in clergy), this is the doctrine of my church - the priesthood is only held by men. Men and women have complimentary roles in God's plan, and neither can be complete without the other. It is the responsibility of men to exercise the priesthood to serve others.


----------



## Petwhac

Boccherini said:


> I'm not sure what you're pointing at; And I'm not sure I could provide you a proper response since I'm not a Christian, if that's what you thought.


Well, however people see themselves, label themselves, whatever group they identify with, they will always make a compromise at some point. I don't know what religion, if any, you subscribe to but perhaps you would like to tell me.


----------



## Boccherini

Petwhac said:


> Well, however people see themselves, label themselves, whatever group they identify with, they will always make a compromise at some point. I don't know what religion, if any, you subscribe to but perhaps you would like to tell me.


What kind of compromise, may I ask?
As I mentioned several times here, I'm a Jewish; And I didn't subsribe to that specific religion, for I was born Jewish.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> How many people who call themselves Christian would go to jail rather than be conscripted to the military? How many are_ not _pacifists? How many have _not_ given away all their possessions? How many would invite homeless person to their supper table?


The problem here is that you have gotten things mixed up. How well the practicers of a religion abide by its precepts is not directly related to the validity of those precepts. How many fervent believers in anthropogenic global warming continue to jet around the world in private aircraft to preach against fossil fuel consumption? Or live in excessively large houses? Or own multiple gas-consuming vehicles? How many Hollywood celebrities blow millions of dollars on mansions, fancy cars, clothes, jewelry, drugs, and then speak out against corporate greed and how we all need to pay our fair share? How many government employees/politicians talk about our need to make sure everybody pays their fair share in taxes, only to be found under-reporting income and failing to pay their own taxes?

That people compromise their beliefs may be a fact of life, but it is not correct, and not something we should strive to achieve. Why is it viewed as a positive thing that people who profess religious beliefs should compromise on some of the more controversial doctrines, and thus be labeled more "open-minded," but any attempt to compromise on scientific theories is viewed as absolutely heretical. Quite a few religions concede many scientific theories that have been arrived at, despite prior rejection. Science gives no ground. Many religious people make room for science. Scientists, by and large, will not budge.

In fact, many of the most controversial scientific theories have been so constructed to actually be tautologies. Take climate change. It can never be proven wrong. If temperatures rise, it is because of anthropogenic climate change. If they fall, it is because anthropogenic climate change. More hurricanes? Ditto. Less hurricanes? Ditto.

Same with evolution. In many ways, it has moved beyond the realm of science, as Popper argued. We don't actually test evolution. We test proposed mechanisms of evolution. When one of those is proven false, it has absolutely no bearing on the grander theory, because then there is merely the claim that there must be other, as of yet undefined mechanisms. It is not falsifiable. All that we can directly prove is that natural selection is very real, and can generate a vast diversity of life. When circumstantial evidence for evolution is presented, it is hailed by the scientific community. When I provide circumstantial evidence for God, it is met with ridicule and scorn - where is the direct proof?


----------



## Toccata

DrMike said:


> Where the opinions were my own, I have so stated. Regarding this specific example (women in clergy), this is the doctrine of my church - the priesthood is only held by men. Men and women have *complimentary* roles in God's plan, and neither can be complete without the other. It is the responsibility of men to exercise the priesthood to serve others.


I guess you mean "complementary", not "complimentary".

I think you have misunderstood my query. I was asking whether it is you, Dr Mike, who is actually drafting all the replies under your name, or whether you are getting support directly from your Church to answer the various questions and then simply acting as cover for material provided by others.

The reason I ask is that many of your replies seem far too text-book and far too polite (in typical Mormon "doorstep" style) given all the grief some of the people on this thread have given you. Most other "Christians" have long since cleared off, some for good so it would seem, and yet you are still here arguing the toss with all these atheists. It just seems amazing to me.


----------



## Guest

Opal said:


> I guess you mean "complementary", not "complimentary".
> 
> I think you have misunderstood my query. I was asking whether it is you, Dr Mike, who is actually drafting all the replies under your name, or whether you are getting support directly from your Church to answer the various questions and then simply acting as cover for material provided by others.
> 
> The reason I ask is that many of your replies seem far too text-book and far too polite (in typical Mormon "doorstep" style) given all the grief some of the people on this thread have given you. Most other "Christians" have long since cleared off, some for good so it would seem, and yet you are still here arguing the toss with all these atheists. It just seems amazing to me.


All my posts on this forum have been drafted, typed, thought out, etc., by me. Where technical questions have been asked, I have tried to give accurate answers, especially where specific doctrine of my church is concerned (not wanting to misrepresent it). But no, I am acting on my own. If you go and see my posts regarding my tastes for Mahler, or my fondness of Jordi Savall's period recordings of Bach, Handel, and Haydn, I think you would see that it is not likely that the Mormon church would be behind this. I am neither a spokesperson for the church, nor anybody in authority. As I stated before, earlier in the thread, I have done missionary work in my past, and so have some experience discussing my religion with others in a more formal setting. And I do sometimes veer from a "too polite" persona in this thread.

I've stuck with this thread because I am stubborn and like to have the last word. And one of my favorite quotes is from John Adams, second president of the U.S.A. "Thanks to God that he gave me stubborness when I know I am right."


----------



## Toccata

DrMike said:


> All my posts on this forum have been drafted, typed, thought out, etc., by me. Where technical questions have been asked, I have tried to give accurate answers, especially where specific doctrine of my church is concerned (not wanting to misrepresent it). But no, I am acting on my own. If you go and see my posts regarding my tastes for Mahler, or my fondness of Jordi Savall's period recordings of Bach, Handel, and Haydn, I think you would see that it is not likely that the Mormon church would be behind this. I am neither a spokesperson for the church, nor anybody in authority. As I stated before, earlier in the thread, I have done missionary work in my past, and so have some experience discussing my religion with others in a more formal setting. And I do sometimes veer from a "too polite" persona in this thread.
> 
> I've stuck with this thread because I am stubborn and like to have the last word. And one of my favorite quotes is from John Adams, second president of the U.S.A. "Thanks to God that he gave me stubborness when I know I am right."


Thanks. I was only asking about your comments in this specific thread. I accept what you say. I can only admire the patience and determination you have shown, as well as the very good-humoured way you have dealt with some hostile questions. I wish my Christian faith was as strong as yours. Regretfully it isn't. However, nothing I have seen by the various atheists or agnostics in this thread makes me want to change my mind in their favour.


----------



## Petwhac

Boccherini said:


> What kind of compromise, may I ask?
> As I mentioned several times here, I'm a Jewish; And I didn't subsribe to that specific religion, for I was born Jewish.


Well, it seems we have something in common.
However, and this may start a heated debate of it's own. You can no more be born Jewish than you can be born Musilim or Christian. You are what your parents tell you you are.
There is nothing biological about it.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> Well, it seems we have something in common.
> However, and this may start a heated debate of it's own. You can no more be born Jewish than you can be born Musilim or Christian. You are what your parents tell you you are.
> There is nothing biological about it.


Except that you CAN be born Jewish. Apart from adherents to the religion, Jewish also refers to the descendants of a very specific people. In fact (and correct me here if I am wrong), you could even be an atheist and still be a Jew by ancestry.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

DrMike said:


> Except that you CAN be born Jewish. Apart from adherents to the religion, Jewish also refers to the descendants of a very specific people. In fact (and correct me here if I am wrong), you could even be an atheist and still be a Jew by ancestry.


Yes. But Hebrew or Israeli is the real term for the ethnic group. Jew refers to the religion (someone could be a Jew of any other race), at least, I think it should be that way.


----------



## Guest

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Yes. But Hebrew or Israeli is the real term for the ethnic group. Jew refers to the religion (someone could be a Jew of any other race), at least, I think it should be that way.


Jew is used interchangeably for ethnicity, religion, and culture. Israeli is a bit different - that is a citizen of the state of Israel - which includes Jews and Arabs, among others.

Jews are specifically an ethnic group descended from Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham. At any rate, at various times all these terms were used interchangeably. But it is not wrong to say that someone was born a Jew if they are of Jewish ancestry. Boccherini could probably ring in here on the preferred term, but at any rate, by whatever name, this can definitely be a distinct ethnic group, and people can be born Jewish, regardless of what religious beliefs they then accept.


----------



## Argus

GOD DIDN'T MAKE RAMBO. I DID!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> When circumstantial evidence for evolution is presented, it is hailed by the scientific community. When I provide circumstantial evidence for God, it is met with ridicule and scorn - where is the direct proof?


When "circumstantial evidence" for evolution is presented to your fellow scientists, it is hailed because it is more plausible than the (in my opinion) deluded circumstantial evidence of God by the individual. It seems you may well put your religion before science, if so, where does the objectivity of your scientific training and faculty stop, and where does your religion step in? If you say the two are complementary in your work, then it makes you a poor scientist. Unless you got trained as one for belonging to a profession for the sake earning income, then I can well understand that as we all need some cash to survive, whether or not religious.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> When "circumstantial evidence" for evolution is presented to your fellow scientists, it is hailed because it is more plausible than the (in my opinion) deluded circumstantial evidence of God by the individual. It seems you may well put your religion before science, if so, where does the objectivity of your scientific training and faculty stop, and where does your religion step in? If you say the two are complementary in your work, then it makes you a poor scientist. Unless you got trained as one for belonging to a profession for the sake earning income, then I can well understand that as we all need some cash to survive, whether or not religious.


No, actually, I am a plant, trying to subvert science from the inside.

As I have said before, I am not of the opinion that the two are mutually exclusive. Natural selection is observable. Generation of diversity is observable. Evolution - specifically, the theory that all life on earth arose from a few, or a single original life form, is not proven. Experiments to determine whether certain mechanisms that could drive evolution are plausible are undertaken. But there is no way to falsify the central claim of evolution. We can't go back in time and watch the entire history of the earth. We can't take a single life form and observe it generating the type of diversity that now exists on earth. There is no possible way that it could possibly be proven wrong. And so it is much like religion. Secondary aspects of the theory can be tested and falsified (for example, with the fly experiment, it could have turned out the other way), but there is no way to run any kind of experiment to test the central tenet and possibly get a negative result, because any negative result merely gets interpreted by saying that we simply didn't find the right thing to test. In fact, we can't even possibly identify the theoretical first life. We run experiments to try and generate life from lifelessness, as it is proposed that all this started, and when we can't, then we simply dismiss it by saying that we must not have correctly predicted the original conditions, or that it takes a long time.

And so we have mechanisms in search of a purpose. We can identify numerous mechanisms by which diversity is generated. But when we apply that to a theory of how all life came to be on this planet, then evolution becomes just as viable as a creator, and both are just as impossible to prove or disprove by scientific means.

And I can be devoutly religious and an effective scientist. Science says nothing of religion or God, because it can't, and serious scientists know that. People who have an incorrect understanding of science think that they can use it to argue away religion. They can't. Being a scientist doesn't mean that I have to believe everything said by scientists. Consensus among scientists that evolution is the answer and that there is no God amounts to a consensus of opinion, and in the case of religion, scientists are no more experts than the judging panel on Dancing With the Stars.


----------



## dmg

Natural selection and speciation are observed in the fossil record, in genomes, in laboratories, and in the wild. Evolution is the theory that binds all of these observations together. The origin of all life is not central to the theory of evolution. Mutation, reproduction and natural selection are. I cannot understand why it is so difficult to comprehend the notion that changes in organisms compound over long periods of time from those three things. It is common sense. Things stack. Why is that so hard to realize? That's why I think those who deny it is happening aren't doing so because they're dumb - I think they're perfectly capable of 'getting it'. They just refuse to acknowledge it. A stubbornness created out of social stigma or religious dogma or some other external factor.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> Jew is used interchangeably for ethnicity, religion, and culture. Israeli is a bit different - that is a citizen of the state of Israel - which includes Jews and Arabs, among others.
> 
> Jews are specifically an ethnic group descended from Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham. At any rate, at various times all these terms were used interchangeably. But it is not wrong to say that someone was born a Jew if they are of Jewish ancestry. Boccherini could probably ring in here on the preferred term, but at any rate, by whatever name, this can definitely be a distinct ethnic group, and people can be born Jewish, regardless of what religious beliefs they then accept.


I think you will find that there is nothing biological about it.
If those people existed at all then very many non Jews may carry some of their genes and very many Jews may carry none.


----------



## David58117

DrMike said:


> No, actually, I am a plant, trying to subvert science from the inside.


I suspect you were probably joking, but your posts make a lot more sense when taken in this light...

Otherwise, I can't imagine an honest scientist misrepresenting peer review and basic definitions such as "scientific theory" and "evolution."

Where's your sense of honesty? You're a scientist, you're coming on a board full of non-scientists, people are expecting you to know what you're talking about. But what are they getting? They're getting a man who doesn't understand why something is designated a "scientific theory," who doesn't understand "peer review" and that with every scientific discovery, scientists are just licking their chops in hopes of disproving a new discovery and getting *their* name out there. You would have people believing that Richard Dawkins runs every experiment in the field of evolution, and with each discovery yells "Take that religion!"

You're aware of the rigors of peer review - why do you go on a message board and skip over telling everyone that these experiments where tested hundreds of times by other groups of scientists eager to disprove them? Why don't you tell everyone how something becomes a "scientific theory?"



DrMike said:


> "We can't go back in time and watch the entire history of the earth. We can't take a single life form and observe it generating the type of diversity that now exists on earth."


Out of the many theories this can apply to, why do you focus on evolution? No scientist has ever shot himself through the Earths crust to verify the existence of plate techtonics - but for some reason evolutionary scientists have to do the impossible and run an experiment for a few million years in natural conditions, in order for them to not be criticized?



DrMike said:


> We run experiments to try and generate life from lifelessness, as it is proposed that all this started, and when we can't, then we simply dismiss it by saying that we must not have correctly predicted the original conditions, or that it takes a long time.


What are you criticizing? Are you criticizing "Abiogensis" or "Evolution?" You seem to confuse evolution with Abiogensis quite a bit, and maybe I expect too much, but I don't think I should have to be correcting a Ph.D level biologist with elementary biology textbooks, or wikipedia...

"In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time..."

Evolution is "Any gradual change. Organic evolution, often referred to as evolution, is any genetic and resulting phenotypic change in organisms from generation to generation," which is from my Bio textbook I referenced earlier.



DrMike said:


> But when we apply that to a theory of how all life came to be on this planet, then evolution becomes just as viable as a creator, and both are just as impossible to prove or disprove by scientific means.


..evolution or abiogenesis? Remember, evolution is the change from one generation to another...



DrMike said:


> Science says nothing of religion or God, because it can't, and serious scientists know that. People who have an incorrect understanding of science think that they can use it to argue away religion. They can't. ...*Consensus among scientists that evolution is the answer and that there is no God amounts to a consensus of opinion,* and in the case of religion, scientists are no more experts than the judging panel on Dancing With the Stars.


I don't get it. First you say science says nothing about God (which I wholeheartedly agree with, even as an Atheist), but then say "Consensus among scientist that evolution is the answer and that there is no God.."

WHAT scientists say that? Do you mean popular authors like Richard Dawkins, who are miles away from the experiments? Are you confusing him with the people who actually perform experiments again? Many of those scientists are religious themselves..


----------



## Chris

dmg said:


> Natural selection and speciation are observed in the fossil record, in genomes, in laboratories, and in the wild. *Evolution is the theory that binds all of these observations together*. The origin of all life is not central to the theory of evolution. Mutation, reproduction and natural selection are. I cannot understand why it is so difficult to comprehend the notion that changes in organisms compound over long periods of time from those three things. It is common sense. Things stack. Why is that so hard to realize? That's why *I think those who deny it is happening aren't doing so because they're dumb* - I think they're perfectly capable of 'getting it'. They just refuse to acknowledge it. A stubbornness created out of social stigma or religious dogma or some other external factor.


I have in my hands Hallmarks of Design by Stuart Burgess. Dr Burgess is a lecturer in Engineering Design at Bristol University. He has also lectured in Engineering Design at Cambridge University, and before these appointments he spent several years designing spacecraft systems for the European Space Agency. Maybe not so dumb.

Dr Burgess does not believe in evolution. In the book he goes through the reasons he believes what we see around us has been created by an intelligent designer. One reason is _irreducible complexity_; that is, biological systems which require numerous separate parts, useless individually, to be working all at once in harmony. One of his examples is the human knee joint (incomplete book extract below), a 'four bar mechanism' which requires all its parts to work perfectly before it is any use at all. We know from experience that if the tiniest thing is wrong with one of our knee joints we are incapacitated. By what possible mechanism, argues Dr Burgess, can the knee joint 'gradually evolve'?

Here is the link. The knee joint bit (not the whole thing unfortunately) begins on the sixth page.

http://dayone.co.uk/images/uploads/Hallmarks_of_Design_EXTRACT.pdf


----------



## Chris

Apologies dmg, just realised you're *not* saying non-evolutionists are dumb...the rest of the post is relevant though


----------



## David58117

Chris said:


> I have in my hands Hallmarks of Design by Stuart Burgess. Dr Burgess is a lecturer in Engineering Design at Bristol University. He has also lectured in Engineering Design at Cambridge University, and before these appointments he spent several years designing spacecraft systems for the European Space Agency. Maybe not so dumb.
> 
> Dr Burgess does not believe in evolution. In the book he goes through the reasons he believes what we see around us has been created by an intelligent designer. One reason is _irreducible complexity_; that is, biological systems which require numerous separate parts, useless individually, to be working all at once in harmony. One of his examples is the human knee joint (incomplete book extract below), a 'four bar mechanism' which requires all its parts to work perfectly before it is any use at all. We know from experience that if the tiniest thing is wrong with one of our knee joints we are incapacitated. By what possible mechanism, argues Dr Burgess, can the knee joint 'gradually evolve'?
> 
> Here is the link. The knee joint bit (not the whole thing unfortunately) begins on the sixth page.
> 
> http://dayone.co.uk/images/uploads/Hallmarks_of_Design_EXTRACT.pdf


Oh God, not irreducible complexity again!

When I was more involved with internet debates a few years ago I remember this argument from ID proponents all the time! But they used the Flagellum as the example, saying there's no way it could of evolved naturally - unfortunately for them, yeah there are ways it could evolve and the argument has since been debunked...

Anyway, here's a website you might be interested in:

http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/414/irreducible-complexity-of-bacterial-flagellum-debunked/

I really like the quote on the site:

"Ignorance is not proof of anything - don't let it be your source of argument."


----------



## Chris

I have watched the link David. I confess I am no expert on the bacterial flagellum. But he hasn't really answered the question has he? He claims the 50 proteins have a function other than in the flagellum. Let us assume that is the case. You still have to build a complex, delicate machine from those 50 proteins step by delicate step, each step producing a functioning pre-machine that confers a survival advantage on an organism that contains this predecessor. The ID argument (I think) is that these intermediate steps are inconceivable. Only when you have the entire flagellum can you see the survival advantage.

In any case, this doesn't really apply to the knee joint. I was at the osteopaths today getting my right shoulder treated. No breaks, nothing torn, but a tiny fault in the tendon has rendered the shoulder half-useless. If I was a wild animal I'd have been eaten by now. Joints have to be perfect. The idea of a series of miniscule changes somehow changing a simple ball joint to the complex four-bar knee joint with its cruciate ligaments, synovial fluid etc etc is unthinkable.

Another thought on the video....the lecturer claimed that the ID people required all component parts of the flagellum to be non-functional. He then showed a ten-protein block that was functional, thus demolishing (he said) the ID argument. But the creation science I am familiar with accepts that the creator God re-uses components and bits of functionality in different settings (as any intelligent designer would!). So I'm not sure the lecturer isn't setting up a straw man here.


----------



## David58117

Chris said:


> I have watched the link David. I confess I am no expert on the bacterial flagellum. But he hasn't really answered the question has he? He claims the 50 proteins have a function other than in the flagellum. Let us assume that is the case. You still have to build a complex, delicate machine from those 50 proteins step by delicate step, each step producing a functioning pre-machine that confers a survival advantage on an organism that contains the predecessor. The ID argument (I think) is that these intermediate steps are inconceivable. Only when you have the entire flagellum can you see the survival advantage.
> 
> In any case, this doesn't really apply to the knee joint. I was at the osteopaths today getting my right shoulder treated. No breaks, nothing torn, but a tiny fault in the tendon has rendered the shoulder half-useless. If I was a wild animal I'd have been eaten by now. Joints have to be perfect. The idea of a series of miniscule changes somehow changing a simple ball joint to the complex four-bar knee joint with its cruciate ligaments, synovial fluid etc etc is unthinkable.


But aren't you looking at it from 20/20 hindsight? You're looking at it as if there was a goal in mind, you're seeing the end product and wondering how you arrived at it. Intelligent Design sees a bacteria flagellum-less, thinking to itself "I need to come up with a Flagellum, but I'll never be able to get the 50 proteins in order!"

But as explained in the video, when you "breakdown" the Flagellum you arrive at simpler adaptations previously seen in nature. It's not one pointless, useless sequence of proteins that ID's want us to believe - there are functional intermediate steps that nature produces.

I found this pdf article about knee evolution you might be interested in. I could only read it quickly as the wife is after me to finish cleaning the garage. It seems interesting, it traces the knee joint through various species by dissections, showing how the structures evolve.

http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/20/1/77.pdf

Anyway, it's really good that you're asking questions. My background is only as a 3rd year biology/chemistry student from about 2 years ago. I switched to nursing in fear of not having a job once I finished, although I plan to go back and finish it soon.

Edit regarding the strawman claim -

Did you see the quote from Behe at the beginning of the video? Behe said - "Any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional" - the speaker goes on to show that this isn't true - if you take away proteins from the flagellum you get functional adaptations. That's not a strawman, that's addressing a claim from Behe.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

David58117 said:


> What are you criticizing? Are you criticizing "Abiogenesis" or "Evolution?" You seem to confuse evolution with Abiogenesis quite a bit...


I think that if one uses Evolution as evidence in support of Atheism, Abiogenesis is going to be one's accompanying carry-on baggage (whether it's desired or not).

The only alternative, to an Atheist, would be to suggest that life, like inanimate matter, is a component of equal duration in regress (c.f.: the position of Madelyn Murray-O'Hair, summarized here).


David58117 said:


> I don't get it. First you say science says nothing about God (which I wholeheartedly agree with, even as an Atheist), but then say "Consensus among scientists [is] that evolution is the answer and that there is no God.."


I think I get it- I can see a distinction here- I believe that one can opine that Science (properly applied) says nothing _conclusive_ about God... but that groups of Scientists can express their opposition (or support) for Theism- but be speaking only for themselves, and not in the 'Greater-Name-of-Science'---


----------



## Chris

I'll try to read the knee joint article tomorrow...Sunday is my day off the computer so I won't be back till Monday.

I curse my idleness in not reading the Behe book when it came out. Behe, I think, was agnostic, so may have said things out-and-out creationists like Dr Burgess would not agree with; and the lecturer in the first clip did seem to be concentrating on rebutting Behe in particular. Anyway...I'm off till Monday.


----------



## David58117

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I think that if one uses Evolution as evidence in support of Atheism, Abiogenesis is going to be one's accompanying carry-on baggage (whether it's desired or not).


Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism. Yes I am an Atheist, but it has nothing to do with anything I learned in my science studies at the University...in fact, many of my professors and classmates were religious. I was an Atheist long before I opened up a science textbook.



Chi_townPhilly said:


> The only alternative, to an Atheist, would be to suggest that life, like inanimate matter, is a component of equal duration in regress (c.f.: the position of Madelyn Murray-O'Hair, summarized here).


What part of evolution is this discussing?



Chi_townPhilly said:


> I think I get it- I can see a distinction here- I believe that one can opine that Science (properly applied) says nothing _conclusive_ about God... but that groups of Scientists can express their opposition (or support) for Theism- but be speaking only for themselves, and not in the 'Greater-Name-of-Science'---


I still don't.

What scientist, actually involved in research and experiments, are expressing their opposition or support for "proving" their religion?

I'd love to know what experiments these evolutionary scientists who say "this is proof there is no God!" are conducting! Must be one hell of an experiment...


----------



## David58117

Chris said:


> I'll try to read the knee joint article tomorrow...Sunday is my day off the computer so I won't be back till Monday.
> 
> I curse my idleness in not reading the Behe book when it came out. Behe, I think, was agnostic, so may have said things out-and-out creationists like Dr Burgess would not agree with; and the lecturer in the first clip did seem to be concentrating on rebutting Behe in particular. Anyway...I'm off till Monday.


Sounds good, be sure to read about the Dover trial too, in which ID was basically called out for what it truly is...but by a Judge.


----------



## Guest

Honestly, David, it is getting a little tiring. 

You keep claiming I should be behaving a certain way as a scientist. You said you are not a scientist. You took some science courses, then went a different route.

Peer review? Peer review is this - you have a study you write up, you send it to a journal you want it published in, if they find it interesting enough, they send it out to a group of reviewers that have expertise in the same area. Those people read it (and, in most cases, only after they have been pestered by the editor to write their reviews, because they really need to make a decision), look at the experiments, determine if they see any flaws in the methodology, critique the conclusions offered, decide if they think anything further should be tested, and then give a recommendation whether it should be accepted as is, provisionally accepted pending further experiments/revisions, or rejected. They do not go out and re-do the experiments to see if they can reproduce them - that may only happen after the fact. In fact, it would be rather unethical to replicate the experiments of a colleague that you only know of as a confidential reviewer. 

You keep trying to simplify evolution, when you know exactly what I am talking about. We are talking about how all life came to be on this planet. The ultimate conclusion of evolution is that all the complexity of life that we see now arose from one or a few original life forms. Quit splitting hairs to feign concern at my comments. Do you, or don't you, believe that this is the case? Yes, evolution, in its most broad sense, means what you say, but it also applies to the belief that I have just stated. I have said that evolution, in terms of the variability that arises over time, has been shown. What I contest, though, is the "all life sprang from a common source" evolution that then goes hand-in-hand with theories for the origin of that common source - I do, in fact, know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. That cannot be tested, cannot be falsified. What we have now is the extrapolation of the small-scale evolution that we can observe to a scale untestable. 

What scientists who study this have done is assume that "all life evolved from a common source" is fact. Then all the experiments are focused only on the mechanisms. But they cannot prove the original assumption. They make various predictions of what would be observed if this assumption is true, and then look to see whether those predictions can be validated. Hence the fly experiment. And the potential intermediate species between sea and land life, with the larger rib cage and wrist. But the original assumption is not ever really challenged. In fact, they blast anybody who dare challenge that belief. And most of it comes down to a disbelief in God. 

As Popper claimed, evolution - and let me be clear again, lest you feel you must agonize over definitions and split hairs - the common source origin of all life, belongs to the metaphysical, not the scientific. Mechanisms of natural variation, and evolution in the broad sense of change over time are scientific, and can be tested, and can be shown. Showing that these forces, and the broad power of evolution, has the ability to generate not only new species, but new families, kingdoms, phylums, orders, etc., or the power to generate not only all the currently existing species on the earth today, but additionally countless long-extinct species, from a common source, has not been proven. And really you can't prove it wrong. It cannot be falsified. There is no conceivable experiment that could be performed that could possibly have a result that would disprove evolution. There never has been. It isn't that there have been so many experiments already done that have crowded out negative results. Let me ask you this - if the Dodds experiment had not had the result that it did, would that impact your belief in evolution at all? Or consider any of the other experiments or observations that provide evidence for evolution - if the observations were different, would that impact your opinion of evolution? I suspect not, because they would merely be explained away. What if chimpanzees had, instead of >90% genetic identity with humans, only 70% identity? I suspect then it would just be explained away as an example where two species, related only very distantly, nevertheless evolved similar phenotypes by different mechanisms.

No, I am not saying that this inability to perform immensely impossible experiments should preclude any scientific theory. But where else is that theory so absolutely declared as fact? What is the origin of the universe? How did our universe come to be? Well, there are theories out there, including the Big Bang theory. And circumstantial tests are made - if the Big Bang happened, we should be able to observe X - we have observed X, so the Big Bang still remains a possible explanation. But other possibilities are also considered. Why? Because there is no way to definitely prove one and exclude another. But when it comes to evolution, no other possibility is allowed within the scientific discussion.

Another note on peer review - I refer you to the recent scandal with East Anglia and the leaked emails pertaining to climate change. In it, we learned of leading scientists in the climate change field urging editors to not publish papers from authors who might offer studies that have findings contrary to the scientific "consensus" regarding anthropogenic climate change. You don't think scientists can have agendas?

And finally, no, there is not some officially recognized scientific "consensus" that god does not exist. I meant in the broader sense of consensus (as you are so fond of differentiating the different applications of the term evolution). I meant ask 100 scientists, and the majority would say . . . Just as there is a consensus among most scientists that Democrats should govern the United States, not Republicans. Have you been to many scientific meetings? Met with many scientists? How often do you hear criticisms of "those Jesus freaks" in your profession? I put it in quotes because I had the pleasure of sitting at a table with people at a conference where this was the topic of conversation. I read a survey in "The American Scientist" by Greg Graffin, lead singer of the punk band Bad Religion who also has a Ph.D. in Zoology, polling numerous scientists, studying various aspects of evolutionary biology, and many considered top scientists in their fields, asking whether they identified as naturalists, theists, or deists. 78% chose naturalist.

I understand what science is. I understand what scientific inquiry is. I understand what peer review is. I have already stated that I believe that evolution - change over time - is real. Can you even acknowledge that? But you cannot prove that evolution can produce all life on this planet. You can prove various mechanisms of evolution - change over time - but not that these mechanisms can take life from a common source (postulated to be some self-replicating biomolecule, be it protein, or nucleic acid) to the untold complexity of every variety of life that ever has walked the earth, currently is walking the earth, and ever will walk the earth. So I don't begrudge this being put forward as a model for the generation of all life on this earth, but I do object to it being depicted as beyond dispute, as it essentially has. Spare me your agonizing over your irrational fear that my not toeing the line on this matter causing people to stray into pathways of scientific illiteracy. On the vast majority of scientific issues, I have no disputes. I find it ridiculous that you should question my competence as a scientist because I don't subscribe to this model. In the above mentioned study, 2% of respondents (and these were considered serious scientists in the field of evolution, not merely all scientists in this field) identified as theists - belief in a personal God that takes an interest in man. If even serious evolution scientists can believe in God, why should my belief be so irrational?


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

There were other theories trying to explain the origin of various life forms (such as lamarckism), but they've been show to be inferior to the theory of evolution.

There are other possibilities considered, but intelligent design isn't one of them - it is not scientific.


----------



## Boccherini

Petwhac said:


> I think you will find that there is nothing biological about it.
> If those people existed at all then very many non Jews may carry some of their genes and very many Jews may carry none.


DrMike defined the term 'Jew' pretty well, but let me take the term 'Jew by ancestry' further.

I don't know how would you define biological ancestry, but there IS something biological in that according to our tradition (which was mostly archived in the Bible) which says that Abraham have had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael and while Isaac is considered the father of all Jews, Ishmael is considered the father of all Arabs (also according to Islamic tradiotions). Now, in atheistic point of view as well, if my parents are Jews and their parents are/were Jews etc. until we get to Isaac, wouldn't you, biologically, consider me as a Jewish?

Even though, Ishmael isn't the one and only source for non-Jews (_Goys_), I'm sure there were more that were also archived in the Bible who often credited as non-Jews sources.

However, that wasn't my point when I said that I wasn't subscribed to Judaism. According to Judaism (now, in theistic point of view), a person could be born Jewish if his mother is a Jewish (who was also born to a Jewish mother, and so forth). Regardless of how the Nazis defined the term Jewish (in addition, if someone's father is Jewish, not just his mother) which is wrong according to Judaism, I think that my religious definition for Jewish is accepted, in many aspects, by everyone. One example could be Wikipedia; Everyone whose mother is/was a Jewish while his father is/was not, is considered to be a Jewish, according to Wikipedia. Thus, I was born Jewish means that my mother is a Jewish (in my case, my father as well). Needless to say that to be born Jewish is not the only way to be a Jewish.

Apart from that, when you said that we have something in common, did you mean that's because you're a Jewish or because of your Jewish friend?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

@David58117- I think some of our viewpoints aren't as divergent as you may have otherwise thought... and I'm sure I bear the bulk of the repsonsibility for this, for failing to be clear enough with my previous points...


David58117 said:


> Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism.


We're agreed, there.


David58117 said:


> What scientist, actually involved in research and experiments, are expressing their opposition or support for "proving" their religion?


I think here's where I let you down. I wasn't attempting to say that groups of Scientists were involved in some endeavor with the goal of adding evidence for their Atheistic (or Theistic) perspective. I know from your posts that not making this clear was _my_ mistake, as I'm confident that (unlike a notable experience in another forum) you would not intentionally mischaracterize my position.

*DrMike* made an interesting point that I think somehow I intuitively knew, but had been unable to express as clearly as he- and that's that Evolution seems to have as its necessary opening premise the concept that all the diversity of life has as a common predecessor some singular manner of proto-life. Without immediately getting involved with the idea that this premise is valid or not- there is the problem--- just how does one go about _proving_ it??


----------



## Kjell

If I understood this thread correctly... I'm going with no, I really don't think there's anything supernatural about composing or those famous composers. All the composers you listed are from times and places where religion was an incredibly large part of the every day life, of course they're going to say they're guiding by God and whatnot, and have themselves tied to religion. If nothing else to keep up appearances.

We'll never know, though.


----------



## Toccata

Kjell said:


> If I understood this thread correctly... I'm going with no, I really don't think there's anything supernatural about composing or those famous composers. All the composers you listed are from times and places where religion was an incredibly large part of the every day life, of course they're going to say they're guiding by God and whatnot, and have themselves tied to religion. If nothing else to keep up appearances.


I would agree with you. It was probably commonplace parlance of the times to ascribe any manifestation of genius to supernatural forces. The OP itself is not much good in my view, just a ramshackle concoction of quotes with hardly narrative or supporting argument. From his rare subsequent comments, even the author of the OP appears to be astonished at the monster of a thread he has unwittingly created. He hasn't seen since 14 June, apparently because he's miffed at what he considers to be excessive interference by the Mods on this Forum in messing up his posts.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> ... I read a survey in "The American Scientist" by Greg Graffin, lead singer of the punk band Bad Religion who also has a Ph.D. in Zoology, polling numerous scientists, studying various aspects of evolutionary biology, and many considered top scientists in their fields, asking whether they identified as naturalists, theists, or deists. 78% chose naturalist.
> 
> In the above mentioned study, 2% of respondents (and these were considered serious scientists in the field of evolution, not merely all scientists in this field) identified as theists - belief in a personal God that takes an interest in man.


That's interesting. I have always been curious what statistical polling might suggest the percentage of scientist who are not religious. According to your sentences above then, religious scientists are in the minority.

Do you think this is an increasing trend? Obviously, it has been a significant trend over the last one or two hundred years ago since Darwin's day for example, when nearly everyone was religious. Do you think being religious as a natural scientist today makes your career relatively difficult? I think it would have been much more difficult in Darwin's day, and indeed Galileo's day, to take extreme examples, to be non-religious. History is certainly very interesting and has come a long way, indeed.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> That's interesting. I have always been curious what statistical polling might suggest the percentage of scientist who are not religious. According to your sentences above then, religious scientists are in the minority.
> 
> Do you think this is an increasing trend? Obviously, it has been a significant trend over the last one or two hundred years ago since Darwin's day for example, when nearly everyone was religious. Do you think being religious as a natural scientist today makes your career relatively difficult? I think it would have been much more difficult in Darwin's day, and indeed Galileo's day, to take extreme examples, to be non-religious. History is certainly very interesting and has come a long way, indeed.


In that article, they cite various polls that were taken over the 20th century, beginning, I believe, around 1914. They had some issues with the way that the polls were conducted, and what questions were asked, but they did in fact seem to indicate a trend of decreasing numbers of scientists identifying with a religious philosophy, and it was to test this that this study was conducted. One of their findings regarded how scientists viewed the relationship between science and religion - non-overlapping, science superior, religion superior, completely at odds, completely in harmony. The majority believed that religion was a natural phenomenon, the product of evolution - a natural thought process that developed in humans, and would continue to evolve. They felt, then, that there was not a conflict between the two - and most did not take Dawkins' confrontational approach. Of course, those who identified as religious (theists) were not of this opinion, because obviously it then implies that, while religion is real and natural, it at the same time trivializes religious belief as merely the construct of the human mind.

They pointed out that Darwin, when Origin originally came out, played up the potential of evolution being a potential mechanism by which God could have used (essentially, the intelligent design hypothesis) in order to make his controversial conclusions more palatable, but then 9 years later, as it gained more acceptance, rejected the whole notion, and rejected a role for God in evolution. Keep in mind that this specific study was polling only those who specifically conducted research in evolution and related fields, and the sample size was only 149 (they sent the questionnaire to more - I believe about 500). Furthermore, I believe that atheism/naturalism is more prevalent in biological sciences than in physical sciences, but I don't think that it is a huge difference.

I suppose it might be difficult doing evolution-related research without believing in it, but my field - microbiology/virology - doesn't deal directly with it, so it is not really an issue. Other than hearing comments from others, it doesn't play a role. I see viral evolution all the time, but that is about it.


----------



## jurianbai

I have met in person an atheist Scientist that 'switch camp' to creationism, Dr. DAVID CATCHPOOLE. He is Australian base but quite active in Indonesia plantation research.


----------



## Chris

David58117 said:


> Sounds good, be sure to read about the Dover trial too, in which ID was basically called out for what it truly is...but by a Judge.


I started to read about the Dover trial but lost interest pretty quickly. It seems to amount to 'Judge so-and-so found against ID'. But who is Judge so-and-so? Why should I bow down before his wisdom? How do I know he is not an atheist who secretly despises everything to do with God and Christianity? To get a proper understanding of the trial I would have to ignore this man's verdict and read through the evidence presented by the ID-ers and their opponents...I don't have the time or energy to climb that mountain.

But I have done the easier task of reading the 'evolution of the knee joint' article, repeated here:

http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/20/1/77.pdf

The article does not say much about evolution. Most of it is taken up with a description of different types of knee joints in various animals. The author admits these are perfectly suited to the animals in question...just what I would expect were they designed by an all-wise Creator! His evidence is principally from embryology. But this is very dubious, and also out of date. You may have noticed the article is dated January 1938. At this time there was a strong belief that the human embryo went through primitive stages like 'fish' and 'reptile'. I remember being taught at school that the human embryo had gill slits at one stage. But these are now known to be folds which form into the middle ear canal and various glands. Similarly, the supposed 'yolk sac' was found to be a vital organ manufacturing the embryo's blood before the bone marrow was formed. And the 'reptilian tail' was found to develop into the coccyx; not an evolutionary leftover but an essential bone providing muscle attachments that give us our upright stance.

The author makes some strange assertions, like 'The relatively small size of the cruciate ligaments in man would lead us to suppose that they are vestigial and relatively unimportant in knee stability'. Tell that to an athlete who has damaged them! I've said this before: you only need to slightly damage the cruciate ligaments, or any other part of the knee, to render it useless. it has to be all there and perfect. How can you gradually, by tiny increments, move from (say) a ball and socket joint to the beautifully engineered knee joint?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Member Chris, you are simply in total awe of the apparent simplicity and perfection of the knee joint. The same can be said about the human eye, the human brain, or indeed the whole human body (though these organs lack the apparent simplicty that probably inspired your awe with the knee joint). It is no different to the awe that man feels about nature and the universe, and says a creator God did it all.

Mathematicians often cite Euler's identity (from Euler's formula) as one of the most remarkable formulae in all mathematics, precisely because it appears so wonderfully simple and elegant. I first studied when I was 17 years old (final high school year). None of us in the maths room attributed it to God, neither did the teacher, and we were all in a Christian school institution. We objectively set out to study more of its properties, set out to learn about its foundations, so that for those of us who choose to take up more of pure mathematics at college/university levels, would apply this wonderful little forumale for the betterment of whatever field we ended up in (example, engineering, physics; wherever its wisdom could take us).


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Member Chris, you are simply in total awe of the apparent simplicity and perfection of the knee joint. The same can be said about the human eye, the human brain, or indeed the whole human body (though these organs lack the apparent simplicty that probably inspired your awe with the knee joint). It is no different to the awe that man feels about nature and the universe, and says a creator God did it all.
> 
> Mathematicians often cite Euler's identity (from Euler's formula) as one of the most remarkable formulae in all mathematics, precisely because it appears so wonderfully simple and elegant. I first studied when I was 17 years old (final high school year). None of us in the maths room attributed it to God, neither did the teacher, and we were all in a Christian school institution. We objectively set out to study more of its properties, set out to learn about its foundations, so that for those of us who choose to take up more of pure mathematics at college/university levels, would apply this wonderful little forumale for the betterment of whatever field we ended up in (example, engineering, physics; wherever its wisdom could take us).


Ahhh....e^i*pi = -1......beautiful....


----------



## Petwhac

Boccherini said:


> DrMike defined the term 'Jew' pretty well, but let me take the term 'Jew by ancestry' further.
> 
> I don't know how would you define biological ancestry, but there IS something biological in that according to our tradition (which was mostly archived in the Bible) which says that Abraham have had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael and while Isaac is considered the father of all Jews, Ishmael is considered the father of all Arabs (also according to Islamic tradiotions). Now, in atheistic point of view as well, if my parents are Jews and their parents are/were Jews etc. until we get to Isaac, wouldn't you, biologically, consider me as a Jewish?
> 
> Even though, Ishmael isn't the one and only source for non-Jews (_Goys_), I'm sure there were more that were also archived in the Bible who often credited as non-Jews sources.
> 
> However, that wasn't my point when I said that I wasn't subscribed to Judaism. According to Judaism (now, in theistic point of view), a person could be born Jewish if his mother is a Jewish (who was also born to a Jewish mother, and so forth). Regardless of how the Nazis defined the term Jewish (in addition, if someone's father is Jewish, not just his mother) which is wrong according to Judaism, I think that my religious definition for Jewish is accepted, in many aspects, by everyone. One example could be Wikipedia; Everyone whose mother is/was a Jewish while his father is/was not, is considered to be a Jewish, according to Wikipedia. Thus, I was born Jewish means that my mother is a Jewish (in my case, my father as well). Needless to say that to be born Jewish is not the only way to be a Jewish.
> 
> Apart from that, when you said that we have something in common, did you mean that's because you're a Jewish or because of your Jewish friend?


The thing is, traditions, biblical laws- what do they mean? As I have been saying it's about how one sees oneself and who one identifies with.

I am not a scientist but I have read quite a bit about genetics and since there is , as far as geneticists know, no gene that codes for 'Jewishness' as there is for example fair hair, green eyes, light skin etc etc, then it is not possible in any meaningful sense to born Jewish.

Both my parents are Jewish and _their_ parents, and their _grandparents_ but think about this:

If you keep going back and counting your ancestors generation by generation - 4 grandparents-8 great grandparents-16 great great grandparents - and keep going back just to the year 1000 AD ( assuming roughly 4 generations per century) You will find you have *billions of ancestors*. Now this is obviously not possible except that ALL HUMANS SHARE THE SAME ANCESTORS-therefore if such a person as Abraham or Jacob or 
existed at all (dubious)then everyone alive today *has* to be a descendent of them.

Look it up.
Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam.

Jews have been 'marrying out' and non-Jews converting to Judaism for millennia.
There are African Jews, Iranian Jews and Chinese Jews.
It is like Islam Hinduism Christianity, a RELIGION not a race.

There are of course cultural and traditional similarities between some Jewish communities and and others- that is the same for any group, be it national, regional or whatever.
Also if populations of people stick together and marry within their communities there will also be _some_ physical genetic similarities but the African Jews do not look to much like the European or Iranian Jews.

*All humans are cousins*-period. Some of us have inherited brown skin, some white, some red hair, some black, some people have two copies of a particular gene ( one from each parent) that causes them to develop an illness, some don't.

All that stuff in the old testament is mumbo jumbo.


----------



## Boccherini

Petwhac said:


> The thing is, traditions, biblical laws- what do they mean? As I have been saying it's about how one sees oneself and who one identifies with.
> 
> I am not a scientist but I have read quite a bit about genetics and since there is , as far as geneticists know, no gene that codes for 'Jewishness' as there is for example fair hair, green eyes, light skin etc etc, then it is not possible in any meaningful sense to born Jewish.
> 
> Both my parents are Jewish and _their_ parents, and their _grandparents_ but think about this:
> 
> If you keep going back and counting your ancestors generation by generation - 4 grandparents-8 great grandparents-16 great great grandparents - and keep going back just to the year 1000 AD ( assuming roughly 4 generations per century) You will find you have *billions of ancestors*. Now this is obviously not possible except that ALL HUMANS SHARE THE SAME ANCESTORS-therefore if such a person as Abraham or Jacob or
> existed at all (dubious)then everyone alive today *has* to be a descendent of them.
> 
> Look it up.
> Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam.
> 
> Jews have been 'marrying out' and non-Jews converting to Judaism for millennia.
> There are African Jews, Iranian Jews and Chinese Jews.
> It is like Islam Hinduism Christianity, a RELIGION not a race.
> 
> There are of course cultural and traditional similarities between some Jewish communities and and others- that is the same for any group, be it national, regional or whatever.
> Also if populations of people stick together and marry within their communities there will also be _some_ physical genetic similarities but the African Jews do not look to much like the European or Iranian Jews.
> 
> *All humans are cousins*-period. Some of us have inherited brown skin, some white, some red hair, some black, some people have two copies of a particular gene ( one from each parent) that causes them to develop an illness, some don't.
> 
> All that stuff in the old testament is mumbo jumbo.


As I said earlier, regardless of how you would explain it biologically or historically without being influenced by religion, according to my tradition if, say, Adam had the first "Jewish gene", it doesn't necessarily mean that all his descendants would also carry the same gene. However, if you presume - disregarding (or not) the religious aspect - that in year X there were Y amount of people and Y/Z of them were Jews, why couldn't you say, scientifically, that their offsprings as well carried the same "Jewishness"? Whether you go through the traditional or historical manner, you should affirm the "concept" that someone could be born Jewish, for the pure fact that "Jewishness" is not the one and only gene there primarily was.
Thus, your retrospective counting is correct. Everyone is a descendent of the first gene.

Let me specify the 'marrying out' process you mentioned. Basically, according to Judaism, and I would assume you know it, one way to be a Jewish is to have a Jewish mother. Any marriage whereby the female is a Jewish, primarily proclaims their chilldren to be Jewish. Therefore, the only way to 'marry out' and transfer one's children to non-Jews is to marry a non-Jewish female. I assume the African Jews and Iranian Jews you've mentioned don't have a Jewish mother and as a result they're non-Jews.
As for your last bolded sentence, that's quite correct.

I'm curious to ponder whether your last statement has anything to do with anything you've said above, or it's just a hiddden clarification which I might interpret . Anyhow, I would agree.


----------



## Petwhac

Boccherini said:


> I assume the African Jews and Iranian Jews you've mentioned don't have a Jewish mother and as a result they're non-Jews.


No, in fact there is a set of genetic markers called the _Cohen Modal Haplotype_ 
Jews with the name Cohen, Cohn, Kahn are considered direct descendants of Aaron and studies of the Y chromosomes of many Jewish males from N.America, England and Israel show that their Y chromosomes are the same as to be found in many other middle eastern males. Saudis, Syrians, etc. But there is a higher occurrence of the _Cohen Modal Haplotype_(CMH) in those with the name Cohen and _also_ with the Lemba people in Southern Africa who have always claimed Jewish ancestry. 
Geneticists think the CMH _could _have originated around the time of Aaron's said existence but because of the mixing of people over the centuries many middle eastern males will carry that marker, which may or may not have anything to do with a male called Aaron.

I'm probably making a hash of this explanation but the gist of it is. since the Y chromosome contains only a fraction of the DNA of a person, then when we can trace back other sections easily we will find we are even more mixed up.

And, by the way, I believe tracing ancestry through the mother was a relatively recent practice anyway.

As I said in my last post if Moses, Aaron, Isaac or Jacob existed and if any of them have _any_ descendants alive today then we must _all_ be.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> The thing is, traditions, biblical laws- what do they mean? As I have been saying it's about how one sees oneself and who one identifies with.
> 
> I am not a scientist but I have read quite a bit about genetics and since there is , as far as geneticists know, no gene that codes for 'Jewishness' as there is for example fair hair, green eyes, light skin etc etc, then it is not possible in any meaningful sense to born Jewish.
> 
> Both my parents are Jewish and _their_ parents, and their _grandparents_ but think about this:
> 
> If you keep going back and counting your ancestors generation by generation - 4 grandparents-8 great grandparents-16 great great grandparents - and keep going back just to the year 1000 AD ( assuming roughly 4 generations per century) You will find you have *billions of ancestors*. Now this is obviously not possible except that ALL HUMANS SHARE THE SAME ANCESTORS-therefore if such a person as Abraham or Jacob or
> existed at all (dubious)then everyone alive today *has* to be a descendent of them.
> 
> Look it up.
> Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam.
> 
> Jews have been 'marrying out' and non-Jews converting to Judaism for millennia.
> There are African Jews, Iranian Jews and Chinese Jews.
> It is like Islam Hinduism Christianity, a RELIGION not a race.
> 
> There are of course cultural and traditional similarities between some Jewish communities and and others- that is the same for any group, be it national, regional or whatever.
> Also if populations of people stick together and marry within their communities there will also be _some_ physical genetic similarities but the African Jews do not look to much like the European or Iranian Jews.
> 
> *All humans are cousins*-period. Some of us have inherited brown skin, some white, some red hair, some black, some people have two copies of a particular gene ( one from each parent) that causes them to develop an illness, some don't.
> 
> All that stuff in the old testament is mumbo jumbo.


While what you are saying makes sense IN THEORY, in practice it is not quite so simple. Humans quite often self-segregate, or are separated through other factors. One case in point would be Australian aborigines. It is estimated that they arrived in Australia some 40-50,000 years ago, and had little or no contact with outside groups, other than perhaps some limited contact with southeast Asia and Papua New Guinea, until European settlers arrived there. So they would have a much less interconnected ancestry. Additionally, and while it was certainly not 100%, Jews adhered for quite a long time to fairly strict admonishments from intermarrying with non-Jews. Now, while you may think that the Old Testament/Jewish scripture is a bunch of mumbo jumbo, there is at least good evidence that much of the historical account of it is correct, even if you don't accept the religious aspect. Genealogy was important to them.

Furthermore, and this is quite well established - Jews, and particularly subsets like Ashkenazi Jews, have higher than average endogamy - they marry within their group. This is one of the reasons that there are many genetic studies looking at racial and ethnic origins that study Jews. Not only has this been to a large degree self-imposed, but throughout their history, they have typically been isolated as a people. For a time this was no doubt assisted by their geographic concentration in the kingdom of Israel, and then they tended to continue to settle together as they spread further abroad, and after the destruction of Rome, and as Christianity took hold in Europe, racial and religious bigotry also set them apart, forcing by and large their continued endogamy. No doubt there was plenty of marriage to non-Jews, and mixing with other races and ethnic groups, but to say that there is not a Jewish people anymore is not really supported by the genetic evidence. One example is Tay-Sachs disease - this genetic disorder typically has a carrier rate in the general population of 1 in 300. In Ashkenazi Jews, the incidence is much higher - 1 in 30.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> While what you are saying makes sense IN THEORY, in practice it is not quite so simple. Humans quite often self-segregate, or are separated through other factors. One case in point would be Australian aborigines. It is estimated that they arrived in Australia some 40-50,000 years ago, and had little or no contact with outside groups, other than perhaps some limited contact with southeast Asia and Papua New Guinea, until European settlers arrived there. So they would have a much less interconnected ancestry. Additionally, and while it was certainly not 100%, Jews adhered for quite a long time to fairly strict admonishments from intermarrying with non-Jews. Now, while you may think that the Old Testament/Jewish scripture is a bunch of mumbo jumbo, there is at least good evidence that much of the historical account of it is correct, even if you don't accept the religious aspect. Genealogy was important to them.
> 
> Furthermore, and this is quite well established - Jews, and particularly subsets like Ashkenazi Jews, have higher than average endogamy - they marry within their group. This is one of the reasons that there are many genetic studies looking at racial and ethnic origins that study Jews. Not only has this been to a large degree self-imposed, but throughout their history, they have typically been isolated as a people. For a time this was no doubt assisted by their geographic concentration in the kingdom of Israel, and then they tended to continue to settle together as they spread further abroad, and after the destruction of Rome, and as Christianity took hold in Europe, racial and religious bigotry also set them apart, forcing by and large their continued endogamy. No doubt there was plenty of marriage to non-Jews, and mixing with other races and ethnic groups, but to say that there is not a Jewish people anymore is not really supported by the genetic evidence. One example is Tay-Sachs disease - this genetic disorder typically has a carrier rate in the general population of 1 in 300. In Ashkenazi Jews, the incidence is much higher - 1 in 30.


Yes and sickle cell disease affects certain groups more than others.

Once upon a time in the middle east people worshipped many idols and Gods and there were no Jews as such. When certain tribes stared preaching the idea of the ONE GOD and others began to accept it, a belief system started and those people passed their_ beliefs _on to their children along with (obviously) _some_ of their DNA. People have converted and intermarried for thousands of years. 
I have an English (Jewish) mother and a Polish (Jewish) father but I am willing to bet that a lot of my DNA will more closely resemble European peoples than it will Middle Eastern peoples. And that a Syrian Muslim's DNA will be a closer match to a Lebanese Jew's than mine.
If I had been orphaned and brought up by an Irish Catholic would it ever be possible to say my DNA reveals Jewish ancestry? No. Middle Eastern? Probably. African? I'm sure.

I think the sooner we dispose of the whole notion of race and ethnicity the better. Oh yeah and religion too. (although I wouldn't want to stop people worshipping whoever or whatever they want if it makes life better for_ them_)

I am a music lover, a free thinker, a skeptic, a liberal, a Westerner (culturally) a humanoid who happens to have x coloured skin, y coloured hair and z coloured eyes.
The only thing I am _by birth_ is an American (citizen) a male and a few other rather basic traits.


----------



## Boccherini

Petwhac said:


> No, in fact there is a set of genetic markers called the _Cohen Modal Haplotype_
> Jews with the name Cohen, Cohn, Kahn are considered direct descendants of Aaron and studies of the Y chromosomes of many Jewish males from N.America, England and Israel show that their Y chromosomes are the same as to be found in many other middle eastern males. Saudis, Syrians, etc. But there is a higher occurrence of the _Cohen Modal Haplotype_(CMH) in those with the name Cohen and _also_ with the Lemba people in Southern Africa who have always claimed Jewish ancestry.
> Geneticists think the CMH _could _have originated around the time of Aaron's said existence but because of the mixing of people over the centuries many middle eastern males will carry that marker, which may or may not have anything to do with a male called Aaron.
> 
> I'm probably making a hash of this explanation but the gist of it is. since the Y chromosome contains only a fraction of the DNA of a person, then when we can trace back other sections easily we will find we are even more mixed up.
> 
> And, by the way, *I believe tracing ancestry through the mother was a relatively recent practice anyway. *
> 
> As I said in my last post if Moses, Aaron, Isaac or Jacob existed and if any of them have _any_ descendants alive today then we must _all_ be.


The "practice" of tracing ancestry through the mother is neither scientific nor traditional, but pure traditionally religious notion which is deeply ingrained in Judaism from its prior existence. 
Yes, we _all_ brought up by one ancestor. However, it doesn't necessarily mean we _all_ carry the same tradition.


----------



## Boccherini

Petwhac said:


> Yes and sickle cell disease affects certain groups more than others.
> 
> Once upon a time in the middle east people worshipped many idols and Gods and there were no Jews as such. When certain tribes stared preaching the idea of the ONE GOD and others began to accept it, a belief system started and those people passed their_ beliefs _on to their children along with (obviously) _some_ of their DNA. People have converted and intermarried for thousands of years.
> I have an English (Jewish) mother and a Polish (Jewish) father but I am willing to bet that a lot of my DNA will more closely resemble European peoples than it will Middle Eastern peoples. And that a Syrian Muslim's DNA will be a closer match to a Lebanese Jew's than mine.
> *If I had been orphaned and brought up by an Irish Catholic would it ever be possible to say my DNA reveals Jewish ancestry? No. Middle Eastern? Probably. African? I'm sure.*
> 
> I think the sooner we dispose of the whole notion of race and ethnicity the better. Oh yeah and religion too. (although I wouldn't want to stop people worshipping whoever or whatever they want if it makes life better for_ them_)
> 
> I am a music lover, a free thinker, a skeptic, a liberal, a Westerner (culturally) a humanoid who happens to have x coloured skin, y coloured hair and z coloured eyes.
> The only thing I am _by birth_ is an American (citizen) a male and a few other rather basic traits.


It depends on the female who brought you up, whether she was self-proclaimed as an Irish Catholic but actually had a Jewish mother, which reveals her Jewish ancestry, or not. It doesn't necessarily has something to do with your/your mother's georaphic location though.


----------



## Guest

Well regardless of your own particular feelings on the issue, the fact of the matter is that Jews are recognized as a distinct ethnic group. Certainly there has been much genetic overlap, but that doesn't change the fact. Pretty much every ethnic group has some degree of genetic overlap with others. And yet we still distinguish ethnic groups. The fact that there are different ethnic groups is not inherently bad - it is how they interact with one another. And the fact that subpopulations of ethnic groups have more fully integrated with others doesn't really change the fact that much. This has nothing to do with racism or anything else. Jews as a group also happened to distinguish themselves religiously for many centuries. And yes, originally they were merely one family group among the various semitic groups that originated in the Middle East. But, as mentioned before, their tendency to practice endogamy over time resulted in their unique grouping. Think of it much like the Dodds experiment discussed in detail here - this particular group split off and isolated themselves from other populations, until they became a distinct population.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> Well regardless of your own particular feelings on the issue, the fact of the matter is that Jews are recognized as a distinct ethnic group. Certainly there has been much genetic overlap, but that doesn't change the fact. Pretty much every ethnic group has some degree of genetic overlap with others. *And yet we still distinguish ethnic groups*. The fact that there are different ethnic groups is not inherently bad - it is how they interact with one another. And the fact that subpopulations of ethnic groups have more fully integrated with others doesn't really change the fact that much. This has nothing to do with racism or anything else. Jews as a group also happened to distinguish themselves religiously for many centuries. And yes, originally they were merely one family group among the various semitic groups that originated in the Middle East. But, as mentioned before, their tendency to practice endogamy over time resulted in their unique grouping. Think of it much like the Dodds experiment discussed in detail here -*this particular group split off and isolated themselves from other populations, until they became a distinct population.*


*How?*

*They were never that isolated, not like the Aborigines*. It only takes _one_ member of a group to mate, either in wedlock or through illicit affairs to upset the whole apple cart.

Let's face it, you only have it on _trust_ who your father is (paternity testing was not widespread in the last 5,000 years). This is why ( I believe) Jewishness started to be officially passed on through the mother. I'm sure there are no such rules in the OT though someone will correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Boccherini

Petwhac said:


> *How?*
> 
> *They were never that isolated, not like the Aborigines*. It only takes _one_ member of a group to mate, either in wedlock or through illicit affairs to upset the whole apple cart.
> 
> Let's face it, you only have it on _trust_ who your father is (paternity testing was not widespread in the last 5,000 years). This is why ( I believe) Jewishness started to be officially passed on through the mother. I'm sure there are no such rules in the OT though someone will correct me if I am wrong.


We were isolated enough to avoid intermarriages, which is not so difficult to achieve, after all; And if "one member of the group" is intermarrying it doesn't upset others' ancestry at all, but, again, it depends whether it's a male or a female that ultimately set his religious-racial status for his future offsprings.

The OT (Old Testament, if I understood you correctly) is not quite the same as the Bible, by the way.
A shame, Petwhac. You're a Jewish, you should have known that, as I said earlier, "Jewishness" hasn't started "lately" to pass its "genes" through the mother. It's not a new trend/reform or anything similar, but another fundamental commandment to avoid intermarriages, which was "given" at Judaism prior existence by God.


----------



## Petwhac

Boccherini said:


> We were isolated enough to avoid intermarriages, which is not so difficult to achieve, after all; And if "one member of the group" is intermarrying it doesn't upset others' ancestry at all, but, again, it depends whether it's a male or a female that ultimately set his religious-racial status for his future offsprings.
> 
> The OT (Old Testament, if I understood you correctly) is not quite the same as the Bible, by the way.
> A shame, Petwhac. You're a Jewish, you should have known that, as I said earlier, "Jewishness" hasn't started "lately" to pass its "genes" through the mother. *It's not a new trend/reform or anything similar, but another fundamental commandment to avoid intermarriages, which was "given" at Judaism prior existence by God*.


Perhaps you could tell me where to find the passage in either the OT or the Bible that shows this.

Also, by the laws if the religion then, if your mother is Jewish then you are. Is that what you're saying? If so then you are, but only in the eyes of other Jews who follow that law. And to follow that law you have to believe in God and his commandments. Therefore if I belong to some religious sect, let's call us the the Teapotists ( see B. Russell) and Teapotist law states that if my mother was a teapotist then so am I. Well surely that only means something to us Teapotists. Even if the first person to call themselves a Teapotist lived 6,000 years ago. *I can only be born a Teapotist in the eyes of other Teapotists.*
It has no objective meaning.

If 6,000 years ago some tribe had a few members with 11 fingers and only ever married 11 fingered people. And today there were people born with 11 fingers.......the rest is obvious. They would have inherited the genes that code for 11 fingeredness.
Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc.... these are* beliefs*. There are no genes that code for them.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> Perhaps you could tell me where to find the passage in either the OT or the Bible that shows this.
> 
> Also, by the laws if the religion then, if your mother is Jewish then you are. Is that what you're saying? If so then you are, but only in the eyes of other Jews who follow that law. And to follow that law you have to believe in God and his commandments. Therefore if I belong to some religious sect, let's call us the the Teapotists ( see B. Russell) and Teapotist law states that if my mother was a teapotist then so am I. Well surely that only means something to us Teapotists. Even if the first person to call themselves a Teapotist lived 6,000 years ago. *I can only be born a Teapotist in the eyes of other Teapotists.*
> It has no objective meaning.
> 
> If 6,000 years ago some tribe had a few members with 11 fingers and only ever married 11 fingered people. And today there were people born with 11 fingers.......the rest is obvious. They would have inherited the genes that code for 11 fingeredness.
> Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc.... these are* beliefs*. There are no genes that code for them.


Of course there are no genes to code them - that does not mean they can't be their own ethnic group. What all these centuries of endogamy mean is that you have a population, in general (obviously with some exceptions) that is going to have a similar genetic profile. It is the overall genetic makeup, not some specific gene.

That statement is rather absurd. Can you point out for me the "chimpanzee" gene that allows us to identify chimpanzees from humans? There isn't. The overall genetic makeup tells us the animal is a chimpanzee, and is more closely related to other chimpanzees - not because they all share the "chimpanzee" gene, but because the overall genome is similar among that species.

The case for Jews being a distinct race/ethnic group that has at times intermarried outside of their group is not based on a single gene, but a history and a lineage that seems to be accepted by most people besides yourself.


----------



## Boccherini

Petwhac said:


> Perhaps you could tell me where to find the passage in either the OT or the Bible that shows this.
> 
> Also, by the laws if the religion then, if your mother is Jewish then you are. Is that what you're saying? If so then you are, but only in the eyes of other Jews who follow that law. And to follow that law you have to believe in God and his commandments. Therefore if I belong to some religious sect, let's call us the the Teapotists ( see B. Russell) and Teapotist law states that if my mother was a teapotist then so am I. Well surely that only means something to us Teapotists. Even if the first person to call themselves a Teapotist lived 6,000 years ago. *I can only be born a Teapotist in the eyes of other Teapotists.*
> It has no objective meaning.
> 
> If 6,000 years ago some tribe had a few members with 11 fingers and only ever married 11 fingered people. And today there were people born with 11 fingers.......the rest is obvious. They would have inherited the genes that code for 11 fingeredness.
> Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc.... these are* beliefs*. There are no genes that code for them.


Gladly. It can be found in Deuteronomy 7:3.

Wrong. With your attitude you can easily say that there are no Jews at all, which is not correct. These rules were _created_ by Judaism, but were perfectly _espoused_ by non-Jews as well. You could look up for names in Wikipedia and find that Jews are recognized as Jews as long as Judaism recognize them that way. No one would actually try to refute the fact that Mahler or Schoenberg were Jewish. True, they are defined as Jewish according to Judaism, but non-Jews find it quite objective to the define them the same manner Judaism does.

I wonder what would have happened, if Nazis had the same attitude


----------



## Iveforgottenmyoldpassword

Johnny said:


> The bible is so mundane.
> 
> The Lord Of The Rings is much better!


The story of The Lord of The Rings is a metaphor for the struggle between good and evil (God and satan) and employs large amounts of Catholic teaching interwoven within the storyline.


----------



## Petwhac

DrMike said:


> Of course there are no genes to code them - that does not mean they can't be their own ethnic group. What all these centuries of endogamy mean is that you have a population, in general (obviously with some exceptions) that is going to have a similar genetic profile. It is the overall genetic makeup, not some specific gene.
> 
> That statement is rather absurd. Can you point out for me the "chimpanzee" gene that allows us to identify chimpanzees from humans? There isn't. The overall genetic makeup tells us the animal is a chimpanzee, and is more closely related to other chimpanzees - not because they all share the "chimpanzee" gene, but because the overall genome is similar among that species.
> 
> The case for Jews being a distinct race/ethnic group that has at times intermarried outside of their group is not based on a single gene, but a history and a lineage that seems to be accepted by most people besides yourself.


They're all chimps and we're all humans! That's a silly comparison.

What I'm trying to say is that Mr X a Lebanese Jew is ethnically/ racially/ genetically more like a Lebanese non Jew than he is like a Polish Jew. What binds them is a common belief, common traditions.


----------



## Petwhac

Boccherini said:


> Gladly. It can be found in Deuteronomy 7:3.
> 
> Wrong. With your attitude you can easily say that there are no Jews at all, which is not correct.


Of course there are many Jews and many Muslims and Buddhists too.



Boccherini said:


> These rules were _created_ by Judaism, but were perfectly _espoused_ by non-Jews as well. You could look up for names in Wikipedia and find that Jews are recognized as Jews as long as Judaism recognize them that way. No one would actually try to refute the fact that Mahler or Schoenberg were Jewish. True, they are defined as Jewish according to Judaism, but non-Jews find it quite objective to the define them the same manner Judaism does.


As I said , it's how you see yourself and how others see you.



Boccherini said:


> I wonder what would have happened, if Nazis had the same attitude


You tell _me._


----------



## Petwhac

Boccherini said:


> Gladly. It can be found in Deuteronomy 7:3.


Oh, I just looked it up and I can find where it says that the religion is passed through the mother. It merely says _don't let your sons or daughters marry their sons and daughters_


----------



## Boccherini

somerandomdude said:


> The story of The Lord of The Rings is a metaphor for the struggle between good and evil (God and satan) and employs large amounts of Catholic teaching interwoven within the storyline.


Terribly incorrect. Mr. J.R.R Tolkien cordially disliked allegory in all its manifestations, and he literally said that LOTR is neither an allegory of struggle between good and evil nor of WWII, or other wierd examples.


----------



## Boccherini

Petwhac said:


> As I said , it's how you see yourself and how others see you.


No. You literally compared Jews to Teapotists and considered the definition (Jewish/Teapotist) to be singularly unilateral/subjective:


Petwhac said:


> ... Even if the first person to call themselves a Teapotist lived 6,000 years ago. *I can only be born a Teapotist in the eyes of other Teapotists.*
> It has no objective meaning...


If according to N: X=Y, and also according to (1-N): X=Y, it means that the equation of "X=Y" is perfectly objective and uncontroversial.


----------



## Petwhac

Boccherini said:


> No. You literally compared Jews to Teapotists and considered the definition (Jewish/Teapotist) to be singularly unilateral/subjective:
> 
> If according to N: X=Y, and also according to (1-N): X=Y, it means that the equation of "X=Y" is perfectly objective and uncontroversial.


Well, not being to hot on algebra, what if:

according to N x 95/100: X=Y and also according to (1-N) x 95/100: X=Y ?


----------



## Boccherini

Petwhac said:


> Oh, I just looked it up and I can find where it says that the religion is passed through the mother. It merely says _don't let your sons or daughters marry their sons and daughters_


Sorry. It's basically Deuteronomy 7:3-4. The _Rishonim_ have learnt from these verses that people who were brought up by a Jewish female are Jews; by a non-Jewish female are non-Jews. One of them is _Rashi_, but that's already the _Oral Torah_, and I doubt you have any idea what it is.
Therefore, the simple conclusion of being Jewish by birth is to be born to a Jewish mother.


----------



## Boccherini

Petwhac said:


> Well, not being to hot on algebra, what if:
> 
> according to N x 95/100: X=Y and also according to (1-N) x 95/100: X=Y ?


Quite negligible, says I. But apart from that, if I understood your equation correctly, it's slightly inaccurate.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Boccherini said:


> Mr. J.R.R Tolkien...literally said that LOTR is neither an allegory of struggle between good and evil nor of WWII, or other weird examples.


Interesting- and factually accurate.

Also, George Gordon, Lord Byron literally said that the depiction of Donna Inez in 
_Don Juan_ was absolutely, positively, IN NO WAY meant to be a caricature of his wife.

I bring this up to point out that an artist's declamatory statement of intent is _usually_ correct... 
but it is not _invariably_ the case.

(I've been too long away from Tolkien studies to have a dog in this particular encounter, though...)


----------



## Boccherini

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Interesting- and factually accurate.
> 
> Also, George Gordon, Lord Byron literally said that the depiction of Donna Inez in
> _Don Juan_ was absolutely, positively, IN NO WAY meant to be a caricature of his wife.
> 
> I bring this up to point out that an artist's declamatory statement of intent is _usually_ correct...
> but it is not _invariably_ the case.
> 
> (I've been too long away from Tolkien studies to have a dog in this particular encounter, though...)


One thing which outrageously amazes me though, is the presumption of people who intentionally thoroughly misinterpret someone's own creation so far that they claim the author/composer didn't know what was _his_ intention from the first place. What haughtiness!


----------



## Edward Elgar

What was god's intention in creating humans?

Plus, when the apocalypse comes to pass (and it will according to some) will god start the whole thing off again?

And again, for what purpose?


----------



## Chris

Edward Elgar said:


> What was god's intention in creating humans?
> 
> Plus, when the apocalypse comes to pass (and it will according to some) will god start the whole thing off again?
> 
> And again, for what purpose?


God's intention in creating humans is to manifest his own glory, in particular his glory in the great plan of Redemption through Jesus Christ.

'Therefore God exalted him [Jesus Christ] to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every other name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.'

...Philippians 2:9-11

When the Judgment (which you call the apocalypse) comes, the universe has reached its final state, fixed for ever. Jesus Christ has redeemed his people and they will live with him in endless bliss. Evil is defeated and cannot arise a second time to trouble Creation. It is beautifully portrayed in Revelation 21:1-4, the 'Holy City' being God's redeemed people:

'Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

"The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who was his own father, can make you live forever, if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul, that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."


----------



## Chris

KaerbEmEvig said:


> "The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who was his own father, can make you live forever, if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul, that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."


That's pretty well what the crowds said John 6:41, and left in their droves. I prefer Peter's response (verse 68): 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.'


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:19-21
For it is written, "I [The LORD] will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

KaerbEmEvig said:


> "The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who was his own father, can make you live forever, if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul, that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."


This post made me recollect this post, where the question came up how long this thread would have continued had the ridicule been levelled towards (say) Islam. However, I don't think I'm articulating anything other than the self-evident when I say that those who make jibes at Christianity typically don't need to be on the lookout for alley-attacks or homicide bombers.

A Moderator at another board said it well when he declared that he found little distinction between denigration of one's personal beliefs (as opposed to disagreement with them) and personal abuse. It is, however, the nature of threads which hit on religious topics to devolve into such exchanges. [Political discussion, too, frequently deteriorates that way, as well.] When otherwise civil particpants engage in really _un_civil expression, it's probably better to step away from the topic than to pursue any other action.

It is time to draw the curtain down on this Mother-of-all-Digressions.


----------

