REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Drgnslyer
This whole not spilling the seed really makes me think of monty python for some reason.....:P

This is why: [singing]Eeeevery sperm is sacred, every spream is great, iiiif a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate....[/singing]

I agree Nurv, getting pure non-believers opinion on creation myths and theroys...

Erm... I'm not sure what you're agreeing with. I'm just curious.

[Drgnslyer]

I'm agreeing with your curiosity...like my curiosity as to why you're not on msn... :P

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Anyway, I have a question for anyone who doesn't believe in (any) God. (I guess that means atheists, what's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?)

What is your personal belief on the creation/initial formation of the universe, and life? I'm curious.

The difference between atheist and agnostic was well put a time back by IR. But I'll try to explain it more. And agnostic does not rule out that there may or may not be a creator. The agnostic leaves those questions unanswered, for the time being, saying "I don't have all the facts yet."

An atheist believes that there are no supernatural beings that created us and the universe. That what happens to us everyday is a result of physics and chemical laws and principals in play.

I can only speak for myself as to the creation of the universe and life. Though we can not take a time machine back in time (nor would we want to be present at the initial birth of the universe) we can use physical evidence, as well as indirect evidence, to piece together the probablility of what occured eons ago. I personally believe in an cyclical universe that expands and contracts.

As for life, I've posted quite a lot of that in the Evolution thread. If you care to read it, it's there.

Since our sun will be dying in about 5 billion years, I don't think we'll ever get beyond our own-made myths long enough to really do any good with the knowledge we gain. Though, it would be nice to think that we'd move away from this solar system in 5 billion years, we are shackled by the limitations and barriers we put up ourselves with religious dogma. (Example, we are on the verge of curing Parkinson's Disease... but stem cell research has been extremely limited in the US.)

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks Ruinel! *feels knowledgeable*

If you feel like writing more about the origins of the universe, I'd love to read it.

Do you know if we've figured out what happened before the 'Big Bang'? It seems like something we'd try to learn.

[brownjenkins]

by definition i guess i'm agnostic, though i'm pretty sure a supernatural being does not exist... i also don't think it really matters in the end whether there is one or not

i have my doubts concerning the big bang theory, since it is based on our visual observations... most of the theories assume that our visible portion of the universe is representative of the universe as a whole... i think there is the possibility that what we can observe is only the smallest fraction of what there is, and what we observe around us may not necessarily reflect the entirety of the universe... kind of like the fish assuming there is no life outside of the ocean

i think we need another einstein-like individual to throw aside current presumptions and develop a new model, not necessarily just continue to modify the current one

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Since our sun will be dying in about 5 billion years, I don't think we'll ever get beyond our own-made myths long enough to really do any good with the knowledge we gain. Though, it would be nice to think that we'd move away from this solar system in 5 billion years, we are shackled by the limitations and barriers we put up ourselves with religious dogma. (Example, we are on the verge of curing Parkinson's Disease... but stem cell research has been extremely limited in the US.)

I don’t even think the power of religious resistance will keep us from flowing out into the galaxy long before the sun eats us up. Thank goodness. Our species is simply too well programmed for upwards and onwards exploration to hold us back. Otherwise we would still be worried about sailing off the edge of the earth.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i think we need another einstein-like individual to throw aside current presumptions and develop a new model, not necessarily just continue to modify the current one

So you don’t think theres any substance to a unified theory at all?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Whoa! I'm a little confused about this post... in my own words... are you saying that...
Onan jerked off so that he couldn't have sex with his dead brother's wife, so there would be no heir for his brother? eh?

Yes, that was a tradition for the brother of the dead man to give the dead man's wife a child to carry on the line. Or closest male relative, IIRC, if there was no brother. Am not sure of exact rules, since it's not a New Testament thing but the basic idea is there.

So Judah's son Er got killed because he was really evil, then Judah's next son Onan got killed because ditto, then Judah refused to give his daughter-in-law Tamar his next son Shelah, saying he was too young. So Tamar up and disguises herself as a prostitute, and reels in Judah, who gets her preggo, not knowing who she was, then Judah finds out she's preggo and wants to kill her, then she whips out Judah's signet ring and other things he gave her for a pledge when he thought she was a prostitute, and Judah realized she called him on his deceit, and says "she is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her my son Shelah." Wild story! Just like a soap opera!


Radagast, do you remember anything more exact along those lines of the rules of giving a child by proxy to someone that died?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Yes, that was a tradition for the brother of the dead man to give the dead man's wife a child to carry on the line. Or closest male relative, IIRC, if there was no brother. Am not sure of exact rules, since it's not a New Testament thing but the basic idea is there.

So Judah's son Er got killed because he was really evil, then Judah's next son Onan got killed because ditto, then Judah refused to give his daughter-in-law Tamar his next son Shelah, saying he was too young. So Tamar up and disguises herself as a prostitute, and reels in Judah, who gets her preggo, not knowing who she was, then Judah finds out she's preggo and wants to kill her, then she whips out Judah's signet ring and other things he gave her for a pledge when he thought she was a prostitute, and Judah realized she called him on his deceit, and says "she is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her my son Shelah." Wild story! Just like a soap opera!


Radagast, do you remember anything more exact along those lines of the rules of giving a child by proxy to someone that died?

S, Judah's grandson is really his son! And Shelah's nephew is his brother. *blink blink*

[Drgnslyer]

*shudders*

That's even more confusing than my own family, two sets of parents, four sets of grandparents, countless aunts and uncles, not to mention cousins...7 siblings in total *kindof* and three nephews....one more nephew or neice to come....

I'm just glad that my sister didn't do that to my dad.....not very kosher :P

One more thing to toss into the mix....borderline on religion and science togeather.....

Paralell universes...do they exist, or are they a figment of our imagination....

however if they're a figment of our imagination, wouldn't they exist on some level simply because we understand the concept of them being there on some level......

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Yes, that was a tradition for the brother of the dead man to give the dead man's wife a child to carry on the line. Or closest male relative, IIRC, if there was no brother. Am not sure of exact rules, since it's not a New Testament thing but the basic idea is there.

So Judah's son Er got killed because he was really evil, then Judah's next son Onan got killed because ditto, then Judah refused to give his daughter-in-law Tamar his next son Shelah, saying he was too young. So Tamar up and disguises herself as a prostitute, and reels in Judah, who gets her preggo, not knowing who she was, then Judah finds out she's preggo and wants to kill her, then she whips out Judah's signet ring and other things he gave her for a pledge when he thought she was a prostitute, and Judah realized she called him on his deceit, and says "she is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her my son Shelah." Wild story! Just like a soap opera!


Radagast, do you remember anything more exact along those lines of the rules of giving a child by proxy to someone that died?

Actually I don't know the story. Probably, ministry of education thought it wasn't for our age.

I don't really know the Bible well. I did think that I know Genesis and all its stories, apparently I don't.
(As I want to remind you I'm not religous and therefore know the Bible only from school. And my worse grade is in Bible)

I realize now, though, from where did the word for 'jerk off' in hebrew came from... (from Onan)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Drgnslyer
...One more thing to toss into the mix....borderline on religion and science togeather.....

Paralell universes...do they exist, or are they a figment of our imagination....

however if they're a figment of our imagination, wouldn't they exist on some level simply because we understand the concept of them being there on some level......

Are we discussing Paul Townsend's P-brane theory here? Or M-Theory (where the 5 different string theories come together in one?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
...I realize now, though, from where did the word for 'jerk off' in hebrew came from... (from Onan)

What's the word?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
So you don’t think theres any substance to a unified theory at all?

not necessarily... it may be the right angle, or at least partially... i just think that scientists sometimes forget that we create models to help explain the universe... but these models are based upon what we currently know, and even though they may fit very well... they may be turned upside down with future observations of things we just can't sense at the moment

you hear this from big bang theorists... they speak about it being so close to fact, since there are so many supporting theories... however, a fact is not defined by how many supporting theories it has, but rather, the existance of no reasonable alternatives... as a result, there is a tendency to concentrate on finding more supporting evidence, as opposed to rethinking the entire problem

there is nothing wrong with trying to refine current models... but it may very well be a completely different model that ultimately best fits what we observe... and it takes a rare, and revolutionary, individual to make this kind of step

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
not necessarily... it may be the right angle, or at least partially... i just think that scientists sometimes forget that we create models to help explain the universe... but these models are based upon what we currently know, and even though they may fit very well... they may be turned upside down with future observations of things we just can't sense at the moment

you hear this from big bang theorists... they speak about it being so close to fact, since there are so many supporting theories... however, a fact is not defined by how many supporting theories it has, but rather, the existance of no reasonable alternatives... as a result, there is a tendency to concentrate on finding more supporting evidence, as opposed to rethinking the entire problem

there is nothing wrong with trying to refine current models... but it may very well be a completely different model that ultimately best fits what we observe... and it takes a rare, and revolutionary, individual to make this kind of step

This is exactly the problem with Creationist theory... it works its way backwards and ignores evidence that doesn't fit the theory. You can't make the evidence fit the theory... it's supposed to be the other way around.

I agree... thought should always be fluid. Thus, theory should also fit what we observe as the most probable answer based on what we know and can prove and predictions based on indirect evidence.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Ruinel
What's the word?

Why do you want to know?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
This is exactly the problem with Creationist theory... it works its way backwards and ignores evidence that doesn't fit the theory.

And evolutionism doesn't?

This reminds me of an amusing sign I saw at the lovely aquarium in Monterey, California (AMAZING jellyfish displays!) It was talking about the sunfish, I think it's called - that HUGE, odd looking fish. It said some drivel about how it evolved so big because it helped it to survive That's the standard no-brainer explanation that's constantly served up - "The [insert animal] evolved like [insert observed characteristic] because it helped it to survive."

Well, the small fish survived too, didn't they Oh, but they evolved small so they could hide in rocks and survive IOW, they're saying NOTHING, but they make it sound like some amazing observation.

(this must be a record number of rolley-eyes for me, but really, those "explanations" are so silly! And they ASSUME that evolution happened - they certainly don't PROVE it.)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
What's the word?

Onan-ing

In English, there's a word, "onanism", that describes the physical practice. But there's no slang using Onan as a root.

Originally posted by Drgnslyer
I'm just glad that my sister didn't do that to my dad.....not very kosher :P

Remember, tho, Tamar was NOT the daughter of Judah - a BIG difference!

Originally posted by Ruinel
S, Judah's grandson is really his son! And Shelah's nephew is his brother. *blink blink*

Who says the Bible is boring?

[Drgnslyer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Are we discussing Paul Townsend's P-brane theory here? Or M-Theory (where the 5 different string theories come together in one?

I've only heard of one theroy, and I'm not sure of the name......all i know that what i'm thinking of is on the cutting edge of (meta? or quantam?)physics.

However, what are the differences between townsend's P-brade and the M-Theroy...

[Rían]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
Actually I don't know the story. Probably, ministry of education thought it wasn't for our age.

LOL!

I don't really know the Bible well. I did think that I know Genesis and all its stories, apparently I don't.
(As I want to remind you I'm not religous and therefore know the Bible only from school. And my worse grade is in Bible)

Oh, I thought you knew it better, because you mentioned keeping some of the special days pretty strictly. I thought I remembered you saying that your mom wouldn't let you leave the house, or go far from the house, for one of them.

Genesis is one of my favorite books!

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
[...]That's the standard no-brainer explanation that's constantly served up - "The [insert animal] evolved like [insert observed characteristic] because it helped it to survive."
[...]
(this must be a record number of rolley-eyes for me, but really, those "explanations" are so silly! And they ASSUME that evolution happened - they certainly don't PROVE it.)

This could work both ways, you know. The 'explanation' of "The [insert animal] has [insert observed characteristic] because the Lord has created them so." is just as silly. The proof for that sort of statement is also pretty thin IMO.