Theological Opinions , PART II

[GreyMouser]

Sorry, my bad for not providing links:

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/facu...n/atheism.html
Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns

http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel1.htm
RELIGIOUS MAKEUP OF THE UNITED STATES

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
Religious identification in the U.S.

[GreyMouser]

And here's some scientists who seem to be still having good dreams.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy: From the Universe to the Laboratory
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll...ab05/img0.html


Take a look- it's a wonderful click-through guide to the latest ideas on the frontier of cosmology; simple and with great illustrations

[Aquilonis]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The weaker religion becomes, the more insane people will become.

Explain, starting with your definition of insanity as you're using it here.

I don't know what things are like with you/your situation, but in my experience my areligious/mildly religious friends are much more civil and much more "enlightened". It is that group of people that tends to ask questions, tries to find out about the world, and doesn't just accept doctrine from a book (no matter which book it is) that people wrote and people interpret. I don't know if there is a God, I don't know if there is a correct religion, but in my mind it is pretentious to assume that religion is the answer (I prefer economic and social stability myself).

To answer the question posed in this thread, banning books is not only wrong, but criminal, according to the Bill of Rights. Any citizen is allowed to print/say whatever they want to, so long as it's not copyrighted, libelous, or detrimental to the public peace (i.e. fire in a movie theater). I posted this on TWC (if any of you have heard of it) a while back, but I think I should paraphrase the idea in this case again.

If I want to write something like "I am a bloody murdering Nazi, and I think every American should be a bloody murdering Nazi too" (not my actual belief, which I hope was obvious) and threw in some hateful, racist crap for good measure, there's not any restriction on me if I can find a publisher and a place to sell it. Nobody can, or should do anything about it, because it's free speech. Mein Kampf was being sold in the Towson Waldenbooks last time I walked in there, which I think is quite admirable. I haven't read it, but one day I'd like to, because that is the way people and societies learn (from mistakes as well as triumphs). Hitler did terrible things, but if we banned his book and tried to suppress the insights he left behind, we risk his atrocities happening again.

Evolution is another example. Secular schools, sanctioned by a secular government, are now being forced by faith-based ideological groups to put stickers on biology textbooks and ban/restrict evolution teaching. The reason for this (I've been very close to or part of at least 3 of these types of families in 3 different states) is because what is being taught in the churches and at home is being undermined by the secular school system's teaching. Thus, these people want to try to restrict free flow of knowledge so their children "won't be confused".

Personally, when I have children and take them to the public library to do some research or to introduce them to reading, I'd much rather have to explain why the penguin has a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend. The alternative? Explaining to my child why the government thought it was ok to restrict what my son or daughter could or could not read. Sorry, I get to choose that, not you, Pastor/School Board Rep/Library Superintendent Smith. Which group is insane, again?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

Explain, starting with your definition of insanity as you're using it here.

Sorry, you'd had have to kept up with me for a while to understand why I left that comment so detached. I have been here for quite a while...

I don't know what things are like with you/your situation, but in my experience my areligious/mildly religious friends are much more civil and much more "enlightened".

Hmm...and much more "educated"? right? Well, go ahead and say it.
I prefer to say much more "brainwashed"...not into learning stuff-which is not har anyways-, but into learning it THE way, which is ironically, what christians are accused of themselves.

It is that group of people that tends to ask questions, tries to find out about the world, and doesn't just accept doctrine from a book (no matter which book it is) that people wrote and people interpret.

Those people also have no idea what is IN those books, nor a comprehensive idea as to what they mean. Try to find out about the world? People found out about the world long before secularism, and I find it presumptious to assume that we have somehow "discovered" things for the first time, "cuz those guys back then were so ignorant".
As for asking questions, that is just a silly allegation against religious people. Religious people ask questions all the time, or they would not have developed (I prefer "discover") the theology that is IN THOSE BOOKS.

I don't know if there is a God, I don't know if there is a correct religion, but in my mind it is pretentious to assume that religion is the answer (I prefer economic and social stability myself).

the answer to what? happiness or decent economy?

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

the answer to what? happiness or decent economy?

LOL!
Dr. Pangloss: Of what religion are you?
Dr. Geldhoff: I'm a Industrial Capitalist of Adam Smith.

[Aquilonis]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Sorry, you'd had have to kept up with me for a while to understand why I left that comment so detached. I have been here for quite a while...

Fair enough, I'm new, so I can understand that.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Hmm...and much more "educated"? right? Well, go ahead and say it.
I prefer to say much more "brainwashed"...not into learning stuff-which is not har anyways-, but into learning it THE way, which is ironically, what christians are accused of themselves.

"The" way? There are plenty of ways to learn about the world, and educated doesn't necessarily mean enlightened. If a committed Christian kept an open mind and allowed his/her mind to analyze what he/she is being presented in those religious settings, they'd develop their own, unique view on things based on their own, unique method. If an athiest academician narrowly took everything he read as fact without asking a single question about why it's there, then I would call the Christian more enlightened, even if the athiest had more formal education. However, in practice I've seen those with formal education commit themselves to a lot more questioning and analysis than those without so much education. Religious types, at least in my experience, tend to shy away from pointed questioning about their faith, as if they fear their bible-thumping ardor might be put under a microscope.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Those people also have no idea what is IN those books, nor a comprehensive idea as to what they mean. Try to find out about the world? People found out about the world long before secularism, and I find it presumptious to assume that we have somehow "discovered" things for the first time, "cuz those guys back then were so ignorant".
As for asking questions, that is just a silly allegation against religious people. Religious people ask questions all the time, or they would not have developed (I prefer "discover") the theology that is IN THOSE BOOKS.

I agree partly, but I would say be very careful when you say that. At Maryland, there is a class in which the Bible is treated as a historical document, and students have to write a paper based on their analysis of the text. Many of these students are of different religions or none at all. I believe they will come to a different conclusion (as a pastor once told me, the Bible is useless as a religious tool unless you look at it through the "lens of faith". In other words, this means "suspension of obvious disbelief" but nevermind that for now).

Secularism existed right alongside religion. It might not have been a movement, but if you believe in one religion, someone had to "make up" a few thousand other ones, right? I think secularism came first, with religion coming later as an "identity" emerged.

The guys back then were ignorant of what we know today. They just were. The Romans didn't have fuel-injected cars or laptop computers, so we must have "discovered" some way to do that. It isn't a bad thing- I'm totally ignorant of the technology we'll have in 3000, and I'm sure they'll call us that, truthfully. Knowledge builds upon knowledge, though. The Romans were ignorant of today and today's technology, but they helped us discover what we know today by laying foundations. We too are laying foundations and building upon them, and it's all a process.

Christians do ask questions, but they ask them based on the assumption that the books are infallible words of God. The entire goal of such an exercise is to make sure that they have an answer to any question regarding an imperfect book, written by many different people over a long period of time, to protect the faith. If I asked a fundamentalist to analyze the theology based on Noah's faith in God and the way he was able to save the faithful from drowning, he'd be right on that with a 5-page essay. If I asked the same fundamentalist to write the same essay on how such a vessel could have fit countless millions of animals with provisions and space for almost three months, I think he would have a much harder time answering that. I don't dispute that they ask, I just dispute their motives.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

the answer to what? happiness or decent economy?

Happiness is different things to different people, but on a societal level, if everyone can put food on the table and provide for themselves we'd see a much happier society as a whole than if 500 new churches were built. Just an opinion....

Edit- The answer to societal problems like poverty and crime.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

"The" way? There are plenty of ways to learn about the world, and educated doesn't necessarily mean enlightened.

Truce: both sides do it. And you're right about the difference between educted and enlightnened, which perhaps proves my point. I think secular academicians see themselves as more enlightened, which makes for good spectacle.

If a committed Christian kept an open mind and allowed his/her mind to analyze what he/she is being presented in those religious settings, they'd develop their own, unique view on things based on their own, unique method. If an athiest academician narrowly took everything he read as fact without asking a single question about why it's there, then I would call the Christian more enlightened, even if the athiest had more formal education.

I'd call him a heretic. But I still do not understand all of the meanings of "open mind" apperantly, because in many cases young christian students who go to college switch over to something more neutral, and perhaps atheistic. Were they being open-minded? I would say they were, a wide open window! Ready made to accompany the next dogma flying their way.
Open mindedness, yes, but then to chew on the info, and spit it out if it is harmful.

However, in practice I've seen those with formal education commit themselves to a lot more questioning and analysis than those without so much education. Religious types, at least in my experience, tend to shy away from pointed questioning about their faith, as if they fear their bible-thumping ardor might be put under a microscope.

So do non-religious people. If I asked an evolution professor why he believed the way he did, etc, putting his beliefs under a microscope, I'd be laughed at probably. The general sentiment would be "where has this fool been?"...and "that's beside the point!".

So I really don't see nay special reason for religious people to oblige. It's kinda like the dentist's chair. "Let's see what YOU'VE been chewin' on!"

I agree partly, but I would say be very careful when you say that. At Maryland, there is a class in which the Bible is treated as a historical document, and students have to write a paper based on their analysis of the text. Many of these students are of different religions or none at all. I believe they will come to a different conclusion (as a pastor once told me, the Bible is useless as a religious tool unless you look at it through the "lens of faith". In other words, this means "suspension of obvious disbelief" but nevermind that for now).

Well, it's true: the Bible is not really of much anthropological use, except maybe if you want to go over the customs of the day etc...

Secularism existed right alongside religion. It might not have been a movement, but if you believe in one religion, someone had to "make up" a few thousand other ones, right? I think secularism came first, with religion coming later as an "identity" emerged.

Chesterton would reply that it was Christianity we needed to balance out the secular paganism of our early selves. Not necesarily tossing everything pagan, but making it into something different.

The guys back then were ignorant of what we know today. They just were. The Romans didn't have fuel-injected cars or laptop computers, so we must have "discovered" some way to do that.

That's technology. And we did discover some way to do that, you're right; but other civilizations did get around not having a computer to communicate with tons of people at one time. But all the real problems have always remained the same, because as you will admit, technology has not necessarily made anything easier, only more complicated. I suppose you could argue for disease, but we've invented new ones too. You don't have to know what particles make up a blanket to have it keep you warm. We know more information about stuff, but some problems just don't go away.

It isn't a bad thing- I'm totally ignorant of the technology we'll have in 3000, and I'm sure they'll call us that, truthfully. Knowledge builds upon knowledge, though. The Romans were ignorant of today and today's technology, but they helped us discover what we know today by laying foundations. We too are laying foundations and building upon them, and it's all a process.

They may have been ignorant about what water was, but it didn't stop them from drinking it.

Christians do ask questions, but they ask them based on the assumption that the books are infallible words of God.

Theology books? Well, theology books are like Marx discovering the interconnectedness of economy: they deduce logically things like God outside of time etc...


[quote]The entire goal of such an exercise is to make sure that they have an answer to any question regarding an imperfect book, written by many different people over a long period of time, to protect the faith. If I asked a fundamentalist to analyze the theology based on Noah's faith in God and the way he was able to save the faithful from drowning, he'd be right on that with a 5-page essay. If I asked the same fundamentalist to write the same essay on how such a vessel could have fit countless millions of animals with provisions and space for almost three months, I think he would have a much harder time answering that. I don't dispute that they ask, I just dispute their motives. [quote]
Millions? I've never heard that. I heard two of each, upon which you have to consider: where did all those "millions" of species come from? Most of them are probably bacteria, or some other miniscule creatures. Besides, couldn't the unbathed animals have carried some of these chaps opn their selves?

As for questioning their motives...that's fine to do, but of course only religious people (meaning mainly fundamentalist christians) are picked on, since they're seen as so simple minded.

[Aquilonis]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Truce: both sides do it. And you're right about the difference between educted and enlightnened, which perhaps proves my point. I think secular academicians see themselves as more enlightened, which makes for good spectacle.

I think we both understand the difference. I think religious leaders see themselves as more enlightened, though, which has created great spectacle for me for over a decade now.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I'd call him a heretic. But I still do not understand all of the meanings of "open mind" apperantly, because in many cases young christian students who go to college switch over to something more neutral, and perhaps atheistic. Were they being open-minded? I would say they were, a wide open window! Ready made to accompany the next dogma flying their way.
Open mindedness, yes, but then to chew on the info, and spit it out if it is harmful.

What is harmful to you may not be harmful in their eyes. It appears the last sentence you wrote in that segment showed you did in fact understand . The place we disagree is that of harmfulness. I personally believe that if a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew) weighs all the evidence in regard to something and believes something different at the end of it, then they have made an educated (and I believe enlightened) decision. Is indoctrinating Christianity into a child and telling them nothing else not dogma?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So do non-religious people. If I asked an evolution professor why he believed the way he did, etc, putting his beliefs under a microscope, I'd be laughed at probably. The general sentiment would be "where has this fool been?"...and "that's beside the point!".

So I really don't see nay special reason for religious people to oblige. It's kinda like the dentist's chair. "Let's see what YOU'VE been chewin' on!"

If you're an evangelist and you come to my front door asking me if I've found Jesus, you will be asked those questions. Anybody claiming to "witness" better be sure what exactly they're witnessing to me, because at that point they've already begun to oblige. With regard to "where has this fool been", I've had that kind of reaction against me before, notably in rural areas. They've looked at me like I had three heads, but I think I stood on solid ground and understood what I thought. A good professor, one who truly cares about the dissemination of knowledge, would not laugh at you. He'd sit down with you and go through it point by point because it would be in his interest not to close off avenues of information. If you were laughed at, then he's not a good professor at all.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well, it's true: the Bible is not really of much anthropological use, except maybe if you want to go over the customs of the day etc...

It can be pretty awesome for historical use, though. Some of those stories are contemporary with major wars, as well as cultural phenomena we'd never know about if they hadn't compiled the Bible at Nicaea. It can be good for anthropology too, if there's anything in there reasonably historical and contemporary with the time, as you can get a good snapshot of society.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Chesterton would reply that it was Christianity we needed to balance out the secular paganism of our early selves. Not necesarily tossing everything pagan, but making it into something different.

That does not occur just with Christianity, that particular aspect occurred in the Roman Empire and spread out from there. Humanity does not need any specific religion, though some would argue that humanity does need something bigger than itself to "rely" on. Paganism achieved that in a way, so did Islam, so did Judaism, it just depended on how they spread and why. Ironically, religions evolve over time very frequently, and the religions you see in 500 BC are markedly different from ones you see today. I wouldn't be surprised if, in 4500, you looked and saw something just as markedly different from today.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That's technology. And we did discover some way to do that, you're right; but other civilizations did get around not having a computer to communicate with tons of people at one time. But all the real problems have always remained the same, because as you will admit, technology has not necessarily made anything easier, only more complicated. I suppose you could argue for disease, but we've invented new ones too. You don't have to know what particles make up a blanket to have it keep you warm. We know more information about stuff, but some problems just don't go away.

They did get along, but ask Augustus, hell, ask Varus. If they knew what we know today, Arminius would have been crushed and the imperium would eventually have been extended to the Volga. Communication and coordination would have been there. Also, think about this- if Rome had mass production, centralized power across the Empire, interstate highways, steamships....the city economy would turn into a country or empire-wide one. Technology has made things so, so much easier to do, we just have more of it to accomplish and more and more grandiose and lofty goals. In 120 AD, Trajan was worried about Parthians raiding his borders, and he sent an expedition that cut down the Fertile Crescent and captured their capital, one of the best Roman victories in history by the most powerful country then in existence. In 1945 AD, the most powerful country then in existence sent 5 million men into fields separated by two oceans and half the world, defeated both of them, and imposed its hegemony, which still stands in large part today. Rome could not do that. Technology made it possible.

Many of the underlying problems, though, do still exist- poverty, crime, war. They will always exist, because no matter how technological a society becomes, people will have more than others.

Finally, you don't have to know what particles make up a blanket to let it keep you warm, no. However, you do have to know that if you're going to mass produce a couple tens of millions of them to keep half the country warm cheaply. The alternative is having slaves do it by hand, which takes way longer and is a lot less efficient.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

They may have been ignorant about what water was, but it didn't stop them from drinking it.

They knew they needed it for survival. Today, we know why, which is quite useful in medicine. Next time you're sick and in the doctor's office, be thankful for that, because when they tell you to drink a lot of fluids and take bed rest, the alternative 500 years ago was cutting your arms and letting them bleed a while. Also, knowing what lives in water (like everything), purifying said water, keeping sanitation to a satisfactory level...that has increased our lifespans and helped our societies grow. Again, foundations being built upon.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Theology books? Well, theology books are like Marx discovering the interconnectedness of economy: they deduce logically things like God outside of time etc...

Deduce from what? The Bible? The Lord of the Rings, if it was taken as a religion, could do the exact same thing, and I could deduce logically how the Valar would have defeated Morgoth and destroyed Beleriand. Does that mean Eonwe went in there and actually did it? No, unless you're prepared to seriously consider that thought alongside your own, which I'm assuming you're not. Theology seems to me to be more of a philosophical pursuit at best, and I would compare it more to Comparative Literature. Within the confines of the Bible, you can put together a whole host of interconnections if you suspend your disbelief, until you realize that a lot of these things could not happen. Which brings me to the next point....

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Millions? I've never heard that. I heard two of each, upon which you have to consider: where did all those "millions" of species come from? Most of them are probably bacteria, or some other miniscule creatures. Besides, couldn't the unbathed animals have carried some of these chaps opn their selves?

Maybe, but how are these animals going to move, eat, do their business, etc. I'm currently on a religious website stating that the deck space of the ark was 101,250 ft^2 and the total volume was 1,518,750 ft^3. They assume the average vertebrate is the size of a sheep. I'm using the fundamentalist religious numbers, here, which say that the MOST conservative estimate (using one vertebrate per family, every biologist knows this isn't happening without evolution, but let's suspend disbelief here) only puts 2000 sheep-sized animals on the ark. This makes 22,250 ft^3 or, according to them, only 1.4 percent of the ark's space. I beg to differ. They assume all of these not-really-evolving vertebrates that can't die can fly continuously without stopping. I say that they'll have to land at some point, and thus that 22,250 ft^3 will result in living biomass on about 22 percent of the ark's floor at any given time. There are three other possibilities, 16,000 animals, 35,000 animals, and 40,000 animals, all of which take up more deck space than the ark had (even packed like sardines). Also, this site says insects could survive outside the ark, which is dead wrong, they'd drown, plus they'd have to be supplied with food.
So, let's all suspend bigtime disbelief for a second and say that two representatives per family (my bio teacher is dying somewhere) were on this ark and that insects could all magically somehow survive outside of it. How will you supply these animals taking up a quarter of your space? The African Elephant (avg. weight 4,000-13,000 lb) consumes one percent body weight per day. I'm going to take the absolute lowest numbers and say 400 pounds of food per day * 80 days = 32,000 pounds of plant matter per elephant (the other one would eat another 32,000 minimum). In this case, you're looking at hundreds of thousands of pounds of food for all of your animals, minimum, which is roughly five times the weight of your ship, minimum, in food alone (I'm going to assume every one of them had a system in which they did their business over the side). Also, carnivores? What would they eat? And finally, what about the plants? Nobody mentions them, but if drowned in a flood they'd be dead. Bear in mind, I'm taking their measurements, which I considered a joke before I even started messing with them, and they still can't explain that, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

As for questioning their motives...that's fine to do, but of course only religious people (meaning mainly fundamentalist christians) are picked on, since they're seen as so simple minded.

You just said above that the minds of Christians that thought about things and changed to a different path were a "wide open window". Who is seeing the simple mind there? For the record, there are idiots on both sides that have no idea, and trust me, I've been there- religious people do their fair share of picking too.

[trolls' bane]

Love all the math you used there!

[hectorberlioz]

What is harmful to you may not be harmful in their eyes. It appears the last sentence you wrote in that segment showed you did in fact understand . The place we disagree is that of harmfulness. I personally believe that if a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew) weighs all the evidence in regard to something and believes something different at the end of it, then they have made an educated (and I believe enlightened) decision. Is indoctrinating Christianity into a child and telling them nothing else not dogma?

Well we're naturally going to disagree over whether it is the right thing or not to teach children, so we'll not go too far there.
As for the weighing, I suppose you could say they did make an independent decision, which is a very good thing. I only disagree that independent decisions always lead to the right conclusions.

If you're an evangelist and you come to my front door asking me if I've found Jesus, you will be asked those questions. Anybody claiming to "witness" better be sure what exactly they're witnessing to me, because at that point they've already begun to oblige.

Actually, as an Orthodox Christian who accepts the church dogma stuff, it's kinda hard on me too when those guys come to my door.

I think you have a point to a certain extent: many christian door-to-door evangelists (more often Jehovah's Witnesses) can't really do much beyond telling you what they read in a pamphlet. I suppose they don't really expect everyone to know their stuff better.

With regard to "where has this fool been", I've had that kind of reaction against me before, notably in rural areas. They've looked at me like I had three heads, but I think I stood on solid ground and understood what I thought.

I wasn't saying that only religious people get picked on, but that non-religious people often do some picking too. They expect all religious people to be unprepared, just as the door-to-door evangelists expect people to be unprepared.

A good professor, one who truly cares about the dissemination of knowledge, would not laugh at you. He'd sit down with you and go through it point by point because it would be in his interest not to close off avenues of information. If you were laughed at, then he's not a good professor at all.

Oh yeah, he'd sit you down alright...while he stood pacing and lecturing
Well, we've already gone over the bad guys, the good guys can only show up and show that they're there.

That does not occur just with Christianity, that particular aspect occurred in the Roman Empire and spread out from there. Humanity does not need any specific religion, though some would argue that humanity does need something bigger than itself to "rely" on.

Paganism achieved that in a way, so did Islam, so did Judaism, it just depended on how they spread and why. Ironically, religions evolve over time very frequently, and the religions you see in 500 BC are markedly different from ones you see today. I wouldn't be surprised if, in 4500, you looked and saw something just as markedly different from today.

Well, I would like to go into paganism later, but not now. All I'll say about this is, I also would not be surprised about the religions being markedly different.

They did get along, but ask Augustus, hell, ask Varus. If they knew what we know today, Arminius would have been crushed and the imperium would eventually have been extended to the Volga. Communication and coordination would have been there. Also, think about this- if Rome had mass production, centralized power across the Empire, interstate highways, steamships....the city economy would turn into a country or empire-wide one.

That's assuming the inevitability of progress using technology, mixed with the roman psyche. If Augustus had technology, perhaps he would not have been Augustus. And Rome could have fallen just as easily, and so could we, if we transposed roman mindsets to our modern day minds.

Technology has made things so, so much easier to do, we just have more of it to accomplish and more and more grandiose and lofty goals.

No doubt! I'm not against technology, but I think it (and "progress") is volatile...and I think we think too much of both.

In 120 AD, Trajan was worried about Parthians raiding his borders, and he sent an expedition that cut down the Fertile Crescent and captured their capital, one of the best Roman victories in history by the most powerful country then in existence. In 1945 AD, the most powerful country then in existence sent 5 million men into fields separated by two oceans and half the world, defeated both of them, and imposed its hegemony, which still stands in large part today. Rome could not do that. Technology made it possible.

Again, I do see that technology has helped us accomplish many things. But of course if you think about it: if technology had not been invented, nobody would have had to conquer those places, we wouldn't have had to nuke japan, etc...thats all conjecture of course, but my point is that technology did as much harm as help.

Many of the underlying problems, though, do still exist- poverty, crime, war. They will always exist, because no matter how technological a society becomes, people will have more than others.

Well, you agree with me.

Finally, you don't have to know what particles make up a blanket to let it keep you warm, no. However, you do have to know that if you're going to mass produce a couple tens of millions of them to keep half the country warm cheaply. The alternative is having slaves do it by hand, which takes way longer and is a lot less efficient.

I did not know they put blankets together particle-by-particle these days...
Well, I do see your point, machinery replaced the slaves/workers, and thats a very nice thing.

They knew they needed it for survival. Today, we know why, which is quite useful in medicine. Next time you're sick and in the doctor's office, be thankful for that, because when they tell you to drink a lot of fluids and take bed rest, the alternative 500 years ago was cutting your arms and letting them bleed a while. Also, knowing what lives in water (like everything), purifying said water, keeping sanitation to a satisfactory level...that has increased our lifespans and helped our societies grow. Again, foundations being built upon.

Well I agree.

Deduce from what? The Bible?

Well yes!

The Lord of the Rings, if it was taken as a religion, could do the exact same thing, and I could deduce logically how the Valar would have defeated Morgoth and destroyed Beleriand. Does that mean Eonwe went in there and actually did it? No, unless you're prepared to seriously consider that thought alongside your own, which I'm assuming you're not. Theology seems to me to be more of a philosophical pursuit at best,

Theology is the practical side of philosophy.
But you are of course coming from a point where you believe the bible to be a nice put-together at best, and we're just going to disagree, so we may as well not try.

and I would compare it more to Comparative Literature.

What? I can't see it. Though if I were you, I might say I would compare it to Literature, without the comparative thrown in.

Within the confines of the Bible, you can put together a whole host of interconnections if you suspend your disbelief, until you realize that a lot of these things could not happen. Which brings me to the next point....

Every major religion has it's book, and I won't get into the Bible is unique thing, but my point is that the books of these religions were not written as popular novels like LotR, and then jumped on by religious people who decided to live it.

Maybe, but how are these animals going to move, eat, do their business, etc. I'm currently on a religious website stating that the deck space of the ark was 101,250 ft^2 and the total volume was 1,518,750 ft^3. They assume the average vertebrate is the size of a sheep.

...well, I'm not sure myself if God specified all animal types to jump inta the ark. You can probably write off all the sea species.


[quote]I'm using the fundamentalist religious numbers, here, which say that the MOST conservative estimate (using one vertebrate per family, every biologist knows this isn't happening without evolution, but let's suspend disbelief here) only puts 2000 sheep-sized animals on the ark. This makes 22,250 ft^3 or, according to them, only 1.4 percent of the ark's space. I beg to differ. They assume all of these not-really-evolving vertebrates that can't die can fly continuously without stopping. I say that they'll have to land at some point, and thus that 22,250 ft^3 will result in living biomass on about 22 percent of the ark's floor at any given time. There are three other possibilities, 16,000 animals, 35,000 animals, and 40,000 animals, all of which take up more deck space than the ark had (even packed like sardines). Also, this site says insects could survive outside the ark, which is dead wrong, they'd drown, plus they'd have to be supplied with food. [quote]
I say let's assume God told Noah to forget about the bugs, there were enough on the animals already

So, let's all suspend bigtime disbelief for a second and say that two representatives per family (my bio teacher is dying somewhere) were on this ark and that insects could all magically somehow survive outside of it. How will you supply these animals taking up a quarter of your space? The African Elephant (avg. weight 4,000-13,000 lb) consumes one percent body weight per day. I'm going to take the absolute lowest numbers and say 400 pounds of food per day * 80 days = 32,000 pounds of plant matter per elephant (the other one would eat another 32,000 minimum). In this case, you're looking at hundreds of thousands of pounds of food for all of your animals, minimum, which is roughly five times the weight of your ship, minimum, in food alone (I'm going to assume every one of them had a system in which they did their business over the side). Also, carnivores? What would they eat? And finally, what about the plants? Nobody mentions them, but if drowned in a flood they'd be dead. Bear in mind, I'm taking their measurements, which I considered a joke before I even started messing with them, and they still can't explain that, I'm sure.

All very practical stuff, I can see.

You just said above that the minds of Christians that thought about things and changed to a different path were a "wide open window". Who is seeing the simple mind there? For the record, there are idiots on both sides that have no idea, and trust me, I've been there- religious people do their fair share of picking too.

My point with that was that "goin' neutral" is seen as open-minded, even if it was done not so independently minded, as you prefer.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

They did get along, but ask Augustus, hell, ask Varus. If they knew what we know today, Arminius would have been crushed and the imperium would eventually have been extended to the Volga. Communication and coordination would have been there. Also, think about this- if Rome had mass production, centralized power across the Empire, interstate highways, steamships....the city economy would turn into a country or empire-wide one. Technology has made things so, so much easier to do, we just have more of it to accomplish and more and more grandiose and lofty goals. In 120 AD, Trajan was worried about Parthians raiding his borders, and he sent an expedition that cut down the Fertile Crescent and captured their capital, one of the best Roman victories in history by the most powerful country then in existence. In 1945 AD, the most powerful country then in existence sent 5 million men into fields separated by two oceans and half the world, defeated both of them, and imposed its hegemony, which still stands in large part today. Rome could not do that. Technology made it possible.

Somehow, I'm reminded of Ransom translating for Weston....

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

However, in practice I've seen those with formal education commit themselves to a lot more questioning and analysis than those without so much education.

Probably true, but not necessarily having anything to do with religion. Having lived in a Communist country for a while, I can say there are plenty of "village Voltaires" as happily ignorant in their atheism because that's the way they were raised. Most people don't question the beliefs they learned as a child, whatever they may be.

Religious types, at least in my experience, tend to shy away from pointed questioning about their faith, as if they fear their bible-thumping ardor might be put under a microscope.

Well, you said you were new- the religious types on this forum don't shy away from anything

[Aquilonis]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Probably true, but not necessarily having anything to do with religion. Having lived in a Communist country for a while, I can say there are plenty of "village Voltaires" as happily ignorant in their atheism because that's the way they were raised. Most people don't question the beliefs they learned as a child, whatever they may be.

I agree, but in a lot of ways you're talking about a different system. Athiesm is just as bad as fundamentalism in many respects as well, because you cannot prove there isn't a god or gods of some sort either. When I say educated/enlightened, I don't mean "non-fundamentalist". Your village Voltaires, in my mind, are examples of exactly what I consider wrong with evangelist fundamentalism in this country. Personally, I was raised Christian Science (which, if some of you don't know, basically says that if you believe God created you perfectly, then sickness is just an "error" and doesn't exist- believing this nonexistence will thus bring about that nonexistence). That, obviously, is about as useful as Santa to me, I won't go into much detail other than to say it...caused some problems. Thus, I'm very critical of "because I said so" religion, as it fosters the cycle of people like your Voltaire's, in any belief.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Well, you said you were new- the religious types on this forum don't shy away from anything

Usually forums are much more active with religious debate than real life. In RL, what I've found is that religious people will try to tell you about God, and when you think they're wrong they will either pity you for your lack of faith or get angry that you're questioning them, all without offering you any type of real answer other than to have faith.