REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
In case you didn't manage to pilfer the meaning of I-Rex's statements, the basic gist of PE is that evolutionary development wasn't linear, in that there were periods of stasis, followed by periods of intensive development, and so on.

eh sorry about that. I was being abstract science guy again wasnt I. Thanks to bop for translating into english.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
how do you qualify or define “awareness� and “love� and “care� in regards to a creator we cant conceptualize? See what Im getting at?

Yes, I aknowledge that I will run into difficulties there, but my point is still valid.

how do you know that?

I don't know that, nor did I profess that I knew that. I believe that, because it feels right and makes sense to me.

absolutely. Which is why I generally stop making assumptions in regards to this creator (what happened to calling her she? )

I didn't stop, it depends what's appropriate in the sentence - a noun or a pronoun.

I don’t know if it would be possible for a human to truly understand the Truth of the creator (or creative force). Just as its unlikely that a slug could understand quantum mechanics. That’s my opinion of course since Im not going to assume as a given that we are the universal maximum in terms of cognitive ability. I think “we� have a long way to go with that. Just as the slug has a long way to go before it achieves true understanding of quantum theory.

I agree. I wouldn't even want to understand the ultimate truth, where's the fun in that!?

well I find it to be useless in that it implies something about a creator that seems statistically to be highly unlikely. I see it instead as being a human cloaking if you will of an incomprehensible divinity. We anthropomorphosise everything so why should god be any different.

We do anthropomorphize everything, because it helps us understand difficult concepts.
In addition, how could we think about something in a non-human way? Our brains, culture, and everything that influences how we think is very human.

BTW Rian, my post is in the middle of page 57. Hint hint.

[Rían]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nurvingiel

BTW Rian, my post is in the middle of page 57. Hint hint.

You missed my response *nudge nudge* - perhaps because it was unusually short

I"ll just repeat it here instead of linking to it:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(repeat of answer to Nurvi's pokes)

I'm out of time, Nurvi, so poke me again later and I'll share my POV with you (thanks for asking). In the meantime, tho, I'll say that UNLESS you believe that there IS an ultimate truth in certain areas (and I'm talking ultimate truth about things like how the world got here and how humans are made, NOT things like what's the best ice-cream flavor in the world, which does NOT have an ultimate truth associated with it ) then it's not much use discussing the subject, wouldn't you agree?

IOW, there may not be an ultimate truth about the best sport to plaly, but there ARE ultimate truths about things that I kinda think of "rewindable and playable on a tv". And if the technology existed, and there was a giant videocamera recording things, then we could rewind the tape and play it on a tv and see if macroevolution really DID happen, or if God really DID create us essentially as we are now. Do you see what I mean? If you can't assent to that idea, then there's really no use in discussing these differering worldview possibilities, IMO. Do you agree?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


So I'm waiting on YOU to answer my question about ultimate (or absolute) truth before I remark any further on your post

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
So I'm waiting on YOU to answer my question about ultimate (or absolute) truth before I remark any further on your post

can i grab this?

in my belief, there is no such thing as
an Ultimate truth. We will never know
anything beyond our own plane of existence.
at least not until Nirvana (or Heaven for u Christians)
and maybe not even then.

i dont want to start up an old arguement, but
for me, creationism is a myth, based entirely on
a system of religious beliefs,
whereas evolutionism (and P E) are theories
based on factual evidence

[Rían]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
can i grab this?

in my belief, there is no such thing as
an Ultimate truth. We will never know
anything beyond our own plane of existence.
at least not until Nirvana (or Heaven for u Christians)
and maybe not even then.

i dont want to start up an old arguement, but
for me, creationism is a myth, based entirely on
a system of religious beliefs,
whereas evolutionism (and P E) are theories
based on factual evidence

But that wasn't my question - I wasn't asking if we'll ever KNOW the ultimate truth in particular areas, I was asking if there IS an absolute truth answer for certain types of questions.

IOW, I would say that "what is the best flavor of ice cream?" does NOT have an absolute truth answer, while "how did humans get here?" DOES have an absolute truth answer, and if somehow we could have seen it happen, we would know the answer.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Valandil, you mentioned being a born-again-Christian earlier. What is that exactly? I curious, I've heard the term before but I don't know what it means.

Originally posted by Orli17
how exactly will you know WHO you are when you are born again? And how will you know if you ARE born again? i'm confused by that already.

OK, to these, finally!

As Rian explained, the term 'born again' comes from a conversation Jesus had with someone... you can see the full account in the first half of John chapter 3. Jesus tells him he must be 'born again' - when the man is puzzled by this, Jesus tells him He's not talking about natural birth, but a spiritual birth.

We Christians believe that this is what happens at the point when someone seeks God's forgiveness through the sacrifice that Jesus made on the Cross. It's really the point at which someone becomes a Christian. It has nothing to do with reincarnation (which would be a subsequent physical birth), your mind is not wiped clean of everything you ever knew, thought or felt, you are not turned into a zombie... you still feel very much like yourself, only more so... better, if anything.

Let me relate my own experience:

In my early teens, I probably thought I was a Christian - I went to church some, I accepted some of what I heard to an extent - but it was sort of a mental assent - not really totally taking it in. I wavered a bit even in that though... uncertain if there really was a God, uncertain about the various things I heard at church, etc.

At one point, when I was 15, I started to really understand the gospel... the core teachings of Christianity... that I was a 'sinner' (a term we don't like, yet we don't mind saying, 'I'm not perfect' - the two can be interchangeable, really), that Jesus had come to live among us and to die for us, that I could go to God in prayer, asking Him to forgive me of my sins in Jesus' name, and 'ask Jesus into my heart' to give me new life.

Initially I resisted. I would go to church, week-after-week, hearing more and more confirmation of this, feeling a 'tug at my heart' to respond to it (which I could not understand or explain) - but I kept putting it off, looking for excuses. It was a small church, and I don't know if I had ever seen it done, but I felt that if I was going to do it, I needed to march down to the altar / prayer rail at the front, when the pastor gave the 'invitation' - and do it publicly. I resisted doing that for a number of reasons; natural shyness, wondering what my friends would think, wondering if THEY even 'got it' - any excuse I could think of. Yet, guided by my 'heart' - I just knew I had to do it.

Finally I gave in. I went forward and prayed some form of what's called 'The sinner's prayer' - as I said, confessing my sin to God (not like He didn't know, but I needed to tell Him) and resolving to try my best to avoid sin, accepting Jesus' suffering as my atonement and asking for forgiveness - and asking Him to come into my heart.

I didn't cry... as I said, I hadn't seen this much or at all, but somehow I thought I was supposed to cry. I was taught to accept by faith that God had forgiven me... and I did feel some sort of assurance in my heart.

I also felt different somehow. Like I said, I wasn't a zombie or a robot, but it was as though I had been 'blind' in a way, and could now see... because I saw things from a different perspective. I cared about people much more. Many things started to make sense which hadn't made sense before.(EDIT: I definitely felt changed!)

Now that was many years ago. It didn't take away all of life's problems, but it makes them easier to bear, I believe. I have great joy, peace, love, hope and contentment in my heart... and I claim that this comes from God, through His Son Jesus, by the work of the Holy Spirit. I was born again... into a spiritual family... and became a Child of God!

(EDIT:So I believe that we ALL are naturally separated from God, but that He has gone and made a way for us to be reconciled to Him... and that this is it.)

That way is open to anyone who would go there...

*you may also want to see my brief (honest!) explanation of why Jesus needed to die for us in the 'Mel Gibsons Jesus Film' thread in 'Entertainment' forum - 6th post on 9th page... oh, plus I think I made a pretty witty post there yesterday! *

[brownjenkins]

very nice story Val

[Nurvingiel]

Wow Valandil, that was really moving. Now I know what you mean about being born again.

Do all people who are born again fall under the same "banner"? I always thought there was actually a subset (for lack of a better word) of Christianity of born again people.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
You missed my response *nudge nudge* - perhaps because it was unusually short

I"ll just repeat it here instead of linking to it:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(repeat of answer to Nurvi's pokes)

I'm out of time, Nurvi, so poke me again later and I'll share my POV with you (thanks for asking). In the meantime, tho, I'll say that UNLESS you believe that there IS an ultimate truth in certain areas (and I'm talking ultimate truth about things like how the world got here and how humans are made, NOT things like what's the best ice-cream flavor in the world, which does NOT have an ultimate truth associated with it ) then it's not much use discussing the subject, wouldn't you agree?

IOW, there may not be an ultimate truth about the best sport to plaly, but there ARE ultimate truths about things that I kinda think of "rewindable and playable on a tv". And if the technology existed, and there was a giant videocamera recording things, then we could rewind the tape and play it on a tv and see if macroevolution really DID happen, or if God really DID create us essentially as we are now. Do you see what I mean? If you can't assent to that idea, then there's really no use in discussing these differering worldview possibilities, IMO. Do you agree?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


So I'm waiting on YOU to answer my question about ultimate (or absolute) truth before I remark any further on your post

Whoops, I did miss your uncommonly short response. It was lost among other people's uncommonly long ones.

Anyway, I agree with what you say about ultimate truth in some areas. ie. we could watch the video tape of the history of the world (made by Mel Gibson ) and find out how evolution did really (or not) happen.

There's no ultimate truth about best ice cream because that's an opinion, and there's no real right answer. But there is one way that humans and other creatures came into being, which, not having a video, we can't conclusively discern).

Are we on the same page about ultimate truths? What you said is what I think about ultimate truths. Like what the universe is composed of, etc. I agree that we should both know what the other means before going on in the discussion.

Yea more comments. *is excited*

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Wow Valandil, that was really moving. Now I know what you mean about being born again.

Do all people who are born again fall under the same "banner"? I always thought there was actually a subset (for lack of a better word) of Christianity of born again people.

It's basically a term used by Fundamentalist Protestants.

While some members of more mainstream denominations use it to describe a personal renewal of faith or conversion experience, the doctrine of the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and Methodist churches (among others) rejects the Fundamentalist interpretation and says that the process of being 'born-again' refers to the rite of Holy Baptism.

Catholics and Protestants agree that to be saved, you have to be born again. Jesus said so: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

When a Catholic says that he has been "born again," he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism. Evangelical Protestants typically mean something quite different when they talk about being "born again."

For an Evangelical, becoming "born again" often happens like this: He goes to a crusade or a revival where a minister delivers a sermon telling him of his need to be "born again."

"If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and believe he died for your sins, you’ll be born again!" says the preacher. So the gentleman makes "a decision for Christ" and at the altar call goes forward to be led in "the sinner’s prayer" by the minister. Then the minister tells all who prayed the sinner’s prayer that they have been saved—"born again." But is the minister right? Not according to the Bible.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Are_...Born_Again.asp


Lutheran
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2613

Orthodox
http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/BAPTISM.htm

[p[/url]

[Rían]

I have some disagreements with Catholic doctrine, one of them being that since God gave us free will, I don't see how a baby being bapitzed can have made a free will choice in the matter. But no time to get into that now - but neither do I agree with the trite example about the crusade.


Nurvi - I'm glad we're in agreement about the truth thing - we can hold an intelligent discussion now! That can't be done if one (or both) sides can't see the difference between truth and opinion statements.

However, it will prob. have to wait until Monday - weekends are always bad for me to Moot, and this one is particularly busy.

Give me another poke on Monday! And for starters, maybe re-think the "egotistical" comment - Why do you say it's egotistical? Can you think of ways that it would NOT be egotistical?

cya

[Insidious Rex]

So to you, I'm in denial, no matter what evidence I can offer to the contrary? You won't consider any evidence? Sounds close-minded to me.

first off… remember… this is simply a POSSIBILITY to consider. I wasn’t accusing you of something. Just using this as an example. Don’t forget that now… And I certainly do consider evidence of creationism but so far I haven’t received any. So that leads me to conclude the denial alternative. Although I have less of a problem with the recent softening of your position toward being “not necessarily rock solid for creationism but dubious of evolution� or however you worded it (I know you hate when I repeat what you say and all).

And you can offer no "therefore" statement for me to even evaluate your claim? No matter what I say, I'm just in denial about evolution, and there's no way to check if it's true or not? Why did you ask me to evaluate it if you won't give me anything to evaluate it WITH?

this isn’t computer programming. I simply asked you to consider the possibility that denial MAY be an option for you. You can take it from there. You don’t need any further input from me. But if you insist how about starting by answering the question “Could I be in denial about evolution?� That requires only a one word answer. And from there you may qualify it all you like. Im just trying to see if you can accept the idea that denial is a true possibility here. That’s all.

It does NOT affect my faith in God. It would take other kinds of evidence to do that. So your statement doesn't even apply, because I don't consider evolution to be at loggerheads with Christianity, because God could be behind evolution (which is non-testable). But I think you'll say I'm in denial, anyway, right?

Not at ALL. If you were to say that I would say hey! Now we are getting somewhere! Im CERTAINLY not out to disprove the notion of god. Ive maintained all along that the idea of a god (even a Christian god) can quite easily fit with evolution. The problem (the logger head) usually comes when we bring up man’s evolution… then the alarm bells start ringing, the drawbridge pulls up and the next thing you know the Christians are in full attack mode on issues like hip bones in lemurs and platypus eggs and such. So my only conclusion is that diversionary tactics are necessary so that the non believers forget about the human descent issue and argue instead about the little petty stuff. Or can the Christian view point (that is of man being created in the image of god) hold up as well in an evolutionary environment? Do you think it could rian? Or would that go against what the bible says (and means)?

but science in general? What about flat earth? what about spontaneous generation? Are you saying that at this point in time, everything we know happens to be right?

are you saying that everything in science needs to be discounted completely because it may be all disproven someday? And that there aren’t at all hierarchies of fundamentality in science and that the concept of gravity should be equal to flat earth notions because well its ALL science?

and psychology, fergoodnesssakes?!

whats so wrong with psychology? You have something against the study of the human mind?

Because the predictions of gradualism were found to be false

there you go see? Saying something I JUST said wasn’t true in the last post. There ARE examples of a chain of species. Of life forms showing distinctive signs of a time lined connectedness with each other. There are even examples within LIVING species to show this. And not just one or two but tens of thousands if not more.

And as far as supported by evidence - well, duh! It was formulated by looking at the evidence.

again… where would you look to make a theory if not at the evidence? Seems kind of straight forward to me.

Your supposition in a nut shell is basically that well it cant be assumed because its based on a negative. Well sure we can. First off we can because don’t forget there are DOZENS of other verifications for evolution. It doesn’t all rest on the back of punctuated equilibrium. Evolution shows up everywhere and thoroughly saturates nature with its reality. So when a theory has worked so well in so many different ways scientists will want to see how various parts of it can be best explained. So they come up with something like punctuated equilibrium to be a possible explanation for the current fossil record based on the fact that evolution can be seen in so many ways so what could be going on here. That’s all. Its just one sliver you realize. No one sat down and came up with this and said A HA! IVE PROVED EVOLUTION! No evolution was established by the time they came up with this. Its simply a component.

Heres an example of my own of what I mean: lets say you have two clocks. The one on the left has an hour, minute and second hand. The one on the right has an hour and minute hand but NO second hand. You watch them both for five minutes straight. Without taking your eyes off of either of them (they are next to each other). The clock with the second hand will show a nice gradual smooth display of time passing as the second hand roles easily around the face of the clock five full times. Only at the end might you notice that the minute hand has gone from one number to the next. Now if you watch the other clock, it wont be nearly as smooth a display. It will just sit there for 60 seconds and then BIP the minute hand will move from one hash to the next. This will happen four more times. And then the shows over. Not nearly as clear and easy viewing as the other clock. But guess what BOTH clocks show the SAME time! Its simply that the second clock doesn’t make it as obvious as the first one. But we can STILL assume that five minutes passed on both clocks because of what we know about the physics of time, the construction of the clocks (how gears work, how springs play in, how the machine parts create movement, etc.), and half a dozen other things that have long been established as to their reliability in the field of clockwork. Just because we don’t happen to see the second hand on that one clock DOESN’T mean that time doesn’t exist. We can therefore conclude that the second clock displays a kind of “punctuated time keeping� since we cannot observe a second hand.

whales - are you aware of the MASSIVE size differences in the proposed transitionals?

size differences are relatively irrelevant. Whats important is skeletal structure. They have computer programs that can actually plot bone structure in one species by pivot points and such and map it against another species. You get a perfect match when you look at some of those transitionals. Mathematically impossible if they both had just evolved randomly. They HAVE to be related to each other. And they can even project how related they are by mapping the change in their bone structure much like we can map the change in continent distribution by running tectonic scenarios through special software.

horses - why do the three-toed ones also appear AFTER the solid-hooved ones?

because evolution isn’t a single line it’s a tree?

whatever

what my attempts at being humorous are that bad?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
[B]Although I have less of a problem with the recent softening of your position toward being “not necessarily rock solid for creationism but dubious of evolution� or however you worded it (I know you hate when I repeat what you say and all).

"recent"?



You have apparently never understood my stand on the issue if you say "recent". I've always said I consider there to be support for both theories, but MORE for creationism.

I'm done with this topic now, I think it should go over to the creationism thread if it continues, but I'm not interested I'll consider your denial suggestion, and hope you'll consider that you're in denial about evolution/creationism, too

[Rían]

(BTW - here's a link to my creationist thread mega summary post, where I say that both theories are supported by evidence: here )

So take THAT! *bops IRex over the head with a disputed transitional fossil*



EDIT - *checks to see if the link works, and re-reads entire post*
wow, what an openminded person that RÃ*an is! She's probably really nice and incredibly gorgeous, too!

[Arien the Maia]

all this talk about being born again.... I was never really born again. I was raised Catholic and I've accepted it as the true teaching and faith ever since I can remember. I've also accepted the fact that Jesus died for humanity since I was little. (too bad Gwai isn't here alot...he could probably explain the Catholic stance on being born again much better than I )

[Nurvingiel]

This is my "egotistical" comment from p. 57. I will comment on this now, but I'll wait until Monday to poke you about the rest.

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
What is truth in one worldview is not the truth in a different worldview. What is the ultimate truth? Maybe there isn't one. But it is egotistical for a person to declare that their worldview is the ultimate truth. (I'm not saying you're doing that RÃ*an, but that does add another angle to your argument.)

Essentially, I feel that since no belief system can be proven, they are all possible. Therefore, it isn't fair for someone to say their worldview is correct and another's is not.

IOW, since we can't prove it's right, it is egotistical to assume that one worldview is right and another is wrong, IMHO.

This doesn't mean there's anything wrong in believing in any worldview, just it's not fair to assume it's more correct than another one.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
This is my "egotistical" comment from p. 57. I will comment on this now, but I'll wait until Monday to poke you about the rest.

Essentially, I feel that since no belief system can be proven, they are all possible. Therefore, it isn't fair for someone to say their worldview is correct and another's is not.

IOW, since we can't prove it's right, it is egotistical to assume that one worldview is right and another is wrong, IMHO.

This doesn't mean there's anything wrong in believing in any worldview, just it's not fair to assume it's more correct than another one.

For one thing, I would disagree that all belief systems are possible, if by 'possible' you mean may actually be true statements about the Universe.

It may have been a possibility that "it's turtles all the way down", but this turns out not to be the case.

Take the Aztec worldview, for example. They sincerely believed that if they stopped ripping the hearts out of their enemies as sacrifices to the gods, the world would come to an end.
They stopped (were stopped); it didn't- seems pretty conclusively proven wrong.

Though I'm sure if there were Aztec theologians still around, they would have been able to figure out some argument to justify their original cosmology... people are very good at re-interpreting the facts to allow them to hold onto disproven beliefs ('cough'Creationists'cough')

[Nurvingiel]

Well okay fine. I readjust my statement to say worldviews that have not been conclusively disproven are, obviously, all possible.

Creationism has not been conclusively disproven. Evolutionism is a valid alternative theory. They can both possibly exist, because neither theory has been proven, or disproven.

However, there are probably many other aspects of the Aztec worldview that are still possible.

EDIT: Actually, the world has come to and end for the Aztecs unfortunately. Maybe they were right after all.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
... people are very good at re-interpreting the facts to allow them to hold onto disproven beliefs ('cough'Creationists'cough')

*cough*evolutionist's panspermia theory*cough*

*cough* evolutionist's "hopeful monster" theory *cough*

[Janny]

Aww, I want to understand this without a PhD in something. In a nutshell what would those theories be?

[Rían]

Altho you prob. didn't intend it, I think "in a nutshell" is where these ideas belong

(sorry, just couldn't resist )

Anyway, it's basically this:

panspermia : the idea that life on this earth was brought here from other planets/aliens. This, of course, only removes the question of where we all came from one level back; it doesn't solve the real question.

hopeful monsters : the idea that changes from one species to another were NOT accumulated, small changes, but instead, multiple, HUGE "overnight" changes; literally in one case that a flying bird somehow mysteriously hatched out of a dinosaur egg (in a book that was approved by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Council on Education). Again, this does not prove macroevolution; it's just an idea that cannot be tested scientifically.

Google searches will give you a few more details. These are both ideas that I've seen presented by the evolutionary camp. People are free to come up with ideas, and if they ever can be framed so that they can be tested scientifically, then they will either stand or fall scientifically. As they are now, they are outside the realm of being able to be scientifically tested, so they're just interesting ideas.