>> ^marinara:

@GeeSussFreeK
I agree w/ your point, but I'm going to evade answering that. Good can exist, and not be obvious.
IMHO, good is best defined as the absence of "bad." Everyone knows bad when they see it. Unless they are judgmental or prejudiced, in that case, their notion of good, isn't good.
I'll end with a question. We're in a poker game, and everyone is cheating, but you. Is it "Good" to not cheat?


I am not arguing that good doesn't exist or does exactly. My point is if universal good does exist, there would be no way to understand it, much the same problem of forms in general. I can't tell you what a perfect chair is, or if such a thing is an actual metaphysical object. Talk of metaphysical good and bad doesn't avail us much in the real world without us having any way of knowing what they are. Though, I think you mostly got what I was saying, just wanted to clarify.

I don't think the "absence of bad" helps in our question of what good is. At that point, one has to ask "What is 'The Bad'" and you are left with the same metaphysical begging of the question for which we can't answer. And my point is everyone doesn't know bad when they see it. For some, they think it is ok to do a little bit of bad to do a lot of bit of good, and that turns the bad into good. Others would say that doing bad is always bad even it it creates more good; that goodness can't make badness good. Who is correct? More importantly, why? Which one is the good, or like you pointed out, which one is the bad? And more importantly, how can we make a universal claim about peoples knowledge of goodness and badness being apparent, when it is all to apparent people have very different moral instincts.

I can't really answer your question universally. It depends very much on what you are calling cheating. Is not playing to the best of your ability cheating? Like when a father doesn't play his best and lets his son win, is that cheating? And more important, is it wrong? If not, why is trying to unfairly loose any more justified that unfairly wining? Are things only morally bad when money is on the line? The situation is far more complex than just "is it ok to cheat when others are cheating". Or at least, it is for me when I make moral decisions.

Personally, my moral code is simple, "To do no harm is neutral, to lend a hand is good, and to detriment is bad". Others don't agree with this, objecting to its over simplistic nature. Some, like Nietzsche, would say to be compassionate on the week is immoral. Who is right universally, I can't say, but I wouldn't be Nietzsche's friend.

So you are saying Hitler contradicts himself constantly in his own book (if that's where your quotes came from, since most of them only site page numbers and not the source) much like the Bible? Sorry not buying it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
Hitler on propaganda:
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)


>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)


21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

Hitler on propaganda:

"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)





>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

The trolling aspect, whether intentional or by design is that he jumps into these threads; says things that are sure to cause a stir; then hides behind all the replies by throwing the bible up infront of him as a shield. What I mean is, he'll jump in.. call someone a harlot, heathen, satanist, proclaim the video satanic, all the above, none of the above, etc.. then any reply is met with, 'You have a beef with God,', Or, 'That's incorrect and here's some metaphysical non-sense I claim is personally taught to me by an unseen force.'. From there he seems to enjoy following up with, "Don't you have anything of substance to contribute?". Basically he'll say anything to stir the pot, then is able to dodge any responsibility by throwing religion in front of it.

I tried asking him if he could try to accept that his views may not be 100% right, even if he BELIEVES it.. but he just came back at me with, "Oh, you just don't know the truth like I know it.". A person can believe in something, but still at least facilitate other possibilities to some degree, at least for the sake of discussion. You can't discuss with Shiny, only get preached at.

In some cases where others start making good points, he just stops replying (a lot of his earlier debates went like that).

What we have is a brick wall. Either we get everyone to ignore him (which is pretty much impossible), agree to just put up with his continual one-sided views and watch *these* types of threads form under videos, or something else. I'm all in favor for something else at this point.

Due to entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc, we know that there isn't such a thing as a perpetual motion machine. Everything which begins to exist does appear to end, including the Universe. For instance, the expansion of the Universe into heat death. A record player will wear out, a DVD player will break down. I believe that the temporal is temporary because it was created with a specific purpose which will end. After that, only that which is perfected and can co-exist with God eternally will remain.

Yes, talk of the eternal is intelligible. It doesn't mean we can't grasp a few concepts about it. One, it lasts forever, always has been, always will be. It never began to exist and it will never end. Two, it is essentially perfect, because it doesn't break down. It has no real flaw or weakness. It is self-contained and nothing could be added to it to make it better than it is in this sense.

Yes, you can doubt anything, but reality is orderly. It has a way which works and makes sense. I'm not sure why you believe time is only in the mind, because we can do very precise experiments on forces which show time as an emergent conception. What we perceive of time may be faulty, but clearly everything isn't happening at once; there is a logical progression to events which suggests time is more than in our minds.

As far as astronomical history you're talking about a history which is completely speculative and not based on observation, ie the origin of the moon, dinosaurs etc. If you doubt so much, why do you accept the secular narrative as truth? There are certain things such as the existence of the short period comets that proves a young earth. IE, if they're still here it means the Earth can't be that old. The secular narrative inserts the illusive and unobservable "Oort cloud" which supposedly replenishes all the comets.

Yes, I believe knowledge is certain and true, but I think you must see how limited beings with limited perceptions and knowledge take quite a bit on faith. Just in your normal life, you must see past your senses to navigate and interact with reality. You don't know everything that is going to happen, or even what you do know is even reliable, but you make the best of it. I don't see how anything could pass the "certainty" test.

I said what is spiritual couldn't be empircally proven, but I believe God has material evidence because He is a part of history. Where the rubber meets the road is the resurrection of Christ. God did interact with this world; He redeemed it. God isn't beholden to the world though, as if He needs anything..it is by Grace that He interacts with us. I will also tell you that God proves Himself. He promised to reveal Himself to those who come to Him in repentance of sin, who believe in Him and His resurrection and confess Him as Lord. To those He reveals Himself and grants eternal life. God can change a skeptic to a believer in a nanosecond, but He isn't going to show Himself to the world until the right time. What He wants is a heart willing to change, a broken and contrite heart coming to Him in total humility.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@shinyblurry
There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.
I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.
And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.
I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.
I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.

@shinyblurry

There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.

I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.

And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.

I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.

I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.

I wasn't really a Alexander fan, but a Diogenes fan. Probably one of my most famous favorite philosophers, what other philosopher got into fights with people for being a dick?! One thing I did like about Alexander was his courage that was down right fool hearty. My favorite story is about Siege of Tyre where they build a road to an island, and the he climbed the battlements ahead of his troops and jumped over the wall and started fighting. His soldiers didn't, and slow to realize of his decision, they finally noticed Alexander fighting the city Guard completely by himself. This rallied his troops to the point that the Island of Tyre was taken by an ancient army without a navy, a thing of legend.

Sad to say, I have only a superficial knowledge of the teachings of the famous Thomas Aquinas. Most of my energies have been on more secular minds. With that said, though, some of my favorite Christian minds are Søren Kierkegaard and George Berkeley. I didn't realize that Existentialism actually has a Christian heritage, I found that rather shocking as most christian's seem rather dogmatic when it comes to finding meaning in their lives. It struck me as interesting that there wasn't a unified feeling among christions to the deeper questions of meaning in life.

George Berkeley's metaphysics are awesome. He represents the only metaphysical experience of the universe that I think humans minds could fully comprehend. Granted, that doesn't mean it is correct, but I think the human mind is really only satisfied with the notion of minds, it is why "Gods" have always been with us, we need minds to be in control.

Sadly, though, even those great christian minds could not save my faith. There were to many problem I had with Christianity and the Bible that my faith was finally crowded out by doubt. You might call me the seed that fell among the thorns that was quickly drowned out of the sun. To me, though, my "Thorns" are truth and knowledge, so I hardly feel embittered or lessened.

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
Ah, Alexander. I don't know why I think of him a hero--he was bloodthirsty and ruthless, but I guess I admire him neverthelss. (Saw your quote by him.)

BTW, a really good religious scholar (The only one I like) is Aquainis (SP?)

@SDGundamX

Everything that humans do that isn't provided directly thru our biology is a cultural system.

Science and Religion are both results of cultural evolution.

Before scientific journals and 150 page papers on nucleotides came about, peer review was this:
"Hey man! I discovered this new way to get girls to show up at our parties! Gin rummy & Pinochle!"

'WTF dude, I know for a fact that the only girls that play pinochle are 65 year old ladies. That method will never work'

You are a scientist from birth. Science therefore is essential.
You are not religious from birth. Religion therefore is not.
~~~

To clarify, I said religion & science are geared toward "understanding the universe".
I never said "understanding the physical world".

That was your straw-man so you could talk about some metaphysical gobbledygook I guess.

But you're in even worse footing there because metaphysical things can't be proven.

Religion is useless gobbledygook and serves no purpose in a society that has advanced beyond the need for it.
~~~
Here, I'll use the example how your diet evolved to provide more support for this position.

Humans are carnivorous because early hominids found animal protein - meat - beneficial because it promoted brain & muscle growth.

Eating meat was essential because without it, early human population would have been to weak & stupid to survive.

In 2011, there is absolutely need to consume meat.

We have discovered numerous combinations of plants - like rice & beans - that provided complete proteins and some that provide all essential amino acids outright, like soybeans.

Eating meat nowadays involves massive amounts of resources - land, water, crops - not to mention all the harmful effects like - deforestation, infectious outbreaks, & increased chronic or "lifestyle" diseases like grease encrusted heart muscles.

Consuming meat - like practicing religion - is unnecessary and destructive to our environment.
You only continue to engage in it because of ignorance, propaganda and emotional attachment.
~~~

Sooo, you can keep flappin' your gums.
But until you submit some evidence and not just personal feelings..

This sift talk will continue to head nowhere very quickly

You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.

Your post was very simplistic..you propose an argument that we will eventually know everything (or rule god out) because science has explained things people use to think God directly inspired..which is false..science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for natural phenomena..we may know some of the ways but not the means

You then further try to say an infinite universe and a supernatural Creator are somehow logically equivilent ideas because they can both solve a particular problem, which is patently false, but of course this is what intellectually dishonest people do when they conduct their argument through ad homs. I advanced the questions I did as being fundemental to understanding life, which they are, and they are ones science knows nothing about. You go on to say I should "read a book". Well, I think that's a great idea and I recommend you do the same..specfically one on antisocial personality disorder.

Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.

I did read dawkins, specifically his abominable God delusion where the idea is postulated that any appearance of design can be explained away by multiple universes. Of course, no word on where all those multiple universes come from, but that's the fun of science. You can postulate any lunatic theorum and cover it under an avalanche of imaginary "data" based entirely on speculation and conjecture. Then of course any ignoramous will buy it because science said it was true.

It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.

They are entirely metaphysical, ie taken on faith. Evolution and abiogenesis are not testable theories. The mechanism of natural selection is not proven, and cannot even begin to account for the complexity of life. These theories have been elevated as some sort of unquestionable absolute that dogmatic materialists (and undoubtably secular humanists) take on faith, while pointing to pseudo-scientific research as science fact. As if somehow the methodology of scientific inquiry was respresentitive of the limits of reality itself. As far as abiogenesis is concerned, what was once a marxist wet dream hasn't moved one inch away from the sad experiments conducted in the 60s when they electrocuted pea soup. The theories it was based on have been entirely falsified. Abiogenesis is dead in the water, literally, and just wishing it was true isn't going to make it happen.

I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.

lol, your entire post is just riddled with ad homs and childish conclusions with no supporting evidence. You have failed to prove that you know anything what so ever..extended diatribes and assertions of knowledge a counter-argument does not make. The probability of any of that ever happening in the timeline of the Universe is null and void. The odds of anything as complicated as a cell or dna arising from random mutation is expodentially less. The mechanism is completely unproven. Much like your presumption of superior knowledge.

you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).

But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.

read dawkins? He may be a passable biologist, but beyond that, its completely amatuer hour. Now that I know where you are getting your information from, I can understand why you think that using personal attacks is a demonstration of intellect. Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Lets see you flex this intellectual muscle you are bragging about...

Remarkably, every sentence you wrote except for one (I'll let you figure out which one it is) is factually incorrect, even the ones about monkeys and Dawkins.

Fortunately for me, many of them are debunked by some of my favourite videos and Wikipedia articles:

* Neil deGrasse Tyson explains what Fry means by God receeding (if you watch up to 2:20, you'll have enough of the picture, as long as you understand why apparent retrograde motion really happens). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_retrograde_motion
* The answer to a fundamental question about life
* It's the bible that draws upon the imagination alone. Science draws upon evidence. Ideas without evidence are not science.
* A single eternally living monkey at a single eternally functional typewriter would, on an infinite timeline, create everything ever written, not just Shakespeare. OR an infinite number of such monkeys at an infinite number of such typewriters would produce all the written works there ever have been or will be in the amount of time it takes to write the longest of them. That said, I don't see what this has to do with this argument, but decided to refute it anyway.
* Dawkins never said any such thing.

(edited)

>> ^shinyblurry:

The argument was that science has explained so much therefore God is barely even probable anymore. That's completely false..science has not answered a single fundemental question about life, or purpose, or the human condition. It just points to vaguer and vaguer conclusions, which draw entirely upon the imagination. The belief in abiogenesis for instance is a metaphysical belief. There is absolutely no evidence to ever suggest that life came from non-life. Nor is the evidence any good that something as complex as a cell or DNA could ever arise via random mutation. A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere. Even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed..but posits that to explain that there are multiple universes and we just happen to live in the one that appears to be designed. That's not science, that's called living in denial.

>> ^jmzero:

If space and time were created in the big bang...

You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.
lets just have 13+ dimensions! cant figure out where matter and energy came from? no problem, lets just imagine these gigantic superstructures called branes that crash into eachother!

You don't understand anything of what you're saying - to be fair, very few people do. That doesn't mean it's wrong. There is plenty of science that's very complicated and unintuitive - and yet true and usable. The argument from incredulity is even less compelling when you don't even understand the thing you're arguing against.
even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed.

Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.
.abiogenesis is not a credible theory, it is a metaphysical belief.

It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.
A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere.

I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.
If you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).
But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.


I wish I could vote for this comment more than once : )

If space and time were created in the big bang...


You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.

lets just have 13+ dimensions! cant figure out where matter and energy came from? no problem, lets just imagine these gigantic superstructures called branes that crash into eachother!


You don't understand anything of what you're saying - to be fair, very few people do. That doesn't mean it's wrong. There is plenty of science that's very complicated and unintuitive - and yet true and usable. The argument from incredulity is even less compelling when you don't even understand the thing you're arguing against.

even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed.


Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.

.abiogenesis is not a credible theory, it is a metaphysical belief.


It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.

A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere.


I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.

If you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).

But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.

If space and time were created in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is transcendent and immaterial..ie, supernatural. I suggest you follow the logical conclusions of the things you believe. Your wish for a natural explanation for the beginning of the Universe will not happen because you click your heels..it could only happen if a materialist explanation makes sense, which it doesnt. I've read plenty of books and I know that science hasn't answered any of these questions, has not progressed on them one inch. It has just mired in more and more speculation..universe appears designed? no problem, lets just have infinite universes (that we can never detect) can't reconcile newtonian physics with quantum mechanics? no problem, lets just have 13+ dimensions! cant figure out where matter and energy came from? no problem, lets just imagine these gigantic superstructures called branes that crash into eachother! More than that, just the creation of life itself is steeped in idiocy..abiogenesis is not a credible theory, it is a metaphysical belief. If you believe in that you have a religious faith.

If it wasn't so stupid and toxic to the human mind, i would laugh..again, for the kids not paying attention, asking whether the Universe was deliberately created is entirely credible, as recognized by the greatest minds who have ever lived..and anyone saying it isn't is just closed minded and arrogant, and doesn't understand that these questions go a little deeper than the puddle they are playing in.

>> ^jmzero:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...
Well, people used to invoke religion to explain things like lightning and rainbows. Now you can say that we don't fully understand rainbows - but we understand them a lot better than when the explanation was "God made rainbows as a signal to man" (well, some of us do anyway), and very few people now would say "Well, if there's no God how do you explain rainbows?" now. Similarly, people now should have little reason to ask something like "If there's no God, how do you explain the diversity of life?" (but they still do). In any case, if you can't see the progression through history in terms of man's ability to comprehend and explain the natural world (and if you can't see the corresponding changes in how religions address the natural world, from thunder gods on down) then you're a moron and know nothing of world history or religion.
Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen?
You're bunching up some very different questions. "How did the Universe get here?" is a question for which a good answer is very difficult to imagine really, and it's also a question for which religion has absolutely no insight. Adding a non-created, always existing God isn't any different than saying "The Universe has always been there". The cold reality is "there could have been nothing - no God or anything". And yet there is something, some discontinuity that I'm perceiving now, that clearly is. All anyone could reply with is kind of an anthropic principle - a question begging, a case for special pleading - that clearly there is more than nothing, because there is.
The other question, "How did we get life from non-life" is very different, and something we may well have strong candidate answers for in our life time. Already, there are many possible ideas, your ignorance of them being wholly unsurprising. Read a book. Also, your idea that scientists believe "time and space begun with the big bang" is simplistic. You're not understanding how the ideas of "time" and "space" are being used, and how it would make perfect sense (to someone who understands these ideas) that the precursor to a big bang could be perfectly natural. The big bang is not the ex-nihilo beginning, it's just a threshold beyond which it's difficult to see. Again, read a book.

The argument was that science has explained so much therefore God is barely even probable anymore. That's completely false..science has not answered a single fundemental question about life, or purpose, or the human condition. It just points to vaguer and vaguer conclusions, which draw entirely upon the imagination. The belief in abiogenesis for instance is a metaphysical belief. There is absolutely no evidence to ever suggest that life came from non-life. Nor is the evidence any good that something as complex as a cell or DNA could ever arise via random mutation. A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere. Even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed..but posits that to explain that there are multiple universes and we just happen to live in the one that appears to be designed. That's not science, that's called living in denial.


>> ^messenger:
But, but, but, science DOES explain all the things that it claims to explain. It explains exactly and only those things. It just doesn't claim to explain everything! If God did start the big bang, and science eventually learns every single fact there is to know about the universe, it will be discovered that God exists and started the big bang. Then God and his role in the creation of the universe will be scientific fact. Same with Russel's Teapot -- science may one day prove that it exists. In the meantime, however, there's no sense in believing it, nor god. Science isn't anti-God; it's pro-truth.
So the rest of your argument is that God exists because science doesn't yet have the answers to everything?
MAKE SENSE!!!
(edited)>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all

@Sagemind

Being a slave to another person is a wretched life.
Being a slave to a concept is unfathomable.
Religion is a concept of man.
Religion is a concept designed to subjugate and control a population.

Religion is a man made system that has been used for good and evil. We know God through faith alone.

There was a time when education was unheard of and only a relative few were exposed to it. Rulers kept everyone else dumb so they could be controlled. Religion was and always will be designed as a tool to control. In the beginning there were many sects and religions. As the religions caught hold, they slowly choked out as many other religions as they could to exercise their brand of control. Christianity happened to be one of the few that was more ruthless at destroying the others. (Many are documented in the bible - Genocide in the name of religion included.) The smaller religions only needed to be discredited and be called cults - as they continue to do today.

The early church was heavily persecuted by many different dictators. Believers were frequently martyred because they reufsed to worship other Gods. The expansion of the early church under these circumstances is one of the positive evidences for Gods existence as it is unlikely it could have happened in that climate of persecution. There was nothing to gain from being a Christian in those days except being an outcast.

Genocide is committed in the name of many things, and today the masses are no less controlled by secular Governments than they have been under religious ones. Bad behavior is not an exclusive to religion, it is the nature of man himself, who could corrupt anything beneficial. That people have acted badly in the name of Christianity isn't proof of anything except mans inherent corruption.

Now, many, many lifetimes later, man has become educated and has thrown the shackles of religion (a form of slavery) and science has emerged as we seek for fact instead of fiction. There are many who are still bound to religion and can't function without the masters hand to lead them. They have lost, it seems, the ability to reason, with cognitive thinking, on their own.

Many need the presence of a deity to explain the un-explainable. It's a neat fully-packaged explanation that never needs unwrapping. It is easy. It's man's nature to pick the easy route. To many it just makes more sense. To others, those more cerebral, they want to see what is underneath. They refuse to accept what is fed to them and dig a little deeper. What they find is a world of control and dominance but also a world of wonder where education can lead one on many journeys.

The question of whether the Universe is random or deliberately created is not only credible, but utterly necessary and fundemental to understanding who man is and how he relates to the Universe. Perhaps you should try Contrary to popular belief, intelligent design is a scientific theory which seeks to explain the Universe just as evolution does. The question of God is central to philosophy and our most noted philosophers have debated this question of Gods existence throughout recorded history. The complexity of life is inadequately explained by materialistic processes, and many of these theories, such as evolution, are metaphysical to begin with.

There is a percentage of the population that operates on the right side of the brain where zeros and one are absolutes and in-fact they are. They work on a puzzle where the pieces are scattered everywhere in a dark room. The pieces don't always fit perfectly so someone else pulls them apart and the big picture is corrected. Every once in a while a strobe light goes on and larger mistake is noticed and we go back to restructuring out truths.

Religion want's to turn out the lights forever, kick everyone out of the room and continue to control those free thinkers. Individuals with original thoughts scares religion. The control will crumble and individuality will rein. Their fear is that without the control, chaos will ensue. What they don't see is that to stifle education is to bring about that which they fear most.

The most basic and fundemental questions of life have not been advanced one iota. There is a higher truth operating here: Man advances theories of life which convenience his own personal hypocripsy and enable him to do evil without consequence. This is a basic truth:

John 3:20

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

1 Corinthians 2:14

“The natural (unredeemed) man receiveth not the things of the (holy) Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”.

1 Corinthians 3:19

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

I still am not sure which they fear most. Is it the chaos itself, because look around, it exists with or without religion and often because of religion. Or is it the fear of loosing out on the promise of a Utopian forever. A mythical heaven where every single person has a different definition of. A place of fantasy.

Religion works on some of you. You remain a cow in this life so that you can experience a better life later. Well, heads up people, This is the life and you've been duped. Religion has brain washed you to do it's bidding. You fight the good fight for what you've been told is true by a hierarchy of rulers who seek the top roles in dominance. This isn't just true in Christianity, it goes for all religions. You are the pawns, the people on the front lines, leading the way, taking the brunt of accusation while the leaders at the top live the good live. You send your money (tithes) to them while you scrape to live a decent life.

I neither came to Christianity out of fear, or because I desired another life over this one. Nor was I indoctrinated or persuaded. Rather I was instructed in the spirit, and received personal revelation of the truth. I came to it independently and my convinctions rest solely on that. Your belief about an interdepedence due to a weakness of mind or character is wholly invalid.

I for one will not erase myself to the "Greater Good" of a hierarchy that cares more about it's well being/proliferation than it cares for the individual thought of a free thinking individual. It is my nature to put my thoughts and opinions before those of a mindless juggernaut that is religion. I will not allow my free thought to be controlled, twisted or stifled by anyone or anything.

Anyone with self respect should feel the same. Giving up on reality and calling it faith is really just saying, "Wow, that's just to much to take in and comprehend, I'm just going to shut down now. I will never have to concern myself with trying to keep all the balls in the air anymore. I will let a God sit in the driver's seat and ride out the rest of my life as a passenger." On top of that you spend all your days yelling out the window that you've got it so easy, you don't have to drive, you'll get to enjoy things when you get to your destination. What you fail to see is the person in the driver's seat doesn't have a license to drive, or a body or anything, they are plain fiction and the end of the road is a brick wall. When will you look up and see that you should have taken the wheel and honored the privilege of the ride before it was too late.

This imagined heirarchy of yours is a convenient strawman for your arguments about personal freedom, but it doesn't bear out. There is no conspiracy here. The body of Christ is so fractured at this time that a belief there is a heirarchy of control is simply ludicrous. Belief in God is about personal conviction and personal responsibility. Convinction because we are all sinners who have transgressed Gods laws. Responsibility because God is the moral authority who judicates our lives. You seem to think you're free, but anyone who sins is a slave to sin. You seem to think you're without a god, but you have something you worship. Whether its something in the world, or in the case of many secular humanists, yourself, there is something out there that you bow down and kiss every day of your life. Your freedom is just another box that you feel comfortable in. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

1 Corinthians 13:11-13

When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.