# Good Online Site for Creationist Proof



## Kane (Sep 4, 2004)

I found a site the other day that actually explains everything atheists say that doesn't make sense about creationism (science and philosophy). As an agnostic, I viewed all the material with no bias and you should too. The main site is below;

http://www.godandscience.org/

The next section is about how the bones and such appeared in the beginning (the bones of ape-like humans). According to it, we were made from the same particles as other apes. In the Jewish Bible they use different words like a word that means to create from. Read the entire slideshow below if you are interested. When on the page, click on Origin of Man and Races Title Slide to start slide show. The page is below;

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/originman.html



The final page I want to mention about (even though you can probably find it yourself) explains actually ways to counter atheist questioning on creationism. It is below;



http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html 


Most of the material had me convinced except of for one thing, A Loving God throwing people into HELL. It still doesnt make sense to me. The analogy they use is true to a certain extent. 


They said; *Any of you who are parents will recognize that allowing your children to do whatever they want to do is not loving at all.*



That is true, but would a parent punish his child and put him/her into forever punishment? Would you ground or spank you kids for eternity? The analogy of hell being never ending is very unloving to me. Hell is the worst type of pain you can ever receive.



And I think hell should only be reserved for truly bad men like Hitler, Stalin, Emperor Hirohito, or Mussolini. Also murders, big time thieves, or terrorists. Even they dont deserve being in hell FOREVER on a few years of evil done on Earth. God could send them maybe 1,000 or 100 years in hell, but why ETERNITY? I wouldnt do that if I were a loving God. Does this mean Im more loving than God? 



I also would not throw people who dont believe in God into hell if they were good people in there life. It is not there fault they have the doubt. Some people dont have the same faith as other, GOD CREATED THEM THAT WAY. Maybe kill their soul and prevent them from going to heaven, but going to hell? I rather God just making us all perfect instead of after a few years on Earth go to an eternal hell. Hell like I said before is the worst type of pain you can feel. Its a million times worse than Hitlers concentration camps. Doesnt it seem more like tyranny? 



Everything else makes sense, but I am not completely convinced because of the whole issue about hell.


----------



## AaronLucia (Sep 4, 2004)

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.



If we knew that Hell would be for eternity, how could we be dumb enough to choose it?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 4, 2004)

If we thought that the Great Punta sent people to burn in everlasting hellfire over trivial issues like belief, why would we be immoral enough to be on His side?


----------



## Fight with attitude (Sep 4, 2004)

you do know science isn't always right?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 4, 2004)

The page about why god would send people to hell is so full of fallacies and assumptions that it's arrogant for them to accuse "atheists" (meaning for them, of course, people who don't believe in our god) of making assumptions.  It's all rhetoric.

A simple example is their comment about pagan religions.  "Permissive gods, who are caught up in their own intrigues, and so allow humans to do whatever they want without repercussions, are found in the pagan religions."  So from this, we gather that all non-christian religions center around gods that have no rules of conduct.


----------



## Kane (Sep 4, 2004)

Other than the page about hell, I think the site can be very much accurate. Especially the way they explain about the ape-like humans in the beginning.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 4, 2004)

In Judaism Hell is not even an option. Hell was orginally a pagan concept that incorperated itself into Organized Religions to gain a hold over the Populace.


----------



## AaronLucia (Sep 4, 2004)

What does Judaism have in the way of punishment, or does it?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 4, 2004)

Fight with attitude said:
			
		

> you do know science isn't always right?


I know with certainly that science is *NOT *always right. 

However, Science is self-correcting. When the idea was first presented that the planets orbit the sun, the theory was that it was in a circular orbit. However, continued study allowed scientists to determine that orbits are no circular, but eliptical.

When was the last time Faith/Religion/God corrected itself?


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 4, 2004)

Well I will try and be brief.  In Judasim the concept of "hell" if one is to use the Christian concept. Those who practice Judaism belive that one creates his or her own hell here on earth by living a life that does not honor yourself or your neighbor.  Doing the best you can with what is available to you and if not available go and create if I may use that word your own life.

Honor --- a keen sense of ethical conduct.  The code of conduct you live by at least for us. The Torah and Talmud.   


Honor God
Honor your Family
Honor your Neighbors
Honor yourself
If you do these things you have lived a good life and will show God to those around you. Hell is not in the mindset of Judaism and is not taught


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 4, 2004)

I'm sorry, but they seem to have an agenda up the wazoo (if one can have that there).  

As I've said in other places, I'm a Christian (Orthodox) and a scientist.  I have no problem combining the two.  As a scientist, I recognize that the theory of evolution, and the process of natural selection, are two well-worked concepts that have evidence for them.  Creationism is not a science.  Does that mean that I see no evidence for GOD in the creation?  Not at all.  But creationism is not the way.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 4, 2004)

Feisty Mouse:

Aren't creationism and orthodox christianity kind of a package deal?  If not, I'm interested in hearing how they aren't, if you don't mind me asking.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 4, 2004)

Creationism is an attempt to package beliefs about the creation of the earth, and mankind, in the scientific work of today, while denying a large, well-worked amount of evidence to the contrary of certain things - for example, the age of the Earth, which most Creationist accounts I have seen and read list as far younger than the Earth actually is. 

Is it a more simple hypothesis that GOD hid fossils to test our faith for some reason, or that the earth is pretty dang old by human standards? Huzzah for Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor - simplest explanation, it's the latter. 

So what do I do with this? Well, first of all, although the Bible is indeed a holy book, in general (in general!) the Orthodox, and I think Catholics (someone jump in here if they'd like) do not tend to take a single line or verse of the Bible and make it the most important part. Some things are repeated over and over - those are big messages, obviously. But I have no problem with reading Genesis, and seeing a *beautiful* metaphor for the creation of the Earth, the "rise of Man", and the development of our self-consciousness and complex language, and thus more complex knowledge of ourselves, and of the world. It's not that I think it's not true, I think it's not literal - that the Earth was created in a week (as we know weeks). 

Understanding how the Earth and the species on it (including Mankind) was created is a great mystery, and I think we were given reason (imperfect as it is) to use wisely from our Creator. When I read about evolution, the creation of the Earth, I see the hand of GOD in it. 

The age of the Earth aside, there are two things I think creationists get their collective underwear in a twist about: a) man came from "lower" animals, which means we're somehow low or stupid or not as cool as we think we are, and b) they think that by putting forth evolutionary claims, you are at the same time saying, there is no Creator.

a) OK, another bias as a scientist. I think all species are really amazing miracles. This may sound trite or sappy, but they are to me. (Another reason, aside from the scientific, why I feel the great extinction period we are triggering is a crime and a sin.) Because we were created from a different ancestor - so what? We are still these AMAZING animals! Look at us, communicating in a complex symbolic language, from all over the Earth! (as an example)

b) Darwin was a pious man, and very troubled over publishing Origin of the Species for this reason: his theory, unlike all the creation theories before it, did not *rely* upon a Creator. GOD was not the main explanatory principle in how species came about - understandable mechanisms exist. 

I believe that his theory and ideas are *testable* because of this - we can empiricially attempt to test these mechanisms. This does not mean I think his theory is a "proof" _against_ a Creator. I think we are trying to understand how the world works, but that does not mean that a Creator did not make the world, and these properties or mechanisms.

It is amazing how much we have discovered in the last few hundred years, in the sciences. It is even more amazing how complicated things can be, and how much we do not know. I find it inspiring and humbling.


Now, my beliefs and ideas are not popular - either with creationists (who I see trying to kidnap the mantle of authority Science has taken on in society in the last century in particular), or with many (not all) scientists I've met (it's not chic or cool to seem to need to "depend upon" religion - scientists are often encouraged to live solely for their science). It's funny, really - people on either end are devoted to one system of thinking or another. But it makes me sad, too. 

People can chose to be devout in whatever religion they practice, agnostic (most popular for scientists, I think, really), or atheist. Evolution is simply another reason for people to go one way or the other. 

This was too long, and I'm too tired and loopy to be very coherent.

I almost never talk about this. This is an extremely personal issue.

Edited to add:  I'm sorry, I didn't address the precise question about Orthodoxy and creationism.  1) Orthodoxy is a religious tradition and faith, while creationism is religion attempting to mimic or disguise itself as science.  2) The above stuff is not dogma, obviously, but my own beliefs.  However I have heard preists talk about our several-billion-year-old Earth with joy and wonder and love.  3) There is personal variation.  I think a lot of the variation is generational.  4) I can't answer for all Christian denominations, aside from not answering for Orthodoxy.  I mentioned the piece-of-the-Bible idea because, in my experience, I've had Protestants (of various sects) do the "Well, what about this line here?!?  Are you saying you don't believe in God?!?!?" a lot more than I've seen Orthodox or Catholics do - although i'm sure some do.


----------



## Kane (Sep 5, 2004)

Atheists, why do you not believe in God? Say a few of the main reasons. I'm just a little curious.


----------



## Darksoul (Sep 5, 2004)

-Hello Kane. Atheists don't believe in God for many reasons, mainly I think because they found it wasn't right for them. IMHO if you're comfortable with something, you're not likely to change it. If you're not comfortable, you change or live with it. I'm a former Methodist; I woke up one day and realized that my spiritual path had changed directions. If its meant to be, I will return to the Christian God I was raised by. But only if its the right thing to do. I also believe that many Atheists had some bad experiences with their former religions, though I cannnot speak for anybody but me. Others may possibly feel that group they were in just wasn't right, like the way they worshipped God or practice their religion wasn't in sync with them. I also sure there are some who cannot stand the intolerance practiced by some groups out there. A person should be able to decide who they want to believe in, and how. And maybe take a look at the role religion takes as being part of life. Do we do whatever to lead a good life? Or maybe make to the after life? It may simply depend on the person.

A---)


----------



## SenseiBear (Sep 5, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Feisty Mouse:
> 
> Aren't creationism and orthodox christianity kind of a package deal?  If not, I'm interested in hearing how they aren't, if you don't mind me asking.



Creationism tends to be strongest among Fundamentalists.  Orthodox and Catholics tend to be more educated about their beliefs (it is my impression, not being part of any of the above groups)

Kane - you don't really sound agnostic to me - the claims of some fundamentalists is certainly not "proof"

As an agnostic, I don't believe in god.  I don't, like an Atheist, believe there IS NO GOD - that seems as silly to me as many Fundamentalist beliefs...  how do they know?

Sure, there could be a god.  What we don't know about life and the universe dwarfs the things we know.  I admit a god is possible - I just have no way of knowing which, if any, of the thousands of gods man has come up with is the real one.  I don't think there is any way I can know, so I don't concern myself overly about it.  I try to live life as if it the only chance I will ever have to learn, grow, try, succeed, fail, love, etc... (though I admit some gods seem sillier and less likely to me than others, but that is a personal bias)

Man may one day learn enough that we can either truly know there is a god, or know there is not one...  Or we may never solve the essential mysteries of life.  I'm ok with that...

Personally, I would LIKE there to be more than the few decades of existence we appear to have - but I will neither count on it nor worry about it.

SB


----------



## Kane (Sep 5, 2004)

SenseiBear said:
			
		

> Creationism tends to be strongest among Fundamentalists. Orthodox and Catholics tend to be more educated about their beliefs (it is my impression, not being part of any of the above groups)
> 
> Kane - you don't really sound agnostic to me - the claims of some fundamentalists is certainly not "proof"
> 
> ...


Actually there is a difference between me and other agnostics. For one, I am very un-bias toward both sides. It seems many other agnostics are actually more atheists. They really deep down believe there is no God. Me, I am very 50/50 in this. Many that claim to be agnostic act much more atheists.



Why would you be okay with NOT knowing the truth? Aren't you afraid if that you will go to hell if you did go down the wrong path? Many people, even Christians can't seem to comprehend what hell exactly is.



Actually that site I gave didn't seem too much of fundamentalist claims. In the site it seems to me that they were trying to mix science and creationism together, which surprisingly it worked quite well. Some of the philosophy though is a little strange to me still.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 5, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but they seem to have an agenda up the wazoo (if one can have that there).
> 
> As I've said in other places, I'm a Christian (Orthodox) and a scientist.  I have no problem combining the two.  As a scientist, I recognize that the theory of evolution, and the process of natural selection, are two well-worked concepts that have evidence for them.  Creationism is not a science.  Does that mean that I see no evidence for GOD in the creation?  Not at all.  But creationism is not the way.



I think the agenda of the creationists fits quite nicely with the current Right Wing ideology.  If evolution is wrong and _MAN _ (note the emphasis) really is above nature instead of part of it, we need not feel bad about disregarding the parts of Nature that are hinderances to our desires.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 5, 2004)

Good point.  That fits in well with, say, Watt's view during the Reagan administration that the end of times is coming soon, so why really worry about preserving the environment for future generations?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 5, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Good point. That fits in well with, say, Watt's view during the Reagan administration that the end of times is coming soon, so why really worry about preserving the environment for future generations?


There is some evidence that this too was Reagan's point of view toward the end of the universe, which is why his actions toward Russia and the Soviet Union were so over the top. 

Hell, who needs to worry about deficits if the Second Coming is 'imminent'.

(wow ... that sentence seems spooky today - deja vu all over again).


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 5, 2004)

Kane,

Here is one of the best sites around for answering your questions concerning athiesm.  Note at the top the "common arguments" page.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

As for Creationism...probably a more accurate term than "Creation Science", which is an oxymoron...American Atheist's site addresses it somewhat. 

http://www.atheists.org/



Regards,



Steve


----------



## SenseiBear (Sep 6, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Actually there is a difference between me and other agnostics. For one, I am very un-bias toward both sides. It seems many other agnostics are actually more atheists. They really deep down believe there is no God. Me, I am very 50/50 in this. Many that claim to be agnostic act much more atheists.



From Dictionary.com:
ag·nos·tic  n. 
1.  a.  One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 
     b.  One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism

atheist \A"the*ist\, n. 
[Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.] 
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

I consider myself an agnostic rather than atheist because to deny the existence of God is as baseless as to claim to know for sure the One True God.  However, I do not believe that at present we CAN "know" if there is a God.  I have a hard time even comprehending what COULD constitute proof.

However, I am skeptical about the existence of a God as commonly conceived.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Why would you be okay with NOT knowing the truth? Aren't you afraid if that you will go to hell if you did go down the wrong path? Many people, even Christians can't seem to comprehend what hell exactly is.



because I don't really believe we CAN know, as I stated.  Even assuming there is a God, (for this discussion, a separate, intellegent being who created the universe intentionally and for a purpose) why would you ever assume that WE are the central purpose???  That seems like egocentrism in the extreme.  The universe is huge, we inhabit only a tiny, out of the way corner of it.  It is far more likely that we are just a side effect of the real purpose, which, like the God that created it, is completely unfathomable to us.  (When you make chocolate milk, the added sugar and the act of stirring create bubbles on the top that persist longer than in most liquids.  Making bubbles was not your purpose, you made chocolate milk, the bubbles are just a side effect...  Maybe life, and humanity, is something like that)

And while you claim to truly be in the center (not really the definition of agnostic), you sure seem to have picked WHICH God to not be sure of.  Many of the Gods people have believed in had no "hell"...  On what basis did you pick JHVH and Christ as the only candidates for "real" god?  why the Judeo-Christian model over others?  Zeus, Kronos, Shiva, Kali, Amun-Ra why not any of them?  Or any of the several thousand other gods humanity has at times worshipped?



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Actually that site I gave didn't seem too much of fundamentalist claims. In the site it seems to me that they were trying to mix science and creationism together, which surprisingly it worked quite well. Some of the philosophy though is a little strange to me still.



You are right, it is not just rabid Fundamentalist ranting, but rather an attempt to define "Creation Science", but is somewhat disingenuous just the same.  For example, in its slideshow on the rise of modern man that you referenced, it give an outdated lineage of the rise of man, showing "African Man", "Asian Man", and "European Man" all arising out of "Neanderthal Man".  It even says that scientists no longer believe this model, but it does not present the commonly accepted model, rather it spends the next several dozen slides using biblical evidence to "disprove" a model that NO ONE currently accepts...

I guess, the reason I am OK with NOT knowing is because I believe I CANNOT know...  and god has granted me the wisdom to accept the things I cannot change...  (a little tongue in cheek, but I couldn't resist)

SB


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 6, 2004)

I looked at the site again, and on one hand I'm impressed with how much work was put in - and how the hosts of the site have actually read up on some psychological and neurological work.

Some aspects of their commentary seem pretty Evangelical or Fundamentalist.  It's not always hit-you-over-the-head, but they certainally aren't speaking from traditions I know.


----------



## Kane (Sep 6, 2004)

SenseiBear said:
			
		

> because I don't really believe we CAN know, as I stated. Even assuming there is a God, (for this discussion, a separate, intellegent being who created the universe intentionally and for a purpose) why would you ever assume that WE are the central purpose??? That seems like egocentrism in the extreme. The universe is huge, we inhabit only a tiny, out of the way corner of it. It is far more likely that we are just a side effect of the real purpose, which, like the God that created it, is completely unfathomable to us. (When you make chocolate milk, the added sugar and the act of stirring create bubbles on the top that persist longer than in most liquids. Making bubbles was not your purpose, you made chocolate milk, the bubbles are just a side effect... Maybe life, and humanity, is something like that)
> 
> And while you claim to truly be in the center (not really the definition of agnostic), you sure seem to have picked WHICH God to not be sure of. Many of the Gods people have believed in had no "hell"... On what basis did you pick JHVH and Christ as the only candidates for "real" god? why the Judeo-Christian model over others? Zeus, Kronos, Shiva, Kali, Amun-Ra why not any of them? Or any of the several thousand other gods humanity has at times worshipped?
> 
> SB


If I was fully Christian I would never believe our planet was the center of the universe. Where does it sat in the Bible there is no other life than us? Many people even Christians do not believe we are the only ones in the universe.



The other gods you mentioned that we should worship (Zeus, Kronos, Shiva, Kali, Amun-Ra) has profound poof that they were actually made up by the leaders of those places. Some archeologists have even found texts supporting this. Even practices of Buddhism and Hinduism only really call their religion a way of life more than a religion. Where as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam have no proof supporting it was made up. The only thing one can do is be skeptical about the super-natural "miracles" of the texts.


----------



## auxprix (Sep 6, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Atheists, why do you not believe in God? Say a few of the main reasons. I'm just a little curious.


I for one do not believe in a higher power because A: I don't see one in daily life, and B: I would assume that a perfect being would be more logical.

For example, why would an all-powerful being who is perfect in every way care that I worship Him/Her? To me, a perfect being would be beyond stroking their ego with worship. Also, why would he/she punish all those people who didn't worship Him/Her just for being ablivious to His/Her existance?

Also, the bible is not consistant. There are major differences in the ways Christians and Jews interpret the old testiment. Somebody once said that Hell was a pagan concept that christianity picked up. That's one example. Here's another that may come as a surprise to people: The concept of angels is directly borrowed from Zorro-Astrianism. They can actually tie the names and personalities of angels into the Zorro tradition, and believe it was just a way to rope them into Judeo-Christian tradition.

There was a time when I was Christian, and I would just make excuses and try to rationalize all of these subjects. Then, eventually, I grew tired of making excuses and just decided that I was better off accepting that Christianity was invalid. That's how I had felt deep down inside for a long time, but had repressed because of my fear of being godless.

One more thing...I believe that there is more in the world than Science; that there are forces of nature that we do not quite know about or understand. I don't know if that makes me an Agnostic or Athiest. I've never been one for such definitions.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 6, 2004)

Axly, I try to make my decisions based upon what my intellect tells me, and upon what my moral sense (constructed, through difficulties, over many years) tells me, rather than upon the notion that eventually I will get a cookie  for decent behavior.

I'm sure that often, I fail. But it seems to me that any Big Kahuna worth belief would prefer the attempt at decent thought and action to thought and action based on fear.

No doubt, hellfire awaits. But if that is true, I will at least know that your God is a jerk.


----------



## bignick (Sep 6, 2004)

i believe some of the problems stem from the bible and other religious works...

i'll stick with the bible because that's what i'm most familiar with...

According to most Christian's thought, the Bible is the word of God.  It's the teachings we are supposed to live are our lives by.  In this sense, if it is the word of God, and God was instrumental in its making it must be rock solid.  A historical text...this is not the current view, however, with most people chosing to believe a lot of its information are actually metaphors and analogies...but if we can't take the Bible at face value...and it's left open to interpretation...than there is the very real and likely possibiliy that it will be interpreted wrong and God's original intent won't be followed correctly or at all...

So this leaves us with two very tough choices...

1) take the Bible and it's information at face value (which seems ridiculous in this day and age)

2) try to interpret the Bible and run the risk of getting it wrong...

Personally, I agree with the thought that if we are creations of God that..

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." 
- Galileo Galilei


----------



## SenseiBear (Sep 10, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> The other gods you mentioned that we should worship (Zeus, Kronos, Shiva, Kali, Amun-Ra) has profound poof that they were actually made up by the leaders of those places. Some archeologists have even found texts supporting this. Even practices of Buddhism and Hinduism only really call their religion a way of life more than a religion. Where as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam have no proof supporting it was made up. The only thing one can do is be skeptical about the super-natural "miracles" of the texts.




Whooo boy, getting a little silly.  I never said you SHOULD worship those others, just giving an example of how many other gods were out there...  And all of those gods are far older than christ.  their beginnings have been lost in pre-historic times.  Please give me a reference for ANY "proof" that they were "made up"  (and even if 1 guy just showed up with a story, how does that differ from moses meeting the god of abraham?)

If you research other religions (particularly older ones) you will find that they have parallels to all christian traditions.  All religions borrow from one another, they evolve like all other things.

But hey, I was just answering your questions - believe in whatever god you want.  I have now spent hours on the sites you referenced, and I see no proof.

SB


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 10, 2004)

Let's hear it for Sir James Frazier, "The Golden Bough," and syncretic religions...


----------



## Kane (Sep 11, 2004)

SenseiBear said:
			
		

> Whooo boy, getting a little silly. I never said you SHOULD worship those others, just giving an example of how many other gods were out there... And all of those gods are far older than christ. their beginnings have been lost in pre-historic times. Please give me a reference for ANY "proof" that they were "made up" (and even if 1 guy just showed up with a story, how does that differ from moses meeting the god of abraham?)
> 
> If you research other religions (particularly older ones) you will find that they have parallels to all christian traditions. All religions borrow from one another, they evolve like all other things.
> 
> ...


Gods older than christ? The God of Christianity is the same God as the Jewish God. I was there since man started to wonder about religions. What religion is older than their God?


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 11, 2004)

According to Orthodox Judaism. Chirstianity and Jesus are about as welcome as a slice of ham at the dinner table.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 11, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Gods older than christ? The God of Christianity is the same God as the Jewish God. I was there since man started to wonder about religions. What religion is older than their God?




Christianity was founded in the first century.  Judaism's texts date back to the ninth century at the earliest.  Ancient Greek religions and early Judaism are parallel religions.  Richard Elliott Friedman's _Who Wrote The Bible?_ is an excellent book discussing the early texts of the Torah (Old Testament to you, Kane).  It is reader-friendly and provocative.

As to who is older, Jehovah or Zeus...both stopped celebrating their birthday's sometime back.  Jehovah, some say, has had several face lifts and a tummy tuck.  Zeus went through a terrible mid-life crisis some time back and ended up having several affairs with mortals.  He's retired now, and was recently seen driving a convertable with a trophy blonde at his side...and gossip magazines state it was NOT Hera.  Io, perhaps?  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## TonyM. (Sep 11, 2004)

Interesting thread. Reminds me of the episode of cheers where Woody and Kelly are argueing about their Babtist roots and Woody says they will have talk over the barbed wire fence in Heaven because they come from different branches of the Church.
I think people should not take dictionary definitions as Gospel. Language is not the same today.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 11, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Zeus went through a terrible mid-life crisis some time back and ended up having several affairs with mortals. He's retired now, and was recently seen driving a convertable with a trophy blonde at his side...and gossip magazines state it was NOT Hera. Io, perhaps?


 I thought I saw a white bull in a Ferrari the other day.

 Jehovah's too busy to get out these days; he spends most of his time deciding which side to help in football and basketball games.


----------



## bignick (Sep 11, 2004)

not too mention giving all those people their million dollars....


----------



## SenseiBear (Sep 12, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Gods older than christ? The God of Christianity is the same God as the Jewish God. I was there since man started to wonder about religions. What religion is older than their God?



yup - long before abraham started wandering around muttering about the ONE god, there were all ready LOTS of Gods already worshiped by all sorts of people, all over the world.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 12, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I thought I saw a white bull in a Ferrari the other day.
> 
> Jehovah's too busy to get out these days; he spends most of his time deciding which side to help in football and basketball games.



I saw him tricked out as a swan the other day and driving around with that really hot chick Leda.  You heard what he did with Semele, right?  Dude gave meaning to the term "golden shower".


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Sep 13, 2004)

I'm straddling the fence here. I do have a few of problems with religion in the Western sense. Maybe someone can clarify:

First problem: Circumcision, Why the male organ? Sounds unatural.

Second Problem: Communion, Why eat the flesh and drink the blood of your God? Even ritualistically? Sounds like cannibalism.

Third problem: Why do all beliefs in all ages try to make a man a god?

:idunno:


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 13, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> I'm straddling the fence here. I do have a few of problems with religion in the Western sense. Maybe someone can clarify:
> 
> First problem: Circumcision, Why the male organ? Sounds unatural.
> 
> ...



The first one is easy, because G-d commands us to.

The other 2 are strictly Xtian concepts.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 13, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Christianity was founded in the first century.  Judaism's texts date back to the ninth century at the earliest.



And of the claims that Xtianity is based on Judaism, how can a religion be bsed on texts that will not appear for another 800 years?


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Sep 13, 2004)

CannuckMA:  But why?:idunno:


----------



## pete (Sep 13, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> First problem: Circumcision, Why the male organ? Sounds unatural.
> 
> Second Problem: Communion, Why eat the flesh and drink the blood of your God? Even ritualistically? Sounds like cannibalism.
> 
> Third problem: Why do all beliefs in all ages try to make a man a god?



well, god created man in his own image, and man being a gentleman returned the compliment. 

then to have people follow rules, its easier to say do it because god commanded it... kinda like an older sibling telling the younger their father said to do it and boy will he be angry if you don't.

some rules were made for law and order, some for health and hygiene, others maybe just to see how far they could go take it.  

whether or not they are divinely inspired, all religions are tainted by basic human flaws... power, greed, desire...

pete


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Sep 13, 2004)

Thanks for replying Pete!  Very witty! But it stills does not clarify my questions specifically.:idunno:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 13, 2004)

Hi Ronald




> First problem: Circumcision, Why the male organ? Sounds unatural.
> 
> Second Problem: Communion, Why eat the flesh and drink the blood of your God? Even ritualistically? Sounds like cannibalism.
> 
> Third problem: Why do all beliefs in all ages try to make a man a god?


OK, my answers are pretty casual (I don't have any text in front of me).

#1 - It was commanded by GOD, to be part of the testament between him and his chosen people.  There's a big discussion of this in the New Testament (after Jesus was crucified) as to whether people who now identified themselves as Christians had to be circumcised or not, since it was part of the law.

#2 - Again, he told us to, in memory of him.  It's a symbol of his sacrifice.  Some Christian faiths see it as symbolic, others (Catholic and Orthodox) as the bread and wine actually turning into Christ's flesh and blood.

#3 - Possibly because the idea of GOD is so huge, that we try to understand GOD in our own terms.  Possibly arrogant or limited, but we interpret what we experience as best we can.

My thoughts. 

:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 13, 2004)

1. It's a sacrifice to God and a sign of connection to the divine, which ties back to Abraham and Isaac: as we get more civilized, the sacrifices get progressively less bloody and more symbolic.

2. It's a return to the last Supper; nearly all Christians celebrate some for of Communion, and they simply disagree about what that form should be, what its meaning is, and what other sects are doing wrong.

3. Personally, I think Freud's "Future of an Illusion," has it pretty much nailed.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 13, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. It's a sacrifice to God and a sign of connection to the divine, which ties back to Abraham and Isaac: as we get more civilized, the sacrifices get progressively less bloody and more symbolic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Sep 13, 2004)

No one seems to approach it from my view. Oh well, I shall remain skeptical for now. Thanks everyone!:idunno:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 13, 2004)

Ronald - what's your view?  (Just curious, you don't have to answer if you'd rather not.)


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Sep 13, 2004)

I'm just not sure! I have a problem with the circumcision thing because it seems to close to the phallus worship I read about. Why couldn't there have been another part of the body. As far as the communion thing, it's just too much like cannibalism. They've been doing that sort of thing all over the world for thousands of years. It always seems that man becomes the god. What if the Creator is just that? Creator!:idunno:


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 13, 2004)

Circumsision happens to remove the only non-essential, outside-the-body piece. Appendectomy would have been nice, but a tad difficult to perform 4,000 years ago.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Sep 13, 2004)

Think of it this way. American Indians have a Sun dance where they sacrifice parts of their flesh while dancing around a pole. The Babylonian Priests of Baal did the same. Then they ate the flesh and drank the blood. Gads!! Isn't there just too much a coincidence here. The Druids sacrificed a Red Headed boy once a year just to please Herne the Hunter. Then drank his blood! Today, you can watch TV and see people tearing their flesh to pieces in the name of their Deity. This stuff seems to me to be crazy! What is going on? There has to be some explaination here. I'd like to believe but what about this stuff!:idunno:


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 13, 2004)

There is always a middle way.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 13, 2004)

As with the other thread, I'm just gonna address the points that piqued my interest:

*1. "Permissive gods, who are caught up in their own intrigues, and so allow humans to do whatever they want without repercussions, are found in the pagan religions." *

Completely ludicrous. Not even in supposed "permissive" religions like the Dionysian ecstasies was this the case. Let's not even bring up wantonly ascetic religions like Mithraism, Theravada Buddhism, or Zoroasterianism.

*2. "Hell was orginally a pagan concept that incorperated itself into Organized Religions to gain a hold over the Populace."*

Actually, Hades is specifically a Greek concept. There are many different "hells" in different religions, of course, but the one the New Testament references is the Greek archetype.

*3. What does Judaism have in the way of punishment?*

As I understand it, the reward vs punishment schema in Judaism generally centers around the Resurrection of the Dead at the End of Days. Supposedly, those that followed God's laws will resurrect while those that did not stay dead. This entire concept, of course, was borrowed from the Babylonian religious complex (most likely during the Babylonian Captivity).

Of course, I could be mistaken.

*4. Aren't creationism and orthodox christianity kind of a package deal?*

Nope. Many, many Christians --- even among the Protestant ranks --- openly regard the Bible as teaching metaphorically or allegorically. Of course, very few have any working system or methodology on _how_ to interpret these texts allegorically, or why certain ideas are literal and certain ideas are not.

It would probably help if a few were more knowledgeable about the Jewish midrash and the Muslim tawil.

*5. On what basis did you pick JHVH and Christ as the only candidates for "real" god? why the Judeo-Christian model over others? Zeus, Kronos, Shiva, Kali, Amun-Ra why not any of them? Or any of the several thousand other gods humanity has at times worshipped?*

Same reason many people today "assume" there was an actual historical Jesus without any reliable sources or references to back up the claim: cultural bias.

*6. The other gods you mentioned that we should worship (Zeus, Kronos, Shiva, Kali, Amun-Ra) has profound poof that they were actually made up by the leaders of those places. Some archeologists have even found texts supporting this. Even practices of Buddhism and Hinduism only really call their religion a way of life more than a religion. Where as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam have no proof supporting it was made up.*

This, I'm afraid, is a false claim. There have been extensive works written on how the original Christians may have (and probably did) "borrow" from pre-existing religions in the Mediterranean. I would reference Frazer's "The Golden Bough", Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries: was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?", Robinson's "Pagan Christs", Campbell's many works on mythology (especially his "Occidental Mythology"), G.A. Wells' work on the subject, Earl Doherty's recent "The Jesus Puzzle", and so on.

Hell, even Martin Luther King Jr. wrote an essay on how religions such as Mithraism influenced early Christianity.

Many of these same critiques are also subject to Judaism, especially in regards to Zoroasterianism and the Babylonian religious complex (such as the wanton borrowing of astrological concepts to create the mythical '12 tribes').

Islam has openly borrowed from other religions (most notably Ebionite strands of Gnostic Christianity), and has no qualms about this.

*7. The concept of angels is directly borrowed from Zorro-Astrianism. They can actually tie the names and personalities of angels into the Zorro tradition, and believe it was just a way to rope them into Judeo-Christian tradition.*

I agree with what has said, but I just have to say..... "Zorro-Astrianism"?? The guy's name was Zoroaster. Just nitpickin'.

*8. Gods older than christ? The God of Christianity is the same God as the Jewish God. I was there since man started to wonder about religions. What religion is older than their God?*

A few things here. The Christian god is not the same as the Jewish god. The Christian god is more akin to Plato's conception of a "one god".

Also, there are older gods than the Jewish one. Elohim, probably the oldest name for the Jewish god, is derived from the earlier form Elat --- the name for Canaanite goddess. All the Semitic names for the divine --- Elohim, Elat, Alaha, and Allah --- point to a similar meaning however. The first part "EL" meaning "the", and the second part "LA" meaning "no". 

Suddenly, I am reminded of the Buddhist doctrine of shunyata for some reason. Hrmmm....

*9. First problem: Circumcision, Why the male organ? Sounds unatural.

Second Problem: Communion, Why eat the flesh and drink the blood of your God? Even ritualistically? Sounds like cannibalism.

Third problem: Why do all beliefs in all ages try to make a man a god?*

The first two: they're symbolic. The second one is specifically originated in the Osirian rites. Agreeing with Robert, I'm gonna give the third one to Freud.

Laterz all.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 13, 2004)

Okay where do I start lol. OY!! First the act of cutting off the foreskin was a physcial reminder to Abraham and to show that HE and Abraham had a convenat. There is no requirement to have your foreskin cut off until you are Bar Mitzvahed at the age of 13 or at anytime you convert over to Judaism past the age of 13. Therefore becoming "ben Avraham"  a son of Abraham. 

The other point is this HaShem set apart a paticular group of people. HE made it perfectly clear that these people were not to be like the other people around the area. HE set up laws covering every aspect of life. To set them apart to show that HE was the only G-D in which to follow.  The idea of Punishment is incorporated within the Laws of Moses aka Torah for every action taken there are reactions from your neighbor, sons, daughters, wifes, judges, priest, etc.... so the idea of having to wait for judgement at a later date is unheard of in Judaism.  You take your lumps now and deal with it maybe that is why we are always whining alot or complaining about all the ills around us lol! 

I could go on and on but hey I am not a Rabbi just someone that follows a passionate way of life.  _Shalom Elidad   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_


----------



## auxprix (Sep 13, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> *7. The concept of angels is directly borrowed from Zorro-Astrianism. They can actually tie the names and personalities of angels into the Zorro tradition, and believe it was just a way to rope them into Judeo-Christian tradition.*
> 
> I agree with what has said, but I just have to say..... "Zorro-Astrianism"?? The guy's name was Zoroaster. Just nitpickin'.


Yeah, I wasn't sure about the spelling. I just guessed and hoped that nobody would catch it. Chalk it down to my laziness for not looking it up.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 13, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Okay where do I start lol. OY!! First the act of cutting off the foreskin was a physcial reminder to Abraham and to show that HE and Abraham had a convenat. There is no requirement to have your foreskin cut off until you are Bar Mitzvahed at the age of 13 or at anytime you convert over to Judaism past the age of 13. Therefore becoming "ben Avraham"  a son of Abraham.



Actually there is. My Torah is not within reach, but in Genesis, it explicitely says 'on the eight day'. Besides, I've seen the recovery period and amount of pain and discomfort for my sons and for adult converts. Trust me, 8 days old is WWWAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY better


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 14, 2004)

Your Correct and I stand corrected. The requirement for the cutting of the foreskin is a commandment given to Abraham and his descendents to cut the skin upon all male children at eight days old. I can only speak of my experience and I was done at 14 of course I was not aware of being Jewish or aware of my background at the time. SIDENOTE -- It is a very interesting  story remind me to share with ya all later about this. 

So I will get the ole pin prick to draw the drop of blood once my conversion is complete.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 14, 2004)

Yes there is a commandment to Abraham and his descendent to cut the foreskin upon the eight day.  I stand corrected but since I was kinda correct I will elaborate --- I was speaking from being an adult convert and from the lessons I was trying to recall from memory. So what can I say it is a crazy thread and it is nearly impossible to address each issue. Where is a good Rabbi when ya need one? 

In the synagouge office the Rabbi is reading a commentary on Proverbs.  The phone rings and the office assistant is out to lunch. The Rabbi peers over the ridge of his glasses and frowns at the phone. He shrugs his shoulders and thinks I wonder who would be calling at this time of the day?  He picks up the receiver and takes a deep breath and mutters a quick prayer for wisdom. "Hello this is the Rabbi how may I assist you?" "Rabbi" "Yes!" "I was wondering how should I respond to the questions on the forum?" The Rabbi looks at his screen and reaches over and turns the power off. "I suggest less time on the computer and more time in study and prayer my friend" "Thank you Rabbi" 

Just something to think about  Shalom to ya all.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2004)

A few more things:

*1. "The idea of Punishment is incorporated within the Laws of Moses aka Torah for every action taken there are reactions from your neighbor, sons, daughters, wifes, judges, priest, etc.... so the idea of having to wait for judgement at a later date is unheard of in Judaism."*

I see. 

So, are you saying that the Torah does not teach a doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead?? I seem to recall such passages, but don't recall the specifics.

Also, if Judaism does indeed not teach such a concept, what are the Judaic teachings concerning an afterlife (if any)??

Thanks.

*2. "Yeah, I wasn't sure about the spelling. I just guessed and hoped that nobody would catch it. Chalk it down to my laziness for not looking it up."*

Mwah, no worries. 

Laterz all.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Sep 14, 2004)

You guys seem to really know your stuff! OK, I looked this up. Abram came from Ur of the Chaldees. They were known phallus wordshippers. Could anyone elaborate on this connection? This might straighten up my skepticism.:idunno:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2004)

Well, first off, it might help if you actually cite your sources when claiming that you "looked this up".

I believe the group of people you are referring to are the Chaldeans, who are closely associated with early forms of Babylonian astrology. The comment of "phallus worshipping" is probably a bit off, and my guess is that the source in question isn't too keen on the nature of totemism and/or fetishism.

Just my thoughts. Laterz.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Sep 14, 2004)

I looked in my bible about the phrase "Ur of the Chaldees".  I'm not at home right now so I can't tell you the exact book I found it in.  I think it was Genisis. Your right, I should state the sources.  I have them at home.  Will do that tonight.  I'm not so sure about this.  That is why I asked!  Thanks!


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 14, 2004)

heretic - what do you mean by



> Let's not even bring up wantonly ascetic religions like Mithraism, Theravada Buddhism, or Zoroasterianism.


wantonly ascetic?

Thanks, FM


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2004)

Feisty Mouse,

The religions I mentioned are extremely ascetic in nature --- which means, that there is a large emphasis on self-denial and self-discipline, sort of the antithesis of hedonism.

Thus, the claim that "pagan religions" as a whole are "permissive" is simply laughable and untrue. In fact, most of the ethical theology emphasized in Christianity (especially from the Pauline texts) stems from Platonism and Mithraism. The notion of "giving up friends, family, and possession for the Way" is certainly not a Jewish belief --- but would be very akin to Cynicism, Stoicism, Pythagoreanism, and Platonism. That goes for the vows of celibacy, as well, and the archetype of the wandering preacher.

Laterz.


----------



## Mathusula2 (Sep 14, 2004)

Yeah, I'm very late replying here.. sorry



> So what do I do with this? Well, first of all, although the Bible is indeed a holy book, in general (in general!) the Orthodox, and I think Catholics (someone jump in here if they'd like) do not tend to take a single line or verse of the Bible and make it the most important part. Some things are repeated over and over - those are big messages, obviously. But I have no problem with reading Genesis, and seeing a beautiful metaphor for the creation of the Earth, the "rise of Man", and the development of our self-consciousness and complex language, and thus more complex knowledge of ourselves, and of the world. It's not that I think it's not true, I think it's not literal - that the Earth was created in a week (as we know weeks).



Feisty, as a Catholic I can agree with you entirely on this matter.  Back in the 80s Pope John Paul II even stated the evidence for evolution is irrefutable; it doesn't mean there wasn't a great deal of symbolism involved in the creation story.  When they talk about a 7 day creation, one has to ask, "what was your definition of a day?"  If the Earth was not yet created, then the concept of limiting a day to 24 hours is premature.  To look at the story itself, it is beautiful and it does in a very simplistic way follow a similar order to the evolution of the Earth.



> OK, another bias as a scientist. I think all species are really amazing miracles. This may sound trite or sappy, but they are to me. (Another reason, aside from the scientific, why I feel the great extinction period we are triggering is a crime and a sin.) Because we were created from a different ancestor - so what? We are still these AMAZING animals! Look at us, communicating in a complex symbolic language, from all over the Earth! (as an example)



I've been in school going on my 6th year to study to be a pharmacist; I've taken way more science classes than I care to discuss.  I must say, I remember sitting through physiology, listening to the professor speak of ion transporters, homeostasis, and the brilliance of our makeup and couldn't help but think to myself, "this is so tremendously complex, I can't figure out how athiests honestly believe all this was to happen by some sort of _accident_.



> I mentioned the piece-of-the-Bible idea because, in my experience, I've had Protestants (of various sects) do the "Well, what about this line here?!? Are you saying you don't believe in God?!?!?" a lot more than I've seen Orthodox or Catholics do - although i'm sure some do.



My experiences, exactly.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 14, 2004)

Just so's you know, evolutionary theory has never said that evolution was an accident. Otherwise, I agree.

Personally, I suspect that a lot of the problems some people have always had with evolution lies in the fact that evolutionary theory has always said that the human race--of which there is only one--originated in Africa. And you know what that means....the Aryan churchgoers are all related to...to...THEM; and the Nation of Islam types are all related to...to...to THEM.


----------



## Mathusula2 (Sep 14, 2004)

hmmm I wasn't even thinking about the racist issue... My "accident" would have refered to everything... the formation of the first amino acids in such a hostile environment, yet the only environment suitable for such a task... on through the evolution of individual cells, to the brilliance of how the millions (probably billions) of cells that make up us work in uncanny coordination...

I was saying that the development of life as we know it is way to complex to have happened as an accident... at least that's what I believe.  So therefore, that's my justification (proof as it were) to myself that there is a higher power who created us.  As for believing it happened in 1 week (as in 169 hours), well that's a bit far fetched.  But there are parallels b/t the creationist story and the scientific theory as to the creation of the earth.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2004)

Mathusula2 said:
			
		

> ... the formation of the first amino acids in such a hostile environment, yet the only environment suitable for such a task... on through the evolution of individual cells, to the brilliance of how the millions (probably billions) of cells that make up us work in uncanny coordination...
> 
> I was saying that the development of life as we know it is way to complex to have happened as an accident... at least that's what I believe. So therefore, that's my justification (proof as it were) to myself that there is a higher power who created us.


This, certainly, is perhaps the best argument for belief in a higher power, at least to my rational mind. To think that the universe was created in such a way as the aquatic insects live for months, or years, clinging to the underside of a rock in a fast moving stream, so at the very moment of their life cycle metamorphasis, they will rise up through the current, enticing the North American Char (Square Tail or Brook Trout) to feed; or if this caddis fly is able to complete its life cycle and drift atop the water while its wings dry, again offering a tasty morsel to the cold-blooded fish below; all for the very purpose of allowing me to present a peacock hurl wrapped hook, with elk fur tied atop in the shape of a wing to fool the fish into tasting my imitation. And when I net the fish, I release the animal back into the stream to be caught again. All of creation brought together for that one purpose.

Of course, this all looks at the universe through the constraints of the human mind, and the human time frame. When we expand the incredibly long odds of those protein combinations into amino acids against the life span of the Earth (4 to 6 Billion years) the odds don't seem that long. Of course, my brain has a difficult time concieving of 5 Billion years .. really how long is that.

Given enough time (and a typewriter), a monkey will type out the 'complete works of William Shakespeare'.

The Athiest.


----------



## qizmoduis (Sep 15, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Of course, this all looks at the universe through the constraints of the human mind, and the human time frame. When we expand the incredibly long odds of those protein combinations into amino acids against the life span of the Earth (4 to 6 Billion years) the odds don't seem that long. Of course, my brain has a difficult time concieving of 5 Billion years .. really how long is that.
> 
> Given enough time (and a typewriter), a monkey will type out the 'complete works of William Shakespeare'.
> 
> The Athiest.



I always liked the monkey quote, but a more appropriate version would be:

Given enough time, a billion monkeys typing on a billion typewriters will eventually type out the works of Shakespeare, given that monkeys whose results are less like Shakespeare are killed off and replaced with more Shakespeare-esque monkeys.

Or something like that.  

People often fail to grasp the idea that evolution and even abiogenesis is anything but random as a process.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 15, 2004)

> People often fail to grasp the idea that evolution and even abiogenesis is anything but random as a process.



I attribute it to the attempts of certain circles to "hijack" the scientific method in hopes of ratifying various philosophical worldviews. And, then, to pass off their philosophies as "scientific".

These are usually various forms of atheism, positivism, materialism, reductionism, and so forth... this is why you usually get the silliness that "scientific proof" has to be sensorimotor in nature to be valid. The criteria scientific proof has to satisfy to be valid is the scientific method itself.

Laterz.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 15, 2004)

> Personally, I suspect that a lot of the problems some people have always had with evolution lies in the fact that evolutionary theory has always said that the human race--of which there is only one--originated in Africa. And you know what that means....the Aryan churchgoers are all related to...to...THEM; and the Nation of Islam types are all related to...to...to THEM.


   I think that is there.  I think, also, that the mere fact that evolutionary theory (and the concept of natural selection) does not by necessity rely on the explanatory power of God as its mechanism for change, is worrying to people.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 15, 2004)

Now I am not sure but I have heard that the use of the Scientific Method can actually help one discover facts in regards to proving or disapproving the Prescence of a Higher Being aka God. So if we are to come to a conclusion of any fact(s) we have to start off in the same way. We would have to use a common way of researching materials. 

So if we are all serious about finding what the facts are we have to establish the rules of discovery and research.  

Just some FYI.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 15, 2004)

At least when I'm teaching my Intro to Scientific Research Methods class, I address the idea of the scientific method, and what it can and can't tell us.  It cannot address belief-based explanations, in part because the scientific method is limited to testing things empirically.  

I know others on the boards here feel differently, but in general, I think it's an odd thing to do.  Can we ask specific questions that are testable?  Sure.  But faith and belief encompass a wide range of possible events, and belief can usually accommodate.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 15, 2004)

The scientific method can be useful in showing how realistic faith-based explanations can or can't be.  But I do agree that, generally, science can say nothing about the subjective validity of faith-based beliefs.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 15, 2004)

I addressed this issue on another thread ("Proof of a Higher Power?"), and my basic answer remains the same. 

Yes, there are ways of testing the validity claims of certain wisdom traditions. But, the entire basis for it is that the tradition bases itself on an experiential practice of some sort (i.e., meditative or contemplative practice). Outside of that, there is no way to "test" for the Divine.

There are also empirical and hermeunetic means of testing the various religious claims. Empirically, one can observe the physiological and psychological changes of an individual as he/she goes through religious practice. Hermeunetically, one can check any cross-cultural commonalities between various religious claims. Both are very useful methods.

But, ultimately, to see if the Divine is there, you have to take up the practice. There is no other way.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 15, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> But, ultimately, to see if the Divine is there, you have to take up the practice. There is no other way.


Call me a cynic, but I have to ask, which practice? Because if it's a specific one, I think this sounds too much like an all-too-well known quote of "Nobody gets to the Father but through ME". 

Think about it in terms of certainty from an individual's perspective. My own, for the sake of argument: an agnostic who believes in scientific study. Now, I could decide to try out various religious practices (Christian prayer and fasting, Buddhist meditations, Yanomamo pot-smoking, you name it) to try and "see if the Divine is there". What happens if, with any one of these practices, the answer turns out to be no? Well, a follower's response would obviously be something such as "you haven't done it long enough" (meditation) or "your heart isn't truly with the Lord" (Christian prayer). As for the pot-smoking, they'd probably tell me I didn't put enough in, which I'd probably gladly try again at :lol:. 

On the flip-side, what if I do experience the Divine, as many born-agains claim to have done. Just as there's no way for me to know that my non-experience is or isn't a sign that the Divine is there, how can I know that the experience I have isn't a placebo affect (originating simply from my desire to find the Divine) or just a really kick-*** headtrip? 

The only answer I can think of is that I arbitrarily decide (i.e. on faith, not reason) which signs indicate the Divine (or lack thereof) or not. No matter which result emerges from such experiments, there's no standard to say whether the results are valid. 

Damn, I hope that made sense. Later.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 15, 2004)

> Call me a cynic, but I have to ask, which practice? Because if it's a specific one, I think this sounds too much like an all-too-well known quote of "Nobody gets to the Father but through ME".



It depends on your specific goals. Different meditative and contemplative practices have different purposes in mind. Some are meant to awaken savikalpa samadhi or disclose interior illuminations, some are meant to heighten one's physical awareness, and some are meant to merely contact the Witness or disclose nirvikalpa samadhi. There are different practices in different traditions (with each tradition having its fair diversity of methodologies).

So, no, there is no "one right one".



> Think about it in terms of certainty from an individual's perspective. My own, for the sake of argument: an agnostic who believes in scientific study. Now, I could decide to try out various religious practices (Christian prayer and fasting, Buddhist meditations, Yanomamo pot-smoking, you name it) to try and "see if the Divine is there". What happens if, with any one of these practices, the answer turns out to be no? Well, a follower's response would obviously be something such as "you haven't done it long enough" (meditation) or "your heart isn't truly with the Lord" (Christian prayer). As for the pot-smoking, they'd probably tell me I didn't put enough in, which I'd probably gladly try again at .



You clearly don't "believe in" the scientific method as much as you thought, then. You are forgetting the scientific principle of falsifiability --- namely, testing and comparing your results against those that have also completed the "experiment". It may indeed be quite possible that you're "doing it wrong". This also happens in laboraties, mathematic formulations, logical arguments, etcetera ad infinitum.

Remember, the first of the three major principles of good science is to adequately complete the injunction. If you're doing it wrong, then you'll come back with distorted data.

And, as a sidenote, the Yanomami do not smoke pot.



> On the flip-side, what if I do experience the Divine, as many born-agains claim to have done. Just as there's no way for me to know that my non-experience is or isn't a sign that the Divine is there, how can I know that the experience I have isn't a placebo affect (originating simply from my desire to find the Divine) or just a really kick-*** headtrip?



The same way you know whether the experience you are having now is such. The problem that a lot of these "meditation is just imbalanced brain chemistry" arguments rely on, is that their claims could equally apply to the "brain chemistry" of eating an apple, talking a walk, or watching a dog.

In any event, temporary experiences are not the same thing as permanent adaptations.



> The only answer I can think of is that I arbitrarily decide (i.e. on faith, not reason) which signs indicate the Divine (or lack thereof) or not. No matter which result emerges from such experiments, there's no standard to say whether the results are valid.



I refer you again to the principle of falsifiability. Your problem in this speculation (which, I'm sorry, is all it is) is that you are treating your lone observations/datum as if they satisfy the scientific method in and of themselves. That's certainly not how other scientists go about ratifying their proofs.

Hope this cleared things up. Laterz.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 15, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> It depends on your specific goals. Different meditative and contemplative practices have different purposes in mind. Some are meant to awaken savikalpa samadhi or disclose interior illuminations, some are meant to heighten one's physical awareness, and some are meant to merely contact the Witness or disclose nirvikalpa samadhi. There are different practices in different traditions (with each tradition having its fair diversity of methodologies).
> 
> So, no, there is no "one right one".


Well, specifically then, I was referring to the goal of "finding the Divine", as you put it. 





> You are forgetting the scientific principle of falsifiability --- namely, testing and comparing your results against those that have also completed the "experiment".


So, if there are enough others who've had the same experience of being born again, or of making themselves one with everything, then that makes it obviously the truth about the Divine? It seems that a scientific experiment should have some internal consistency (i.e. logical conclusions, etc.) as well as external consistency (i.e. having the same results as others). Because if we only go by the second standard, then hell, I can verify just about any religious/spiritual practice. And I suppose that, on second thought, what I'm more curious about is how any internal consistency can be made in determining which subjective experiences are truly divine or aren't.



> It may indeed be quite possible that you're "doing it wrong". This also happens in laboraties, mathematic formulations, logical arguments, etcetera ad infinitum.


Again, I think it's easier to determine that something was done wrong in a lab setting then in finding truth in religious practice. It's much easier to say "No, you did it wrong, combining hydrogen and oxygen will not produce oak" (silly example) then saying "No, that experience of yours was just a psych-out, to be one with the Divine, you really have to do this!"



> And, as a sidenote, the Yanomami do not smoke pot.


Well maybe it was another tribe, because I damn sure remember some group from Anthro. class smoking something to take in the spirits, or some such junk. Or maybe they were smoking something other than pot.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 16, 2004)

> Well, specifically then, I was referring to the goal of "finding the Divine", as you put it.



And, as I previously indicated, there are different methodologies for doing that --- depending on which "level" or "quality" of the "Divine" you are searching for. Interior luminations, for example, are not quite the same thing as formless Witnessing.



> So, if there are enough others who've had the same experience of being born again, or of making themselves one with everything, then that makes it obviously the truth about the Divine?



No. I suggest actually _reading_ what I typed out.

I stated that the "spiritual" sciences, like all sciences, are based on communally-generated and communally-validated data. This is the principle of falsifiability. The very same principle you seem to perpetually be ignoring in your "faith" in science, as you put it.

The whole _point_ of the scientific method is simply this: if I _do this_, then I will discover or observe _this_; and, furthermore, if others likewise _do this_, then they too will discover or observe the very same _this_ that I have. If there is a discrepancy among any of those steps, then there is a problem --- which does not necessarily mean the claims are false, but that the steps may need to be re-evaluated.

Seriously, this is really, really basic stuff.



> It seems that a scientific experiment should have some internal consistency (i.e. logical conclusions, etc.) as well as external consistency (i.e. having the same results as others). Because if we only go by the second standard, then hell, I can verify just about any religious/spiritual practice. And I suppose that, on second thought, what I'm more curious about is how any internal consistency can be made in determining which subjective experiences are truly divine or aren't.



I have no idea by what you mean with "internal consistency". Falsifiability rests on communally-checked data --- meaning, that others who have also adequately performed the injunction or practice in question compare your data with their own. This is the purpose of peer review (such as our culture's peer-reviewed journals).

This all strikes me as what you called "external consistency", the principle you continually seem to ignore. I have no idea about what this "internal consistency" is supposed to mean --- even logical arguments and mathematical equations (which exist only in the mind) have to be communally validated by others that have performed them.

It sounds to me that you have a very warped and distorted notion as to what the "scientific method" is in the first place, and are trying to pledge allegiance to some rigid duality of "objectivism" and "subjectivism". As it were.



> Again, I think it's easier to determine that something was done wrong in a lab setting then in finding truth in religious practice. It's much easier to say "No, you did it wrong, combining hydrogen and oxygen will not produce oak" (silly example) then saying "No, that experience of yours was just a psych-out, to be one with the Divine, you really have to do this!"



Of course its easier. That doesn't make my point any less valid.

Its much easier to solve a mathematical equation than it is to spiritually transform for a very simple reason: mathematical equations (if you've developed the logical capacity to use them) involve using tools you already have, as it were. Spiritual transformations involve developing new tools you don't really have yet. That is why it takes years and years of hard work to just _begin_ spiritual development.... gee, kinda like martial arts, huh?

Using mathematical equations is like rearranging furniture on one floor. Spiritual transformation is like changing floors altogether --- except you're the one building the ladder.



> Well maybe it was another tribe, because I damn sure remember some group from Anthro. class smoking something to take in the spirits, or some such junk. Or maybe they were smoking something other than pot.



"Some such junk", eh?? Be careful, Random, your ethnocentrism is leaking.

And, to note, the Yanomami sniff hallucinogens in their religious practices. They do not smoke anything.

Laterz.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 16, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I have no idea by what you mean with "internal consistency". Falsifiability rests on communally-checked data --- meaning, that others who have also adequately performed the injunction or practice in question compare your data with their own. This is the purpose of peer review (such as our culture's peer-reviewed journals).


Remember how you once described both the internal and external inconsistencies of the Bible? You described the internal ones as the contradictions contained within the Bible itself, while you described the external inconsistencies as the ways in which the Bible didn't conform with real world evidence. 

I am using (or attempting to use) these phrases in the same way here. THe external consistency would be how well it conforms with other people's results (the falsifiability which you seem to think I know nothing about); the internal consistency would be whether the experimenter's spiritual experience makes sense in and of itself as a true proof of the Divine. And that's just my point: I cannot see any way in which we can say that, in and of itself, someone's experience is or isn't truly "proof of God". We can judge it according to other's results, but that doesn't mean the experience they share makes any sense in and of itself. I'm not trying to say that internal consistency is all that's needed, peer validation is necessary. But what I am trying to say is that the only measure I can see being used in spiritual studies is the external alone, and I don't think that's enough to be a proof. 



> It sounds to me that you have a very warped and distorted notion as to what the "scientific method" is in the first place, and are trying to pledge allegiance to some rigid duality of "objectivism" and "subjectivism". As it were.


Yes, I understand that objective and subjective are not mutually exclusive. Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am not a character from Dickens' "Hard Times". 



> Of course its easier. That doesn't make my point any less valid.


No, but it better explains my point, or at least I was hoping it would.



> "Some such junk", eh?? Be careful, Random, your ethnocentrism is leaking.


I readily admit that I have a few things I'm close minded about. But then again, I believe everyone has something in that manner. 



> And, to note, the Yanomami sniff hallucinogens in their religious practices. They do not smoke anything.


You really know how to kill an example, don't ya?


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 17, 2004)

> Remember how you once described both the internal and external inconsistencies of the Bible? You described the internal ones as the contradictions contained within the Bible itself, while you described the external inconsistencies as the ways in which the Bible didn't conform with real world evidence.



Yes, I do. And, they have no applicability in situations like this. We are not analyzing the historical consistency of a literary text, we are talking about living practices and injunctions.



> I am using (or attempting to use) these phrases in the same way here. THe external consistency would be how well it conforms with other people's results (the falsifiability which you seem to think I know nothing about)



You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge for it --- and, furthermore, seemed to carelessly "ignore" it in discussing the "reliability" of scientific experiments.



> the internal consistency would be whether the experimenter's spiritual experience makes sense in and of itself as a true proof of the Divine. And that's just my point: I cannot see any way in which we can say that, in and of itself, someone's experience is or isn't truly "proof of God".



Alas, I'm afraid you have no point here. Just what could be called "blind skepticism" (a disguised form of blind faith).

The arguments you are using are ontological and epistemological problems, they have nothing to do with any problems with the "experiment" in question. Basically, I could use your arguments to say how "watching a dog" is not true proof that the dog in question exists.

Or, to rephrase you, "in and of itself, someone's experience is or isn't truly 'proof of dog'." Heh.

In other words, your arguments have to do with the limitations of human ways of knowing, and can be applied to virtually _any_ experiment conducted to acquire knowledge of any kind. They are by no means specific (or even exemplary) to this particular example.

Of course, I've never really been a fan of this baseless and nihilistic speculation. I generally prefer theorizing of any sort to have a basis in either empirical observation or logical premise (which is kind of what makes it a "theory" in the first place). This has neither. Its just saying "we can't really know" for the very sake of saying so.



> We can judge it according to other's results, but that doesn't mean the experience they share makes any sense in and of itself. I'm not trying to say that internal consistency is all that's needed, peer validation is necessary. But what I am trying to say is that the only measure I can see being used in spiritual studies is the external alone, and I don't think that's enough to be a proof.



Hate to burst your bubble, random, but whether an experience "makes any sense in and of itself" has little to do with the scientific method. That's the realm of speculation and the really detached philosophizing we find in some existentialist circles --- basically logical arguments that lack a premise to start off with. But it certainly isn't something the scientific method applies itself to (because it lacks any means of testability, whether empirical or logical).

C'mon, now, you are making this far more complicated than it has to be. Its pretty straightforward stuff: 1) If I do this in this way, 2) I observe this in this particular way, and 3) if others do exactly what I did, they should observe exactly what I did; 4) if they do not, then we have a problem.

Direct observation of phenomena, whether physical or logical or otherwise, is the stuff of science. Whether it internally "makes sense" or not.



> Yes, I understand that objective and subjective are not mutually exclusive. Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am not a character from Dickens' "Hard Times".



*raises eyebrow* Uh-huh.

Coulda fooled me. The "arguments" you are making are standard lines of rigid objectivists that generally conclude only "natural" sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology are "really scientific".

Of course, once again, they are baseless speculations that go around in circles... so, they don't particularly concern me much.



> No, but it better explains my point, or at least I was hoping it would.



Nope, sorry. Complaining that "its too hard!!" is not a sound basis for debunking something. Remember, random, you're in the company of martial artists here... we are all well aware that the very best discoveries in life take lots and lots of hard work.



> I readily admit that I have a few things I'm close minded about. But then again, I believe everyone has something in that manner.



Be that as it may, that does no excuse ridiculing the spiritual practices of another culture just because they use substances out culture has deemed unworthy. That, my friend, is ethnocentrism at its worst.



> You really know how to kill an example, don't ya?



It wasn't an "example", it was a not-so-veiled ridiculing of another culture.

Laterz all.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 17, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> We are not analyzing the historical consistency of a literary text, we are talking about living practices and injunctions.


No ****, Sherlock. I was just using that to illustrate the idea of something making sense on its own merits, or in and of itself, as opposed to making sense when compared to outside sources. 





> You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge for it


For what, exactly? 



> The arguments you are using are ontological and epistemological problems, they have nothing to do with any problems with the "experiment" in question. Basically, I could use your arguments to say how "watching a dog" is not true proof that the dog in question exists.


So questioning the claim to validity of a personal experience that one claims to be of divine origin has nothing to do with whether we can prove God? Musta missed something.



> I generally prefer theorizing of any sort to have a basis in either empirical observation or logical premise (which is kind of what makes it a "theory" in the first place). This has neither. Its just saying "we can't really know" for the very sake of saying so.


No, it's just saying that empirical observation is not all that's needed to prove a certain claim. Millions of born-agains may all verify the feelings of revival after having their heads dunked in a river. Hundreds of long-time meditators may all claim to have reached divine oneness after some certain meditational acheivement. If you look at things purely empirically, it seems to me that which practices actually prove the divine will only come down to which ones have more followers. What I'm trying to ask is, given the number of reports of this experience or that experience while praying or meditating or imbibing WHATEVER form of drugs that supposedly prove the divine, what standard are we to use to judge the practices themselves, so that we can actually decide which are ore aren't proofs of the divine (or more or less proofs of the Divine, if you prefer). Basically, the number of similar experiences does great for establishing patterns, but what does it actually tell you as far as how it works? That's what I've been trying to get at with this entire internal consistency idea. 




> Hate to burst your bubble, random


No you don't. 



> Remember, random, you're in the company of martial artists here... we are all well aware that the very best discoveries in life take lots and lots of hard work.


Such as yours? If a certain belt or a certain number of years experience is required before I can try and speak on a subject, please inform me.



> Be that as it may, that does no excuse ridiculing the spiritual practices of another culture just because they use substances out culture has deemed unworthy. That, my friend, is ethnocentrism at its worst.


I'm not saying it's an excuse, nor is an excuse really that necessary. 



> It wasn't an "example", it was a not-so-veiled ridiculing of another culture.


It was an example of a means of supposedly connecting with the divine, as compared to Buddhist meditation or Christian prayer. My apologies for not remembering the exact method of drug inducement they used that I learned in an excuse for an anthropology class back in high-school.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 22, 2004)

Okay, a few points:

1) "Internal consistency", when applied to literary or historical texts like the "Bible", is made specifically in regards to its logical and/or empirical contradictions (or lack thereof). This cannot be scrupulously applied to a scientific experiment, whereupon the direct observations and experiences of the experimenter are the actual datum in question.

In other words, the only thing that could "contradict" the experimenter's observations (or prove them "inconsistent") would be the observations of others that have adequately engaged the experiment themselves. The experimenter's observations are not, in and of themselves, contradictory or inconsistent.

This is the difference between phenomenology and hermeneutics.

2) Claiming that _any_ experience, even those validated countless times by the principle of Popperian falsifiability, is somehow not "proof" of what is observed is the definition of absurdity. This, again, is like claiming that just because you see a dog, doesn't mean its "really there". Unless valid counterevidence can be provided by the critic to contradict the observer's evidence, then there is no grounds for such a claim. This, of course, falls back to the Popperian falsifiability I mentioned before.

As I have told a certain sojobow on another forum, "what if", "could be", and "may be" are not the basis for a sound argument. Actual evidence is required.

3) I am afraid you are misinterpeting and/or misrepresenting what I meant before in regards to "spiritual science". I was making reference to _specific_ injunctions, paragidms, or practices yielding _specific_ datum or observations --- and, furthermore, that the injunctions and correlative datum have been validated countless times by the principle of falsifiability or testability (in other words, others have gone through the process and gotten the same thing, virtually without exception).

In no way did I mean to apply this notion of "spiritual science" to ALL claimed religious experiences. Most of which, frankly speaking, are anecdotal, completely random, and often vague. In other words, untestable. I was referring to specific "experiments" disclosing specific "data".

4) The rest, honestly, are points that need not be discussed.

Have a good 'un.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 23, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> The other gods you mentioned that we should worship (Zeus, Kronos, Shiva, Kali, Amun-Ra) has profound poof that they were actually made up by the leaders of those places. Some archeologists have even found texts supporting this. Even practices of Buddhism and Hinduism only really call their religion a way of life more than a religion. Where as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam have no proof supporting it was made up. The only thing one can do is be skeptical about the super-natural "miracles" of the texts.




The Bible has very traceable roots. The early Judaic religion had no concept of hell, it has a version of ancestor worship not unlike what the Babylonians practiced etc. Evidence uncovered by archaeologists suggests that in the early days of the Temple, there was a Mrs. God. There was also an acknowledgement of other competing dieties watching over other nations and so on in the early books. The concept of Hell, and the angles were largely borrowed from the Greeks. The apocalypse was a concept origionally of Zoroastrianism, and so on. If you bother to research the subject at all, you find that the Bible's a hodge podge of borrowing from other religions. Sometimes borrowing to the point ouf outright plagarism. All very traceable and provable unless you're simply unwilling to see what's plain as day.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 23, 2004)

> Evidence uncovered by archaeologists suggests that in the early days of the Temple, there was a Mrs. God.



Yeppers. Who do you guys think the "Wisdom" (Hokhmah) of Proverbs is?? She is continually identified as a female entity, claims to have been with God "in the beginning", and is most definately addressed in personal terms...

Not to mention, it was fairly obvious --- even in the Bible --- that the Hebrews took up goddess worship (not necessarily exclusively, mind you) at some point. So much so that later, more-patriarchal books of the Old Testament feel the need to refer to the goddess in question as "the Abomination" and went about destroying all her temples.

Ah, religious purges. Gotta love 'em.



> The concept of Hell, and the angles were largely borrowed from the Greeks. The apocalypse was a concept origionally of Zoroastrianism, and so on. If you bother to research the subject at all, you find that the Bible's a hodge podge of borrowing from other religions. Sometimes borrowing to the point ouf outright plagarism. All very traceable and provable unless you're simply unwilling to see what's plain as day.



Well said. Laterz.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 23, 2004)

Does anyone else catch the irony of an "online proof of Creationism"...

A technology developed from Scientific theories being used by folks who are advocating that scientific explanations of the origins of life/creation are false.....

Pick and choose.....


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 23, 2004)

Oh, it gets even better, loki.

One time, I was in a chatroom with a person of the fundamentalist/literalist persuasion, who kindly informed me that "science" is an unreliable way of acquiring truth --- and then proceeded to tell me I should read the Bible.

I did find it interesting this person was telling me how unreliable science was while talking to me though an international dataweb via his computer.

Yes, very interesting indeed.  :idunno:


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 23, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Oh, it gets even better, loki.
> 
> One time, I was in a chatroom with a person of the fundamentalist/literalist persuasion, who kindly informed me that "science" is an unreliable way of acquiring truth --- and then proceeded to tell me I should read the Bible.
> 
> ...


Yup,

People who can't reconcile 'faith' with 'fact' who:

eat processed food that was preserved, transported, grown using industrial techniques based on scientific methods of discovery and improvement.

Accept the money in their paychecks with the "Idol" of the president on it.

Recieve medical treatments....that one slays me (get it, medical treatment/slays me....sorry)

Were clothing woven and designed/created by technological synthetics....

If you even believe in God, you have to recognize that the gift of intelligence and resourcefulness was not meant to be wasted.  How we use that 'tool' is going to be an indication of our 'faith' more than whether we kneel/pray/sing... all the same way.

I have faith, so I am not a 'humanist' I guess you would say, but I do think that the sense of civic responsibility and 'humanity' in that ideology has a place.  It is also in 'faith' if you just are willing to be 'humane' and remember that we are all 'human' and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect....


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 23, 2004)

I understand what you guys are saying about faith and science, but I think it's easy for people to want to use technology (which they may perceive as being divinely inspired?  I'm not sure) versus the practice of science, which is more of a way of investigation.  

Interesting.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 23, 2004)

> I understand what you guys are saying about faith and science, but I think it's easy for people to want to use technology (which they may perceive as being divinely inspired? I'm not sure) versus the practice of science, which is more of a way of investigation.



Yeah, but the whole point is that the "practice of science" is _why_ we have all that neat stuff in the first place. Then again, being disingenous is pretty much a prerequisite for fundamentalists these days, so....


----------



## Marginal (Sep 23, 2004)

These days? Fundimentalists have always been fanatic fringe elements.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 23, 2004)

> These days? Fundimentalists have always been fanatic fringe elements.



Actually, historically speaking, fundamentalism has been the norm for the Big Three --- not the exception. At least as soon as they became established as state religions and rigidly institutionalized (and subsequently purged anyone who disagreed with them).

Fundamentalism is now increasingly being treated as a fringe movement due to the influence of humanism, rationalism, science, and certain varieties of "deism". It pretty much all started when people started trying to separate Church and State (i.e., the Renaissance).


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 23, 2004)

Big Three?  Is that referring to the whole science/arts/religion trio or somethin' else?


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 23, 2004)

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 23, 2004)

Oh, of course.  *smacks forehead for stupdity, then returns to beer*

On a side note, it seems that, at least in the political world, fundamentalism isn't such a fringe element anymore.  For an example, see the new thread about the Legislature's barring of the Supreme Court!


----------



## Marginal (Sep 23, 2004)

Heretic888: Yep, you're right. I was thinking of a much more constrained timespan. (Last 50 years or so) Which doesn't make much sense in retrospect. Ah well.

That aside, that empty attempt to place a law limiting the supreme court to rule on constitutionally illegal forced indoctrination to the Christian faith just makes Christainity as a whole look bad. I applaud this fanatic for giving Christianity yet another black eye in a cheesy motion designed exclusively to sway voters on an empty issue. 

Is this really supposed to make anyone glad to be an American? "Religious freedom, as long as you're Christian." Yay I suppose.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 23, 2004)

> That aside, that empty attempt to place a law limiting the supreme court to rule on constitutionally illegal forced indoctrination to the Christian faith just makes Christainity as a whole look bad. I applaud this fanatic for giving Christianity yet another black eye in a cheesy motion designed exclusively to sway voters on an empty issue.



Indeed.


----------

