Evolution Vs. God
According to the documentary short Evolution vs. God, Darwinism is a leap of faith that falls far short of Creationism in explaining the mysteries of our existence. The film, which could have presented a fascinating open debate on a crucial subject, quickly devolves into a shallow-minded "gotcha" exercise.
Throughout the course of the film, we're given flashes of rapidly edited interview segments with biology and ecology professors at both the University of Central Los Angeles and the University of Southern California, as well as many of the young students they instruct. Many of these subjects are considered the brightest minds in their field, and they each hold steadfast in their convictions, but the filmmaker's seething anti-intellectual stance undermines their ability to successfully argue their case at every turn.
The film's host, Christian evangelist Ray Comfort, who in creationism-mocking circles is known as the Banana Man, wastes no time in challenging his subject's assertions with questions posed in a frustratingly limited context. Interspersed with these clips are a series of quotes from famous non-believers, including Professor Richard Dawkins.
Time after time, the filmmaker makes no effort to justify his own beliefs with the tangible evidence he demands of his dissenters. Taking his central argument at face value - that evolution requires no less a leap of faith than Creationism - why should anyone feel compelled to trade one cop-out explanation for the other?
The host's true agenda becomes clear at the film's conclusion as he urges each of his subjects to achieve personal salvation through a full embrace of God's teachings. Whether you praise or condemn this approach, the film is certain to illicit a strong reaction.
Directed by: Ray Comfort
I think to prove God exits... you would first need to prove You exist...I think therefore I am... another form of blind faith
Does God Exist?... better yet do we exist..... I do not think proof of either of these can possibly be proven...
Tadpole to Frog.
Pupa to Butterfly.
Why was that hard?
tadpole is a baby frog
pupa is the makings of a butterfly
you are correct
though I've never seen a ape with the brain of a human. Though it is certainly its true that some humans act like apes ...lol
This was a nice waste of 30 minutes. There was absolutely nothing in it.
I guess you have to define "kinds".
Why? They can't.
Ray is a dumb ass con artist trying to convert the masses for money. Just remember not to drink the coolaid !
Excellent presentation!
Reading through the comments is discouraging.
Is anyone asking themselves the questions posed?
Do you have a single piece of evidence that anything ever changed from one kind to another, as Darwinian evolution proposed?
What about the fact that the experts couldn't answer that?
Did you ask yourself if you are a liar? A thief? An Adulterer?
A blasphemer?
Say it out loud and see if your conscience isn't pricked.
You will stand before a Holy God one day and give an account.
Those that know Him are trying to warn you before it is everlasting too late for you, or your Spouse, or your Children, or others you love.
Please think about this presentation, don't let the loud crowd lead your life, or its biggest decisions.
May the Holy Spirit of God speak to your heart, and may you believe.
There's that stupid term again "kinds" Should I even comment beyond that?
It is a weasel word, no doubt about it.
why do you assume that a reptile will give birth to a bird or a fish to a lizard. you obviously have little to no knowledge about evolution.
The god of reason is worshipped here like the pharaohs of Egypt...
Have deleted a lot of your posts, it seems that you are trolling, either only post about the doc in question or not at all, and do not run SeeUat Videos site down as with this post, you already had warning from OTE consider this warning 2# no other warnings, it is up to you.
Alien Vs Predator was better.
Ray Comfort, just won,t allow the questions and thoughts to be expressed. Just like a cross examining lawyer. Observable evidence can not happen in our human history. Time is a long expanse to just ignore evolution.
ray asks people how they could blindly believe in things without evidence, then tells them to blindly believe in god. my mind is open to evolution, but that does not mean i believe it. and my mind is also open to a supreme being, NOT a person a him or something we can ever or currently comprehend to know like how ray says he loves and KNOWS god. I think that is horse ****. at the beginning of the video i enjoyed watching it, after that it turned a bit cruel. i dislike people who try to force a belief onto others, usually that goes for most religious people. this video is a joke, and can be done in reverse. let god use his own words if he really exists, not in yours.
ray is talking too much as if he really knows god. in reality nobody knows what or who is god, for if somebody knows god 100% then this somebody will be of same level with this god. in my honest opinion, due to limited knowledge of humans to know everything some of us just surrender to the belief that "there must be things ahead of us and will be in the future", that nobody can explain well scientifically.
In reality, no one even knows if god (any god or gods of your choosing) exists.
How can people not believe in evolution. It explains how complex life evolved, regardless of whether God exists or a conscious universe, or Jedi Knights. Evolution has tons of evidence.
Also most people are open to a God, just as soon as it's shown to be true.
how funny are people...asking stupid questions out of ignorance to satisfy their personal views. you should be amazed that god made things so they can evolve instead you have your own ideas on how the universe works.
First you must prove that god (that is your god) exists.
i dont believe in god, well at least not like many do...what i was sayin is that if people believe that god exists why dont believe in evolution too? it makes more sense that god would made life to evolve rather then we were made out of a rib. evolution to me makes perfect sense but those who read the bible, well you cant argue with those people.
your statement sounds like someone who has lade out a mine field with out providing a map.am I right?
You've obviously contradicted yourself, so I must point it out. You state: "instead you have your own ideas of how the universe works" and prior to that you say "you should be amazed that God made things so they can evolve instead." Which is very much a personal view which holds no water.
In your comment you go on to point out a logical fallacy of apparently "asking stupid questions out of ignorance" which isn't a fallacy if your "asking questions" not asserting answers "out of ignorance". Though he does commit multiple fallacies throughout his documentary including many straw men arguments, a lot of wishful thinking, and yes arguments from ignorants as well, and more.
well you really analyzed my statement...my english is not that good so i have trouble explaining things but you get the point i was trying to make. wouldnt it make sense that "god made" things to evolve?
Considering evolution is not "just a theory" yes it makes sense God created it, however I don't believe in God. That is knowing how evolution works, it makes even more sense without a non deistic God.
of course, god is only applicable until something is understood.
Therefore, why bring "god" into the equation. "I don't know" is a much better locution.
yes of course but you wont get that answer from someone who takes the bible literally.
So what? Anyone who takes the bible literally is too intellectually challenged to count for much.
you can say that again...
Believing God is not the default position, that would be very bad. If the default position was to accept something before evidence than our minds should all collapse into black holes due to to much information :)
ok you dont believe in god. Then tell us what is God exactly? You must have some notion otherwise you wouldn't declare that you don't believe in God. As i had mentioned before we humans can't possibly fathom what God is or isn't. What would you accept as valid evidence?
The non evident creator of the universe. "God" implies human characteristics based on every religion that I know of, those of which believes in a personal God or Gods. Putting human characteristics into a being we know literally nothing about(including whether or not he even exists) is fallacious to say the least.
Hard, empirical evidence.
sure we cant, ive been saying this for a long time. people think they understand what god is but they dont. if i would answer your question what god is, id say its whatever created the universe or helped created it in a way. and im not talking about a man in the sky screaming let there be light, no...im saying that god must be it and not he or she. think of it like this - atoms create different molecules, molecules create different chemical substances and so on...so where does god fit in this process? who knows what the universe is in....
Just how do you know that some entity created or helped create the universe?
i didnt say entity...damn is my english that bad lol. what creates the planets - a star, is star an entity? of course not, its a star, a giant bubble of fire if you will, mostly made of hydrogen and helium. and i dont know(im not afraid to say it) i assume based on how other things are made. something had to be involved in the creation or rather the beginning of growth of the universe just like a star is responsible for creation of a planet/s. so whatever was responsible for creation of the universe could as well be called god.
That's merely a presupposition.
what are your thoughts about it then?
I have no right to assume anything , God to me is what everyone else says he is which is unproven and ridiculous. I can't tell you what I think God is or would be, because I have no clue. Nor do I think there's anything even close to resembling what everyone else has said about so called God. For philosophical purposes I will play the "I can pretend God's real" game just for sake of argument and explanation.
gravity is a theory. many many creationists do not know the meaning of the word theory and attempt to brush it off as if it were a guess
No, you must first prove that "god" exists.
religion and anti religion are just the two diffrent sides of the same coin.Thus exaccerbated by self doubt leading to the madness of extremism.Lets return to the sanity of mutual self respect.
i prefer to let sleeping dogs lie.
Then why bring up religion and anti-religion?
Atheism isn't anti religion, anti theism is.
i never said that atheism is a religion. What ever,vulgarity deserves no respect,regardless of where its coming from.
Once again, idiocy and wilful ignorance deserve no respect.
Idiocy deserves no respect.
Ray Comfort is a sick man.
"Kinds", are a man-made invention. It's how it was decided (by people) to go about categorizing animals. It didn't come about overnight either, it was probably done thousands of different ways before we settled on what we call "kinds" today. And who knows, maybe one day we'll find that there's a better way to go about it, it's not the be-all end-all, nor is it supposed to be. It's just where we're at at the moment, and we're progressing under these assumptions. And that, is the proof.
Read about Carl Linnaeus.
Lets think about this... The end product of the refinement process offered by religious philosophy precept and instruction and example... Is supposedly " only good manners" according to the " final word" offered on this ... Exploration of what lies behind the material manifest observable world! Plus what is henceforth looked to as proper and fit human guidance towards successful futures is referred to as The Beautiful Brotherhood ( gender unspecific just as God has no gender specify and is both singular and plural... If we can get our minds around it) .... Which is firstly rational and intelligently Scientific in approach .... And secondly of a refined sensibility ... Humanely conscientious. From such essentials in Man as have been intuited as residing in the prime ... May man have faith... Not in any of our passe petty divided inferior " no gods" that cannot stand in the light of reason, testability and proven efficacy... Before The only defined One and credible result- orientated one way of behaviour- that is and can in future, be " right"... With what is strong as safeguarder of what is " weak" and vulnerable. ...Taking us to " success" as a species
Evolution versus God... Surely Creation has evolved and of the so called 99 names of Allah, one is the Creator while another is the Evolver. Just as we have Alpha- Omega, " the beginning first Opener" and the "
End termination Bestower of Closure. Therefore, this whole premise that evidence of Evolution .. what comes after with various refinements and adaptions ...should in anyway preclude some challengable " god" and his existance - or not- if imaged in any kind of a fixed limited way... has no meaning for me.
The evolutionist boarded the plane filled with children from the summer Christian bible Camp. He thought he would have some fun so he sat next to a young girl. She seemed a bit anxious so he told her that talking helps calm your fears and before you know it the ride is over.
The little girl said OK what shall we talk about? He said, How about Celestial things like God, the devil, Heaven, hell and those things. She said Ok but first I have a question for you.
The deer, horse, cow, and rabbit all eat grass. Yet when they poo their poo is different. The Horse poos clumps, the cow poos patties, the deer poos big pellets and the rabbit poos little pellets.
What occurred in evolution to make them poo differently?
The evolutionist was stumped and he said gee I don't know.
The girl said you want to talk about heavenly things like God and the devil and you don't know s*it?
Mikey, I think what you fail to realize is that the young heroin of your story is just another ignorant, brainwashed Xtian in the making.
Sometimes people really are laughing AT you, not with you like your mom used to tell you.
I think(through my own personal experience,and not based is just superficial claims of allegiance or belief/blind faith) that this entire thread can be summed up by exactly and precisely what constitutes proof or evidence that spirit is real or not real.For a very few of us our awearness of consciousness is proof enough.Religion Not withstanding (except for Guru)which gives no quarter to hypocrisy,indulgence and no promises of pie in the sky)with out hard work,seeking and discipline.No proof of spirit will ever be available.
You've nearly got it right (re the summing up of the comments)...but not quite. The assertion being that proof is required to make the assertion of 'spirit'. But this is not the case, nor is it true. To quote Galileo "We have eyes to see, but we also have brains to understand." He was also commended for his ability to philosophise about the natural world. Science and philosophy, together, form the tools of our understanding. Yet one is objective, and the other subjective. Together they form a subjective picture. That is why no proof for 'spirit' is likely to become available. (imo)
The sun is only probably going to rise tomorrow.
it sounds right.But can you be a little less ambiguous?
Can you be more specific on what I am being ambiguous about? Please don't say its the part regarding the sun rising.
Sorry,but the part about the sun rising.
Then without proof, you cannot honestly claim that the spirit exists--and to hell with philosophy which has never proved anything.
I beg to disagree. Here's a superb example for you to chew on...Philosophy helps in the proof or disproof of ideas. It sets the direction of inquiry...for example, the assertion of an 'ether' (the substance through which light was deemed to travel). A subjective (philosophical) assertion, based on prior evidence of the mediums carrying waves. Science (objectively) failed to detect it, and indeed light has been shown to have a constant speed - no ether. But without a philosophical assertion that ether should/might exist as a medium, we would not have gone looking for it.
That's like claiming that bodily humors, a philosophic concept, was responsible for modern medicine. That's like saying creationism was responsible for evolution. Won't wash.
Nearly. Philosophical enquiry was responsible, in part, for modern medicine, and as for creationism creating evolution...well I thought that's what this whole debate is about? Look Robert, to make this crystal clear I am merely saying you can not have the whole picture without subjective possibilities influencing objective outcomes which in turn lead to subjective possibilities - answers leading to more questions. Nothing wrong with that unless you dismiss one or the other as irrelevant - which you clearly do. To be without curiosity or speculation, is to be more like a machine than human, and that removes incredibly important philosophical tools/concepts like abstraction from the process. A fatal error in scientific advancement, if nothing else.
Were the early paleontologists/ geologists/naturalists out to prove or disprove creationism or did they just desire to research what happened to interest them? Were the early practitioners of modern medicine out to disprove the concept of humors or did their scientific curiosity lead them to do so. In short, did they act for the sake of science or philosophy?
How did "subjective possibilities" influence the objective outcomes of DNA research or the discovery of the polio vaccine? And just how did the subjective possibilities (whatever that's supposed to mean) influence the objective outcomes of research into the Higgs Boson particle? As a matter of fact, how many philosophers are employed by CERN?
What does scientific curiosity have to do with philosophy? Any scientist worth his salt does not need the abstraction of philosophy to tell him how to go about his business.
OK ... You want hard empirical evidence that there is a God that established Creation in which Evolution was a major component. I don't think you would accept anything on anyone's say so. You would firstly rely on your own observational facilities and intuitive acumen and to sift through a large amount of naturally occurring data classifying it as probably right, or unacceptably wrong misguided suspect contrivance or deviance or direct your subconscious awareness to keep alert for signs that might sway you or lead you on into some conviction one way or another. But I suspect you would always keep a little window open in your mind in case some other hard evidence came along and hit you between the eyes... Being more of a head cerebral man than swayed by what is seen s shallo
"Philosophy helps in the proof or disproof of ideas. It sets the direction of inquiry..."
And that's exactly what the scientific method does, except that the result is empirical and can be repeated over and over again, unlike philosophy.
Philosophy depends on the level of cultural enlightenment within whose context it occurs.
Logical deduction doesn't care about context, only whether a hypothesis is correct or not. It also allows for future examination to ensure that the truth remains so...regardless of social memes.
So much for philosophy.
Just what does awareness of consciousness have to do with the existence of a spirit? If you can't furnish proof, you have nothing.
that degree of criterion is ONLY a standard I require for my self and is in no way ment to be or imposed upon others in any other form then mere suggestion or comment. I have nothing to prove or can prove to any one other then my self.
Just what is "degree of criterion?"
If you have nothing to prove, don't assert.
what would you accept as "proof"? I suspect this 'spirit" thing since I lack a better word for it, lies in Quantum mechanics, and we know very little about how that works at this point in time.
Quantum mechanics? Consciousness?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Hard, empirical evidence.
P.S. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a supreme being. I suggest you read up on it before embarrassing yourself any further.
I experience a lot of "feelings" associated to my consciousness, like how odd it is that I am aware of myself and others, I mean really how convenient right? I would love to someday try to understand consciousness, but when one starts that journey one must take care in how one goes about it.
Wishful thinking wont get you far, and 9 times out of 10 it will fail. Science may someday learn the properties of consciousness and finally understand it in a physical sense, and I can't wait. Until then lets not assert things we know nothing about, its bad for progress, it muddies the water, and its a smoke screen for progress. Oh and you may not have asserted anything, but you expressed an opinion and I am expressing mine in return.
lol love the way the guy moves the microphone away every time someone is about to say something that may disprove his point. grrr people who want to make a documentary but don't want to learn anything new what is the point? sooooo bias pffft
Who the hell (and I use the word advisedly) cares?
the lawmakers and organizations that have to constantly fight a rearguard battle against those who wish to impose their religion onto others. also the complete waste of time of teachers and scientists who have to spend valuable time and money (my tax dollars in many cases) keeping this cult of hate from corrupting science and education. their time would be better spend educating our children and advancing our understanding of the natural world around us. that is who cares
The interviewer said that he has, "read the bible everyday for more
than 40 years, and that there are no mistakes in it." WRONG. There are many mistakes. In Genesis it says there was an "evening
and morning" for three "days" before "God" created the sun on the 4th day. You cannot have an evening and morning without a sun to
delineate the events.
The bible teaches that "God" is omnipotent and omniscient, but in
Genesis 2:7 - 17 he created Adam (from "the dust of the ground..."Verse 7), planted the Garden of Eden, put Adam there to
"dress it and keep it." Then in Genesis 18 the bible says, "And
the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone..."
Now if that scene were told of anyone other than "God" it would be
call what it is, that being, "discovery". "God" discovering that, "...It is
not good that the man should be alone..." Continuing V18, "I will make
him a help meet for him" V19 "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and fowl of the air, “...but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."
Again, if this scene were told of anyone other than "God" it would be
call what it is that being, "failure". Not only did "God" fail, but failure
was the only outcome possible, because the bible teaches that Eves must be made out of a rib, not the dust of the ground.
If that is not enough for you, read Gen.5:3 through 5:32, Gen. 7:6
through 11 and Gen. 11:10, keeping track of the passage of years you will discover a blatant two year error (mistake) as to when the flood took place in relationship to when Shem (Noah’s son) begot his first born Arphaxad.
All one has to do s look into a Hebrew/Greek lexicon and you will see the thousands of translation errors.
Sorry Numbers 2:9 before you go freaking out alright.
It is amusing to hear two different opinions, and I stress opinions. For me evolution suits non religious ideas and science eliminates God. Here is the rub: God has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Religion has taken a mystery book and "created" a religion out of ignorance. Science has become a money game for budgets and ego and also as nothing to do with God. Science also defies logic by arguing the Bible's fallibility based also on ignorance and misunderstanding. IF, as the Bible clearly states, it is ALL allegory, then attempting to rationalise a mystery book with understanding based on surface meanings would be ignorant. e.g.: If you read, "the cat is out of the bag", and interpreted it literally, you would BE LIE VE that a cat had been liberated from a bag. IF you understand the hidden mystery, you laugh at someone's childish interpretation and actually attempt to point out their error. The point is, there is NO cat in a bag and no amount of searching from either side will produce said cat. It's an allegory, not a statement of FACT. Both sides are arguing about something of which they do not understand. The Bible is not a geography or history book, it is a Greek Mystery book. Here is a thought for all the bible dismissers: Numbers 2:9, All that were numbered in the camp of Judah were an hundred thousand and fourscore thousand and six thousand and four hundred, throughout their armies. These shall first set forth. This is the speed of light aka 186,400. They camped in the East, the place of the rising sun and light. The tribe of Judah is the tribe of light. What "scientist" knew the speed of light when this book was put together thousands of years ago? These are true Jews, members of the tribe of Judah, not those religious folks in Israel. I would recommend a site called hiddenmeanings dot com. It demonstrates science and religion together and does not need faith. Faith simply means: I don't know. Both parties are arguing about what they don't know. I know both parties require more information, and until then you only have your opinions, which are often wrong. I avoid fanatics in any field, be it soccer, football, science and religion. Consider this: Luke 17:21
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. The boss himself states it right out there, yes God himself said he is within you. Activate your pineal gland via meditation and God is alive in you. This is not my opinion, it is a scientific FACT. God does not believe in atheists. God is Love. Now before you go berserk, at least do some scientific research by avoiding religious people, mostly ignorant fanatics and put aside your 'know it all, know it nothing arrogance of science.
so let me get this straight. you use a modern mile (and still do not get the exact speed). why would they not use the Roman mile (and get the wrong answer) or one of the many units of measurement used in that time? is it because none of those would fit?
It's simply pointing out a possible meaning. The speed of light is NOT exact,Its value is about 186,282 miles per second in imperial units. However, not bad for a couple of thousand years ago without all the modern tools. I guess 'they' were not Romans. I did say Greeks. What exactly should it fit when c is only a constant in a vacuum? FYI, I did not choose the numbers and the speed is "about" 186,400 m/s. You may know where the vacuum is?
But how could have they measured it? And if God or aliens told them, than what would they have even used it for back then??
They where measuring the amount of people in their tribe. I was only pointing out how amazing it is that a tribe of light is numbered almost exactly to the speed of light as we were taught in school. Maybe they knew more then we do.
It just happens to be there. Surely some whiz bang statistician can give us the odds, surely it is an amazing coincidence. It made me pause.
So a group of sheepherders from 2,000+ years ago had more scientific information at their disposal than we have today.
Another nugget of ignorance.
I have 186,400 pairs of socks - imagine that! They are a gift from god, no doubt.
Suppose the passage had give the census at 186,001, 186,555 or 187,000 (what's a thousand between enemies), do you think Mark Filby would have made the correlation?
If these are all actually pairs of socks, it is miraculous, indeed.
Truly, they are nice socks - no, miracle socks, in everlasting pairs. Spoken of in the book of Numbers, apparently as the people of Judah. Made me think of socks right away. What a wonderful book.
i agree but if the value was given or inspired by a "god" why did he/she get it wrong? men make mistakes and generalize but a god should not. and again why use modern units instead of what was available at the time? to state "It's simply pointing out a possible meaning" is imposing a meaning onto something without evidence to support such an assumption
To the best of my knowledge, men wrote the bible, so unlike modern man they got extremely close by ancient means. It appears to be very, very close to me, but maybe we have failed in our modern measurements, considering we do not live in a vacuum. Maybe it was put there to help us today and make us sit back and wonder....what if? I hate religion as much as I hate science theories being banged as facts. It's a theory because it is not a FACT.
Our modern measurements (measuring down to millionths of seconds and inches) are far more accurate than anything used in biblical times and before.
You obviously haven't the foggiest idea of what a scientific theory is which, coupled with the ignorance you have displayed, renders your posts idiotic and pathetic.
"About" doesn't count. Once again, what you have keyboarded represents Christian apology at its worst.
1. Wrong. The speed of light is 186,282 mps in imperial units. Furthermore, nowhere in the passage you cited is the speed of light mentioned.
2. Wrong. Faith means "I know" based on no evidence.
3. Wrong. The pineal gland produces melatonin, a hormone that affects the modulation of wake/sleep patterns and seasonal functions. As the supernatural goes against the tenets of science, claiming it to be a scientific FACT that activating the pineal gland brings out the "god" in you constitutes a blatant falsehood.
4. How do you know so much about an entity ("God is Love") the existence of which you cannot prove and which by nature and definition is unknowable?
In short, another ignorant post and mendacious post..
My ignorance is over shadowed by your brilliance. What could anyone ever tell you: NOTHING. You already know everything, you must be a scientist.
1. Agreed, but it is 'about'!
2. Faith is belief without proof. You can think you know, which is an error because you "know" you don't know.
3. You have never tested this concept based on your limited knowledge. All you have done is define your understanding of the pineal. Try meditating in absolute darkness whilst taking no thought and you may relax somewhat.
4. Simple: I am.
In conclusion: you have not proven me wrong or mendacious. YOU don't know anything except what you have been told. You sir are a parrot. Rote learning for smart monkeys. I have expertise in parrot too. I was also subject to academic absolutes that constantly failed. Look at the arrogance and stupidity of finance and banking. You can get a degree is economics and still be as wrong as society is right now! Professors of economics would argue all sorts of B/S in support of their nonsense. But the facts tell a different story.
Mark, why would god use miles per second as a unit of measure ?
Or, if you are of the 'enlightened pen' belief, how would that unit of measure exist at the time the number was written ?
For your argument to have any legs at all, the same relevance would need to be shown after the value was converted to a relevant unit of measure like 'leagues per day' for example.
Never mind that the rest of the world uses the metric system, in which the speed of light is a nice, round 300 million m/s.
Let's go look for a citation of '300 million' in the bible, shall we ?
God didn't do a thing. The Bible is Greek. I cannot find God's name on the copyright page. Men wrote the bible. I know metrics were not invented, but what an amazing coincidence it works today. The rest of your argument is up to you. I was amazed by the numbers and timing. The concepts behind the metric system were developed in the 16th and 17th centuries when Simon Stevin published details of his decimal notation and John Wilkins published a proposal for a decimal system of measurement based on natural units, so they probably hadn't heard of the future, and metrics, so I am suggesting that is why they used old measuring systems to count their people, it's called addition. ALL I am pointing out is the remarkable coincidence between the almost speed of light and the number of people in that tribe according to the bible. Maybe, just maybe there is more to the bible then the religious dopes think, but don't dismiss it based on silly religious interpretations. I do not agree with religious people, they accuse me of blasphemy and I laugh at them too. As I laugh at your underlying attitude.
so basically you admit the bible is the work of men. so it is not a source of any divine wisdom? if not then it is useless as proof of a "god". if it is written or inspired by a god then he/she gets a lot wrong, contradicts himself/hersself and history and commands/condones some pretty barbaric things. or is it something you pick and choose from only keeping the parts you agree with?
"ALL I am pointing out is the remarkable coincidence between the almost speed of light and the number of people in that tribe..."
That's not all you're saying unless, as it seems, you are backing away from your own argument. To draw a line between a physical relationship and a population is absurd to say the least.
Laugh away at my expense, friend, it doesn't make your argument any more true or your position any more rational.
It is not even a coincidence--and maybes don't count.
All you are doing is basically reading into the bibles phrases/wordings that are seemingly "juxtaposed", you can do the same even with the writings on a box of cereal.
1. Resorting to approximations is simply an empty apololgy for your initial statement.
2. Because it is a belief without proof, faith is far from the virtue it is made out to be. Your next sentence is gibberish.
3. Even if this concept were tested, there would still be no evidence for tying the pineal gland into some idea of a supreme being. Your statement is completely ignorant .
4. Non-responsive.
Once again, you've revealed yourself as an ignoramus and liar.
Science only eliminates God, because there is no justifiable evidence for believing him/her/it.
Also this combined with the random tragedies that happen for no clear purpose to people that seem to not deserve it. This at the very least makes so called God look like a stalker and an a**.
Science does not eliminate GOD it only proves that the Bible is completely wrong and religion should not be used as a reference to explain the natural world. Atheists and religious people are opposite sides of the same coin. Both cling to what they think is certain, without rational thought.
Well as he put it. but some would agree that no evidence of God, is evidence of no God.
Get rid of ALL the old meanings of the word god and replace it with consciousness and you will find evidence all around you.
1i
had to edit a word.
I am conscious of my computer. I am not conscious of god.
Idiotic as usual.
It's not my problem that you twist what i wrote. You are conscious of your consciousness.
1i
omg Robert...that's an incredulous statement.
If by incredulous you mean unbelievable, what is so unbelivable about being conscious of my computer just as I am conscious of my bagel with cream cheese.
You're using 'conscious' in the context of perception, while oQ is using in the context of awareness.
It is no ones fault that English is her second language, you should not play that card. She is very capable of formulating words/sentence structure.
Indeed, she stated the 'twisting' of her words before I did (see below). I'm quite aware of her capabilities. That is not the point. The point is he's defending that 'trickery' to me too.
Right. 'Pysmthe' said it for me.
...ok...I'm pulling my neck back in. :)
"Get rid of ALL the old meanings of the word god and replace it with consciousness and you will find evidence all around you." Just how do you know how she is using the word when she doesn't even say so herself?
And speaking of word usage, from Miriam Webster "incredulous, unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true." How about explaining how this relates to my statement, "I am conscious of my computer. I am not conscious of god."
I am perceptively aware of your tactics, all too aware.
here is my problem with that statement. Rebranding and using vague undefined words to avoid an honest discussion is sad and dishonest. I have a good enough grasp of your beliefs to admit that if you were to use the word "god" it is not in reference to a religious deity. But suggesting to others to replace "god" with "consciousness" when the religious god is the focus only muddies the waters. For a religious person that is the same as renaming "creationism" "intelligent Design" and removing the word god from all literature and debate. Not because they do not believe in god. But because they cannot defend their stance if they mention god. If someone has to hide what they mean then they know themselves they have no case
You won't find a religious person name God consciousness, God is God to them, they would lose their shite if you told them You are god. Perhaps a man of science will call it that though.
1i
You're right! I've seen that 1st hand. They do lose it. Yet it is quite easy to show them it is in their so called word of God. Again, the idea of you are God, is nothing new. It is held in some degree to most faiths. Yet the underlying interpretation is lost on religious people in the west.
From the book of Paul, for example "We are all kings and priests of our kingdoms". Kingdom is easily interpreted as our mind/consciousness. We can lead, and we can follow, but our consciousness is our own to command.
There are so many, many references to the idea that God is everywhere and in all of us, that I'm frankly shocked that this idea is so abhorrent to religees. The reason can only be (imo) indoctrination and submission to authoritative assertions and interpretations.
Or ask Deepak Chopra, pseudoscience? is the Moon still there if we are not looking? "quantum mechanics"
Perhaps does not count.
You want names?
1i
"Perhaps a man of science will call it that though" implies that none do now. But let's have the names--and no philosophers.
Bruce Lipton
Dean Radin
Lothar Schäfer
Tom Campbell
Peter Fenwick
Amit Goswami
Rupert Sheldrake
Stuart Hameroff
(and others)
all men of science who perhaps would switch the name god for the word consciousness in my opinion.
I use "perhaps" because it is an opinion. And out of my thousands of comments, find me one where i say with certainty that i am right about my spiritual path over others.
I don't preach, i post opinions.
1i
As there is nothing behind your opinion except conjecture ("perhaps"), it is as worthless as a number of the individuals you list such as Bruce Lipton, Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake, all of whom have been disowned or discredited by mainstream science, the only science that counts.
i disagree. there are many code words used by the ID community and leaders. but this post from you is putting forward something different than the one i responded to
sorry for the double post i just want to clarify something. i have no doubt that when you use "consciousness" it is the most appropriate word to describe your view. but telling others to replace "god" with "consciousness" can lead to others not being honest. i do not think that is your intent. but it has been my experience
Over the edge, yes sort and sift... It is a test for you... That determines your sum total.... To cut through hypocrisy and the short comings of leadership and " believing followers". So...
coming into play are your own 1)Aspirations and gut instincts, discernment, conscience.
2) considered response in the form of coherent effective words
And 3) deeds performed with discernment, conviction and purpose... That make some difference in the sum total balance of things.
People are fallible... It is reckoned that with one sincere Ijihad endeavour for change comes a reward... doubled if the change proves beneficially good. Therefore it is also reckoned that an infinitely superior "Day of Universal Reckoning" is at a distant remove from any off the cuff reckoning of our own... Or even a well intentioned but sheep and goat like flock.... over and beyond this unformed incoherent stumbling about of chance and hit and miss opinion....guidance sought out and obtained by " Divine Inspiration" and the burning of the midnight oil with the scholars ink is mightier than any ritual observance, ideological posturing,creed, mental or physical or emotional flagellation or fasting or hair shirt chaffing the penitent skin.
Blame it on my being French , i don't get what you're trying to say here.
1i
You are not alone, I have no idea of what she is trying to say either. lol
Respectfully, I agree wholeheartedly with your viewpoint here. However, you are seeing a repackaged, convenient change of stance, that shifts, again, conveniently, to accommodate scientific discoveries that contradict earlier assertions.
Importantly though, science does the same without any fingers being pointed in ridicule (nor should it be subjected to that!). And secondly, I would much rather that those 'beliefs' change than refuse to adjust.
Again, this seems to be an argument where objectivism is bashing heads with subjectivism, without realising one needing the other. No I'm not saying science needs religion or spiritualism, far from it, I'm calling a spade a spade and getting to the nitty-gritty of the impasse.
i may be getting your point wrong so correct me if i do. science never claims to be infallible and prides itself on adaption to and inclusion of new information. religion does claim infallibility in many cases. when science changes it is to put forward the most correct information possible, when religion changes it is either done kicking and screaming or to obscure the correct information. the impasse for me is the misinformation,lies and smoke screens deliberately put forward by many religious leaders and parroted by their followers.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you're getting ever so slightly verbose at times, Digi. I'm not known for having a bad vocabulary, but there are times when I have a good deal of difficulty trying to figure out precisely what you're saying. Don't let an abundance of ideas overwhelm clarity of expression. Write so that everyone is likely to know what you mean.
... :-/ ok...
DigiwongaDude...Aren't you saying ... There may be a purposeful point to the struggles evolution presents?... Maybe we had to grow this fierce, resourceful and resilient through exigencies and trials in order to come to this stage of realisation... We are , with our own developed strident grasping pushy tendencies...the major threat to our own continued well being and existence.... And as a consequence realising Needs must...can now strive to encourage and nurture and develop other attributes that assuredly lead to success as a long lived species who are bent on attaining security of life, rescuing and securing human and environmental dignity, and preservation of those properties ... Physical, mental, emotional, spiritual that are shown to surrender high dividends and yield high returns with respect to present well being and secure futures
I agree.. science ... An understanding of what is established out there and all around us... What it consists of , It's defining properties, stages, signs and the enormity of its functioning being... Appears to make the reverent awe ... absorbent spirituality, observant consciousness of one of its parasitical developed life species... Man....of little consequence or significance... To IT.... As a wheeling uplifted reality of mysterious remote entities- oh so gradually penetrated by little finite mans limited short lived faculties.... And then only by a " privileged" portion... Who diligently apply themselves ... And feel it sufficiently significant and important enough as a self imposed task..or test of constructive consciousness. to pass on their awareness of their habitat for the edification well being of society/ progeny and future generations.
I must admit I've never considered science as a tool used by a feeble parasite...it's an interesting, but disturbing perspective.
Fortunately, for today anyway, I have more faith in the human spirit than that. But that faith comes and goes likes a tide - see the latest VICE on SeeUat Videos (Assassination Nation). :-/
There is humility for our place in the universe, and there is cynicism about our observed role within in. The two don't make good bed fellows.
I prefer to embrace the humility aspect, and hold a faith that one day we might put down our weapons and rise up to the challenges. Why do I choose humility over cynicism? I think it had to be this way, that we perhaps had to travel this path - It's the clever fox that has to outsmart the quick, stupid rabbit. An intelligence mechanism certainly develops in predators.
Now, we have to undo our instinctual predatory learning (that we seem unwilling or unable or too scared to leave behind). No easy task.
Perhaps by embracing humility and an idea of transcendence (awakening), each person who does so, is doing so to save our species from itself?
Thanks for the thought provoking post :)
And your point is?
And just how is refusing to believe in something without evidence the mark of a lack of rational thought?
an individual that thinks rationally, would understand that there is no proof, humans could never know what god is, or even if there is a god at all. So wasting time on trying to disprove such things is pointless. Why argue over something that we can't prove or even understand? Neither side can say with ANY degree of certainty that they are correct, yet atheists as religious folks alike push what they think is right. For all we know we could all be wrong, which is probably the correct scenario here. So what is it that you are expecting as valid evidence?
Fine,then don't assert the existence of something unless there is proof (empirical evidence) for it.
That website you mentioned just completely made my day. I just had to check it out, and oh boy was I rewarded. Talk about being out in the boondocks of cyberspace, I remember making a website much like it when I was 12 years old and wanted to share my thoughts about Pokémon. If these people are serious, then surely aliens must have visited us.
Its still a theory....keep it in your mind
Someone else who has no idea what a scientific theory is. Why don't you read up on it before embarrassing yourself with further posts?
If we evoled from an ape or fish, then why do they still exist ?
Why didn't they also evolve ?
Why are there so many different races, some ape, some fish, some whatever ?
It's evolution, not replacement. Ape and fish are not races.
It's hard to believe that so much ignorance can be packed into one post.
After going through cancer that modern science, medicine could not cure, I tried what science says does not exist. Now my doctors want to use me as a case study, why, science will only try to debunk what they don't understand, but they can not take away my experience and the fact that I'm still here, despite being told there is nothing more that they can do for me. Yes, we evolved, what I meant was the so called missing link. It's all around us, you just have to tap into it to understand. Call it God or whatever you want, it exist's, it's our consciousness that has evolved, pay attention to what goes on around you everyday.
We built massive structures all over the world at a time when science said we lived in caves. It's time for us to wake up and remember all that we have forgotten.
Why should anyone believe you when you present no evidence?
What missing link?
What's all around us?
What are these massive structures you refer to?
In short, you've said nothing and you've proved nothing
Anything that exists can be proven with science. Science is just a method of understanding the world around you. In science, facts are facts until proven otherwise. In religion, you cannot challenge those facts.
"In religion, you cannot challenge those facts." Right you are. See the interview between Lauren Green the Fox News' "religious reporter" (whose degree, by the way, is in music) and Reza Aslam. It turns out that Ms. Green had not even read Dr. Aslam's book. Then turn to Fox News' apologia featuring Ms. Green and that vile Catholic of all vile Catholics, Brent Bozell. All this for your delectation and delight on You Tube. .
before i go into answers. i have to ask. are these serious questions?
For all of your answers, see topic: Evolution.
Doesn't it make simple sense that they live on as they are, in general terms, as long as they are successful at adapting to the world around them?
I agree, it's just that when you look at all that we are finding of ancient civilisations, it just makes me wonder if there isn't something more. I have no name for it, just curious, Einstien said to keep asking questions, who knows.
You've gotta be kidding?
What a load of cr*p! I had a good laugh watching this one. This guy just mind rapes these poor people.
Only been watching for about 5 minutes and I'm already infuriated. This is so heavily edited in favour of theists. I cannot believe that nobody would mention the rapid adaption of bacteria as evidence for evolution, as biology students as most of those people were, at least one must've offered that OBSERVABLE evidence.
Most likely it was edited out.
Not to mention he was probably interviewing General Bio or Bio 101 students in current semester. Not Biology graduates... and yes I agree with your idea of Editing to support his cause. This is no different than a lawyer using the court system to misguide the truth...So tell me, do you still beat your wife? How do you answer that in a yes/no format.
The real truth is you cannot prove either and people make their own mind up about it. People should seek out information to make an informed decision for themselves, but not be persuaded by silver-tongued sales people like this.
bait and switch!
I........ just wanted to say that a banana shares %50 the same DNA as a human :)
Thankyou.
well your welcome, I guess we are all part banana, no surprise though as common elements are transmutated by plants which are then consumed by humans ...
Science does not include the feelings we have..
Religion does not include Women and that God is a HE.
Science without feelings is a Hitler blitz.
Religion without rationing of ideas is a fanatical human willing to KILL over their beliefs.
They want you to PICK a side ... and FIGHT the side that did NOT pick the same side.
Do NOT pick a damn side ! The Universe is a PARADOX. But, our brains can not get it. Once you know you will never get everything, you will finally get it ! ( see the paradox? )
How about just eliminating the word and concept of "design" entirely, as design in nature is unprovable. Perhaps, structure should be substituted.
Yes it does. It's called Psychology. There are entire courses dedicated to Understanding Emotion. We have been studying "feelings" (a very generic word) for at least 100 years.
We've actually mapped out what parts are of the brain are responsible for which emotion. There's even a study that can predict your answers before you answer a question.
Science is about making your computer faster and your internet connection better through experimentation and trying new methods. Science is not responsible for what people use that technology for.
Religion is about excuses when you land in court.
I have been sufficiently warned about this documentary but will watch it anyway. It provides educational information on how rationalizations are used to sound rational.
and it might even give me a few laughs.
Manipulative wordgames. Just a technique. Brainwashing as many sects practice in. Leaving no room for free will, which according to sacred texts is essential. When a debate is not a 2 way process, but merely intended to get one's point across as absolute truth, it is simply wrong and in no way what any sacred text intended. A waste of my time. But then i was never an evolutionist and that debate does not play itself out in the Netherlands as it does in the USA. We do have religious fanatics like this one though. I do not believe in any image of a god, that seeks to divide people on the basis of having different religions. Not even when someone chooses to be an atheist. Who looks at the many criminal stories that are playing out in the vatican, the child sexual abuse of many children, gets why many people left the church. Personally i foremost remember the gossiping about other people, when going to church. And when a reverend claimed people of other affiliations were excluded from going to heaven i was done. I am neither an atheist, but in no way believe in a way, many believers do. Who just become like mindless zombies, repeating meme after meme they are indoctrinated/brainwashed with. Yet were God to land on earth tomorrow i would welcome her/him with an open heart.
Evolution is fact point blank. And speaking of points, just what is yours?
The beginning of the video was quite briljant. But then it became fanatic and offensive. A knowing it all, where some religious groups are so well known and resented for. Fanatism is a sin. Thinking one as a human, truely understands sacred knowledge, where sacred texts tell us that knowledge is beyond human capacity of understanding, judging people without any respect, is aprehensive. Reading the bible for 40 years, claiming you found no mistake, where other sacred texts say that the bible is falsified in many places and all the apocryphic books are excluded, noone has a real true idea of what all of the Original sacred teachings really were.
Just what was so brilliant about the first part of the video or anything part of it?
yes toward the end he started that hell stuff which was disappointing..
Appendix research has recently found, contains the Original bacteria that are supposed to be active in your gut. In case of disease, wheren beneficial bacteria get destroyed, they serve to bring those bacteria back into your gut.
And the point is?
Babies of a few months old, can be thrown into deep water and they will swim, even under water. Apparently a system that closes off their trachea, preventing they inhale water. Recently i heard frogs changing from male into female, giving birth, due to pollution. Heard before that certain fish do the same. The evolutiontheory from monkey to human seems unlikely to me. For if so, why have we not seen/heard if that happening. Unless at a certain moment a giant jump would be possible. I have heard of makay species starting to wash all their potatoes, then spreading to the same species on different unrelated islands. Changes would be possible through crossbreeding or genetic manipulation. The sumerian tablets and many engravings in ancient stones however, depict that human history is not evolution but creation. Change within a species is not the same as a monkey suddenly being a human, although i recently saw monkeys walking through water on 2 legs, upright.
“Babies of a few
months old, can be thrown into deep water and they will swim, even under water. “ How do you know this and what does it have to do with evolution?
“ Recently I heard frogs changing from male into female, giving birth, due to pollution. Heard before that certain fish do the same.” What you heard is only so much garbage. What is your source? And just what does sex change have to do with pollution?
“The sumerian [SIC] tablets and many engravings in ancient
stones however, depict that human history is not evolution but creation.” What makes you think that whichever Sumerian tablets you’re referring to constitute anything approaching scientific evidence?
“The evolution theory from monkey to human seems unlikely to me. For if so, why have we not seen/heard if that
happening. “ What seems unlikely to you is again only so much garbage, especially in light of your ignorance of
education and your obvious lack of scientific education as evidenced by “Change within a species is not the same as a monkey suddenly being a human, although i
recently saw monkeys walking through water on 2 legs, upright.” Clearly, you haven’t even a basic concept of
evolution and clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Yet you keyboard to your embarrassment.
Nothing new here... Many people have abused "evolution theory" to their agenda before... Using bits n pieces out of context... killing people over it... (Not to mention abusing Nietszche's Ubermensch ideas... but that's a whole 'nother story entirely). But As i told someone else here before... sometimes evoluton can go way faster than we think (as in, within a few generations if need be). Ok, they might seem like mutations at first, but when they become consistent and for some weird reason "useful" to our race, it might happen in the overexagerated "fortnight"... Though indeed, unlikely... Even as a scientist and after "facts" have been "proven", one has to keep an open mind for every possibility out there, however onlikely... In my universe... Multiverse... Anything is plausible some place, some time, somewhere... Eat that evolution! Eat that Creation! Eat that... what was my point again? Right... Monkey business!
Keeping in mind that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
What is this supposed to mean: "Change within a species is not the same as a monkey suddenly being a human"?
Nothing "suddenly" becomes a different species, unless "suddenly" is defined as over millions of years; which it isn't.
You haven't heard the story about the monkeys eating shrooms? You missed a piece of evolution right there! From Ape to "Human Ape" in frigging an hour of digesting! ;) That said... Suddenly... I feel the urge to kick some trolls... Just come along, join the anti troll train ;) (rampant rambling! yes! rambling I tell you!) ***Walks away, JD style in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"** Ether, goddamn ether!
interesting video showing how brainwashed humans are from public institutions and how they cant think outside of that brainwashing.. This is a great example of how dehumanization is prevalent in society.
More like an example of how poorly educated college kids are, but, then, isn't that why they are still in college and not academics with doctorates and experience?
well if you watched the video those with the phd's who were the teachers faired no better in thinking than the students. This exemplifies how brainwashed they are.
hey what happened to banana man?
"When it comes to bullsh*t, big-time, major league bulls*it,
you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and
exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion
easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion
has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the
sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible
man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if
you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and
smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live
and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til
the end of time!
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He
always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise,
somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars,
they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about
a good bulls*it story. Holy Sh*t!"
-George Carlin
30 years from now you might have to pray to allah in the us to stay alive. o you think Europe saw it coming 30 years ago. Google "no go zones in Europe" or muslim problems in any country of your choice in western Europe. Watch out mr and mrs Godless
Why there is no God/Creator.
The earth is beautiful work of art. As an artist I can tell you that an artist would never sit by and allow the kind of destruction that humans have done to the earth to be done to their art.
The term "Intelligent Design" makes me laugh. Again no "Intelligent Designer" would allow the kind of destruction done to their design by humans.
No way, no how. An Artist, an Intelligent Designer would stand up and stop what is happening even if that was killing the humans doing the destruction.
This is propaganda! Not a documentary. Don't waste your time on it.
I disagree. Once you see the tactics used, you can arm yourself with the required knowledge to defend against this nonsense.
@superman; How do you know that Alv V dosen,t have any proof or evidence for believeing in a Creator?Or is it really just your excuse to Stay ungreatful,narrow and crass.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
P.S. Among other things, the word is ungrateful.
I've heard it said that gawd only exists at the pleasure of the flying spaghetti monster, or everything is consciousness which last time I checked doesn't have any silly commandments or rules..
It's clear to see - from most of the comments - that the trend for the today's gentleman is to be a godless, rude, childish bully.
And just what's the matter with being godless and treating wilful ignorance and wilful ignoramuses with the contempt they deserve?
Didn't Dawkins say something about that creationists shouldn't be answered at all, so not to give the impression it's something seriously? It just seem to me that the creationism is getting a larger phenomena and making Americans into anti-Darwinist, and maybe it wouldn't be such a issue if people just ignored it? I don't know. I understand the frustration though, I grew up as a atheist myself and remember I always had a problem with Genesis vs. science.
And you will continue to have a problem any time you take the bible over science.
And here you are trying to get involved with the argument.
EDIT:
Your implying being godless is a bad thing? That state of mind is a problem I see a lot(mainly with religious people).
What I just understood from your comment is, you believe in a God and other people that aren't so gullible don't. This makes you question your ridiculous beliefs. To that I say good, believing a God is arrogant and shouldn't be part of the modern age. Its just plain stupid.
Your thoughts?
I was implying being godless to be a trend.
Just how am I a problem, childish and ignorant?
"This is after all the internet" Hah! That's no excuse. Being two-faced - even if many people behave that way while masking themselves as anonymous individuals - is something most people would think of as a very bad thing in everyday life, so why should it be different just because you are online? That's really my point. I don't understand it. Honestly I think it is a bit sad and frightening, that people seem to be really bad people when they have the chance to be so unpunished.
I don't understand how believing in God could be arrogant or ridiculous/stupid. I'm guessing you mean the behavior some people have in the combination with it - like Gandhi said that he liked Christ, but not Christians?
Shouldn't be part of the modern age. Do you mean it should be criminal, punishable, or do you perhaps mean that you think it is not something a modern world really need? Most people on the planet believe in a afterlife, and the majority also in some sort of god. It's really just a western phenomena to be a disbeliever. Personally I think that's a result of the materialistic society that places the value of a car or a hamburger above spirituality, and I don't think that's a path to happiness really.
That was my thoughts.
Believing in something for which you have no evidence is idiotic.
What most people believe does not establish the truth of what they believe.
Before you can have spirituality, you must first prove the existence of the spirit and if you can't do that, your statement is nonsense and a hamburger (even at MacDonald's) is worth far more than anything your "spirituality" has to offer.
Frankly, what you happen to believe is only so much garbage; it's what you can prove.
Religious belief can be traced to the right temporal lobe and it can be experienced in some form, for some people, if that part of the brain is stimulated, that's a fact. Just like love, joy, peace etc. and all of it good things, clearly more valuable then hamburgers, maybe except for psychopaths.
Wherever it's experienced, religion is still idiotic. Now, what about those who have cast religion aside? Does this indicate a dysfunction of their temporal right lobes?
Once again, before you can have spirituality, you must prove the existence of the spirit--and just listing love, joy, peace followed by etc. doesn't cut it. I'd like to see you buy a hamburger at MacDonald's with love, joy and peace followed by etc. or is using filthy lucre the mark of a psychopath.
And.while we're on the subject psychopathy, how about providing the extent of your education and experience in psychology/psychiatry or is it about on the same level as your education and experience in biology and the sciences in general?
I will assert that anyone who believes in an anthropomorphic God is displaying an arrogant quality. I often will say this in arguments to people with obvious belief and who haven’t expressed what sort of belief, other than a God. Often in religious debates when I don't know what religion I am disputing this is the first thing I generally like to bring up. The comment will nearly always induce a response, and very often immediately. “Why is believing a God arrogant?” they will say, allowing me to hopefully help them understand as I do(which I enjoy regardless of the topic). Most of humanity's Gods are obvious human like constructs each with rules written in a primitive time clearly by a primitive society.
The first main reason believing God is arrogant is that religions offer loopholes for potential horrific moral acts. Like in some cases after asking for forgiveness from the powerful man in the sky you are forgiven and are able to have a clean conscious. This allows people to do atrocious things and then repent way to easily. So you butchered 500 people and wore their skin, but you asked God for forgiveness before you died so your fine. Meanwhile the skeptical man who donated 40% of his earnings to charity and worked at a homeless shelter on the weekends for over 20 years, who never hurt anyone. He goes to hell for eternity for not believing God in a finite chaotic life which had no clear path. And just because some man like God supposedly said so, and your OK with this? I don't know about you but if some supposed all powerful and all wise wizard started sending my friends and family to a place of torment and fire for ever and ever, because they didn't believe him I might be justified in assuming he wasn't a good God, but in fact a very bad God.
It's also arrogant because you have no right, knowing how small and unspecial most of us are, to assume, unjustly I might add, that there is a “correct” religion. If there is a God which I'm sure there isn't, but say one of humanities religions was right, what happens to the other 99% that chose wrong, including those who were born in the wrong area of the world which indoctrinated them with the wrong religion. Are they all not just as worthy if not in many cases even more so to go to a place of peace and love and whatever. But no they chose the wrong religion so hell fire for them for ever. There more reasons, but do you see now?
Other reasons; It allows societies to ignore problems which would otherwise be addressed. It also slows the progress of many institutions especially in the medical field. It has condemned, suppressed, and discredited men of science throughout history which has potentially nearly froze society's technological progress further than we can imagine, but of course we will never know now, because some scared gullible people throughout history couldn't listen to reasonable ideas which contradicted their own unjustified beliefs.
What do you think? Believing God is arrogant!
wow, quite a rampage, Rampage :) But yeah, you're right on every count. Perhaps read my post (previous to this) in "Bahrain:Shout in the Dark", here's a taster: "It [religion] is a short-sighted road to an obstinate assertion of righteousness", the rest may be helpful to you in your assertions of arrogance, which is the main theme of that post.
However...
There are other philosophical perspectives to spiritualism, that don't require anthropomorphic tendencies, arrogance or blatant contradictions (the 'moderate' Christian example being the idea of a 'heaven' that you can go to, while your loved ones are having the cr&p burned out of them for eternity...hardly a heaven is it?) And such blatant flaws in ideology exist across the board. These bible based religions are all as pathetic as each other. As my referred post infers, there is a need for submission in membership, and that's why (imo) these things aren't questioned by those upholding them.
But to conclude, there are other avenues of beliefs and philosophies, teachings and wisdoms, awakenings and experiences, that can in fact be liberating and certainly do not require active disdain...
I agree, though I looked into various forms of spiritualism. Mostly for entertainment purposes but not biased, instead I was very much hopeful and even more so skeptical and I find it innocent enough for now, but with not one shred of proof. Also "pyramidology" and its fun numeral symbols found within its architecture is not in any way justifiable proof for spiritualism.
Also someday It could be hijacked by someone or some group which may do the same thing that's been done over and over by other religious institutions through history(use it against us even to suppress and control us).
Wishful thinking is a fallacy for a reason, I want to believe I will live forever but I would never assume it without justifiable reason. This includes believing the Lock ness monster, spiritualism, a soul, even a mind beyond physical brains. Something might be going on for us to be here and have an awareness attached to a processor and memory bank, but we have no evidence. Or if there is evidence we still cant comprehend it, or we aren't meant to know. All I am sure of is there's no known justifiable proof for any of this stuff and there are millions of camera phones, and recording devices, yet no evidence of ghosts, aliens(at least beyond the ufo part), angels, an afterlife, a global consciousness, and more. Maybe it could ruin our experience in life, or maybe there is something going on which like I said our little brains cant understand. Hopefully we find out soon! Until then lucky us I guess, lets not waste to much time with the b.s. but instead try to use the best tools we have to learn and teach the correct things which we know are true or are probably true or at least best represents the world.
Been away for a bit and didn't miss much. Good call but a lost in the melee.
Glad to see you back! Here's a summary of postulates I, currently, hold as truth...
"Science is utterly incompetent to refute God."
(and any claims to the contrary are, ironically, just as arrogant as Rampage's claim would be, from the other side of the fence)
"Absence of proof, is not proof of absence."
"Knowledge filtering has an inevitable influence on Science, through Philosophy."
The truth is out there (lost in the melee or not). :)
Well actually I agree, but that doesn't mean science can't refute God. That's a similar arrogant assertion! :D
I didn't say can't, I said incompetent. The difference is subtle, but important. In other words, a claim that science is competent in refuting God is an arrogant one.
Sounds good, also though it might be a hyperbole.
May I be so arrogant as to suggest that unless God is a hole-in-one shooter every time he swings a club, science is at least adding 8 or 10 strokes to his game every quarter-century?
1. As science deals only with the natural world, it cannot refute or for that matter prove a god.
2. Provide me one example to the contrary.
3. Of what use is philosophy in science?
No one cares which postulates you currently hold. It's what you can prove.
1) ...no question...therefore we are in agreement.
2) Gulf War syndrome. There are many no doubt. (But you already have been informed about this, so you are either choosing to ignore it or being argumentative)
3) I answered that already, at the top of the discussion.
P.S. So as to avoid deletions, forgive me if I don't respond further to you here. I trust my answers are approved responses ;-)
As there is plenty of evidence for Gulf War Syndrome, it is hardly a counterexample.
Now, describe the role played by philosophy in the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle, the polio vaccine, the discovery of DNA, the Big Bang just for starters.
"It [religion] allows societies to ignore problems which would otherwise be addressed." Like abortion and overpopulation.
Have you watched any of Dark Matter's videos?
Those that dwell here have no belief in anything but their own skepticism. Their god is the god of reason nothing more nothing less.
And just what's the matter with that?
P.S. Reason is not a god.
To have faith in something bigger than our humble existence is a trap and will leave us lost and alone.
it sounds to me like you just shot your self in the foot.
Just how?
the statement is more arrogant then humble,unless of course you did create your self (not much humility in that idea.
And just why should Mascotte be humble?
in his own words-our humble existence.
Harass people on a campus street to prove your position on god vs Evolution. Post video on youtube. Nice we should adopt this novel method of proving ideas, the peer reviewed article stuff is getting rather old.
Religions are basically cultural divisions. As they are 'man made', some keep some societies 'happy', and some don't keep anyone 'happy' - especially women.
This doc looks interesting, I knew robertallen1 would be in here kicking a$$ /salute
poor sick b'tard ... (Ill pray for him)...as far as a doc review, if you have a very generous mind and morbid sense of humour then maybe it's worth the laugh, or the information on how warped are the ideas of a religious based delusional higher primate...truly truly sad. My own point always is that if one sincerely can review the fossil record, and then set it aside as a 'trick' or a 'test' of some God (many many to choose from) who demands you have 'faith above evidence' (according to that God's many many prophets who have 'heard' the words of their God's)... come on...really. The comments are funny though...
This guys keeps going on about a change in kind. Maybe the duckbilled platypus was one of those wierd changes, who knows, Evolution is a THEORY!!! WE belive it becuase it makes sense to us, we see the evolution of our cars, our cities our minds, so we apply it tour beliefs. There is OBSERVABLE evidence based on that.
Its not just a theory, and there are WAY better examples than the duckbilled platypus.
Educated people don't go on about a change in kind.
You obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is.
We don't believe evolution because it makes sense, but rather because all the evidence supports it--and none of this evidence has anything to do with cars, cities or our minds.
Post again after you have actually read something about evolution--and the duckbilled platypus. .
This is all nice, but it doesn't take much intelligence or courage to beat the dead religious horse into the ground. If you really want to be intellectually honest, get rid of this constant and arrogant chest thumping we call secular humanism as well.
And what's the matter with secular humanism?
Moderators:
Could I trouble you for a third time to add the link "Ray Comfort, Witch Doctor?"
So did Ray Comfort post this documentary, and if so is he watching the comments? He reminds me of my grandpa, I wish he would come on and debate religion with me(I'm not an expert so don't be scared).
You don't have to be an expert on religion to debate it. That's one of its few beauties.
And not only that but debating also allows one to learn more about the subject. Which makes the next debate even easier lol. Debating religion is unfair though. Maybe I should play devils advocate, of course then i would have to lie..
Debating Ray Comfort is unfair--to Ray Comfort.
If you lie, you place yourself on THEIR level and you certainly don't want to do that.
And speaking of downright lying, ever seen a Kent Hovind video?
My grandfather is a young earth creationist he linked me a video of this guy. It was hard to watch it for more than a few minutes.
What's the point? Evolution is wrong because you have to have faith in it, but some how having faith in Religion is the only other alternative?
What happened to observation and testing? What about "Everything we know and understand about modern biology was developed on the premise of the Theory of Evolution". Whether evolution is right or wrong isn't the point of science, it's just a method to explain the physical world around us.
Science isn't a religion, it's not something you believe in. It's a method of applying practical knowledge to the world around us. Just typical religion again.
Every time you say "Evolution", they immediately think "Darwin". It's been a long time since Darwin's theory, and unlike religion, it has changed. If you could disprove evolution with observable facts, you would make science happy. Changing the theory of evolution doesn't immediately add God into the picture.
Right, it doesn't. However, I'm tired of hearing people link Darwin to evolution as opposed to natural selection.
"Are you going to heaven or hell when you die?"
"I'll never die. I will live forever. I can prove it to you, because I cannot die in front of you. I cannot make myself dead or prove that my death exists. As far as you are concerned, the theory of my death is as unbelievable as evolution and you may as well believe that I will live forever."
Why didn't you provide the source of this quote and what does it have to do with my post?
Ray is always good for a laugh. This is the guy that said that if you have cancer, don't go to a doctor because you have demon possession. And more recently extolled the virtues of the wonderfully designed banana. If intentional ignorance has a face, it's Ray Comfort.
I know this is a bit off topic but I was thinking a bit after watching this about a BBC doc that had Mikou Kaku (sp) in it where he said "hiding inside Einstien's equation is a monster, r/1 + 1/0 = infinity, but there is no such thing as infitiy." I could have sworn I watched it here since all I do is watch docs here all day but I cannot find it. Any help?
Really sorry to be off topic but it's driving me crazy.
Yah, I saw that documentary. I don't think it was a religious doc, I believe it was actually about psychology. It was talking about defining everything using quantummechanics.
At the very top right, on this page, where it says "search this site" type in "Michio Kaku" click search and will show all of Michio Kaku doc's
wrong again about niel degrass tyson
It's impossible to tell what you're responding to. Could you possibly click the reply on the bottom of each comment.
Fallacious arguments are great b/c you don't have to actually make an argument!
Willing to debate any day.
jump cuts in editing and a zealous belief in God made this film. evolution happens over millions of years you dolt. It's not a "belief" you can test it by observation of the fossil record. My God
Not to mention microbiology and genetics, the former being unknown in Darwin's time. Actually we no longer need the fossil record.
Plants: If you get a really good Indica one week, and then a really good Sativa, the next week, you've experienced a true change of 'kinds'
BTW... If these street people don't know the ingredience to cheeze-its does it mean that cheeze-it's can't exist?
And a rose from nothing ask Montasanto!
A lot of good posts, fuel for thought. On conundrums such as these posts and doc. represent, I usually fall back on... "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable."
"There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
'Douglas Adams'
Will include a link that is on topic to these discussions and delves further in these ongoing discussions.
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
to assume either "purpose" or "reason" behind the existence of the universe is to engage in the same cerebral masturbation as comfort. "5h1t happens" is the only explanation we have evidence for. not exactly awe inspiring, or majestic, but "it is what it is just because the dice rolled the way they did" sums it up fairly well.
I see no problem with cerebral masturbation, in fact I encourage it. (sorry if that's out of context, but I couldn't resist...I'm a proper w&nker lol)
I do as it's often a dead end.
masturbation of one form or another would seem to be the "purpose" of humanity, at least if one uses frequency of internet vids as "scale of purpose". the burning question (at least to my fevered, long abused grey matter) is does one achieve "proper w@nker" status through mastery of technique, or merely dedication to practice? (yes, my resistance was low as well, lol)
lol...you've been away too long, as usual. What ye been doin..? Facepalm.
once again, i've been lurking and watching, but insert my "pearls of wisdom" sparingly, unless i find a topic that demands my input and expertise (such as, of course, masturbation in all its "glory"). endless discussion of subject matter with the willfully ignorant in hopes of epiphany through carpet bombing seems like a bit of a chore in my eyes. "never argue with an id10t, they will always bring you down to their level, and then win through a vast body of experience you don't possess". so lately i've been resisting "rising to the bait" after i say what i fell needs telling, but others still desire to debate what size square peg properly fits a 30mm round hole, lol
Sorry if I made you repeat, i tend to skim read these days...something about my eyesight lmao.
Check with the neckbeards over at reddit. They're all up on this sh_t.
Then get rid of secular humanism as well if you want to be honest. Religious people cling to their fantasies because they desire some purpose, and you cling to humanism for the same reason. Your criticism is therefore not that impressive.
If secular humanism stands for natural explanations coupled with hard evidence rational thought as opposed to the unproven supernatural coupled with superstition and no evidence, why should we get of it?
"If secular humanism stands for natural explanations coupled with hard evidence rational thought "
That is not secular humanism. Where did you find that definition from? That is the definition of science.
So what? As long as it rules out the religious.
I believe that the maker of this documentary should be sued for manipulating questions in the editing studio. furthermore, a good reporter never interrupts the interviewee when he answers. he never says YES WE DO. YOESYOU SHOULD. YOU ARE NOT RIGHT. this is total crap.
Dear reporter. You are wrong.
so before i start, the disproving of Darwinian evolution does not prove that that a wizard in the sky called god exists!
lol so first off fruit fly's live about 8 hours so we have subjected them to different environments and they have evolved to suit that environment in the period of about 4 years or so, some of them even lost there ability to fly (they used to be fly's now there not the start of a new kind). koalas can also be traced back to a common ancestor of man same as monkeys. There are fish that have lungs and gills (effectively making them a different kind no longer really fish and not quite an amphibian). evolution is a theory not a belief it hasn't been proven 100%, science does not deal with certainty it just looks at the facts and make the simplest logical explanation, if another better explanation fits then they rewrite the science books.
you cant make anything from nothing no one can not even a wizard in the sky. you have to have the knowledge and materials, can u make a house from nothing? can u make a pencil from nothing? no, this is an invalid question.
humans are pretty unintelligent at this very moment in time we are destroying all life supporting mechanisms on this planet. in 20 years there will be so much carbon in the air we will start a run away greenhouse affect that wont be able to be stopped, in 50 years we will run out of fresh water and fish, in 100 years we will run out of land to farm, all in all the human race is pretty stupid.
my university had religious education.
actually the big bang is also a theory, which is based on the fact that the speed of light travels at a certain speed through a certain medium. therefor we have calculated that 99.9% of galaxies are moving away from our own using the Doppler affect, this in turn leads us to think hmm maybe it was all in 1 place to start off.
Atheism - the belief that a god or gods don't exist. Some of the people he quoted of claiming not to be an atheist actually say stuff like i'm not an atheist but i don't believe in god.
lol for starters my dog would not drown in a pool, 2nd of all i would save my dog because its my neighbors fault for going near water without supervision when he/she doesn't know how to swim.
to say something belongs to someone is very a modern concept if you go back to before agriculture there was no such concept, it just goes to show how separated we have become from the earth.
lol he bleeped out Jesus Christ!!!
lol if you've never looked at a girl in lust then you have only been in prearranged relationships and the bible says nothing about girls lusting over guys so that argument is flawed. also men who don't masturbate or have sex still cum they just don't choose when it happens eww right? don't believe me try not masturbating or having sex for 2 weeks.
lol if god is moral just and perfect why would childhood cancer exist if anyone can follow the 10 commandments its a 2 year old yet according to religious people god created everything so he also created childhood cancer what an evil f--k. if he is real (which ive never been shown any proof of) then when i go to heaven to be judged im going go up to him a bitch slap his ass for being an evil f--k.
i don't know where this thing comes from that if im not afraid of eternal torture im just going to go round raping people, which is what this guy implies, but it doesn't my moral beliefs are determined by treating others the way i would want to be treated. so for instance would i want some one to lust after me? yes is my answer so i do it to other people. anyone that does not believe that the human being is an animal is silly. if we are living but not an animal what are we? a plant? no to both of those questions mean that we are not living.
unique yet in the image of god contradiction detected.
god said to Adam and Eve do not eat from the tree of knowledge, so that means by living in a modern house, shopping in a grocery store, even using a video camera, all these things go against gods wishes so you sir are a hypocrite.
lol so your saying by sinning god is going to take my life away great more evil, not only is he going to punish me for eternity for minor things like looking at pretty girls but now hes going to kill me for it as well.
so god the all powerful wizard who can see the future because hes all powerful came to earth to try and persuade people to worship him knowing full well he would fail and be put on a cross to die for our sins... WOW hes more messed up than creating child hood cancer self inflicted torture.
tell you what then im going to become a mass murderer, a rapist and a torturer and then i will ask for forgiveness and all will be forgiven right? lol.
okay i read this part of the bible and he didn't say that he said father do not punish them for they know not what they have done.
lol so now god is helping murderers he knows when you are going to die yet he never warned anyone just before they got murdered in our society they call this a crime. so by reasoning our society has a higher moral standard than god.
im not trying to scare you but if you dont pray to god he will torture u forever!!!!!!!!!!! and just because you are religious and you follow all the rules in the bible he can still send you to hell if he so chooses. free gift of god lmao.
science has never claimed to be 100% correct just mostly correct and we must be getting some of it right because if science is completely wrong then we wouldn't have modern day society.
yes it is true that i don't know what happens after i die, but i have a pretty good idea what happened before me its called history man. i do know what im doing here on earth though that one i spent the 1st 25 years of my life trying to figure out, some people it takes longer some less, but in the end we only have 1 life so live it to the fullest because even if your religious god can change his mind and send you to hell anyway.
lol that was a horrible example he knows his wife exist because he can observe her not only can he observe her but everyone else can as well. ive never observed the great all powerful and all loving wizard in the sky.
1. so all in all what i got from this is god doesnt care if your a rapist and a murderer as long as you ask for forgiveness and truly believe in god and glorify him you can go to heaven.
2. i don't believe in evolution i think it is the most likely theory.
3. even if evolution is wrong that does not mean god exists.
4. if god exist hes an evil f--k that created things like childhood cancer and flesh eating diseases.
5. even if your religious and you glorify god god can still choose to send you to hell.
It's not "faith". Faith is what you have in something when there is NO evidence toward the theory. We do have fossils. Although it cannot be recreated in our lifetime, at least YET, we CAN test the fossils and lineage through the DNA.
Good enough for me, and 100% better than the invisible sky daddy.
Neither evolution nor intelligent design are based on observable scientific evidence. Fossils are not observable evidence because they were not created during a controlled scientific experiment which was observed. (finger prints on a murder weapon don't always belong to the killer so be careful before you jump to conclusions) Therefore you cannot prove one theory by disproving the other which so many of you have tried to do, including the creators of this documentary.
The bottom line is that both theories are based on faith and people should respect other peoples faiths, stay open minded and rather than debate which belief system is more valid, accept that both theories are plausible, but not fact.
PS The religious banter at the end partly ruined a good documentary. You would be more likely to convert atheists if the religious talk was no
more than 10-15 seconds and you replace the word 'Jesus' with
'intelligent designer.'
what if i provided you with an observed,repeated and fully documented example of speciation? would you convince you? also please do not compare the theory of evolution and id. one is a scientific theory while the other is not and it is only a repackaging of creationism and not science at all
Try telling that to a geologist, or paleontologists.
Fossils are very much observable evidence, why would you state they aren't!?!.
1. Igneous rocks were not created during a controlled scientific experiment either, but they tell us a lot about the age of the earth and how it came into its present state.
2. Even without fossils, the evidence for evolution is staggering. Ever heard of microbiology or genetic analysis?
3. Evolution is based on evidence, not faith which is based on nothing, and is one of the most strongly confirmed scientific theories in existence.
4. Ever heard of the e coli experiment? What about the vital sciences of virology and immunology, all of which are based on evolution?
5. Please explain how the human aesophagus, appendix and testicles could possibly be the products of an "intelligent designer."
You don't know the first thing about evolution, much less about science in general, much less about anything else you have posted. I suggest that you obtain an education before causing yourself any further embarrassment.
In the first half of the documentary the interviewer is asking college students to show observable evidence for a "change of kinds" This is a trap. As "kinds" is subjective, I suspect he means a change of species, which is ridiculous because to change species you need millions of years of evolution.
This documentary is ridiculous as he is clearly just picking and choosing the responses to post in the documentary. What a bunch of garbage.
Wow there are more straw men in this 40min film than I have ever encountered in any film to date.
According to the interviewer.
God makes the rules, I am going to hell for rejecting his existence because I'm not justified in doing so without reasons; Therefore I am sent to hell for ever and ever for something finite. Meanwhile a rapist woman beater child murderer accepts god, and is allowed into heaven. NOPE NO FLAW HERE......
Pretending for a moment god exists gets me this far:
How would you like to go to heaven while your parents and or kids go to hell for rejecting an unjustified belief of one of a million versions of god(or chooses the wrong one), will heaven be heaven for you and will you even care your family is being tortured forever and ever in hell, while you sit in some clouds aware of this ridiculousness.. So so dumb.
Throw crockcobrain for a real loop by stating that the manatee and the elephant share a common ancestor.
While there are rivers of strawmen in this film, there are videos on You Tube with oceans of them (e.g., Kent Hovind, Ken Ham).
The main flaw in the argument is that it is assumed that we know what GOD is. No human can possibly imagine or comprehend what GOD is, that would be like expecting bacteria to understand what we are and comprehend what we think about. That silliness of GOD becoming a human and die for our sins is laughable, Then the message in their story is that GOD made a mistake, how can an all knowing entity make a mistake?
People are mixing up religion and GOD. Religion is just a man made tool to fleece s*upid people out of their money and exert power over them, and has very little to do with GOD. Science is the process of observation of the natural world, which IS GOD's creation, its just we don't know what GOD is. There IS viewable evidence of the phenomenon we call evolution, and not just in biology. But having said that human progress in science is still in it's infancy, and we have a long , long way to go yet, till we truly know the nature of the universe, and therefore this debate is pointless since neither side can disprove the other, at this point in time.
It's refreshing with someone that dare be non-political correct and question a theory accepted as self-evident by the majority. More people should try to 'think for themselves' - as said by many that actually just believe the most popular idea. It's worth mentioning that there is no missing link, so evolution remain a theory. That, however, don't make me believe that intelligent design is any better in explaining life as it is. As a Christian I don't support the attempt of mixing theology together with empirical science, and the phrase "Evolution Vs. God" is utter nonsense. If evolution could be proved as how life have come into existence, then evolution could simply be said to be the way God made life. And no matter what one believes, it's mind-boggling to be alive.
Evolution says nothing about how life started, only how it changed. furthermore taking years of research and many many brilliant minds and throwing them aside to "think for yourself" is all fine and dandy until you realize you don't have enough time to rediscover everything and formulate true ideas about existence, at least without being completely wrong :)
Stand on the shoulders of giants, specialize in one or two fields and lets discover what it means to exist "together". On your own you wont get far, not to mention you'll have to cheat and use other peoples ideas no matter what you do.
Scientific theories are there to be proven wrong if you can do it. And by all means do it if you can. I don't recommend you ignore other peoples scientific discoveries though(related to the specific field) unless you have all the time in the universe.
So instead of rejecting the popular idea, try to find out why its considered the popular idea, are there any good reasons for it, and if there isn't please show me some examples.
Also Evolution has been shown to be a fact in most aspects, that is to say we have been breeding many different organisms for many many years, emphasizing certain traits..(for instance dog breeding) Look it up
I'm sorry if I formulated myself uncleanly, I meant "life as it is now". And I don't disagree with what you are saying, maybe other than that it is needed to use other peoples ideas no matter what. I've had many ideas that I've later found out that others have thought about too.That's really what is often frustrating with ideas - that they never seem to be new and original. But for example Leonardo da Vinci never went to school, but basically thought himself into a lot of things that had yet to be invented. Einstein also pointed out that imagination is a good tool for understanding, like for example Jules Verne showed with fiction writing that later became something real. Science fiction has similarly been transformed into science. And that's what's useful with not just accepting everything that is being told by others, but instead be curious and imaginative.
My own doubt about evolution - if I should give some examples - is not evolution itself, but why life is evolving. Why did it start? Why isn't there life everywhere, since the earth is similar to other heavenly bodies? What force made life? And when looking at life subatomic, how do atoms know how to be distinct life-forms? For example why do a horse give birth to a horse and not a cow? Or just soup for that sake. And when looking at life as different cells, how is all of it connected? Or comparing evolution with other forms of science, and continue with questions. Personally I think that the Carthesian method of questioning everything is the only way to understand something, if even barely at all. And I don't really think people understand anything at all if it is not thoroughly questioned. For example "Darwin said natural selection is what made life into what life is today" and just to agree with it, don't make sense at all. First it is needed to know who Darwin is, what natural selection is, why he said what he said, and basically reinvent it by questions, or else people don't know what they are saying, it's just sounds they make. That's the scientific method in use, to question everything, and if questioned enough, nothing make sense at all, that's why everything is just theory. If you look at the nonsense people used to say just a couple of hundred of years ago, you'd laugh, but similarly people are going to laugh about you in a couple of hundred years from now if you believe things just because some scholar say so. But that's what most people do. Most people - for example those commenting on this website - are sophists, not philosophers.
1. Evolution has nothing to do with the why of it, but rather the how and just what makes you think there has to be a why?
2. To which heavenly bodies do you believe the earth is similar? So far none has been found capable of sustaining life as we know it.
3. What makes you think that any force "made life?"
4. Atoms don't "know" how to do anything anymore than DNA or other elements. .
5. As to the horse, there is a fine article on phylogeny in Wikipedia.
6. Evolution is just about the most thoroughly proven of all scientific theories--and look up the scientific definition of theory.
You have a lot of learning to do and philosophy is not going to teach you anything about science. As a matter of fact, philosophy doesn't teach you anything about anything--except philosophy. .
You just want me to answer numerically so you can try to find something you can refute, because you don't have anything better to do, right? In my country it's called "kvervulering" if someone is saying something against another person, really without a reason, just to debate in order to debate. I don't know the English word for that, since it only seem to be translated into Chinese. And it's not very tempting to have a conversation with you since you're thinking you know better, or me not knowing anything at all - at the same time as you have the ability to say something like "philosophy doesn't teach you anything about anything--except philosophy". That's like me saying science is completely useless and can only be used for science...
From your posts, anyone with even a layman's understanding of science, and especially evolution, knows more than you. If you want to do something about it, bone up on the subjects by first of all comparing the accomplishments of science with those of philosophy.
Good old fey Ray and his crazy editing wizardry. Truly the king kong of creationist ding dongs. Someone should throw him off of a skyscraper so that this ape can make an honest impression. Watch if you like pulling your hair out...
lmfao
I get it--fey Ray--King Kong. The best comeuppance would be for millions of people to watch "The Pay of the Master."
Also, as I'm sure you know, one of the definitions of fey is "insane; touched," which dear old Ray exhibits in spades, as far as I'm concerned.
Didn't Over the Edge put up a link for that one somewhere?
Yes, he did. Have you seen it (the video, I mean)?
No, I haven't.
Try it. It's only about ten minutes long and more powerful than an emetic.
I just finished it, and I certainly can't say I'm surprised... But I'll take back what I said about him being nuts, unless we can include psychopath as part of the definition. And, frankly, from what I've seen in the world, it's often enough just this sort of person who does the most damage. According to his own books, he's nothing but a religious capitalist without a shred of sincerity who needs to have his a$$ severely kicked.
I agree, but how to go about it? I have several ideas, but I don't know how viable they are.
I have no idea what the points of law might be, but I wonder if he could be sued for fraud? That is, if he has claimed his organization exists for "charity," and yet hasn't made any significant contributions to any...
That's one way, but it would be incredible if the IRS or the Franchise Tax Board hasn't already thought of it.
However, one good turn deserves another. So I will provide you with my idea no. 1: Have copies of the document presented in "The Pay of the Master" (there is a PDF version somewhere) distributed en masse at every event at which Crockopussy appears--and especially at those in which he speaks. As he generally confines his infestations to PUBLIC places, the passing out of this PUBLIC document which he signed is simply an exercise of constitutional rights and thus no legal ramifications.
Your thoughts.
He's from New Zealand, is he a US citizen now? If not I'd deport him back home, after looking into any fraud charges and possible associated penalties.
I hate to throw cold water on your idea, but from what I can find, Crockoballs is a U.S. Citizen. See "New Zealand Americans."
Personally I'm relieved to hear that. If he had to go back to NZ he'd end up over here in Aus trying the same cr@p. Sorry, but I'd rather you guys have him then us. ;)
Gee, thanks a lot, mate.
lol, sorry, but it's honest. ;)
I think we should kon-tiki his a$$ and let god save him.
I've often wondered how many preachers/pastors/ministers etc actually really believe what they preach. There was a show on TV here recently about a 'snake cult' version of Christianity in the USA, who play around with and preach etc with venomous snakes. They said if you're bitten God will save you or it was your time etc... the young minister got bitten and... went to hospital. :) (an earlier one died from his untreated bite)
I'd take that cult here... as long as they stay away from treatment. Got a few snake species here I'd like to introduce them to. ;)
I agree with what they said at the end of 'Pay of the Master', where it says if Ray actually believed what he preached he'd be quacking in his boots. He's a liar and a fraud I believe.
Do you mean quacking or quaking? They both make sense.
Doh, spelling error, my mistake. Quaking is what they said. :)
I've seen some certified lunatics here on a scale like you'd have a hard time believing, Doco... Some of them absolutely do believe every bit of it. I'll tell you a quick story, and you can judge for yourself how nuts it can get...
When I was about 12 or 13 years old, some of the members of the Pentecostal church I was forced to attend had a falling out with the minister and broke away to form their own congregation. Being as young as I was, I never did find out what that was all about, but not long after, one of their members died, and rather than going ahead (at first...) and having a proper funeral, they actually took the body out into a clearing in the woods and tried to raise it from the dead, through prayers and the laying on of hands and all that business. Straight out of the story of Lazarus, I sh-t you not... Needless to say, it failed, and I believe they ended up in some kind of legal trouble because of it, and I'm guessing that that must have had to do with actually taking the corpse into the woods, but I never did find out about that part of it, or if I did, I've forgotten it. It's a whole new kind of funny to me now when I say that, as far as I can recall, the members of the church who stayed loyal to the minister and didn't break away were sure those heretics were just crazy!
Man, there ain't nothing like growin' up religious in the American South... Pretty much sucks donkey balls, bro, but you can get some great stories out of it, if you don't lose your mind first...
Damn, man. And I thought the Seventh Day loonies were bad. Can't say I've heard of them trying that sorta thing. Well done keeping your mind mate.. or most of it at least ;)
We had some snake handlers down there, too, from what I heard, but I never saw any of that. I do remember some of the old ladies in the church could tell you things about it, though, from when they were younger (that sounds kinda weird, but never mind, lol). No mulgas, though, I'll bet! And I suspect the sects into that sort of thing probably milk the snakes before the big show, anyway, you know? Still, it'd serve them right, and might be interesting to watch, if one of them tried it with a mulga, or a taipan... strike! "CRIKEY!" thump...
I had to look up what you meant by a mulga, I've only ever heard of that as a bush/small tree, or the area they grow (mulga country). Didn't know it was a name for a King Brown. I've seen Brown and Tiger snakes be aggressive if they feel threatened, I've not seen a Taipan in the wild myself. I've heard family up north saying they've been chased by Taipans.
But, apparently it seems it's our stingrays that can't abide the twits. ;) (I'm about a 1/2 hour drive from Australia Zoo, which was Steve Irwin's Zoo)
Don't feel bad, I didn't know, either, until I punched up 'Australian poisonous snakes'... I knew you guys had the worst of the venomous snakes, but I couldn't remember any of the names...
I would like nothing better than to see him writhing on the ground in agony so that I could go up to him and ask whether he would like me to call an ambulance or pray for him.
Lol. You'd find out pretty quick what he really puts stock in, wouldn't you?
I know it is and I don't blame you, but it does have its humorous side.
I love the idea, but I can't help thinking that he would easily be able to con his way out of any negative ramifications from those who are already prepared to believe him, anyway.
Money talks--and talks and talks.
My second idea is altogether different which does not make it mutually exclusive to the first although I admit impractical--but again, you never know. It's a tactic I would like to try on several others of this verminous clade.
"Is there life in you? That's your SOUL!" According to that comment, which is based solely on personal thought, all plants and animals must also have god-worthy souls, as that was the only basis given for the claim—life.
This guy has a convincing tone but stops short of anything useful beyond that which merely stumps impressionable, mid-study students, a few professors, and random adults. He isn't disproving evolution in this video, he's posing questions that corner non-professionals into answering on the spot, with no time to study or fully assess the questions before responding. This is neither disproof of evolution, nor proof of intelligent design (though the manor and tone will sadly convince people of exactly that). These are merely parlor tricks used to devalue one system over another (also used in the reverse at times) that hold no real value.
Keep in mind that being a biologist, physicist, etc. doesn't necessarily make one an expert on the field of evolution, and therefor the individual may be unqualified to make educated and widely-accepted scientific assessments on that particular field.
Try again.
"Is there life in you? That's your SOUL!" According to that comment, which is based solely on personal thought, all plants and animals must also have god-worthy souls, as that was the only basis given for the claim—life.
This guy has a convincing tone but stops short of anything useful beyond that which merely stumps impressionable, mid-study students, a few professors, and random adults. He isn't disproving evolution in this video, he isposing questions that corner non-professionals into answering on the spot, with no time to study or fully assess the questions before responding. This is neither disproof of evolution, nor proof of intelligent design (though the manor and tone will sadly convince people of exactly that). These are merely parlor tricks used to devalue one system over another (also used in the reverse at times) that hold no real value.
Keep in mind that being a biologist, physicist etc. doesn't necessarily make one an expert on the field of evolution, and therefor the individual may be unqualified to make educated and widely-accepted assessments on that particular field.
Try again.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." Theodosius Dobzhansky. So a biologist should be able to discuss evolution intelligently if not fully and any mainstream scientist worth his salt should be capable of discussing it on a higher plane than Ray Comfort (who just hates big words). One way or the other, P.J. Meyer is an evolutionary biologist and in light of his videos, should have made a better showing than he did, especially when Crockoballs asked him about changes in "kinds." On the other hand, this interview might have been subject to editing as were obviously the other interviews.
Faith is a daft concept.
Religion is seen as unnecessary when you take responsibility for yourself.
Nobody needs Ten Commandments, 1 will do...
'Do no harm'
x.
Except...what happens if you don't follow the 1 commandment? (Which by itself is impossible)
It is not impossible. It's easy. A choice. Made forever in a second. Try it.
What happens if you don't is all around to behold.
Well I've spent some time considering the notion "do no harm". Cut down a tree and plant 5 type thing...but technically you would still be doing harm by cutting down 1. So okay, don't cut down any. But the problem still continues...what harm might your walking footprints do? What constitutes harm? See what I mean...it needs further defining. I know that's being pedantic, but if it's going to be a commandment...
What about: Do no harm to your self at any time. Always chose with your higher self as a guide ...this could actually result in never hurting others by ricochet....that is if you have already realized that we are all interconnected.
1i
Ah...I had a friend like that...a religee friend...he believed that Jesus would always have his back and no harm would come to him. Which was interesting to watch of course - his confidence was amazing, but the down side was that he was forever causing a wake of destruction behind him, which most of the time he was completely oblivious to. Lol, that became his nickname "Wake of Destruction". The trouble with that kind of 'cause no harm' is that you can believe you are causing no harm to yourself, but in fact things are crashing all around, and it can lead to denial.
That is before one realises that we are interconnected.
Realising means to put in real not just in thoughts.
Now i'm not saying i'm there but i'm looking at the point it makes, the dot of it in the distance.
1i
It is when i realise i fail that the dot gets brighter.
I see your point, and it is good. But okay...what about...culling deer, if we don't intervene we'd be condemning them to a slow death of starvation (since they can not control their own numbers)...and what about milking cows...if we left all the animals to their own devices, cows would still need milking. What do you say to that?
Interesting questions.
I'm in the middle of painting a part of the living room i had not finished in June...great stuff to chew on...my computer is open...will be back.
1i
Physical evolution says it took eons to reach our present physical evolvement. It will obviously take longer to reach our consciousness evolvement, no surprise there if the primacy of consciousness is the base of all living, we would then be evolving towards our greater potential and more.
We have been through many spiritual trials and errors thanks to religions, but at last science is lifting it's head, closing it's eyes and searching inside.
Now in an interconnected multiverse, eating meat is ok, the same way that dying is welcomed.
1i
...and black holes eat stars. The more I venture on this journey, the more I feel we have to be in sync with what we see in the universe. For example, it's not right for us to be unhappy. Birds sing in the trees and every living thing is busy and motivated in doing what they do...surviving, breeding, living. If we are not busy living, we are out of sync with all living things and (imo) the universe itself. But we are blessed with intelligence too, so we have more to do...we not only have to live, we have to grow too (through experience and conscious awakening)...as I've said before all things have a birth and a death, from a star to a cup of coffee...a beginning and an end - it seems to be a common thread of existence...all except the universe itself (just like an ever inflating balloon)...so in a weird (very weird) way...we will collectively continue to live. Did you know, for instance, that every cell in your body is replaced over a 7 year period? You are not the person you were ten 10 years ago...that was someone else completely! Just as a blood cell is not you...perhaps the individual you is not much more than that, in the bigger universe. This would suggest that I believe the universe is conscious...and therein I find myself philosophising...
And going absolutely nowhere.
Typical spiritual speech. Semi truths said with purpose to invoke esoteric feelings.
1. The Universe also has start and end. In fact there is only a window of opportunity in this universe for intelligence to exist, as there is window of opportunity in our solar system too. As the universe inflates, the entropy increases, and at one point there will be no planets, no stars, just vast darkness with particles flying at great distances from each other.
2. Not every cell in your body is regenerating. For example, the ones that are giving you intelligence and consciousness are not regenerating. Even those that are regenerating are just simply regenerating. They're replaced with exact same replicas. In that sense, nothing is truly changed in your body. DNA is the same.
Point 1 is interesting in that is has been said...I am told...that conscious enlightenment is a void of emptiness...could the universe itself be the embodiment of that journey towards enlightenment? In the books "Conversations with God" - which is not original, but borrows ideas from many areas, the universe is an expression of consciousness. Your point would suggest (to me) that that consciousness is moving towards enlightenment.
Point 2 Clearly something of oQ is not regenerating since she can remember herself 10 years ago...but I don't see how the neurons aren't being replaced with new. I will need to check out what I'm stating, which I understood to be correct in good faith - I can't actually remember where I got this info from!?
I was thinking about the point 1, and the idea that the Universe is an expression of consciousness.
Obviously I don't know the answer, but my feelings are that way of thinking likely comes from our tendency to anthropomorphise things. Without the Universe, there, as far as we know, wouldn't be any 'consciousness'. If our star went supernova and wiped out all life we know of, would that be the end of the Universe too? I doubt it.
To me, it makes sense that we're (meaning life, as that's the only consciousness we know of) a product of the universe, not the other way around. But as I admit, I don't know the answers, it's just some thoughts on it.
You see...as absurd a thought as it is...imagine I gave you a couple of billiard balls, let's call one 'proton' and other one 'neutron'...now you can have as many as you wish and you can apply all sorts of properties to them (but they must all inherit whatever properties you decide on)...now get them to build a universe, and have that universe spontaneously produce intellect or consciousness.
[Edit: now...supposed you managed that. Now do it again, but this time do it handsfree and have it build itself.)
Here's the rub...certain scientific viewpoints, would have us believe it happened on its own, there was no creator, no trigger event, no thought or idea...no planning, no intention, no point.
I just can't help thinking that's missing something out...
The windows (that Vlatko talks of) of 'opportunities' are minuscule. The sequential steps involved insurmountable. The combination of steps and opportunities grasped, unfathomable. Yet here we are...
To me, there is maths, there is order and there is purpose...together this suggests a possible universal consciousness. So where's my proof? I would have to say the evidence revealed from science is ever more proof...not disproof.
The purpose is certainly not you, I mean humans... carbon units placed on a mudball revolving around one insignificant star in an average galaxy.
The number of solar systems in this universe is close to infinite. When you play with infinity very bizarre things occur. If you play lottery for 15 billion years, every single day, and you play the exact same numbers all the time, it is guaranteed that you're going to win the jackpot not once but hundreds of thousands of times. In that situation It is truly unfair to say that you were lucky and there must have been purpose of all that.
Agreed 100%
Absolutely. On a smaller, but nevertheless large scale, itt's been estimated that at any given moment in Las Vegas, there are 2,000 games of blackjack being played. Every millisecond, odds are being broken which means absolutely nothing.
I wouldn't say the steps involved are insurmountable, in fact the opposite. As you said, we're here. Which I think proves it's possible.
Maths, the ideas of 'order' and 'purpose' are all human inventions.
Without us, there wouldn't be 'Maths'. Things would still happen the same, that's just our description of parts of it.
Order (I'm assuming you mean how things behave) is our interpretation of what we observe going on, many according/abiding to what we call physic's. Another description of what we observe.
And purpose, that's an ongoing debate amongst humans. But one that's of our making/thinking. As you said, the birds etc are busy doing what they do, trying to survive. They're not debating why, they just do it.
I don't say there can't be something like a universal consciousness, but I can't see any evidence for it. Interconnected via our interactions with other matter and living things, sure, but nothing that suggests to me there's some greater consciousness.
I'm not saying you're wrong mate, I don't know. But I can't see evidence in science that something 'greater then us that is aware' is the case. It could just be me not seeing it, I concede that.
Mmm...see I tend to think we discovered maths...we discovered art, through discovery of colour. I don't feel that we invented these things. Same with music...the vibrations of sound, through our sense of hearing. It was always there and we discovered it. So do we create a song? A picture? A theory? Sure, I'm not suggesting we can not create things from what we discover. Docoman, you have full permission to tear apart anything I say, you have my respect.
It's a mutual respect, I'm not trying to tear anything apart. Just swapping thoughts mate.
An interesting thought about Maths. I can see your point. It's interesting to ponder the difference between discover something and invent something. I'll think on that some more. :)
What you tend to think and what you feel are again only so much garbage. It's what you can prove.
The earliest records indicate that man created a number system (arithmetic) as a mercantile and measuring device and from this sprang math. It was not "discovered." See James R. Newman, "The World of Mathematics," volume 1.
By art, it is unclear whether you mean the pictorial or graphic arts or art in general. If the former, there was nothing to "discover" and everything to invent--and much of the artwork found on caves is two-tone, hardly dependent on a sense of color. If the latter, you clearly don't know what you're talking about, as it is merely a viewpoint consisting of something done for its own sake.
Would you consider all vibrations of sound music? What makes you think that the vibrations were always there? If human beings didn't invent music, what accounts for the differences between, among other things, eastern and western music or were these "discovered?" Again, you clearly don't know what you're talking about because you would rather conjecture than research.
And absence of evidence is evidence of absence just as presence of evidence is evidence of presence. So the burden of proof rests on those claiming the existence of a greater consciousness and notice how they try to get around meeting it.
"Here's the rub...scientists, would have us believe it happened on its own, there was no creator, no trigger event, no thought or idea...no planning, no intention, no point."
I just can't help thinking that's missing something out..."
If ever there was an argument from ignorance, this is it.
Who are these scientists who believe that it (ostensibly creation) happened on its own and what's the matter with that, especially if were simply the result of natural causes? Why does there need to be a creator? Why are intention and point required? In short, what's to you is only so much garbage. It's what you can prove. So how about providing some of this evidence revealed from science which you claim is proof for everything you contend or is it all as problematic and quixotic as the exemplar provided in your first paragraph and the remainder of your post?
This whole thing about consciousness so confuses me; I hardly know what on earth to say about it. We look at insects and lower life-forms, those without any discernible self-awareness, or consciousness, and make the reasonable assumption that they go about their lives as if they were simply "running a program". But maybe we do, too, with the difference being that our programming allows us not only these things, but even to imagine ourselves in place of the insects, and that there is something greater than us, looking down on us. That is, that not only was it "necessary to invent god," or an eternal consciousness, but that we were in essence bound to do so, because we cannot imagine how our software could have originated without it.
Excellent. Yep...the God necessity...I think about that often. Interestingly there is something about perceiving our minds that creates a paradox. Perhaps you're aware of it, I can't recall it exactly. It something like...to fully perceive our minds would require a bigger version of it, and to perceive that mind would require a still bigger version. So it will always evade us slightly. Perhaps in the same way, or similar, we are doomed to chasing our tails in seeking where we're going (nowhere).
That's my suspicion, but, as I say, it is a terrifically complex enigma. It'll be interesting to see how the research into it continues to shake out over my lifetime. I have a feeling that we'll achieve a conscious machine before we can fully say what that is...
Then it's silly to waste time pondering it.
If we accept consciousness, then we would have to agree that we are not looked down on, but that consciousness is looking at itself through all there is, all there was and all that will ever be and that it is creating our physical reality with it's consciousness.
Consciousness would have consciousness.
Like a torus
1i
Uh no, if this and if that, we must do this we must not do that; this is why science is so important! Without it people just make whatever nonsense they want up, just because they cant see it any other way! No offense(sort of) but your post is nonsense to say the least. And is even analogous to how religion is bad for society.
Absolutely correct.
"Creating our physical reality with its consciousness" I have a real problem with, if you mean to somehow include something outside of the senses and thoughts that comprise individuals. Butterflies and bumblebees perceive things the lot of us will never know are there, and yet they are, all the same.
And so do squid and jellyfish. As usual OQ does not know, much less understand, what she's talking about.
"Consciousness would have consciousness. Like a torus." More gibberish. More twaddle.
point 1, well recited!
1i
I have a fascinating short story for you that touches on Vlatko's point 1. It would only take you 30 minutes or so to read and you'd love it, I guarantee it. If you're interested, go to epubbud dot com and search for 'The Last Question,' by Isaac Asimov. But if you decide to, don't cheat yourself out of the ending by reading about the story beforehand!
point 1 is a theory-not fact & would love to know what esoteric feelings are?
Irrelevant. Whether it's big freeze, big rip, big crunch, big bounce, multiverse, false vacuum, or cosmic uncertainty, according to what we know so far, the universe will inevitably have to end, at least in the shape and form we are accustomed to.
Esoteric, meaning hyping up the discussion with mystic, mysterious charge by saying scientific half-truths combined with spirituality.
thats why just a theory of multiple choices,like i said & not irrelevant if used as a counter-arguement(as mr allen would say). ah,so just the typical human feeling(esoteric,that is)?others call it a disorder,which one you want to pick?!that's the glory of life:choice!
Irrelevant again ...according to what we know so far, the universe will inevitably have to end.
I wonder what glory of life has to do with anything we were discussing so far? Never mind.
that is the utmost humble approach to life which view i share.
And just what is "consciousness evolvement" and how do you know that it will take a long time to reach it?
" . . . at least science is lifting it's [SIC] head, closing it's [SIC] eyes and searching inside"--how does science do any of these things?
What does an interconnected universe have to do with eating meat and what does dying have to do with any of the aforementioned two?
In short, complete gibberish.
P.S. I know someone else who in addition to getting vaccinated, needs to run a spell check.
I never claimed to not need a spell check even though i don't use one. I never tell others how to spell check except YOU.
I know how to use the edit button, something i use a LOT (just did).
Now i did not expect you to understand my comment but that doesn't exclude others to understand it.
1i
You're writing gibberish plain and simple.
P.S. I'm glad you use the edit button a LOT.
You should try it when you try to nail others down with spelling attacks, as i said that's when you use typos (and spelling errors which i pointed to you earlier) like a mad man.
1i
I'm not sure what your responding to but both those sound like straw man fallacies.
As far as artificial population control is concerned, what about before people existed? Animals may overrun an area for whatever reason, then they would eat all the food and be unable to continue to overrun the area, or another animal may start hunting them because they are everywhere. Nature has many natural ways of balancing population without any intelligent design behind it. -Those being 2 big ones off the top of my head.
Also cows may still be able to be milked beyond what their calf requires, that doesn't mean we should milk them! It could be bad for the cow(or bad for us for that matter). If you noticed cows produce a lot of milk these days, besides the hormones they give them to induce it, we have also been artificially selecting which "high milk producing" cows to breed.
You seem to have quite a knowledge of the great outdoors. Does this have anything to do with the neck of the woods you inhabit?
I think it has something to do with it yes.
This combined with my constant reading/ watching documentaries, I'm bound to eventually pick up something :D
For sure, none of this is amiss to me. We got involved and so we have a commitment to uphold. But you are bringing in intelligent design where we are talking about 'do no harm', which is kind of...uncouth?
Yeah your right, when I first read you comment it wasn't in response to the comment you were originally responding to(a glitch?), which lead me to believe it was regarding another issue.
You're a fine one to talk. Wilfully refusing to be vaccinated for other than medical reasons has the potential of working harm on both yourself and others.
Not in my opinion.
Thanks for sharing yours.
1i
There are those who consider the profession of atheism as doing harm to (fill in name of religion).
xxx
Jim Jefferies said it better I think. "The Bible should be one sheet of paper, and on that paper it should say, 'Try not to be a c*nt.' "
Tell that one to Hillary, Michele and Sarah.
Preferably served up in a cookie after an excellent meal...
Kung Pao chicken for everyone!
I wanna meet the sexy chick with glasses. Her facial expressions and glances are hilarious when he starts giving the ridiculous "I don't want you to go to hell" speech. Which I think shouldn't have even been in the doc and should have been done off camera.
But they totally just used the worst parts of the interviews and cut any good rebuttal to any of his questions. Dude must have some kind of comprehension problems or just turns his brain off when evolution is explained to him. Cus c'mon people. Evolution is fact. The fossil record is observable. We still got it. In different places around the world there are fossils! That you can observe! Museums! Universities!
How can ones very own existence be refered to as a blind excceptence? What do your five senses tell you,provided that you have at least a few working.That you don,t exist?
What are you talking about?
well like Dawkins says "just because you don't believe it doesn't make it not true". Bitter pill to swallow creationists?
Richard Dawkins is the definition of hubris... and blowhard. His words are bitter yes.. but I'm not about to swallow them.
Hey there, there's been many, many times when I've listened to Dawkins and wanted to scream! and I'd wish I could be there taking him up on his points. He has plenty of logic and tools for his arguments, but he ain't got it all down pat...no way!
And just where is he wrong? Let's see you take him down.
Absence of proof, is not proof of absence...bitter pill to swallow atheists? ;-) (no i didn't mark you down)
Evolution VS God? What an ignominious title.What diffrence dose it make just how God "chose" to create in the first place.Unless you your selves did it?
Your post makes no sense.
I think his point was that belief on evolution is no different from belief in God. To me, atheism is much a religion as any religion. Belief in a theory that is impossible to observe is faith. It's not an argument whether your belief is true or not, I'm just saying that when you say your faith as fact, it just sounds like a religious fanatic preacher trying to win converts. It goes both ways. If it requires an open mind to accept evolution, It also requires an open mind to accept that there is a God. Evolutionist can prove that evolution is true in a million years but I can prove to every living person today that there is a God in more or less 70. So, lets just wait and see who's faith is true.
1. As atheism is a refusal to believe in a superior being (or committee of them) without proof, it is the polar opposite of a religion which requires blind acceptance..
2. You have no idea what a scientific theory is and I suggest that you look it up before embarassing yourself with any further posts on the subject. One way or the other, evolution is just about the most thoroughly proved of all scientific theories and attempting to denigrate it to something faith-based reveals oceans about the level of your education and general intelligence. . .
3. You are obviously ignorant of the e coli experiment, not to mention the fields of immunology and virology, all of them based on observable evolution.
4. It does not take a million years to prove evolution is true, but rather a knowledge of biology, geology, microbiology, genetics, sciences the basics of which you are woefully and pathetically ignorant.
5. If you can prove to every living person today that there is a god (ostensibly yours), why haven't you done so, like in your post?
What you have keyboarded is merely an epitome of the usual ignorance so common to religees.
Lol, your so smart and you replied with pointers. Good on ya. Lets see how smart you are in more or less 70 years from now. If I'm wrong then I die and vanish off existence, if your wrong... Well, lets just see and wait. To each his own. But to give you hope in your faith in evolution, if ever the e-coli bacteria turns into an ant or even the smallest tick on your coli experiment, you may win a convert out of me. A bacterium having great, great, great... x 1,00,000,000... great grand children bacteria just is not proof of evolution for me.
As you lack even a rudimentary knowledge of science (in particular evolution and basic biology), what you consider proof of evolution (which, by the way, is not a matter of faith, but rather hard evidence and which has already been proved time and time again through various scientific disciplines) is merely pabulum for the ignorant and fodder for the moronic..
You have failed to provide any substantiation for your claim that you can prove to every living person today that there is a god (ostensibly yours), You are therefore a fraud.
Hahaha, you're still confused, here ill break it down for you. Every living person today will die in more or less 70 years, including someone as smart as you. You will get your proof that there is a God not today but in more or less 70 years when you are dead. Clear enough for you? Lol, you are indeed as smart as you make yourself appear you are.
So, you're using the "each to his own"- argument, well put mister. However, it still won't stop 95% of the people reading your comment from doing multiple facepalms. Robertallens' spiteful cynisism aside, you really ought to read up on the term "atheism" and perhaps if you find a bit of spare time read what atheists actually have to say about what they believe and what they don't believe, instead of just projecting your own world-view onto everyone else.
Hahaha, now why would you think I care about what you or anyone think is true. I have my opinion and you have yours. All I'm saying is that once everyone today is dead, they may or may know for sure that there is a God and that I believe in the latter. Now if people want to gamble their after-life on fossils and bateria, they have the right to do so.
What you believe is worthless. It's what you can prove. Now just how do people gamble their afterlife on fossils and bacteria?
this documentary is terrible...horrible...boring, and im not saying that just because i my self am a non believer, but because the interviewers questions were so pathetic. OFCOURSE there is no observable evidence of evolution, it happens over millions of years, but we do have millions of fossils and skeletons to prove evolution right. i dont need faith to believe that, we have actual things we can touch and test to prove this. At the end of the day, just believe what your mind can comprehend. Evolution or the fairy tales your parents told you.
I tried to watch it again. Couldn't do it. He uses a term that's not recognized in science (kind) and then asks questions as if it is a scientific term. He tries to establish the existence of God by discrediting evolution, saying that it is not an observable phenomena. This, he claims, is scientific. Yet, he does not use the scientific method to prove the existence of God. No empirical data, no verifiable observations, no repeatable tests, no predictions how a scientific God would react to any given situation. A man who claims to use science to discredit, but can't use it to give credence to the existence of God. The idea that if evolution isn't true then we must revert to default, being God, is as unscientific a conclusion as one could have. Besides, as a Christian, he should know that faith is what should be at the root of his beliefs, not evidence. The Bible even has a verse that tells him this. " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV). Hebrews 11:1
I couldn't finish this. After a while his voice and the repetitive nature of his ridiculous questions began to make me dizzy.
I'll never understand why people feel the need to make others believe what they do.
It's fun to debate and talk about until someone starts preaching.
this doc is cr*p... evolution isnt a change of "kinds"
its like a saber toothed tiger to a cat, monkey to man
man is just another animal
that is all...
we contain all the same stuff as the next animal..
only in the usa ppl still (trying to) debate about something that is ancient history for the rest of the world
A few stray comments:
1. The students appeared as moronic and ignorant as those individuals “interviewed” in "180⁰." I’m surprised that these students
not only got into college, but were able to stay in, but this was nothing compared to Professor Kennedy’s presentation of herself, as a dipsomaniac dingbat unable to emit anything approaching an intelligible, much less intelligent, response to Comfort’s “questions.”
2. I was particularly peeved that no one, including the professors, objected to Comfort's concept of vestigial. As I understand it, a pharyngeal pouch is a vestigial organ which performs a definite function in those creatures which possess one (am I right, Epicurus?). In short, use has no relation to vestige. Dr. Coyne covered this in great detail in his book. On the other hand, perhaps someone did, but the interview was edited out.
3. I was absoutely appalled by the failure of everyone to call Comfort out on his use of the term “kind,” but instead, like Professor Meyer, ran with it. (By the way, is it a wolf kind and a dog kind or just a wolf kind and is there also a mule kind and a liger kind?) As a result my respect for Dr. Meyer has gone down considerably. In addition, Comfort claimed that Darwin wrote that evolution stood for “changes in kinds.” Are there any examples of Darwin using such a phrase or so imprecise a term, as opposed to changes in species or speciation? Again, perhaps Epicurus can shed some light.
4. The poster Comfort presented was not from an atheist website, but rather from thaumaturgical dot com, a site selling humorous posters. However, such fraud which we've come to expect of old Crockoballs pales into venialitywhen contrasted with his juxtaposition of Hemingway’s suicide to his atheism. In addition, when asked to name a famous atheist, why didn’t any of the students interviewed mention Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss or perhaps Niels Bohr? Again, perhaps some did, but got edited out. However, the acme of embarrassment and ignorance was scaled by Professor Kennedy claiming that Newton was an atheist.
5. Why didn’t anyone ask Comfort what a “nothing” is before attempting to field the “question” anent something coming from nothing?
6. Why didn't anyone call Comfort to task for linking evolution to atheism. Again, someone might have, but got edited out.
All in all, I don’t know whether my ire should be directed more at Comfort or the participants. However, I would like to thank the moderators for acceding to my request to post the links to “The Pay of the Master” and “The Crocoduck v. Ray Comfort.”
I haven't observed the planet from outer space, but I'm totally comfortable with the fact that world is round. I wont observe a species change it's "kind" during my lifetime, but I'm totally fine with all the fossil evidence that back up the "theory" of evolution.
the problem with the word "kind" is that i have yet to see it defined in a scientific way. when i have been given something that resembles a definition it in no way is in line with the theory of evolution and would do more to prove the theory wrong than right it things happened that way. but i suggest you look into the "long term e-coli evolution experiment" it is an observed and repeated speciation event in real time. all done well within a human lifetime.
I raised the same question in my earlier post, which is why I don't believe Darwin ever used the phrase "chance in kinds." Your thoughts.
If there is a God of any sort, it certainly is not the God of the Bible. The mistake Ray is making is to think he can gain converts from a crowd that is so much more knowledgable than himself. In his defense, I'm sure that it was God who told him to do this.
This hole movie, as well as interviews were all a trap.
Thats not the only thing
ray does this cr*p on purpose, evolutionary biologist have explained how evolution works. repeating kinds as if it means anything wont make it make any sense in scientific terms.
as per usual he uses it to preach his jesus mythology . what a sad excuse for a human.
What a sad excuse for anything positive. See "The Pay of the Master," the link to which has been posted.
Ray is really annoying. I wonder what the outtakes look like. Such as when he babbles on about how much god loves us all (I wonder how much editing was done to his little speech to each, btw) the correct answer would have been, "God. What a great cop-out you have there, Ray. Have a banana."
It would be great if the banana were laced with alum.
Hmmmmm. This is basically a 30min advert for a religious sect. The atheists in this doc were a bit of a let-down tho. Yes most atheists do look to science for answers. But we still try and examine the evidence for ourselves.
Who is "we?"
Reasonable humans.?
In that case, science wins hands down.
Let’s see; the interviewer, at first, questions the interviewees
as a skeptic concerning Darwinian evolution. He then ferrets out of each of them the admission that, in the end, their acceptance of the whole of Darwinian evolution is a belief. So, I’ll admit that the acceptance of the unobservable as fact is un-provable and therefore a belief.
I’ll use the word faith as in the post linked by @fishyman – where it
reads ‘faith seeking understanding’. Isn’t that the proper road after all, in any belief? Follow your bliss even if you have to walk the road alone.
Darwin had his reservations, the Cambrian explosion. Einstein nailed it down as God is unknowable. So to the scientist and believer both, take Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s advice, “Get out of the cave and do some real exploration”.
The topic of this doc is the same old, same old debate ad absurdum.
Where did Einstein state that god is unknowable? One way or the other, your point is?
Hello Mr. Allen it’s been a while. I pulled the quote as a paraphrase from a statement in paragraph 1 below. (If I remember correctly it’s in doc but
misused.) He expands the statement in paragraph 2. Within these statements is the crux of my post and the point. The last two paragraphs comprise the “get out of the cave statement”. My "ad absurdum" is in paragraph 3. Refs included..
"I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?" (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 208)
"We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now but the real nature of things that we shall never know, never." (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, Page 208)
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres." (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)
"It is very difficult to elucidate this [cosmic religious] feeling to anyone who is entirely without it. . . The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central
teachings are based on it ... In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it." (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 207)
"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness." (Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
I don't see anywhere in these quotes where Einstates that god (whichever one this is) is unknowable.
That's because as with fanatic religious people, you are stuck between a very old god and an other old god.
Instead of concentrating on what religious people say about god, research what new thoughts are emerging about consciousness within the scientific community. In order to do that you would have to include all those with whom you disagree instantly, those who have paid their dues in universities across the world.
Those who are seeing or making light on something new.
1i
Completely non-responsive.
Quite frankly, I don't care what people within the scientific community are saying about consciousness which is mere philosophy. I want to know what they have proven about it.
you'll find that too.
1i
That dear was spot on.
Well
Robert I don’t have the time for a dueling match in verbiage at present. Einstein called himself a pantheist after the mold of Baruch Spinoza “who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists...”
In one of the quotes I mentioned he states “Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now but the real nature of things that we shall never know, never.”
So to connect the dots, his god is “the harmony of all that exists” which he believes to be unknowable and therefore what he describes as god is unknowable. He uses the word “never” twice to magnify his point. (I happen to agree with him as I don’t believe that human beings will ever become omniscient.) That I believe is his point.
Ones’ understanding of the word Pantheist will have to be expanded considering the
man that used it. The man can’t be forced into a mold for anyone’s agreement. Many have tried.
Where does Einstein state that his god is "the harmony of all that exists?" As a matter of fact, where does this phrase appear in the quotes provided?
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954, the year before his death) Like your quotes, this does not translate into god is unknowable.
That's right Einstein did not believe in a personal God. Here is the quote you asked for reference:
“I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind..." to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein (1929)”
what does what someone believe (even someone as intelligent as Einstein) prove? i care not what someone believes only what they can prove. Newton believed in Alchemy and he was intelligent. does that make Alchemy true? there are highly intelligent people of all faiths or lack there of. only one group can be right at best. why not provide proof instead of this old tired argument?
In this light, you might want to read about the Polish mathematician Wronksa, Newton's mirror image, who made only one real contribution to mathematics (in the area of differential equations), but the remainder of his offerings was crap.
Why didn't you also provide this quote? One way or the other, I provided was written in a letter 25 years later. Apparently, Einstein liked playing with the idea of a supreme deity, as evidenced from his correspondence with Niels Bohr.
What it boils down to is that the support you provide for your contention that "Einstein nailed it down as God is unknowable" amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking--and this from the person who keyboarded "The man [Einstein] can’t be forced into a mold for anyone’s agreement."
You're connecting the dots by yourself and concluding something which Einstein never said. Your explanation for the "unknowable" God is that Einstein used the word "never" twice and that he was very close to Spinoza's way of thinking. You're cherry picking the quotes (the same what Ray Comfort does) and arriving at conclusions that suit only you.
There are numerous quotes of Einstein that state the exact opposite of what you're trying to portray and if you take them into an account you'll realize that Einstein was choosing his words according to the audience.
Even if you're right your argument is from authority which is used ad nauseum by the Creationists, Spiritualists, Religious groups etc. If you manage to quote what Einstein said at some party or a letter that doesn't prove anything whatsoever.
Both side do it all the time, believer and non believer claim he was a believer or he was not a believer according to what was said and written.
Only Einstein himself could tell us exactly what he thought and what he meant when it was put on paper....and even then he most likely would not write it on cement. His mind was always allowed to explore further from one minute to the next. It appears as if his mind was open to anything without the limit of what others think.
1i
That was my point. Quoting Einstein is useless and I urge you to find a post where a non-believer, or non-spiritual person uses Einstein quotes as a starting point, to prove his/her case.
What you'll find are just believers who use this: "a-ha, but Einstein said this...". And then atheists or agnostics are trying to point out that Einstein also said many other opposite things.
It is something like the Godwin's law, and the Internet should make up another law that formulates the usage of Einstein's quotes into an online discussion.
I understand your point, and thanks for introducing me to Godwin's Law...very interesting...however it should be obvious that Einstein's 'free thinking' and his ability to reveal things about the universe that even he found difficult to believe, makes his opinions even more appealing. A free thinking scientist with a great, witty, sharp focused mind. What's not to like? Hence, perhaps, all roads lead to Einstein?
"His mind was always allowed to explore further from one minute to the next. It appears as if his mind was open to anything without the limit of what others think." How do you know this or is it simply more pathetically wishful thinking?
I didn't write His mind was...., i wrote "It appears as if his mind ......
This makes you dishonest.
1i
edit. you are right, i did write "His mind was always allowed to explore further from one minute to the next and i stand by it as it appears obvious.
Would you say the opposite?
1i
I quoted you directly and completely. So accusing me of dishonesty renders you dishonest. My question remains the same: how do you know this?
What you are suggesting is that @Philio is using bias to manipulate facts and present a false picture. Conversely I think he has done a marvellous job of backing up his own statements with excellent evidence of Einstein's words, to justify his stance. To say it's out of context with a sort of malicious underhandedness comes across as sour grapes.
Of course he's using bias. What Einstein did is far from "nailing." He did not nail anything regarding God's existence.
Furthermore if you explore what Einstein said over the course of his entire life you'll find many harsh quotes against God and religion in general.
Cherry picking and bias. That's about it.
Many people who support the primacy of consciousness do not believe/follow/adhere/give time to religions/Abrahamic god/preaching.
He might have been forced to discuss his view because of the religious pressure of the time to which he did not conform to.
1i
Yeah...well it's easy to be harsh on religion, not so much on spirituality, unless you place them in the same bucket. Personally I don't make that error, and nor (I suggest) did Einstein. Cherry picking and bias is inevitable in stating opinions and stances, I readily admit - it's what makes it a debatable topic.
Once again, before you can have spirituality, you must first prove the existence of the spirit, i.e., Is it testable? Is it predictable? Is it measureable? How do you detect either its presence or absence?
It is equally easy to be harsh on spirituality. It is even more easy. Spirituality is amorf, subjective notion. Professed by new age cult gurus and wannabe quasi-quantum scientists it is money maker that can rival religion. What is sillier, is that it's even more elusive and esoteric than religion, thus it resembles broken philosophy.
I challenge you to define spirituality. Every single person will define it differently. No consensus there, no definition at all, thus you're talking about something which is undefinable to begin with.
I would easily define it as the purpose (whatever that happens to be) of existence. It is a proposed answer to that big philosophical question "Why are we here?". Atheism proposes the counter "There is no need for Why", so rejects the question (and subsequent spirituality) outright. Whatever side of the question you find yourself, quite simply defines you as spiritual or not spiritual. Consensus or not.
The purpose of existence? That sounds a lot like religion, don't you think? All religions claim they know the purpose of our existence. So you say spirituality also performs this neat trick? Interesting. One more definition of spirituality.
Absolutely...except for once MAJOR difference...religion is the attempt to state the purpose, spirituality does not require the answer...only that the question is a valid one. (imo) - this is precisely why I believe they don't deserve being put in the same bucket.
Once again, no matter how you define spirituality, I haven't seen you provide any proof for the existence of the spirit.
Hahaha... so spirituality only poses the questions, not needing the answers. But you've just said that you define the very spirituality as the purpose and as the proposed answer to the question: Why are we here?
Decide, what is it? The question, the answer or the purpose. I think you contradict yourself.
Yes I saw that I did state that. I was like nooooo. Let me make myself clear. Religion proposes an answer, spirituality can propose an answer, but does not need to. It merely is in agreement that the question of "Why are we here?" is a valid question. Hey I'm not suggesting I'm right or perfect, and am ready to admit fault and willing to clarify what I mean. I hope at the very least there is a distinction between being spiritual and religious. Even if being spiritual means having no answers at all and thereby, perhaps, even less defensible and wishy-washy.
And just what makes "Why are we here" a valid question, your say-so?
lol, because quite frankly, I can not think of a possible invalid question. Only invalid answers. Maybe that's why you ask so many?
And before you start shouting...let me show you...
Q:Why are leaves made of wood?
A: Leaves are not made of wood, they are made of leaf material.
By this answer, that particular question will not need to be asked again.
Another argument from ignorance. I can come up with lots of invalid questions such as: When was the last time you raped your wife? Why did the creator create the universe?
Careful Robbie, I might have to open that can of whippass....luckily it's beer time.
A non-answer.
I get your name straight, now you get mine straight.
I'll define spirituality. It is to agree that consciousness is the ground of all being.
The rest will have to be sorted out in due times.
1i
I'm gonna go have a beer and think about that one...could be a loooong beer :-)
Actually there is a game being played in science between the Primacy of Consciousness and the Primacy of Matter. A lot of people don't see the game, others are not interested in the game and some are only interested in one side of it.
I'm interested in both but i am betting my pennies on one. (We no longer use the penny in Canada, it's been put back to the melting pot as i write)
1i
How do you know this or is it yet another of your chimera?
Are you saying you are part of the people who do not see the game?
1i
That is not any approaching an answer.
Did the possibility ever occur to you of each individual making his own purpose? If a person decides that his purpose in life is to work in sewers, do his cloacal proclivities constitute evidence of a spirit or represent spirituality?
Vlatko, I must say I enjoy this site. Dear Albert cannot be put in a box and that’s
part of the point. He was a complex man
and can’t be defined in one sentence beginning with he was a….
In all of the discussions on this topic (and some others) there are points and counter point statements. I have no particular horse in this race because sooner or later we enter the realm of the agnostic. I do however enjoy a good debate when I have time.
I could have just as easily debated from the other side by cherry picking statements while
ignoring the sum. My approach is to debate without emotion in an exchange. Hopefully that approach broadens the scope by triggering further individual research on a topic, yours truly included. Isn’t that the point?
If that is the case, why did you write "Einstein nailed it down as God is unknowable?"
Apparently it’s the two words God and nailed that are causing the commotion, one caused by definitions. I guess the word “nailed” has emotional content. The word coined would prove emotional. Possibly the phrase “expressed as” would have worked better. I don’t have a definition for the word God. Others apparently do. I see laws that govern the structure and operation of the universe from the infinitesimal parts or vibrating strings to the outer reaches of all that is contained therein. They the very same laws science uses to define each process they
discover.
Spinoza used the word God to describe the unity of all substance. This is not a personal or an anthropomorphic being to be worshiped. This unity is (I think) the Unified Field theory of Einstein’s quest and hence his mention of Spinoza’s God. (He was interested in philosophy.) In his anthropomorphic usage, it was what
he termed “the old man” he wanted to “catch at work”. I don’t think he was being religious or proselytizing just poetically describing his quest. Why not allow him his form of prose.
In that context I think he was spiritual and I have a very broad definition of that word
also. You have your definitions and I mine. That is as it is.
Try as you might to patch it up, you cannot establish that Einstein said that god is unknowable.
Just where did Einstein mention "the old man" he wanted to "catch at work?"
P.S. Before you can have the spiritual, you must prove the existence of the spirit.
Nice try. I usually charge for doing someones research for them. You have a computer with a keyboard and an internet connection. Type the phrase and hit search. I'm sure it will pop up.
PS also check the definition of spiritual. Then go read Robert C. Solomon's Spirituality for the Skeptic: The Thoughtful Love of Life (Oxford, 2002).
As you are the one who made the claim, the burden of proof rests with you. Trying to shift or evade it renders you a fraud and a cheat.
Robert C. Solomon was simply a philosopher and as philosophy cannot prove anything, it cannot prove the existence of the spirit unless it defines it into existence as you do your god.
One of the best posts I've read in ages...what a superb mind Einstein had, coupled with humility makes him a scientific saint (lol)!
When I was 16 I created a computer demonstration of Einstein's Special Theory Of Relativity (on a Atari!) as a school science project - it was entered into the National Science Olympiad, and took me months to program...but I'm still trying to understand it some 25 years later! Thanks for the great post!
Thanks man always good to hear from you.
This is exactly what I've been trying to convey for months! Biggup Philio, 10/10
Moderators:
It might be a good idea to post a link to "King Crockoduck vs. Ray Comfort" which mentions this "documentary."
Etymological Definition of Evolution & God:
1620's Latin ēvolūtiō ("the act of unrolling, unfolding or opening")
Uncertain Proto-Germanic ("phrasal verb, unknown forces of everyday life").
Movement and Unknown Verb
I appreciate the non-biased introduction and description of the documentary. (Total Sarcasm) FYI
Comfort is asking a series of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions. No matter how you answer, the questioner gets the answer he is looking for. Viewing this video was an exercise in frustration and I couldn't watch it for long. What I did watch was short on proof but long on manipulation.
I'm surprised that I got through it. What a horrible way to "celebrate" one's birthday.
Be grateful it was only forty minutes long. You still had twenty two hours and forty minutes left over to do things that would be a lot more enjoyable...like take a nap or pick worms or anything else.
Your words are far more inspiring than dis-Comfort's.
Did you say it was your birthday? Happy birthday! robertallen1.
Thank you. I couldn't figure out which was worse, the Ray Comfort video or the lunch to which I treated myself.
So what we have here is a lot of wasted time, money and energy arguing something that is so simple to explain. Our creator created the universe, existence as we see it and even evolution. What's the big problem here people? This is a doc that will surely bring in many comments and arguments over time. I will add the style in which this doc was filmed was horrific and the way the interviewer sweat the interviewee's then edited afterwards is shameless and tactics you would normally expect on Fox News, not from people claiming they are of a holy and spiritual god. These people have really lost their way.
This guy is an id**t. I intelligently stopped watching the "doc" after ~15 min. I was just wasting my time!
TD you owe me 15 min!
Moderators:
Would one of you please repost the link for "The Pay of the Master."
If God is made in our image its got to be Samuel L Jackson. He's cool might trouble some people though. After all he was always shown looking like a member of The Grateful Dead (of latter years).
I prefer Robert Redford as God.
IMO Ray Comfort has forever discredited himself and comes off as an ***** ever since he made that banana video. Someone should have tossed him a pineapple and asked him to explain that.
So hard to accept that otherwise rational people fall into this religious bunk.
Someone should have tossed him a pineapple grenade and asked him to explain that--not that it would matter in the end.
The Catholic Church and most European based churches accept evolution so I do not understand why the followers have not caught on. My issue is not with some ones superstitions or beliefs but the crude, poorly researched and biased views. If followed word for word the Bible is bigoted in religious, national origins, gender, sexual orientation, social economic (slaves now put as servant for obvious reasons) ways. Most followers are not like this as they accept that it is not a literal truth but a scripture that requires interpretations.
It's to debunk Science before science goes full-hog & disproves an omnipresent God whole heartedly.
wouldn't it be simple to display both 'theories' as an example of study to pupils...training their reason of deduction of the flaws & sharpening their thoughts to reasonable conclusions?not to satisfy both camps of the topic but to satisfy the human need of making their own way to a healthy result based on emperical reasoning.
As there is no empirical evidence behind it, creationism/intelligent design is not a scientifici theory, much less is it science and therefore has as much place in the science classroom as numerology in a math course.
P.S. The word is empirical.
the thought behind it is that pupils compare,deduct & then conclude,measuring the 'right' against the 'wrongs',as a debate if you will,approaching with the 'scientific'(the word is scientifi'c',if you want to point out typos,mmh?) method!
Then astrology should be taught in astronomy classes, phrenology in anatomy classes and numerology in math classes. How idiotic.
& again....empirical reasoning & not empirical evidence!
what do you think the outcome of conclusion will be(for the pupils that is)?god or evolution?you decide,as you like to decide for others!
And just what is empirical reasoning or do you know?
P.S. the word is scientific, funny how every time you correct someone, you can't write a post without making your own mistake.
1i
I just finished Jerry Coyne's, "Why Evolution is True" in which I found at least two typos which hardly betray an ignorance of the language.
I never said you are ignorant, but you do get bit in the ass when you play smart ass.
1i
It's still a typo and no more.
You could use spell check when you check other people's spelling.
IT would catch your inaccuracy and save you from looking like a fool.
1i
That discussion happens in theology class all the time, at least in my country where there's a secular majority. So I don't see how students are missing out on anything in this regard. I'm guessing you don't belong to the crocoduck nut crowd, so at least you can accept the discussion not being brought up in science class, or am I wrong?
in germany they don't as state schools are secular & religion classes are voluntary(meaning in the free time)....i didn't know how things are handled in the US except that there's a big discussion concerning creationism/ID .so,let the kids find out the truth by comparing the odds & coming to their own healthy conclusion,was just a thought of respectable debate & not this never-ending attacks both camps display....live & let live should be the maxim,imo!
Once again, as it is a religion, creationism/intelligent design has as much place in a science classroom as astrology, alchemy and phrenology. What about that is beyond your comprehension?
if it is so idiotic,why do spend so much time debating it?what is your drive for so much :bla bla...vile something...bla bla-ing?you're getting boring,sir!
btw...i never said for science class!just a healthy debate at a young age which helps to build confidence...or is it actually that to which you oppose too?
As usual, you cannot differentiate between science and non or pseudoscience. Obviously you don't have an answer.
i correct your mis-interpretation of my comment & thats your answer:"As usual, you cannot differentiate between science and non or pseudoscience."...you do not debate & you clearly have problems understanding!
If you mean something else, you should say so--but obviously you're the one with problems expressing himself.
Once again, science only in the science classroom. Is there something about that which is beyond your comprehension?
My kids attended moral classes in the many different schools they attended before finishing high school. If a school did no offer it and only offered religious classes, i would sign them out for the entire year and make them go to the library during that time. This is allowed in most schools
1i
I just cannot believe there are ***** like this trying to prove creationism. Surely they cut those answers that prove Evolution and cutted some questions that the interviewed might have asked.
One answer might be:
Go and check DNA, we all share the same DNA, that tells us we all come from a common ancestor.
Look at monkeys, we are no monkeys anymore, yes we share a lot of the same attributes but we are another KIND, all species have at least one attribute in common yet we are all different kinds.
Check our "sacred bone" (s***ty name BTW) which is no more than a non functioning tail that we lost after thousand of years of EVOLUTION!
I would personally ask this guy:
1) Give me ONE observable proof besides what is written in your fantasy book called the bible that there's a god, and he created everything...and prove me he did all this in 7 days, come on!!
2) Why can't you see Religion nowadays is the root and pretext for many wars around the globe?
3) Do you believe in other gods from other religions?
What a waste of time!
I like your post but the arguments would be useless. For some reason otherwise rational people suddenly put up a wall when it comes to this subject matter. The book "The God Virus" is highly recommended in its attempt to explain this phenomenon.
P.S. A huge chunk don't accept that we are members of the primate family. So might as well just chuck that point right away. :(
Only our gods are real...
God put those fossils in the ground to test our devotion...
religion should be a practice of treating others nicely and respecting our environment, and that's it.
What's biased is he's leading the questions being asked. The whole topic of the change of kind... Really... He didn't want to hear the illogic of his questions being rude with a childish play of words. Of course things adapt and with adaptation comes change and change not only appears to be different from the original it usually is different with traces of the original
Your commentary is so biased and opinionated, why don't you state what actually happens in the documentary and let viewers watch it themselves and decide what they think of it themselves... that is the point in a documentary right?
I do find the bigotry and bias on this site and sites like big think very hypocritical and tiring.
BTW Those questioned in the video are both students and lecturers including:
Peter Nonacs, Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA
Craig Stanford, Professor, Biological Sciences and Anthropology, USC
PZ Myers, Associate Professor, Biology, University of Minnesota Morris
Gail E. Kennedy, Associate Professor, Anthropology, UCLA
And Dr. Kennedy was a complete embarassment, especially when she named Newton as an atheist.
One more thing the fossil record is incomplete, why because so many animals have existed and it is so rare for examples to be preserved. Example I had a cat when I was Ten and it died and we buried it in the garden, guess what I doubt there's a fossil or anything left., But it did exist! Science is not something many people understand and this will always be the case due to the technicalities.I think if you don't agree with science then you stop having it's benefits. Don't worry your most likely be dead by 40, not Noah's 300+. .
So he proves all humans are liars.... yet the bible is written by humans. Even if these religious people think the words in the bible were dictated to humanity by this so called god, using the doc makers OWN logic, the bible would have zero credibility.
i am not going to carry on watching this BS. Evolution takes place over many generations therefore the asking if it is observable in one is stupid. Like in court, evidence s enough to draw conclusions and decide fact from fiction. Luckily we decide with a system like this not who tells the best story. Modern medicine has allowed us to live longer healthier lives, yet it is always under attack, why because of fear and lack of understanding. IGNORANCE! If I have to chose between a faith in science or a cult which came to the UK on the back of a Roman sword (The old Gods sounded like better Sky Daddies too), it's science.
The Greek/Roman gods and goddesses rocked! Even Zeus had really human attributes that followers could relate to. They made mistakes just like people do, with moral lessons to be learned from the stories. IF I were to believe in Sky Daddies (and Mommies) they are the ones I would choose. And there were a LOT of half-divine offspring, so the concept was nothing new. Jesus being the son of a god and an earthly woman certainly was not a unique idea.
Zeus and Aphrodite were neat in their own way, just as Hephaestus and Poseidon. On the other hand, Jesus is a drag.
Is he ever! Sometimes nasty, even to his own mother. Of course, IMO he never existed anyway (too much evidence of him being cobbled together from various myths and no actual evidence of his own existence) but he could have been made to be at least likeable. Guess he wasn't invited to too many parties and cookouts. Always preaching! LOL
What a waste of time
Very manipulative movie, first we should define what god is, even if its creating force it doesn't mean is a person, our world is multidimensional, which means that there are plenty of possibilities to consider whatever we think about, the fact that someone doesn't believe in god describe in bible is not equal to rejecting infinite potential of the cosmos we are ll part of, same if you 'believe' in evolution it doesn't mean that Darwin was right in everything. This movie is quite of propaganda, but nevertheless is worth to watch and if you are open minded person you can easily found it amusing too.
"Professing themselves wise they have become FOOLS."
Romans 1:22
you got it. and wide s the gate that leads to destruction.
And relying on a 2,000+ year-old set of books for scientific information makes one an *****.
Your quote can just as easily be applied to religious people who are 100 percent certain that god exist without evidence and that the book in which you grab the quote from is the same one you apply the same 100 percent certainty of gods wisdom.
The Bible calling those who disagrees with it's writings "FOOLS" is no different than me calling you an id**t for not agreeing with me. In other words, it's childish.
This is a shame. I should be pissed off but I'm just ashamed that these people being interviewed identify with us, the interviewing is breathing our air and the cameraman can hold the camera still without bursting into laughter.