We must cleanse the Republican Party of the moderates who stand in the way of party unity and purity.
With the election of 2008 already days behind us, it’s time to shift our focus to the election of 2012. The main order of business now is to rid the Republican Party of the few remaining moderates who stand in the way of party unity and party purity.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Jet
Soooooo... what you're admitting is that almighty god created something that was flawed... not perfect... needed repair?
See the problem with your "Explanations" are that they wander off on other tangents hoping the reader won't notice you've skirted the original and VERY BASIC issue.
God can only creat perfect things, not flawed things...
He is god isn't he
Did someone in central casting not pick the right one to play God.
Charlton Heston wasn't born yet?
77 - Jet
I haven't been to sleep yet and it's past 9AM here.
78 - Ruvy
Jet,
G-d didn't need tools to fix the earth or the people on it Ruvy.
You're right, of course. But reading between the lines, what I see is that....
you're mad at G-d, and all these questions are just another way of shaking your fist at Him.
This is good. If you shake your fist in rage at G-d, at least you do believe in Him - and my wife points out that at least you are getting that anger out, too.
Just a thought from your friends in Samaria.
Shabbat Shalom,
Ruvy & Adina
79 - zingzing
ha! that was good stuff.
80 - Glenn Contrarian
Whooo - I knew there'd be people snorting in derision at my post, but I didn't think they'd start throwing things at each other....
Chris - "I couldn't prove He exists...but I presented what may very well be His footprints...." That's the pertinent statement. EVERYthing came from SOMEthing. If MWI is right - and if you want to argue that it isn't, then go tell Hawking why it ain't - then all is predetermined...but on a scale we never dreamt. Could there be a non-religious reason for MWI's predetermination? Sure. But religion's been telling us for thousands of years about predetermination, and science indicated that predetermination was a crock...until MWI came along. Like I said - not proof of God's existence...but possible metaphorical footprints that He left behind.
Ruvy - The Church of which I am a member believes that much within the Bible is parable or metaphor, particularly Revelation. I agree with you about the level of metaphor in Genesis as well. The six days of creation, the flood, and much else HAD to be metaphor...for in the physical world these would have been impossible.
C-shop - I don't hate Sarah Palin, nor do I condemn her. I say she's a hypocrite, but when it comes to condemnation...let me quote Obama: "That's above my paygrade." If you ask a member of the Church whether someone is saved or not, in every case we will tell you that we don't know. Paul tells us that he may judge those within the Church, but he cannot judge those outside the Church.
Don't ever accuse me of hating anyone. I do not hate. That, sir, is only your ASSUMPTION. I might grow very angry, even enraged, out of control, even murderous if it concerned heinous crimes or dangers against my family...but 'hate'? No. I do not hate. To me, true hate leads one to cause pain simply for the sake of causing pain.
You could say there are a few I despise for what they have done...but even that wouldn't include Palin. More than anything else I recognize her hypocrisy, the danger she presents to America, the Constitution, and freedom, and her own lack of self-awareness. She neither knows her own level of ignorance nor understands why there should be any concern by herself or others about her ignorance.
That in and of itself, C-shop, should alarm you greatly.
81 - Rose
This is an interesting bit from a scientist by the name of Russell Peters. Rather than bickering over the details he takes a more pragmatic view. Although meditation does not seem adaptable to my Western mind I see his point quite clearly.
Science and Spirituality
Both science and spirituality are the search for truth. One is the search for the truths of the physical world; the other the search for the truth of the nature of consciousness. As such there is no conflict between them.
For the same reason, there is currently little meeting between the two either. The current scientifc paradigm does not include consciousness or mind as a fundamental reality, but seeks to explain everything in physical terms. Western science has now looked out to the edges of the Universe, back in time to the beginning of creation, and down into the sub-atomic structure of matter; and it finds no place, nor need, for God. But this is because it has not yet included the inner realm of mind in its scope. When science explores mind as fully as it has explored space, time and matter, it will create a new worldview„one that includes spirituality.
Spirituality, on the other hand, is often very unscientific in its approach to self-liberation. People believe things simply because someone has said it or written it. But this is hardly the best way to arrive at truth. The Buddha warned against this 2,500 years ago when he said "Do not believe anything because I have told you it is so. Only believe it when you have tested it for yourself." In this respect spiritual growth can, and should, be very scientific. We can form a hypothesis -- that certain meditation practices enhance awareness, for example -- set up a personal experiment in meditation practice, and see what the results are. This is important not only to make sure that we do not deceive ourselves, but also to ensure that our spiritual progress is as rapid as possible. And rapid spiritual growth is something the world today needs very badly
82 - Christopher Rose
Apologies in advance for the mild "conflict" but I think this
is wrong.Science is a search for understanding about and of how things are. This quite easily encompasses both the physical world and, to use your words, "the nature of consciousness".
There is an obvious spirituality and reverence for the phenomenon of life all around us. The stars, planets and all life is essentially the same stuff; we are one, if you like.
I think that is why many people feel a very powerful urge to be part of something much larger than just their own life. The answer, to me at least, is that we all already are.
The annoying and even offensive thing about religion is that it co-opts this rational feeling, to coin a phrase, in service to a false proposition.
A scientific or rational approach can and eventually will come to understand and explain everything.
83 - Jet
Which brings us back to my post #62 and 63, a paltry few paragraphs-not a 2000 sermon Chris.
84 - Jet
Oh... and two paragraphs in 66 as well... sorry
85 - Ruvy
agree with you about the level of metaphor in Genesis as well. The six days of creation, the flood, and much else HAD to be metaphor...for in the physical world these would have been impossible.
Don't confuse yourself over what I wrote, Glenn.
No normative rabbi (I'm not talking about "conservative", "reform" or "reconstructionist" rabbis) will ever say that the Bible is mere metaphor. He will state that a given portion, the Creation Story in Genesis, is cloaked in parable - but never will you hear any rabbi say that the Bible is mere metaphor. Looking forward, you will see "Six Days" - six ages of verying lengths that bring you to the point where a neshamá a spirit that communicates with G-d, is put into a man. Looking backwards, you will be counting 15 billion years to the Big Bang from the day that the neshamá had been implanted in a man.
These numbers are not "me too" numbers that rabbis have adopted from scientists - they were found centuries before the boys in the lab coats started trying to figure up the age of the universe.
The length of lunation - the average time it takes for the moon to go round the earth - an average that scientists cannot reasonably estimate without the aid of a computer - was discovered long ago encoded in the Torah and was used by the High Priest to declare a new moon when witnesses could not be found. I want to emphasize this point. The Levites who served as "ministers" to the Children of Israel were NOT astronomers. They were not naming stars like the Arabs later did. They were priests who looked in the scroll for the data - and who passed the data down orally, from father to son.
There was a flood - there is physical evidence of one in addition to many "myths" of one throughout the world. The question I raise is the length of the amót, the cubits, mentioned in the Torah with respect to how high the water went, and how large the boat was. The Sumerians have a Flood tale that tallies in many ways with our own, and indicates that the so-called Sumerian "gods" were not gods at all, but people with very advanced technology.
The Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt is truth. Archeological evidence has been found of an Egyprian prime minister or vizier who saved Egypt from a famine, and who lived 110 years. Evidence has been found in the Egyptian Book of Kings of an Egyptian pharoah, Pepi II, who ruled for 94 years. The Midrash states that the pharaoh who ruled Egypt and who enslaved the Israelites ruled for 94 years. Evidence has been found in the Egyptian Book of Kings of this pharaoh's son, who was a midget. The Midrash states that Moses was able to step on the pharaoh from whom he demanded the freedom of his fellow Israelites. There was no ruler of Egypt after this midget mentioned for about 400 years except for a queen who succeeded the midget.
Women were not supposed to rule Egypt at all.
As evidence accretes, it becomes clearer and clearer that the Torah is not mere metaphor at all.
But some deluded souls will not hear of this at all. De Nial does not flow merely in Egypt. It is a river of stupidity and blindness found world wide.
86 - Baronius
Chris - I've been reading a little Aristotle recently. I think it'd help you to understand what we're talking about. The idea is that any study, any science, is the development of a set of rules which characterize that field correctly. Above any such set of rules has to be a set of rules which organizes those sets correctly. That top set of rules is the field of philosophy. Philosophy allows one to integrate sciences. Indeed, the definition of the word "science" is beyond the scope of any science; the task falls to philosophers.
An integrated philosophy may be theistic, atheistic, or agnostic. The only requirement is that it must be consistent. Glenn and Ruvy each have their own theistic philosophies which are compatible with science (as you or I would define the term). The fact that your philosophy sees theism as an intrusion, or a contradiction to science, doesn't change the fact that their philosophies don't.
Your error isn't in religion or science, but in philosophy. You've prejudged religion and science to be contradictory, and (rightly) no amount of religion or science can change that view. But you don't need to understand data of religion or science. You need to understand philosophy better.
(This is so hard. If I understood philosophy better, I could explain it adequately. If I understood theoretical physics, I could approach the questions posed by Glenn and Ruvy. Really, this is more a response to Rose's comment, which does a good but not perfect job of addressing religion and science. I think Rose needs to take one step further back.)
Chris, you'd recognize the irrationality in the following statement:
"Faith can and eventually will come to understand and explain everything."
Yet you make the exact same irrational statement about science:
"A scientific or rational approach can and eventually will come to understand and explain everything."
I think it's because you lack the philosophical framework that would allow you to catch such wild assertions.
87 - Cannonshop
A lot of people seem confused about Religion and Science-not just Religionists, but also those who try to replace it with Science.
Science asks "What is it, how does it work?"
Religion asks "What is right, what is wrong?"
you can't scientifically determine what is morally right-science doesn't work that way. Science can tell you how your brain works, but it can't tell you what you SHOULD be thinking, see?
Further, once you get to the point you can't observe, science is pretty much paralyzed.
1. Observe the Phenomena
2. Make Hypothesis
3. Test Hypothesis
4. Peer Review (with testing)
5. Process of Elimination-it fails the test, the hypothesis is wrong.
6. Repeat for Verification.
You can't test a hypothesis if you can't observe the test.
The Hierarchy of what is verified scientifically is generally classed as followed:
1. Hypothesis-an informed guess that is untested.
2. Theory-an Hypothesis that has managed to pass through testing, verification, peer review, and verification.
3. "Law" a Theory that influences other Theories, is reliable, has been tested, verified, retested, reviewed, reverified, and then verified in a previously thought unrelated experiment. (Gravitation is an example of this, as are the equations controlling electromagnetic interactions, as well as basic thermodynamics.)
The existence or non-existence of a god, much less the god of the Abrahamite religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Satanism) can not be tested, it can not be peer reviewed, it can not be retested, it can not be observed reliably using scientific means, methods, or techniques.
This does not mean it/he/she/whatever does not exist, it simply means that scientifically, one can neither prove, nor disprove, said deity's existence in a scientific manner...but then, that's not the job of Science anyway.
The job of science is to tell us how something works, what it's made out of, and what it does. what it's "FOR" is not a job for science, it's the job of philosophy or religion- methods that do not require scientific rigour, but instead require Faith and inward examination.
88 - Dr Dreadful
Since most scholars agree that Exodus was written some time between 1500BC and 400BC, and that the Turin Kings List (which presumably is the 'Book of Kings' referred to) probably dates from the reign of Rameses II in the 12th century BC, and that the authors of the former lived in the territory of the latter, why is it surprising that the two documents have a degree of correlation?
89 - Ruvy
Cannonshop,
Agreeing with you almost 100% - except that science and religion have the same basic sources of wisdom at base, and while they do different tasks, they can be convergent where appropriate.
It is certainly not the job of science to attempt to prove the Divinity. What can be proven is events in history.
90 - Christopher Rose
Baronius, fascinating but one major flaw. Philosophy is not a science so everything you wrote is false.
Religion and science aren't contradictory for the same reason, religion is false too. I note that you switched in faith for religion too, which kind of proves my point. you aren't thinking logically, you're presumably trying to find a way to defend your own "faith".
I'm taking a break now but I'll be back later tonight to see what else, if anything, you've got.
91 - Baronius
Cannon - Great. Great stuff. The way I learned it is that science deals with the natural, and religion deals with the supernatural. Natural being defined as that which almost always happens. Nature is the repeatable or verifiable. Super-nature is by definition unverifiable by science, because it can't be repeated.
I do think there's too much emphasis on the differences between religion and science, though. I've been banging my head against the concept of teleology recently, which if I understand it correctly could significantly break down those barriers. Then there's the matter of Scholastic philosophy, which teaches that all means of knowing the truth must point to the same truth, since truth cannot be contradictory. Also, as I stated earlier, within philosophy, there can be integration between the philosophies of religion and of science.
There's so much to this. The more you look into it, the more maddening Christopher's simplistic approach is.
92 - Baronius
Chris, in that last comment, I wasn't trying to write past you. I guess I didn't refresh my page for an hour. That being said, philosophy isn't a science, but science can't exist without a philosophical structure. Science becomes just a random collection of facts. Aristotle points to this when he labels philosophy as "first philosophy" and science as "second philosophy". Science requires a unifying structure.
93 - Dr Dreadful
I have to side with Baronius on this one. There's a reason why science was once known as 'natural philosophy'.
Science - or at any rate the scientific method - is philosophy. It is, just like any other philosophical discipline, a way of looking at and making sense of the universe. What differentiates it from the likes of Bergson, Leibniz, (some) Aristotle, Plato and other cobblers is that in science we seem to have finally hit on a philosophy which actually works, eschews cloud cuckoo land and delivers practical results.
94 - Christopher Rose
Cannonshop, I don't accept your setup about the questions science and religion ask, so once again, the argument doesn't stand up.
As far as I'm aware of the monotheistic position, what is right and wrong is spelled out in the dogma and there is precious little questioning going on. After all, a questioning approach is always going to undermine the dogma.
Furthermore, there is no need for religion to be involved in addressing the issues of right and wrong.
Science isn't the whole of rationality, it's simply a tool or process for understanding whatever is being examined or researched.
I don't believe I've said that science should be used to prove the existence of gods, but the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of any kind whatsoever that they do indeed exist - unless you buy into the dogma in the first place and believe it uncritically. You call that faith but I see it as a big lie.
It is absolutely not the role of religion or philosophy to tell us what something is for. That, as always, is a human judgement call.
Baronius, it's just so predictable that you would chime in support of Cannonshop argument, but your thinking is obviously distorted by the preconceptions you bring to the subject.
As I believe I've told you before, I've no objection in principle to believing in the existence of gods or even worshipping them if that is what they require. On the other had, short of performing some mind-bending assault on reason, I can't find anything in any of your arguments to support that case. Just because you were taught something doesn't mean it is true.
There is no supernatural, so once again, there is no role for religion, except as a force for ignorance and manipulation.
Having looked it up, I can see why you would be attracted to teleology, but I can't see any basis for it being anything more than an interesting but ultimately false concept that is perilously close to the, to my mind, discredited notion of intellignet design.
You can try and persuade yourself that my approach is simplistic all you want but it is just another self-serving argument in support of your already made up mind.
Equally, you can try and hang onto some philosophical framework all you want, but philosophy is absolutely not a science, so it is yet another self serving and circular argument in support of your dogma.
I can't find any meaning in your statement that "science can't exist without a philosophical structure". Of course it can, science is simply trying to explain the universe we live in.
Philosophy is just a bunch of waffle and opinion based on absolutely nothing, rather like your religion, which is presumably why you are trying so hard to elevate it.
95 - Zedd
Christopher,
You are missing the possibility that there may be an experience out there that you may not have been privy to yet. It may be possible that we human beings possess a sense that can't as of yet be quantified, which links us to whatever universal element that is out there. Because you have not discovered that within yourself doesn't mean that it doesn't or can't exist. You may be missing out on the most powerful possession or capability that our species has.
However, the dogma that is spewed by so many would cause one to think that religion is for dummies. Reading the hate that is expressed by Ruvy and then having him say that his religion is the support for his bitter, and hateful expressions, would cause anyone to roll their eyes. Yes people do use religion as a tool to make them feel better than others. It's used as something to rally around. It is used as a social club. It is used as a legitimizer. Every kook claims to have a word from the divine. But don't we do that with every possession? Cars don't just represent the utility that they provide. Neither do our, homes, clothing, or even our bodies. We use what we have to make ourselves seem better than others, or to fit in to a particular "club". We can't however dismiss the usefulness of any either of this things simply because they are used for purposes other than their basic function.
96 - Zedd
Christopher Rose
"A scientific or rational approach can and eventually will come to understand and explain everything."
It depends on what you mean by that. If you are saying that at some point we would be able to make models which could predict what will happen, I would have to disagree. That would be the only way to explain everything. If you are saying that we will be able to understand HOW everything happens, you may be right. But that still doesn't speak to the WHY. Those who have a certain spiritual sensibility are intrigued by that notion. Science can't answer that unless god (that which intended the universe to be) gives an interview.
97 - Dan
"Having looked it up, I can see why you would be attracted to teleology, but I can't see any basis for it being anything more than an interesting but ultimately false concept that is perilously close to the, to my mind, discredited notion of intellignet design."
Here is a list of prominent scientists who do not think the notion of intelligent design has been "discredited". They may not all be fully on board, but they are at least properly respectful of the scientific justification for the theory. They are, however, unanimous in their skepticism for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
The necessity of publishing a list like this seems to demonstrate a willful, ideologically biased disruption of free and open scientific inquiry.
My take, is that it is an impressive list, but I dunno, maybe they are all just "young earth bible thumpers".
98 - Cannonshop
#97 Dan, "Prominent Scientists" can sign off on all kinds of things-and still be wrong. "Argument from Authority" doesn't really prove much.
#94 Chris, your argument is as emotionally based as any argument I'd get from a fundie. You're using absolutes you can't conclusively test, or prove, to condemn people you barely even know, including most of the "Faithful" who post here. Unless you can somehow pop up with experimental evidence proving that:
1. The universe spontaneously and without outside agency or control manifested itself
2. there is no such thing as something we can't measure, weigh, or test with the current technology or existing theoretical technologies.
Your argument is absolutely faith-based, and unscientific.
There are six words-they're the most important words in science:
"I don't know, Let's find out."
In your very, very, long post, you make assertions indicating you've already rejected the first half ("I don't know"), and you appear condescending and contemptful toward those who may, in some way, be pursuing the second half of the key six words: "Let's Find Out".
Atheism, Chris, is every bit as much a RELIGION as Christianity, Satanism, Buddhism, Islam, and Shinto. It relies and insists on unproveable absolute statements and supports itself with its own dogma of faith-based assertions to prevent questioning.
When I make reference (in mocking tones) to people's belief in "Their Omnipotent Imaginary Friend", it's non-serious. When cornered, I'll state the same thing I know for certain I CAN prove- "I don't Know, Let's find out."
99 - Jet
There is a difference between blind acceptance and Faith... but is there a differnce between blind Faith and acceptance?
100 - zingzing
look, "god," as you know him, does no exist. it's true. think about it.
you cannot know god.
you don't understand things the same way he does.
your understanding of god, if he exists, is just as false as an atheist's.
anything you try to say is "god's will," or "god's way," or "god" is not god, but your idea of that will or way or god.
you've confused things.
you. don't. know. shit.
and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you can understand humanity.
we--humans--are all the same. if god exists, he is quite different. you can't think, even in your heart of hearts, that you understand anything different. you are not god, so you do not know what god is.
just live a good life. that's all there is. beyond that, leave it up to chance--which is the true "god," because that's what you're hoping for.
101 - Cannonshop
#99 There may be. All faith is, in the end, reliant on trust. Trusting that something without clear evidence is true. "blind" faith requires a kind of Absolute trust-trust even in the face of circustances and evidence to the contrary. To have "Blind" faith, one must, by some definitions, be willing to believe in something so strongly, that prove-able contrary evidence is not merely disregarded, but actively rejected as it does not fit the paradigm of belief.
Acceptance, on the other hand, is more or less a condition in which one finds an answer, and stops questioning. Not rejecting new, contrary data, but more or less not seeking it either. Acceptance is more passive than Blind Faith, in my opinion, as it does not require constant justifications, nor active defense. It simply is.
102 - Ruvy
Zedd,
Reading the hate that is expressed by Ruvy and then having him say that his religion is the support for his bitter, and hateful expressions, would cause anyone to roll their eyes.
O Zulu warrior princess.
I don't need "religion" to state unequivocally that western "civilization" is sluiced through and through with genocide, racism and Jew-hatred. A history book can tell me that.
I don't need "religion" to state that Barack Obama is a deceitful liar. Evidence of his own actions and of what he feels he needs to hide proves that.
I don't need "religion" to state that the only difference between Hamas and the PLO is that Hamas wants to kill and then loot, and the PLO wants to loot first, and then kill. Their behavior proves this.
I do not need "religion" to demomnstrate that the Arab terrorists here think like savages and lie through their teeth to stupid naïve fools like you. Both their savage behavior and your blindness to their savage behavior in your comments prove my assertions.
I don't need "religion" to state unequivocably that the British, particularly Lord Curzon and Winston Churchill, sabotaged the Mandate in Palestine, and sabotaged the sovereign rights of the Jewish People here, rights that arose in international law, purposely distorting the trust given to Britain and violating the Mandate; finally doing an act of perfidy that the British people shall be judged for before the Almighty, shutting the doors of the only real refuge the Jewish people had - the Land of Israel.
I do not need "religion" to prove to me that the leaders of the land I live in are bought out traitors, bought out largely by the American government. Their cowardly and suicidal behavior, consistently acting in YOUR interests rather than ours, proves this.
I do not need "religion" to tell me that the land of your birth is going to hell in a handbasket, soon to be turned over to a thug and rapist. I do not need "religion" to tell me that the land you have adopted as your home is going to hell in a handbasket, its last bits of wealth looted by thieves in the White House and their banking friends. It's all in the news.
I need religion to demonstrate none of this. It's all painfully evident from what I read on-line. My religion is the support for none of this. I see bitter truths and I tell you them. That you want to plug your ears or roll your eyes tells me more about you than me.
So what support does my religion afford me? It reminds me always before Whom I stand; it reminds me that I'm expected to uphold certain laws and commandments; and to remember them when I arise, when I travel on the road, to teach them to my children, and to ponder them; it reminds me that no matter how much you distort my words, I cannot afford to hate you; it reminds me to hold you to the standard of the Laws of Noah, rather than the laws that I am held to; it reminds me that I am held accountable to the G-d of Israel for my deeds and for my words, and that none of either are forgotten by the G-d Who guards Israel, and Who neither slumbers nor sleeps. My religion reminds me always to seek the World of Truth, and not to be seduced by the World of Lies.
In return, I get the spine and determination to continue to speak truth, and to tell someone like you to go try and wield your spear of hatred and lies on someone else. I could be condescending and say I feel sorry for you. But the truth is that I don't give a damn.
103 - Ruvy
To the rest of you reading comment #102:
I'd prefer to write and communicate like a gentleman. But if I'm characterized as Zedd has chosen to characterize me, I'll respond in kind.
104 - Christopher Rose
Golly gosh, where to start with this lot!
Zedd, I'm not missing any theoretical possibility at all, but it simply isn't possible to have a meaningful discussion about what may be, unless you are simply looking to have a speculative conversation. In that case, I postulate that you are entirely a figment of my alter ego's imagination. Go to the back of the mystical class!
Dan, just because not all scientists are committed to following a rational approach doesn't undermine it. There are many scientists who are actually actively trying to have their cake and eat it too.
There is no scientific justification for the "theory" of intelligent design unless you buy into the already unsupported notion of a creator to start with. Please join Zedd at the back of the class...
Cannonshop, you attempt to paint my argument as emotionally based, as a prelude to undermining it, but you are simply leaping to that characterisation with no basis in the words I wrote.
I am absolutely committed to the let's find out approach but that doesn't mean every mad cap theory has to be treated with respect.
Your assertion that atheism is "every bit as much a RELIGION as Christianity, Satanism, Buddhism, Islam, and Shinto" is just the standard waffle trotted out by every sad faithist that desperately seeks to add a scrap of intelligence to cover their ignorance and superstition.
Until such time as the basic claim of faithists, that there actually is a god or gods is supported, everything else they have to say lacks any credibility at all.
Your follow up remark "It relies and insists on unproveable absolute statements and supports itself with its own dogma of faith-based assertions to prevent questioning" is simply, sorry but I can't find a better word, bullshit.
I would respond to Ruvy's propaganda and self-serving waffle but the ship of reason and respect for others has long since left his mental harbour so there is no point.
105 - Zedd
Chris,
Ah, so you are saying that it is you who doesn't believe that "it" doesn't exist. You are not saying that you KNOW that there is no such thing. In other words, you don't know that "it" does exist. Perhaps you should behave as one who doesn't know.
I am not a "religious" person; not ritualistic; don't think I know God. I do believe in God and that there is a big picture, to state it lazily. I feel connected to "that big picture" and am in awe of it's magnitude (can't explain it). I don't believe that the way that we have filled in the gaps- our awareness of the divine and what His plans are for us- makes much sense (most organized religion). I think we get bits and pieces of it right but off course make up most of it to feel important and to get attention. I think there is some truth to even some of the most fundamentalist ideas but we let ego take over and the message is lost in the drama. Had I not had some personal spiritual experiences, I would be rolling my eyes along with you. Actually I roll my eyes quite a bit, even upon reading some of the responses on this thread. Unfortunately or fortunately (depending how you look at it) I was blessed to experience the amazing and cant help but to believe. I sort of hate it because I loose cool points. Religious people are often really shallow thinkers. Most of the time they come across as needy. God however has graced me by allowing me to see his hand. I am humbled and full because of it. I am grateful and hope to live out my purpose while experiencing the abundance of the joy that is in store for me.
Doesn't make sense. I know....
106 - zingzing
God however has graced me by allowing me to see his hand.
and here it is.
107 - Zedd
Ruvy,
You are not hurting anyone directly by being the way you are. Yes your venom has a residual effect much like ones carbon footprint does on the environment, but overall, you are mad all by yourself. Your bitterness and rehashing only cheats you. No matter how angry you get or how much your stomach turns, it's only you who feels it. The world goes on. People dance, laugh, sing, fall in love, die, give birth, despite the level of your fervor.
You see Jews were made up. A group of people just decided to stay together and call themselves a group at some point in history. There is nothing mystical about it. You are not a monolith. You are multitudes of individuals with different personalities. Some good, some bad, some lazy, some industrious. You talk of Jews helping in the civil rights struggle as if you and all people of Jewish decent get points for that. Those were good people. Good individuals. You and your mean self don't get points for their deeds because they were of the Jewish faith. They were individuals who were brave and did the right thing when it was hard to do so. They have nothing to do with you or Netanyahu or anyone else. You don't get points for their sacrifices. You know that there are Jews in this country who don't agree with Israel's policy against the Palestinians. There are Jews in Israel who are against that policy. Are they Jew haters? No. They don't agree with the current politics not "Jewness". There is no Jewish way of thinking. There is no Jewish political party or ideology. By limiting who and what the Jewish people are you feed into the sick ideas of there being some big Jewish agenda.
Your meanness and venom has nothing to do with religion. It has nothing to do with your people. It's just you. You choose it. It feeds you and you have no identity outside of it. You are scared to let it go, like all radicals.
108 - Dan
" Dan, "Prominent Scientists" can sign off on all kinds of things-and still be wrong. "Argument from Authority" doesn't really prove much."
Depends on what the point of argument is. If you're arguing that "Argument from Authority" does exist, then an extensive list of authority does the trick.
"There is a difference between blind acceptance and Faith... but is there a differnce between blind Faith and acceptance?"
Word order?
"There is no scientific justification for the "theory" of intelligent design unless you buy into the already unsupported notion of a creator to start with. Please join Zedd at the back of the class..."
Not necessary. I won't be attending your...um, "class".
Unless you are ignorant of the basics of ID theory, (significant possibility), you would know that ID doesn't rely on any specific creator. The question is easily side stepped in much the same way that a Darwiniac would counter the question of how matter such as primordial soup, planets, and atmosphere, spontaniously appeared: "we'll get back to ya on that"
The significance of a list of prominent authority, like the one I provided, is that it puts to lie the false claim by Atheist/Evolutionists that
ID is only a kind of desperate grasp whose sole supporters are religous extremist antagonists.
It's this incredulous over-reach by Atheist/Evolutionists that demonstrates to the reasoned observer their real motive: fear.
Just to tie this in to the original topic, It's also an incredulous over-reach by "anonymous" (red flag) Sarah Palin detractors that extremely bodacious Sarah believes Africa is only a Country.
Anybody buyin' that?
109 - Zedd
Zing
I thought you didn't do capital letters? Were you healed????? See.
110 - Dan(Miller)
Despite my agnosticism/atheism, I can find substantial evidence for the theory or unintelligent design. The evidence manifests itself daily.
Dan(Miller)
111 - zingzing
zedd,
nah, i wasn't healed. the no capital letters thing is out of pure laziness. i quoted you, and out of that same laziness, i didn't change your capitalization. of course, out of forgetfulness, i forgot to put your words in quotes. maybe because i was too excited to test out the hyperlink, which is also something i'm usually too lazy to bother with.
so, NO, i am not healed. of course, it doesn't both me, so i don't really care.
112 - Clavos
nihilism is cool...
113 - Jet
110-indeed so Dan
114 - zingzing
clavos is cooler... than cool... or maybe he doesn't know what nihilism is... or assumes too much... or has a bug bite he can't scratch... at least he's not bald... but his pants are too tight... and his socks don't match...
115 - Zedd
Zing,
Nope you were healed. I insist. I am bringing over multitudes to place candles and pictures of the Virgin Mary on your lawn. Perhaps you should cut out your hand print on toast. Toast always gets the masses hyped for some reason. You could charge. Simply (dramatically) brush the curtain away from your front window and place your hand on it at unpredictable intervals. You'll have them swooning.
I'm making the announcement tonight!
On a brighter note, I misspell and submit comments that are sometimes jumbled up because I'm too lazy to seriously edit. I'll change a sentence but forget to delete all of the part of what I was changing so it comes out all crazy. I should be embarrassed when I read my comments and sometimes I really am but my laziness overtakes me. The embarrassment is not enough to make me be more careful. Sad really. Not really.
116 - Jet
Run for the hills zing!
117 - zingzing
yesssss, zedd! bring them!
oh, of course, i have no lawn. nor could they see me from my "front" window... which would that be? the one that looks onto my lonely courtyard? or the one in the room i never go in unless called?
i do have bread! but no toaster... sigh...
your followers will be mighty disappointed. also, tell them that this area is rather dangerous. there are many criminals about...
118 - Zedd
errrrrrrrrr. Maybe some other time Buddy, ole Pal, Nice zing....
119 - Christopher Rose
Zedd, no, I am saying that there is nothing to suggest that a god does exist so there probably isn't. The fact that there is no evidence also means that your belief that there is a god is either fantasy or wishful thinking.
I too feel connected to, to use your phrase, the big picture and am in a certain degree of awe of it. Where we differ is that you are content to make up stuff - the existence of a god - whereas I am content not to.
It is perfectly possible and even reasonable to experience spirituality but, again, no deity is needed for that to be so.
You are right though in saying that your statements don't make sense. As such, I see little point in taking them seriously...
zingzing - ouch! That still hurts. We were robbed!
Dan, I am happily ignorant of the basics of ID and, barring the unlikely arrival of the theoretical designer, will almost certainly remain so. I can't really comment on the rest of your words as they don't appear to contain any meaning. Yes, that is a polite way of saying that they are wishful thinking and gibberish.
Dan(Miller), I don't see how you can find evidence of intelligent design without first having evidence of a designer. That's like saying you can see evidence for a car being designed but no idea who did it. However, I am willing to spend a couple of idle moments in contemplation of any such evidence as you care to present.
I don't have much respect for agnosticism, which is just a convenient and lazy cop out of actually taking a position.
As to atheism, it's not a word I would use. I don't see why we need it, for much the same reasons that their is no word for people who don't believe in astrology. Except sane possibly...
120 - zingzing
chris, if you pay attention, dan said "unintelligent design." his post had, possibly, two typos, possibly one, possibly none. and by his "evidence every day," i can only assume dan is quite regular.
and that's all head, baby!
ok, and some inadvertent hand.
the only "god" on that field was the official.
121 - Christopher Rose
zingzing, so he did. Word blindness can strike any of us. All I can say is it's been a long day.
Sorry for the misread, Dan(Miller).
122 - Dan(Miller)
Christopher Rose,
Should you read my comment #110 again, you will notice that it referred to "unintelligent" design (demonstrated, perhaps, by my typo in the preposition immediately preceding he word "unintelligent." On the other hand, that may just be evidence of my laziness).
As to "agnosticism/atheism," it is a phrase I use to mean that I don't know whether a god or gods exist(s), but lean toward the view that none do(es).
Dan(Miller)
123 - Clavos
ah zing thou art too cool by far...
124 - zingzing
"thou art?"
i don't trust your units of measurement.
125 - Dan
Dan (Miller), "agnosticism/atheism". Is that like being sort of pregnant?
"Yes, that is a polite way of saying that they are wishful thinking and gibberish."
Thanks for your deference.
Of course, "wishful thinking" doesn't have much to do with ID. Design doesn't imply an afterlife, or a reward for pleasing a creator, or even a punishment for being "happily ignorant". Though admittedly, some think so. But then, they're not scientists following evidence where it leads.
"I don't have much respect for agnosticism, which is just a convenient and lazy cop out of actually taking a position."
I don't speak for all agnostics, but aside from mild enjoyment of the comical irony of theists and atheists ridiculing each others faith based beliefs, I respect the possibility of their positions while being content with the position of not taking a position.
I'm also agnostic on the Bengals/Eagles game this weekend. Though 9.5 points, and home field advantage (such as it is) seems like a good possibility.