I haven't posted here for a long time. Been busy with personal stuff like travelling the world and getting engaged but I often pop in to read something that actually makes sense on the Internet, now and again (Egyptsearch rules! ).
However, I have been stirred recently and I just had to get in touch with y'all.
Please forgive me if this has already been discussed (and feel free to forward me to the relevant thread).
Now, I was once a "Christian" and don't hold dogmatic beliefs and I'm quite open to other religions (though I subscribe to none at the moment) and even read up much about other faiths like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. However, I have never been able to shake the conviction that there is a Creator/God/Supreme-Being-Entity/Whatever! that created the world as we know it.
My question is: WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK ABOUT THIS BOOK'S PROPOSITION THAT THE CREATOR CONCEPT IS A DELUSION???
I would really appreciate it if time tested posters like Djehuti, Rasol, Doug M, Supercar, Ausar etc would say something as I highly value their opinions because they have brought me much (priceless) enlightenment in the past couple of years.
Looking forward to the banter
PEACE
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Can't that be said of all religous beliefs by atheists?
By the way, Congratulations on your engagement. Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
Thanks dude
Okay, so I haven't read the book but I was wondering if anyone here has [read it] and has insightful comments about it. I can't lie that I'm about to read it either, as I have at least 20 odd books I've piled up over the last few months that I MUST READ.
I dig that the guy is an atheist, but what makes his argument so compelling that everyone in my office is becoming an atheist?
I'm on the first page of "The Divine Proportion by H.E. Huntley", I hope it's useful...
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
Anyway, I am glad you found your girl Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Young H*O*R*U*S: ^lol What's with the Margaret Tatcher (or some other English "notable") picture???
No, I'm not marrying an English woman if that's what you're implying. My Divine Lady is from Guyana
Nigeria + Guyana = Young Horus + Young Isis
But Isis was Horus's mother! LOL
Perhaps a better analogy would be young Horus + young Hathor.
One of Hathor's many epithets was the 'Golden Lady' and for all purposes the Greeks equated her to their Aphrodite.
She was a cow goddess, so maybe you could do like the poster 'Red,White, and Blue + Christian' and call her "my red cow" rather my "golden cow"! LOL In the ancient world this would probably be a compliment, but these days it would be taken derogatory!
Posted by Player 13 (Member # 7037) on :
I can only give you my opinion...
One of the main arguments against the existence of a benevolent God is probably the problem of evil - the existence of evil, suffering and poverty in the world. Another argument against God is the argument from poor design. It is based on the following premise: An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design. Organisms have features that are suboptimal. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Floods, Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect and punish mankind indiscriminately. Why does he permit millions of both young and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way?
Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children" to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others pauper poor? Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die of starvation every year? Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate into a miserable and devastating old age regardless of their religious affiliation?
God supposedly created the world like it is, to punish man for Adam and Eve's 'original sin'. Why does he also punish supposedly innocent children and animals with thousands of diseases, birth defects, starvation and to be eaten by other animals?
Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks, jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, wolves, poisonous snakes, stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this caring and benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully kill and eat other animals to survive?
World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths.
World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more millions maimed for life.
The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 200,000 men, women and children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally INNOCENT children!
There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th. and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and totally innocent children.
The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and innocent children indiscriminately.
Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and malnutrition.
These indiscriminately afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of all religious persuasions.
Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling, purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and transportation systems including flying through the air.
Man has created a wonderful medical and drug system and improved housing and food production. The result of MAN'S inventiveness has DOUBLED the average life span. None of this was created by any gods.
Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean and torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think he will let us enjoy peace and eternal happiness in his Heaven? And why does he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead parents, siblings and friends? (Or this god?)
There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO OJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL god beliefs are based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions and claims of errant men.
If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about the welfare of the creatures on Earth.
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite; that man created gods!
I challenge god believers to supply any objective verifiable evidence that their god actually exists except in their overactive imaginations.
Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Young H*O*R*U*S: ^lol What's with the Margaret Tatcher (or some other English "notable") picture???
No, I'm not marrying an English woman if that's what you're implying. My Divine Lady is from Guyana
Nigeria + Guyana = Young Horus + Young Isis
But Isis was Horus's mother! LOL
Perhaps a better analogy would be young Horus + young Hathor.
One of Hathor's many epithets was the 'Golden Lady' and for all purposes the Greeks equated her to their Aphrodite.
She was a cow goddess, so maybe you could do like the poster 'Red,White, and Blue + Christian' and call her "my red cow" rather my "golden cow"! LOL In the ancient world this would probably be a compliment, but these days it would be taken derogatory!
lol dude, you never seize to crack me up (in a good way). It is ever refreshing to see someone of such immense knowledge who hasn't lost touch with their inner child
Yes, I think I'll go with Hathor then. I actually thought Isis is also Horus's wife (and Horus is sort of the young Osiris, or maybe not?). And, I don't think "cow" befits my divine lady, she is actually a beautiful (UK bred) black/asian/native south American zahir of divine proportion .
Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Player 13: I can only give you my opinion...
Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Floods, Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect and punish mankind indiscriminately. Why does he permit millions of both young and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way?
Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children" to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others pauper poor? Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die of starvation every year? Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate into a miserable and devastating old age regardless of their religious affiliation?
...
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite; that man created gods!
...
MY THEORY/CONVICTION:
BECAUSE THIS CREATOR/GOD IS YOU/ME...
THE INTELLIGENT (BUT SOMETIMES FORGETFULL) DESIGNER.
Posted by Tigerlily (Member # 3567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Isis was Horus's mother! LOL
Hehehe.... good catch!!!
Young Horus, how about you repost this topic also in the religious section of this forum?
Oh and many congrats on your engagement! Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
^ thanks
Yeah I might just post it there but I was hoping for some academic/logical insight (which this section is notable for), not looking for too much speculation.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
First, let me say
quote: Heru/ Young Horus: getting engaged
congratulations!
Second, let me say:
quote:God Delusion
Like: The God Gene maybe?
quote:Carl Zimmer claimed that, given the low explanatory power of VMAT2, it would have been more accurate for Hamer to call his book A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Percent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study.
One of the main arguments against the existence of a benevolent God is probably the problem of evil - the existence of evil, suffering and poverty in the world.
Depends on what you think the implications of "suffering", "pain", and "evil" are.
For instance, some might view life as a microscopic part in an ongoing cycle, reincarnating again and again, and thus, death not being an evil - just a mechanism.
A perfect Utopian society, would definitely yield some spoiled fruits, unless, free will were to be taken away...
which could be considered a true evil.
Pain... a mechanism to avoid death. I know I'd rather feel pain than numbness. I a boy, sometimes I wanted to pound something, karate chop something, just to feel something, which could explain my love of football.
Evil is actually not opposite from innocence. Saddism is evil IMO -> inflicting these things (death pain) because you love to see people get hurt/ want them gone.
anyway...
Maybe a "Benevolent Creator" looks for the result rather than the process.
quote:Another argument against God is the argument from poor design. It is based on the following premise: An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design. Organisms have features that are suboptimal. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
These are the issues:
1)The problem of evil(theodicy)
2)The not so perfect designs that humans have to try to correct. Example: conjoined twins. The question being how can a supposedly perfect being create such imperfection in physical(dwarfism, e.g) and moral(serial murderers and sadistic torturers, e.g.) design.
3)Pascal's wager. How do you bet?
But again, for most people it might just be psychologically necessary to believe in a Deity--because when serious tragedy strikes how else can one cope except with an "Inshalla".
Some evolutionary biologists argue too that humans might just be "hard-wired" to believe in some conscious Supreme Being or something like that.
A sad observation: in this world the people who pray the most seem to suffer the most and often dream of travelling to the lands where the people hardly or never pray.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
These are the issues:
1)The problem of evil(theodicy)
2)The not so perfect designs that humans have to try to correct. Example: conjoined twins. The question being how can a supposedly perfect being create such imperfection in physical(dwarfism, e.g) and moral(serial murderers and sadistic torturers, e.g.) design.
3)Pascal's wager. How do you bet?
But again, for most people it might just be psychologically necessary to believe in a Deity--because when serious tragedy strikes how else can one cope except with an "Inshalla".
Some evolutionary biologists argue too that humans might just be "hard-wired" to believe in some conscious Supreme Being or something like that...
The *alternative* would be to assume that the complexities of the universe, including the thus far undefined biological entity called "life" itself, the organization of complex single cells to form complex multicellular organisms, whose every biological element about them appears to be functionality, the penetration of certain UV Solar radiations into the earth's surface save for the most harmful of them all, and the list goes on, are all but *unguided* series of events or processess that basically amount to spectacular 'miracles'. Brings me back to thinking about what these fellows have been and still are up to: What is "Life"?: Scientists struggle to define life
The question is, given the 3 main points and additional points you've raised, what is *your* standpoint on the issue?
On additional note: Can't pass up the thought that in the case of various individuals, they may have arrived at the conclusion that a concious Supreme Being must be THE mastermind behind the existence of nature, primarily because this is what they were socially conditioned to think right from a very early age, and likely in combination with the points you made about a means to 'cope with tragedy' or adversity and being "hard-wired". Keeping that in mind, do you think that every individual who perceives of a supernatural intellectual intervention behind the bringing-into-being of the Universe and its complex components, necessarily meet the conditions you've mentioned; OR ELSE that for some - at least in their minds, that there is more to it than that, which is that they have actually put some long and hard thought to this - that supposedly goes beyond what they were merely told at a very young age, and have thus arrived at the conclusion that there must be intellectual intervention by a "Supreme being"...as so-proclaimed by the advocates of the likes of "intellegent design"?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
First of all, we are not "hardwired" for belief in God. The Creator gives humans "free will". As a result, we have the right to believe or not believe in God on this plane.
To understand our search for god we must accept that We are here for a reason, and that this is not our home. A post at another site I once read can elaborate this point.
In this post the author discussed the idea of human existence and desire to pursue "Good" as either progressive via human agency, or the result of a forced introduction to the pursuit of "Good" as a result of God's introduction of the millennium of Christ rule when "good" will be the standard.
The author suggest that the best way for "Good" to be obtained by man is through force. Thus he writes a story about a teacher who has his class discuss the following problem:
"I often ask my students to imagine four families. One chooses to not have children. The second has children,but takes the infants to a surgeon and has brain surgery performed. This surgery prevents the children from ever rising to the point of being able to make wrong or evil choices. The third family raises their children in isolation from any danger or temptation.
The children stay at home, and never participate in sports or have friends. The last family has children, and allows them to grow up with skinned knees, choices, risks, mistakes and consequences. At one point, one of their children is badly injured in a bike accident. Which is these four families has the healthiest kind of love? Which of these four families most mirrors the relationship between God and human beings?"
To me the answer to this question is simple it is the last family that mirrors God's relationship to human beings. This most resembles our relationship to God because God is All and has made it clear that he has created three natures for our existence of entities on earth the "good" (Angels), the bad (demons, devils & etc.) and the free (human beings).
All religions make it clear that the Heavenly servants of their God, can do only good, the demons do evil, and mankind has the freewill to do good and evil. Thus when we read stories in the Bible we often read the term "We", in reference to God and his Angels performing miracles. In the Quran we also see this separation between Gods creations In Chapter 7 Al-A'raf verse 12-14 where we read: "And We [God and the Angels] indeed created you and then We gave you shape, then said We to the angels, 'Submit to Adam, and they all submitted. But Iblis did not; he will not be of those who submit. God said, 'What prevented thee?' He said, 'I am better than he. Thou has created me of fire while him hast Thou created of clay'. God said, 'Then go down hence, it is not for thee to be arrogant here. Get out; thou art certainly of those who are abased'.
This quote from the Quran makes it clear that Angels, are those beings who are obedient and true to God, while the evil doer is he who disobeys God. But eventhough evil and evil doers exist, evil has power only because God allows it. As a result, we read in the Book of Job 1:6-12 : " One day the Sons of God came to attend Yahweh, and among them was Satan. So Yahweh said to, 'Where have you been?' 'Around the earth'. he answered....So Yahweh asked him, 'Did you notice my servant Job? There is no one like him on earth: a sound and honest man who fears God and shuns evil'. 'Yes' said Satan, 'but Job is not God fearing for nothing is he? Have you not put a wall around him and his house and all his domain'....But stretch out your hand and a lay a finger on his possessions:I warrant you , he will curse you to your face'. 'Very well' Yahweh said to Satan, ' all he has is in your power. But keep you hands off his person'. After this Satan took away Job's lands and children, but Job remained faithful in God.
The important thing we should learn from this quote is that even Satan, leader of the evil camp obeys God, and in fact is his servant, why else would he be in attendance before God , on a "day the Sons of God came to attend Yahweh". The Book of Job, should make it clear to the reader that evil has no control of over man. God wants mankind to submit to him willingly and do Good. No because they are forced to do so, but because they desire to be Good in their heart, the center of man.
But the author of the article being discussed noted that: "(Sitaram continues):
It is the second family, which chooses to alter their children, which is of greatest interest to me." He feels that this family is most interesting because this family chose to: "The second has children, but takes the infants to a surgeon and has brain surgery performed. This surgery prevents the children from ever rising to the point of being able to make wrong or evil choices." Although he chose this family clearly this family would not mirror God's intended relationship between Himself and mankind. He does not chose the family God would probably chose. God would chose the third family, because he allows us free will so we can chose Good. Being the creator, he could make us do Good, but he wants us to attain "perfection" by chosing Good as our way.
The writer of this post wants God to do something he will never do: MAKE ONE GOOD SIMPLY to please HIM.
God has established order of the earth as pointed out by the Quranic verse already quoted. To exist on this plane we must make the choice Good or evil.
Members of the Kamitic-Nubia-Sumerian-Dravidian culture recognized this truth. As a result, when we read the Book of the Dead, the deceaed person declares he has led a good life in which he gave injury to no man. In the Indus Valley inscriptions the Harappans requested that their God, make their destiny a path of Good. These ancient people knew that God was the source for their experience and to earn his favor he must testify that he was his brother's keeper, by treating all mankind with kindness and Goodness. These ancient people had a strong faith in God and id not let religion lead them astray.
Thus we see in these civilizations many gods worshipped by the individual Ra, Amma, Siva, Kali and etc. These people did not worship all these Gods, they chose a name for their God, based on that god's presence. Thus a name for one's personal God, has nothing to do , with the name another person called their God. As a result, we had people worshiping the same God, with different names. Thus these people lived in unity and Order as demanded by God.
Religion on the otherhand casuse disunity. It is the name we give our God, according to our religion that causes this disunity. Thus we have followers of the Muslim religion enemies to followers of the Christian and Hindu religion. An even within these religions we see Shias vs Sunnis among the Muslims, and Catholics vs Protestants among the Christians.
One of my Heroes is Jesus. He is my hero because his coming allowed us to know two things: 1) we could pray directly to God, and 2) we could worship God anywhere anytime. The requirements to be a believer was just these two things.
Muhammad peace be upon him continued this tradition. He demanded that we recognize God, pray and serve Our fellow man. But his message has been lost and The various Muslim groups have made culture their Religion: going to mosque, wearing beards and etc.
There is no Christian religion, if we based this religion on Jesus. The religion we call Christianity, is based on the teaching of Paul, who took his "religion" to the West.
Christianity needs Paul, because Paul gave the religion an hierarchy: Leaders and followers. Master Jesus eliminated this order and taught the true life equation Man [Pray]+God.
In summary, man will not be able to know his God, unless he finds God on his own. Unity of mankind is the desire of God.
This unity can never be found until we abandon "religions", treat our fellow man with kindness and concern, and communicate directly with God, no matter what Name we Call Him. There is no easy way to attain union with the Creator.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The problem with mankind is that most people don't know the Creator and truely believe in what he has alledgely said, that is relayed in the Holy Books they associate with their religion/faith.
All religions teach that if you ask for forgiveness, the creator forgives your "sins". If the Creator forgives us, who is left to judge us?
The answer is simple you judge yourself. This is bad.
It is bad because you will be a merciless judge of yourself, because you know you and what you have done. To remedy this situation humans have to learn to forgive others so they can forgive themselves.
Members of the Nubia Kametian Sumerian Dravidian (NKSD) Civilizations recognized this reality. This is why they made a point of acknowledging that they had done no wrong. By attempting to do no wrong to others they could forgive those who attacked them--and also forgive themselves. You see in forgiving others we learn to forgive ourselves so that when the day of judgment comes we will judge ourselves fairly.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
What is the character of the soul among the Kametians, Sumerians, Olmecs and Dravidians. For purposes of this paper we will call the Sumerians, Olmecs and Dravidians Kushites, since the ancestors of these people lived in the Highland Areas of Middle Africa: the Proto-Sahara, and practiced a culture and civilization –as typified by the rock art in the region--similar to that of the C-Group people. Below we discover the ultimate objective of the Kushite for the soul to become pure or white.
If this is correct in this interpretation of the Kametian-Sumerian- Kushite-Dravidian view of man’s soul it should be present in the languages of these people. To test this hypothesis we will discuss the culture terms from these languages related to the term ‘soul’.
In most of these languages the basic ideas about purity and the soul is indicated by two words ba/pa and or bo/po, with the possible addition of an / l / or /r/ as a final element to these monosyllabic terms.
We learn from the Meroitic inscriptions that the Kushites sought Goodness and hoped that their goodness would both help them reach Home, and maybe remain in the world to help others learn the reality of their existence, i.e., doing good for goodness sake. See:
We learn from the seals of the Dravidian speaking Harappans that they sought righteousness and a spotlessly pure mind, for purity of mind was the sine quo non for happiness within. You can find out more about Harappan religion and writing at the following sites: http://www.geocities.com/olmec982000/Indus.html
Tolkappiyam makes it clear that in Tamil pa(l), denoted Karma. In Sangam times pal was considered the sum and the consequences of a person’s action, i.e., his Fate or destiny. Tiruvallur used pal to denote Fate or the Law of Nature. K. Appadurai, in the Mind and Thoughts of Tiruvallur, noted that pal in its external form is the veda, or word of God that makes everything perfect, undying, everlasting and that forever grows, and is growing internal Bliss. The fact that pal represents that undying and perfect aspect of man corresponds to Loga’s interpretation of the Kushite view of the soul reflected that this aspect of man was both eternal and perfect.
In Dravidian we also find that in addition to pal meaning “Fate”, it also meant distribution, while pala in Tamil means ‘many and diverse’. The Tamil concept of pal corresponds to that of the Sumerians. In Sumerian we find the word bar . Bar has several meanings including ‘soul’ and ‘white’.The view here that the bar is both the soul and also something that is white or pure corresponds favorably to pal the Tamil conception of that aspect of man which is both everlasting and pure.
The Dravidians and Mande people who founded the Shang and Xia civilizations, respectively in China, also took the concept that the soul was pure to the Mongoloid Chinese people. We know very little about the sounds of ancient Chinese because Ancient Chinese was different from Old Chinese and Middle Chinese and the modern Chinese dialects. (Ramsey 1987, pp.137-138) This results from the fact that the Chinese dynasties were founded by diverse ethnic groups e.g., Xia and Shang li (i.e., Black Shang) were founded by Dravidian and Manding speakers. Shang-Yin was founded by classical mongoloids, and the Zhou by the contemporary Chinese. ) This explains the difference in pronunciation for Ancient Chinese spoken by the Xia and Shang peoples who were Africans and Dravidians formerly belonging to the C-Group people of Middle Africa, and Old and Middle Chinese or a variant there of, which was probably spoken by the Zhou and later Mongoloid Chinese people. See: http://geocities.com/olmec982000/xia.htm
The Shang characters compare favorably to the ancient Proto- Saharan script used by the Harappans in the Indus Valley and the Manding script used in the ancient Sahara and Crete . Winters (1985c) outlined the spread of the Proto-Saharan script to Harappa, and throughout Saharan Africa and Asia by the Dravidians and Manding. http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/anwrite.htm
Evidence of Chinese writing first appears around 2000 B.C. as pottery marks. The shell-and-bone characters represented writing they were not pictures. The Shang symbols compare favorably with ancient Manding symbols.
In Chinese the term for ‘white’ is bai, while the term for ‘soul’ is bo. Because the pronounciation of Chinese has changed over the centuries because of the frequent conquest of the ‘country’ by diverse people since the fall of the Xia and Shang civilizations Chinese researchers have developed many theories to explain the origin of bai in Chinese for the terms white (and soul). Some scholars believe that bai , may have got its meaning for white, from bo ‘soul’, through the idea that soul, represents emptiness . I believe that this view for the origin of bai , may be wrong. This results from the fact that many people have attempted to use bai, in relation to its association with humans and ethnic groups to describe these people as literally white. Thus they may translate bai ren as “white men/man”.
During Zhou, times many Dravidians (Shang) and Xia (Mande) people were sacrificed by the Mongoloid Chinese. Theses people were later called li Qiang ‘Black Qiang’ by the Zhou. In many of the oral bone inscriptions of the Zhou we see the phrase bai Qiang, some Chinese researchers have translated this phrase as “white Qiang”. This interpretation is probably wrong. The fact that bai, is related to ‘soul’ and ‘white’ suggest that bai Qiang, may be interpreted as “holy Qiang” or “Pure Qiang”, in reference to the sacrifice of Qiang religious men during Zhou rituals.
This belief in sacrificing Qiang (Dravidians and Mande) by the Zhou to obtain blessing from their gods, may correspond to the popularity during the lated 19th Century and first half of the 20th Century of burning and lynching blacks by the KKK as a form of ritual sacrifice of Blacks to purify the white racists of the American South and Midwest. This suggest that just as bar in Sumerian meant both ‘soul’ and ‘white’, bai and bo had similar meanings because they entered the Chinese language via the Dravidians and Mande who founded Chinese civilization.
The view that the soul is pure, appears to have also been the belief of the Olmec people. The Olmec people of Mexico are considered to be the “Mother Civilization” of all Meso-American civilizations. The Olmec called themselves Xi (Shi), they spoke a language similar to Malinke-Bambara which is a member of the Mande family of languages. It is interesting to note that the symbol for bai in Chinese, is a box.
Among the Olmec the box shaped symbol is pronounced po ‘pure, superlative of white and clean’, just as in the Mande languages. Among the Olmec the term bo meant ‘ spirit, principal of life, great, moral gradeur and ghost’. The identification of the Olmec representation of ‘white, pure and spirit (which may denote an aspect of man akin to soul)’ as po/ bo highlights Loga’s identification of the Kushite concept of this aspect of man as both the soul and purity/ white.
In conclusion, although their are different contemporary pronunciations ba/pa and bo/po , along with the symbols used to represent these words in Chinese and Olmec writing, they have the same meaning and shape. This suggest a genetic relationship between the idea of the soul as pure among the Kametians-Dravidians-Olmecs-Mande-Sumerians. The present pronunciation of the Chinese symbols probably has little relationship to the ancient pronunciation of Chinese spoken in Xia and Shang times when these characters were first used, but the recovery of the actual meaning of these words from looking at Olmec and Tamil, make it clear that Chinese bai did not come from emptiness, it obtained its meaning from the recognition that bo represents the soul’s migration to attain purity.
This cognation of specialized terms for soul, and white; and the writing systems supports the proposed Dravidian and Manding migration and settlement of ancient Sumer, Mexico , China during Xia times and the Indus Valley. It was in these diverse geographical areas that the Kushites left their recognition that the soul is pure.
Posted by sam p (Member # 11774) on :
I believe all animals have the same sense of wonder when they look out upon the world and see its complexity and beauty. Even the harsh reality and ugliness of the world have their own splendor when it is not the observer who has to deal with the consequences or live with the view.
Humans have language to put such ideas into a form that can be communicated. I believe it is this language itself and the imposition of a mode of functioning on much of the brain and most of the mind which defines and leads to the concept of a deity. Furthermore there is additional beauty which can be found in logical and mathematical constructs that imply a greater consciousness or even a creator; the beauty of scientific concepts and understanding of systems which seem to have an intelligence as their base.
It is language and its results which give rise to theology. As evidence consider that our species did not engage in uniquely human activities until after the advent of language. It is our supersized speech center which has led to our interest in deities and it is leaders of various stripe who desire to influence which specific deities are worshipped. Just as the tower of babel disordered the language it equally disordered theology.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Lamin says:
These are the issues:
1)The problem of evil(theodicy)
This is assuming one has a 'need' to subscribe to the problem of evil being ''caused'' by an intelligent designer or God/s. I don't have this subscription to apology at all.
Lamin writes, in frustration, maybe justifiably so: 2)The not so perfect designs that humans have to try to correct. Example: conjoined twins. The question being how can a supposedly perfect being create such imperfection in physical(dwarfism, e.g) and moral(serial murderers and sadistic torturers, e.g.) design.
Assuming a Deity or whomever is responsible for the conjoined twins, among many other congenital abnormalities, plus the others mentioned, and it was done in a non-altruistic manner, then Lamin's query that a ''try to correct'' makes sense. But if the conjoined twins are fashioned from a lack of omniscience in that area, yet in an altruistic sense at the onset, then no explanation is needed as it regards a human correction attitude in the conjoined twins because it will have been outside the Deities expertise.
Lamin also assumes we humans have the ability, or will have the ability, at some future medical point, to correct the Deities' mistakes, if this is what they are. That said, I believe one day humanity will have this corrective ability.
3)Pascal's wager. How do you bet?
Pascal doesn't address what I've just said. I don't erroneously believe in anything. We are here. Either evolution or God did it, depending on one's view with nuances tacked onto the end of it. The God/s perspective doesn't take much to offer as a reasonable explanation—for some. On the other hand if one is locked into internalizing the explanation then there will always be a problem in terms of the 'whys.'
Mystery Solver says: OR ELSE that for some - at least in their minds, that there is more to it than that, which is that they have actually put some long and hard thought to this - that supposedly goes beyond what they were merely told at a very young age, and have thus arrived at the conclusion that there must be intellectual intervention by a "Supreme being"...as so-proclaimed by the advocates of the likes of "intellegent design"?
Yes.
Clyde Winters says: ''First of all, we are not "hardwired" for belief in God.''
This is a definitive and specific statement. Is there any way to prove humans aren't specifically hardwired?
''The Creator gives humans "free will". As a result, we have the right to believe or not believe in God on this plane.''
Then it's likely God will disagree with the free will he gives you once you make a decision to use it against his wishes. Seems to me free will should have been left alone, on that other plane of existence Winters spoke of.
Sam p wrote: ''It is language and its results which give rise to theology.''
I guess it would have been difficult to express theology without it.
''It is our supersized speech center which has led to our interest in deities...''
So evolution placed these supersized speech centers in humans just to have them talk about Deities?
''Just as the tower of babel disordered the language it equally disordered theology.''
... because someone had a bigger stick?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Mysterysolver wrote:
[bold][quote The question is, given the 3 main points and additional points you've raised, what is *your* standpoint on the issue?
On additional note: Can't pass up the thought that in the case of various individuals, they may have arrived at the conclusion that a concious Supreme Being must be THE mastermind behind the existence of nature, primarily because this is what they were socially conditioned to think right from a very early age, and likely in combination with the points you made about a means to 'cope with tragedy' or adversity and being "hard-wired". Keeping that in mind, do you think that every individual who perceives of a supernatural intellectual intervention behind the bringing-into-being of the Universe and its complex components, necessarily meet the conditions you've mentioned; OR ELSE that for some - at least in their minds, that there is more to it than that, which is that they have actually put some long and hard thought to this - that supposedly goes beyond what they were merely told at a very young age, and have thus arrived at the conclusion that there must be intellectual intervention by a "Supreme being"...as so-proclaimed by the advocates of the likes of "intellegent design"?
[/quote][/bold]
Humans being social animals are born into different cultural environments and aspects of those cultural environments deal with and offer answers concerning questions about the nature of reality. These questions arise because of the nature of human consciousness and the thinking that goes with it. The peculiarity of human consciousness--as distinct from other animals derives from the peculiarities of t he human brain that is the source of human consciousness. And more specifically the kind of consciousness of the human brain derives from its neocortex and the billions of connections and operations between neurons, synapses, dendrites, axions, etc.
The end result is that humans are endowed with the capacity for image-making(imagination), abstract thinking(as in going from reading symbols on paper to creating a distinct image in the mind), representational thinking(as in drawing, painting and sculpting forms already found in nature--and even embellishing such forms by using the imagination), concepts of space and time, concepts of cause and effect, concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, concepts of purpose, etc., all influenced by consciousness of the brain-derived emotions.
The human being is an evolutionary product of the material/empirical world along with any other life form but it is only the human brain that has attained the level of consciousness that is aware of the world in a way that none--to date--of the other life forms shares.
Thus, it is only the human being that is fully aware of its own mortality and has wondered and recorded on why things happen and the purposes and functions of things in general.
But the problem is that since the human brain is a product of the material environment bounded as it is in finite space and time--as it appears to humans, the brain cannot avoid imposing ultimate physical boundaries of time and space.
Given that events and phenomena seem--to the human brain--occur based on certain complex and systemic principles as if nature itself were consciously thinking as humans do then it followed that some humans developed the cultural tradition--passed on to others--of a conscious thinking agent/s who has/have caused the universe to exist and exist [b]within and outside of the material universe(everything that exists).
There have been a multiplicity of variations on the form and nature of this assumed consciously causative agent--most originally taking on idealized anthropomorphic(human-like) forms. The ultimate causative agents(aka "Gods") of the Ancient Egyptians, the Yoruba, the Greeks, the Hindus, etc. were essentially perfect versions of their creators. The sequentially triple monotheistic creations modeled on a version developed by the very imaginative Ancient Egyptians also followed this trend.
The upshot of this variation of the "ultimative causative agent" theme was that this supremely conscious agent bore a a special relationship with humans and was the ultimate interventionist arbiter in matters concerning, "right", "wrong", "good", "bad", "truth", "falsity", etc.
It as because of this special relationship between this conscious causative agent and humans that the serious questions concerning the issues of theodicy arose: how to explain the presence of suffering, injustice, wickedness, etc. in the world of humans.
The point is that humans--on account of t he kinds of brains they have-- have developed an intuitive sense of justice, injustice, rightness, wrongness, empirical truth, logical truth, etc. and are dismayed when other humans flout such principles just for their own advantage. The big question then became: how can the supreme causative agent who has imbued humans with the notions of "good" and "bad", "kindness" and "cruelty", "justice" and "injustice" permit such to occur without retribution.
The answers were as followed: 1) in the after-life the supreme caustaive agent will mete out justice and punishment, 2)the causatiev agent just set things in motion and did not create any special relationship with the humans as distinct from other phenomena, 3)the universe just exists and has always existed. No constituent entity has any special significance in the e xisting scheme of things, 4) genuine answers cannot be forthcoming because human thinking is limited by the structure of the human brain and the forms of consciousness that arises from such.
Humans are a peculiar life-form because all other life-forms are concerned with and have as their instinctive purpose 2 things: survival(with all it takes) and procreation(whose goal is to maximize environmental adaptability).
One possible solution is to keep exploring the seeming complexity of nature while pondering phenomena such as flowers, animals, symmetry, other humans, atoms, DNA molecules, the extent of the universe, cosmic singularities(black holes, etc.)human nature, animal nature, that evoke responses such as "awe", "admiration", "fear", "aversion", "truth", "falsity", etc. in the human consciousness.
In other words just keep trying to unravel the puzzle of consciouness with its received phenomena--including the human entity itself.
Posted by sam p (Member # 11774) on :
There is no significant difference between the human brain than other animal brains. Elephants and other animals often have far larger brains. Men have larger brains than women (on average). The biggest difference is the speech center.
Even bacteria can communicate sufficiently to behave differently dependent on their numbers. Plants not only communicate but will attack invading or harmful species.
Humans are not materially different than other animals except in our use of language. It is language which shapes the way our brains are used and it is language which has made possible our technology. It was the invention of writing after some 40,000 years which speeded the rate of our technological advancement.
The evidence is everywhere and new data serves only to reinforce these observations.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: The *alternative* would be to assume that the complexities of the universe, including the thus far undefined biological entity called "life" itself, the organization of complex single cells to form complex multicellular organisms, whose every biological element about them appears to be functionality, the penetration of certain UV Solar radiations into the earth's surface save for the most harmful of them all, and the list goes on, are all but *unguided* series of events or processess that basically amount to spectacular 'miracles'. Brings me back to thinking about what these fellows have been and still are up to: [url=]What is "Life"?: Scientists struggle to define life[/url]
Yeah...
quote:On additional note: Can't pass up the thought that in the case of various individuals, they may have arrived at the conclusion that a concious Supreme Being must be THE mastermind behind the existence of nature, primarily because this is what they were socially conditioned to think right from a very early age, and likely in combination with the points you made about a means to 'cope with tragedy' or adversity and being "hard-wired". Keeping that in mind, do you think that every individual who perceives of a supernatural intellectual intervention behind the bringing-into-being of the Universe and its complex components, necessarily meet the conditions you've mentioned; OR ELSE that for some - at least in their minds, that there is more to it than that, which is that they have actually put some long and hard thought to this - that supposedly goes beyond what they were merely told at a very young age, and have thus arrived at the conclusion that there must be intellectual intervention by a "Supreme being"...as so-proclaimed by the advocates of the likes of "intellegent design"?
Exactly right Supercar/Mystery Solver.
The level of pompousness behind such an assumption of ignorance and tradition is a bit sickening.
I adhere thoughtlessly to no acclination without thoughtful scrutiny. Even the acclination that anybody with any sort of belief does not think for themselves, and if so does not think logically, free of bias, and stands at the opposite pole of say ... a scientist. Well... "at least in my mind", lol.
What's funny to me is I find that many aitheists put very little thought into their position, other than what they have heard.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
lamin
quote:
The point is that humans--on account of t he kinds of brains they have-- have developed an intuitive sense of justice, injustice, rightness, wrongness, empirical truth, logical truth, etc. and are dismayed when other humans flout such principles just for their own advantage. The big question then became: how can the supreme causative agent who has imbued humans with the notions of "good" and "bad", "kindness" and "cruelty", "justice" and "injustice" permit such to occur without retribution.
This easy to answer, there can not be good without evil. The whole world is a stage and we are players in this drama called life. A life drama created by the Creator when he wrote his great Book, the umm al-Kitab 'the sources of the commandments or life generally'.
The first thing you must understand is that order exist. Thus the Qur'an notes that "[Allah]......He guides therewith whom He pleases.....(39:24). It adds that "And if We had so willed, We could have transformed them in their places, they would not be able to move forward or turn back" (36:68)
This shows that we have the free will to believe or not believe and that our non believe fits the Creator's plan as much as our belief. This results from the fact that everything we do is in a great book. It is noted in the Book of Revelation:
I saw the dead , both great and small, standing in front of his throne, while the book of life was opened, and other books opened which were the record of what they had done in their lives, by which the dead were judged" (20:12).
The extent of the recordings in the Book is made clear in the Qur'an where we discover: "And Everything We recorded in a BooK" (78:30). It is also noted that:
There befall not any calamity either in the earth or in your own persons, but it is recorded in a Book before We bring it into being--surely, that is easy for Allah-(57:23).
This statement makes it clear that what we do to play the role we have chosen from the Book of the Creator, has already been written before we do it. IF it had been written before we came on this plane our actions can not be seen as good or bad from the point of view of the Creator and his angels, good and evil only exist on this plan which is from the imagination of the Creator who wrote the Book, from which we play our roles on Earth.
The fact that the holy writ make it clear that everything that happens is recorded in a book makes it clear why justice and injustice; good and evil exist on this plane. It exist because we--human-- are just playing various roles from the 'Great Book' carrying out the Creators plan for this world.
If this is true good and evil only exist on this plane and reality is an illusion since our pure existence before we decided to help the Creator carry out His plan did not entail good or evil. The roles we play as murderer or saint are roles necessary for the Book to be completed. As a result,they exist only to complete the Great Book. There is no retribution because everything that happens is suppose to heppen relative to the free-will of the individual--as he carries out his life role he chose to play from the Creators Book of Life on earth..
Thusly, thou shall not kill, but if it is part of your life role you may kill. The Creator can therefore not punish you if your behavior was a possibility pursuant to execution of your life plan.
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
Mysterysolver wrote:
quote: The question is, given the 3 main points and additional points you've raised, what is *your* standpoint on the issue?
On additional note: Can't pass up the thought that in the case of various individuals, they may have arrived at the conclusion that a concious Supreme Being must be THE mastermind behind the existence of nature, primarily because this is what they were socially conditioned to think right from a very early age, and likely in combination with the points you made about a means to 'cope with tragedy' or adversity and being "hard-wired". Keeping that in mind, do you think that every individual who perceives of a supernatural intellectual intervention behind the bringing-into-being of the Universe and its complex components, necessarily meet the conditions you've mentioned; OR ELSE that for some - at least in their minds, that there is more to it than that, which is that they have actually put some long and hard thought to this - that supposedly goes beyond what they were merely told at a very young age, and have thus arrived at the conclusion that there must be intellectual intervention by a "Supreme being"...as so-proclaimed by the advocates of the likes of "intellegent design"?
Humans being social animals are born into different cultural environments and aspects of those cultural environments deal with and offer answers concerning questions about the nature of reality. These questions arise because of the nature of human consciousness and the thinking that goes with it. The peculiarity of human consciousness--as distinct from other animals derives from the peculiarities of t he human brain that is the source of human consciousness. And more specifically the kind of consciousness of the human brain derives from its neocortex and the billions of connections and operations between neurons, synapses, dendrites, axions, etc.
The end result is that humans are endowed with the capacity for image-making(imagination), abstract thinking(as in going from reading symbols on paper to creating a distinct image in the mind), representational thinking(as in drawing, painting and sculpting forms already found in nature--and even embellishing such forms by using the imagination), concepts of space and time, concepts of cause and effect, concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, concepts of purpose, etc., all influenced by consciousness of the brain-derived emotions.
The human being is an evolutionary product of the material/empirical world along with any other life form but it is only the human brain that has attained the level of consciousness that is aware of the world in a way that none--to date--of the other life forms shares.
Thus, it is only the human being that is fully aware of its own mortality and has wondered and recorded on why things happen and the purposes and functions of things in general.
But the problem is that since the human brain is a product of the material environment bounded as it is in finite space and time--as it appears to humans, the brain cannot avoid imposing ultimate physical boundaries of time and space.
Given that events and phenomena seem--to the human brain--occur based on certain complex and systemic principles as if nature itself were consciously thinking as humans do then it followed that some humans developed the cultural tradition--passed on to others--of a conscious thinking agent/s who has/have caused the universe to exist and exist [b]within and outside of the material universe(everything that exists).
There have been a multiplicity of variations on the form and nature of this assumed consciously causative agent--most originally taking on idealized anthropomorphic(human-like) forms. The ultimate causative agents(aka "Gods") of the Ancient Egyptians, the Yoruba, the Greeks, the Hindus, etc. were essentially perfect versions of their creators. The sequentially triple monotheistic creations modeled on a version developed by the very imaginative Ancient Egyptians also followed this trend.
The upshot of this variation of the "ultimative causative agent" theme was that this supremely conscious agent bore a a special relationship with humans and was the ultimate interventionist arbiter in matters concerning, "right", "wrong", "good", "bad", "truth", "falsity", etc.
It as because of this special relationship between this conscious causative agent and humans that the serious questions concerning the issues of theodicy arose: how to explain the presence of suffering, injustice, wickedness, etc. in the world of humans.
The point is that humans--on account of t he kinds of brains they have-- have developed an intuitive sense of justice, injustice, rightness, wrongness, empirical truth, logical truth, etc. and are dismayed when other humans flout such principles just for their own advantage. The big question then became: how can the supreme causative agent who has imbued humans with the notions of "good" and "bad", "kindness" and "cruelty", "justice" and "injustice" permit such to occur without retribution.
The answers were as followed: 1) in the after-life the supreme caustaive agent will mete out justice and punishment, 2)the causatiev agent just set things in motion and did not create any special relationship with the humans as distinct from other phenomena, 3)the universe just exists and has always existed. No constituent entity has any special significance in the e xisting scheme of things, 4) genuine answers cannot be forthcoming because human thinking is limited by the structure of the human brain and the forms of consciousness that arises from such.
Humans are a peculiar life-form because all other life-forms are concerned with and have as their instinctive purpose 2 things: survival(with all it takes) and procreation(whose goal is to maximize environmental adaptability).
One possible solution is to keep exploring the seeming complexity of nature while pondering phenomena such as flowers, animals, symmetry, other humans, atoms, DNA molecules, the extent of the universe, cosmic singularities(black holes, etc.)human nature, animal nature, that evoke responses such as "awe", "admiration", "fear", "aversion", "truth", "falsity", etc. in the human consciousness.
In other words just keep trying to unravel the puzzle of consciouness with its received phenomena--including the human entity itself.
Let me frame my initial question this way:
Given the 3 main points and additional points you've raised, do *you* believe in a *supernatural* Supreme being?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
lamin
quote:
The point is that humans--on account of t he kinds of brains they have-- have developed an intuitive sense of justice, injustice, rightness, wrongness, empirical truth, logical truth, etc. and are dismayed when other humans flout such principles just for their own advantage. The big question then became: how can the supreme causative agent who has imbued humans with the notions of "good" and "bad", "kindness" and "cruelty", "justice" and "injustice" permit such to occur without retribution.
This easy to answer, there can not be good without evil. The whole world is a stage and we are players in this drama called life. A life drama created by the Creator when he wrote his great Book, the umm al-Kitab 'the sources of the commandments or life generally'.
The first thing you must understand is that order exist. Thus the Qur'an notes that "[Allah]......He guides therewith whom He pleases.....(39:24). It adds that "And if We had so willed, We could have transformed them in their places, they would not be able to move forward or turn back" (36:68)
This shows that we have the free will to believe or not believe and that our non believe fits the Creator's plan as much as our belief. This results from the fact that everything we do is in a great book. It is noted in the Book of Revelation:
I saw the dead , both great and small, standing in front of his throne, while the book of life was opened, and other books opened which were the record of what they had done in their lives, by which the dead were judged" (20:12).
The extent of the recordings in the Book is made clear in the Qur'an where we discover: "And Everything We recorded in a BooK" (78:30). It is also noted that:
There befall not any calamity either in the earth or in your own persons, but it is recorded in a Book before We bring it into being--surely, that is easy for Allah-(57:23).
This statement makes it clear that what we do to play the role we have chosen from the Book of the Creator, has already been written before we do it. IF it had been written before we came on this plane our actions can not be seen as good or bad from the point of view of the Creator and his angels, good and evil only exist on this plan which is from the imagination of the Creator who wrote the Book, from which we play our roles on Earth.
The fact that the holy writ make it clear that everything that happens is recorded in a book makes it clear why justice and injustice; good and evil exist on this plane. It exist because we--human-- are just playing various roles from the 'Great Book' carrying out the Creators plan for this world.
If this is true good and evil only exist on this plane and reality is an illusion since our pure existence before we decided to help the Creator carry out His plan did not entail good or evil. The roles we play as murderer or saint are roles necessary for the Book to be completed. As a result,they exist only to complete the Great Book. There is no retribution because everything that happens is suppose to heppen relative to the free-will of the individual--as he carries out his life role he chose to play from the Creators Book of Life on earth..
Thusly, thou shall not kill, but if it is part of your life role you may kill. The Creator can therefore not punish you if your behavior was a possibility pursuant to execution of your life plan.
Given that you cited the Quran, are you suggesting that there is no afterlife, as that embodied by Heaven or Hell in Islamic teaching, because people only act out on earth a role that had already been assigned before their birth, or in other words, because peoples' lives are like predetermined destinies?
Posted by Player 13 (Member # 7037) on :
There is NO objective verifiable evidence for the existence of ANY gods. Lots of opinions but NO evidence! God beliefs are no more sound or realistic than beliefs in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever spoken to any sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men.
There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever appeared to any sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men.
Why does this all powerful god creator never communicate with us? Why does he never authenticate his very existence?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course not! That's why it's called faith!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Given that you cited the Quran, are you suggesting that there is no afterlife, as that embodied by Heaven or Hell in Islamic teaching, because people only act out on earth a role that had already been assigned before their birth, or in other words, because peoples' lives are like predetermined destinies? [/QB]
There is no afterlife. You live to die and you die to live.
Since we signed up to play specific roles in the Creator's Great Book, once we complete our assigned role we go back home. This home according to people who have had near death experiences is quite beautiful.
The concepts of Heaven and Hell, were created by man to keep weak minded people true to the concepts of Good and Justice. These concepts are associated with Near Eastern and European people.
They try to scare people into beliving in a Creator, justice and Good. This purpose is never accepted by the faithfull, who Know that the Creator forgives your "sins" . If the Creator is truthful and he forgives how can you go to hell, except in your own mind.
If you study Egyptian religion there is no concept of Hell. The desire of the ancient Egyptians was to be good and harm no one.
.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The proof of the existence of a Supreme Being is our very universe itself and all within it. Else everything just came about spontaneously. As far as communication with this Creator I am forced to agree there's no objective verifiable evidence.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
The Universe is suffused through with an energy and other forces that behave according to certain detectable principles(scientific laws)and produce structures and life-from activities that seem to signal an intelligence that is both conscious(humans and animals), sensate but unconscious(plants, bacteria, viruses, etc.), and non-sensate and unconscious(the principled atomic and molecular structures of matter. Note: methane is always CH4 and Benzene is always C6H6, and there is a logic and symmetry to how their atoms are arranged and behave).
But I doubt that there is any one conscious being--distinct from the material universe itself--that is the source of this purposive intelligence. At least there is no veriable evidence of such to this date.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
All I have to say is that science will probably be more open to the idea once life outside the stereotyped organic/physical form is discovered or identified.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
^So many points I agree on.
Ooo I didn't expect this.
What I'm seeing posted on E.S., is stuff that has I've thought through too
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: lamin [QUOTE]
This shows that we have the free will to believe or not believe and that our non believe fits the Creator's plan as much as our belief.
and stuff that has even caught a willing thinker's attention at a pretty young age:
quote:Originally posted by lamin Given that events and phenomena seem--to the human brain--occur based on certain complex and systemic principles as if nature itself were consciously thinking as humans do then it followed that some humans developed the cultural tradition--passed on to others--of a conscious thinking agent/s who has/have caused the universe to exist and exist [b]within and outside of the material universe(everything that exists).
It all means something: Human brains think alike I guess.
What's funny about lamis's argument is someone might argue the reverse saying that the Creator is all reality, and we take up too small of an amount of space and time for one to easily perceive this.
But you had to go and ruin it - you had to ruin me having a totally distinct argument from you.
quote:But I doubt that there is any one conscious being--distinct from the material universe itself--that is the source of this purposive intelligence.
Oh well. I'll just have to pickitty-peck at somethin else then...
quote:At least there is no veriable evidence of such to this date
What does the above mean - Other than the obvious (it states, which is the fact that they who know they know not are the truly only ones in the know - a fundamental concept of science, which is about probability)?
quote:Note: methane is always CH4 and Benzene is always C6H6, and there is a logic and symmetry to how their atoms are arranged and behave
I get what you think your references to the unconscious mean, but what does the above citation mean? Depends.
Sweet dreams. ~ Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Given that you cited the Quran, are you suggesting that there is no afterlife, as that embodied by Heaven or Hell in Islamic teaching, because people only act out on earth a role that had already been assigned before their birth, or in other words, because peoples' lives are like predetermined destinies?
There is no afterlife. You live to die and you die to live.
But you were quoting from the Quran, and as far as I know, Heaven and Hell are all part of Islamic teaching from what is mentioned in the Quran. Do these not embody "afterlife"?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Since we signed up to play specific roles in the Creator's Great Book, once we complete our assigned role we go back home. This home according to people who have had near death experiences is quite beautiful.
What would "home" be?
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
The Universe is suffused through with an energy and other forces that behave according to certain detectable principles(scientific laws)and produce structures and life-from activities that seem to signal an intelligence that is both conscious(humans and animals), sensate but unconscious(plants, bacteria, viruses, etc.), and non-sensate and unconscious(the principled atomic and molecular structures of matter.
Let's take life-forms for instance, from the above. If it is assumed that cells are not conscious, what "detectable principles" motivates cell division, and unit to form much more complex cellular organisms from single cellular creatures? What "detectable principles" motivate *unconscious* cells to organize in such a manner, so as to form seemingly *functional designs* what we call organisms, which we categorize into species?
Ps - Perhaps a clue lies in 'lifeforms' [like certain viruses] that are considered to be "borderline" between the living and non-living?!
What *detectable principle* formed life, and can it be duplicated or independently recreated from the life that already exists? Is life conscious?
quote:Originally by lamin:
But I doubt that there is any one conscious being--distinct from the material universe itself--that is the source of this purposive intelligence. At least there is no veriable evidence of such to this date.
I take it that this is your way of answering the question I placed before you?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Yes Heaven and Hell is mentioned in the Bible and Qur'an as possible futures for humans depending on their prior life.
Home is with the Creator on another plane of existence.
Existence is on many levels or planes. You see, various planes exist at varying speeds and times. We can't see this home because it exist at a different speed than our earthly plane.
Various planes of existence move at different speeds. To understand the relationship between the various planes is best explained by the fan.
When a fan is turned off you can see the blades of the fan.
When the fan is turned on you no longer see the blades. In fact, you can see through the fan.
Although you can see through the fan the blades are still there but they are moving at a rate of speed which makes the blades invisible. And if someone stuck their finger between the blades of the fan they will be injured.
This is why various planes of existence, exist, but we fail to see them because they exist at a speed and time different from the speed and time for our earth. Our home exist on one of these planes waiting for our return after we play the game of life on earth.
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Given that you cited the Quran, are you suggesting that there is no afterlife, as that embodied by Heaven or Hell in Islamic teaching, because people only act out on earth a role that had already been assigned before their birth, or in other words, because peoples' lives are like predetermined destinies?
There is no afterlife. You live to die and you die to live.
But you were quoting from the Quran, and as far as I know, Heaven and Hell are all part of Islamic teaching from what is mentioned in the Quran. Do these not embody "afterlife"?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Since we signed up to play specific roles in the Creator's Great Book, once we complete our assigned role we go back home. This home according to people who have had near death experiences is quite beautiful.
What would "home" be?
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
The Universe is suffused through with an energy and other forces that behave according to certain detectable principles(scientific laws)and produce structures and life-from activities that seem to signal an intelligence that is both conscious(humans and animals), sensate but unconscious(plants, bacteria, viruses, etc.), and non-sensate and unconscious(the principled atomic and molecular structures of matter.
Let's take life-forms for instance, from the above. If it is assumed that cells are not conscious, what "detectable principles" motivates cell division, and unit to form much more complex cellular organisms from single cellular creatures? What "detectable principles" motivate *unconscious* cells to organize in such a manner, so as to form seemingly *functional designs* what we call organisms, which we categorize into species?
Ps - Perhaps a clue lies in 'lifeforms' [like certain viruses] that are considered to be "borderline" between the living and non-living?!
What *detectable principle* formed life, and can it be duplicated or independently recreated from the life that already exists? Is life conscious?
quote:Originally by lamin:
But I doubt that there is any one conscious being--distinct from the material universe itself--that is the source of this purposive intelligence. At least there is no veriable evidence of such to this date.
I take it that this is your way of answering the question I placed before you?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Yes Heaven and Hell is mentioned in the Bible and Qur'an as possible futures for humans depending on their prior life.
Home is with the Creator on another plane of existence.
Existence is on many levels or planes. You see, various planes exist at varying speeds and times. We can't see this home because it exist at a different speed than our earthly plane.
Various planes of existence move at different speeds. To understand the relationship between the various planes is best explained by the fan.
When a fan is turned off you can see the blades of the fan.
When the fan is turned on you no longer see the blades. In fact, you can see through the fan.
Although you can see through the fan the blades are still there but they are moving at a rate of speed which makes the blades invisible. And if someone stuck their finger between the blades of the fan they will be injured.
This is why various planes of existence, exist, but we fail to see them because they exist at a speed and time different from the speed and time for our earth. Our home exist on one of these planes waiting for our return after we play the game of life on earth.
Actually, when I turn a fan on, I do se the blades, albeit in a blur. Perhaps a better example would have been a "bullet", which isn't seen during its motion, but leaves a visible mark behind once it hits a target.
I can't say what you've said is objective, pending corroboration to that end, but interesting nonetheless.
Posted by sam p (Member # 11774) on :
quote:Ps - Perhaps a clue lies in 'lifeforms' [like certain viruses] that are considered to be "borderline" between the living and non-living?!
It might not be safe to simply assume any form of life lacks consciousness. It's interesting that you mention viruses since there are some who think that a spirochete (a virus) might lie at the heart of human cognition. It is believed that these organisms are an integral part of the human brain. Spirochetes also have the disconcerting ability to hide from the immune system. Considering the complexity of this system this is a pretty remarkable talent.
It's also been said that a person is made up of 10 times as many organisms as he has cells in his body. We are each outnumbered many billions to one!!!! If we could transport ourselves as in Star Trek or the science fiction movies we would still be visible for a while after we left. When we got to where we were going our gastrointestinal difficulties might not kill us as quickly as lack of brain function.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by sam p:
quote:Ps - Perhaps a clue lies in 'lifeforms' [like certain viruses] that are considered to be "borderline" between the living and non-living?!
It might not be safe to simply assume any form of life lacks consciousness.
I take it that you are referring to my question about a cell. Sure a cell would have to be 'alive', in order to set it apart from the non-living, but do you have material that suggests that cells by themselves are generally conscious? I suppose the same question can be asked about the smaller entities, including DNA and RNA, that make up a single cell - which is by itself complex enough, let alone a multicellular organism.
Posted by Player 13 (Member # 7037) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The proof of the existence of a Supreme Being is our very universe itself and all within it.
Or thousands of other possibilities that we know nothing of.
Posted by sam p (Member # 11774) on :
quote:I take it that you are referring to my question about a cell. Sure a cell would have to be 'alive', in order to set it apart from the non-living, but do you have material that suggests that cells by themselves are generally conscious? I suppose the same question can be asked about the smaller entities, including DNA and RNA, that make up a single cell - which is by itself complex enough, let alone a multicellular organism.
There's a lot of evidence which suggests that "consciouness" is a continuum that ranges from never alive to nirvana. Certainly bacteria are closer to the low end of the scale than the high end but new research shows that the behavior of many simple organisms change based on enviromental factors such as species population. One bacterium will simply multiply if able until it hits a sort of critical mass and then it glows. This is apparently the result of changes in each (or most) of the bacteria rather than a chemical property. This would imply communication and at least a low level consciousness.
Individual human cells are most probably far lower on the "consciousness" scale than bacteria or even viruses but I wouldn't be surprised if it were learned that some body parts and their associated ganglia had a very high level of consciousness of which we're not aware. All communication with such structures occurs in the most primitive parts of the brain and the medula.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Player13 says, in a rush of absolutism:
''There is NO objective verifiable evidence for the existence of ANY gods. Lots of opinions but NO evidence! God beliefs are no more sound or realistic than beliefs in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
''There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever spoken to any sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men.
''Why does this all powerful god creator never communicate with us? Why does he never authenticate his very existence?''
Why heck, right there, I and everyone else on this planet have all the evidence we need to say that Player13 is right; his objectivity /subjectivity nothwithstanding. How could everyone have missed his simplicity. Of course it's always possible Playah is frustrated because he has no truth either and it is manifesting itself through his attempts to muscle his way into the ''truth.''
Keep trying Player, maybe you'll reach 14 before too long.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by sam p: ..Individual human cells are most probably far lower on the "consciousness" scale than bacteria or even viruses but I wouldn't be surprised if it were learned that some body parts and their associated ganglia had a very high level of consciousness of which we're not aware. All communication with such structures occurs in the most primitive parts of the brain and the medula.
Perhaps individual human cells are lower on the "consciousness" scale than bacterial cells because human cells have evolved to work collectively and have been doing so for so long.
As for viruses, according to most rules of biology they are not even alive since they merely replicate and that is all they do. So I don't know how they can possess any type of conciousness at all.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Mystery Solver
quote:
Actually, when I turn a fan on, I do se the blades, albeit in a blur. Perhaps a better example would have been a "bullet", which isn't seen during its motion, but leaves a visible mark behind once it hits a target.
I like this analogy of a bullet shot from a gun as being representative of the invisible made visible. Thank you Mystery Solver I plan to meditate on this idea and learn how to make it understandable to all.
It may be an appropriate way to view belief in a Creator. Many people believe in an omnipotent entity which they have never seen, but they feel strongly in their heart that a Creator exist.
This feeling of His/Her presence is so strong to some of the believers, that they are physically affected. In this sense the Creator like the bullet is invisible, but the feelings evoked by belief in this Creator demonstrated by the Believer, make it clear that the Believer accepts His/Her existence.
The beauty of existence is that we have the right to believe and not believe. Although the leaders of all religions believe in compulsion, i.e., you must believe in my religion or you are damed, the Creator allows us the free-will to chose to believe or not.
The presence of free will made Jesus one of my heroes.
I have three heroes who have guided my life: John Brown, Paul Robeson and Jesus. I love John Brown because he, and his sons fought to attempt to free my people from slavery. He was a white man--who taught me that you fight for what you believe in, and if necessary die.
I love Paul Robeson, because he was like me. He played College football, and spoke many languages. It was his example that gave me the courage to learn numerous languages to elaborate the diasporic history of African people in Asia and the Americas.
I love Jesus because he freed mankind from dependence on the brahman, priest, cohen, imam or rabbi. Jesus taught that upon this rock I make my church. This was a simple teaching but what he said was that one can communicate with his Creator, anytime and anywhere as long as he prayed.
This was new, and made him a threat. Before Jesus, it was the religious leader who "led" you to the Creator, while you supported him with your hard work and wealth.
Jesus taught that this was unacceptable. You had no need for Mosque, Church or Temple worship, the Creator was there for you to consult through prayer anytime you felt like communicating with Him/Her in anyway you saw fit.
You probably ask: "If this is true how do we have a Christian religion"? The answer is that Christianity was never founded by Jesus.
The Christian religion was founded by Paul, who didn't even know Jesus. Paul created the Christian religion because it called for a religious leader and ensured that a clergy and tradition was necessary for reaching the Creator.
Isn't it interesting that a man who never met Jesus physically took his message and transfigured it to distort the real teachings of Christ. Jesus' teachings were 1) we are our brothers keeper (i.e., responsible for the well-being of all human kind); and 2) that mankind is free to worship and communicate with their Lord without any intermediary.
This is a revolutionary idea. Just think what would happen to all the brahmen, imams, rabbis and preachers, who had to go out and get a real job instead of pimping their congregations. Is it any wonder that Jesus was seen as an enemy to the status quo?
In summary the Creator is like a bullet. He is invisible but when you find Him/Her you are struck with joy and strong emotion which creates a physical impression on your Being, like a bullet striking the surface of your skin to puncture it and settle therein. I thank the Creator for allowing me to experience this joy and recognition that I am not alone and there is someOne looking out for me and all the Good People.
.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I take it you hold to the belief that all that is has always been and disbelieve in the expanding universe that once was less than infitesimal?
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The Universe is suffused through with an energy and other forces that behave according to certain detectable principles(scientific laws)and produce structures and life-from activities that seem to signal an intelligence that is both conscious(humans and animals), sensate but unconscious(plants, bacteria, viruses, etc.), and non-sensate and unconscious(the principled atomic and molecular structures of matter. Note: methane is always CH4 and Benzene is always C6H6, and there is a logic and symmetry to how their atoms are arranged and behave).
But I doubt that there is any one conscious being--distinct from the material universe itself--that is the source of this purposive intelligence. At least there is no veriable evidence of such to this date.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Hokmath Yisra'el does not posit anyone not of the Tribes be compelled to worship in the traditional customs of Judah or Israel. Nor does it hold to a concept of damnation. Hokmei Yisra'el teach that a non-Israelite/non-Jew who keeps to a certain set of precepts is as worthy as the highest observant priest and that all who strive to live morally have an afterlife.
The afore mentioned principles are: 1. Do not worship manufactured divinities. 2. Do not murder (including suicide and infanticide). 3. Do not steal (including kidnapping for slavery). 4. Do not be sexually immoral (incest, adultery, cross-species sex). 6. Do not curse by the Creator. 5. Do not eat the limb of the living animal. 7. Set up courts and administer law (justice).
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The beauty of existence is that we have the right to believe and not believe. Although the leaders of all religions believe in compulsion, i.e., you must believe in my religion or you are damed, the Creator allows us the free-will to chose to believe or not.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
''As for viruses, according to most rules of biology they are not even alive since they merely replicate and that is all they do. So I don't know how they can possess any type of conciousness at all.''
Yet these ''not even alive'' gangsters can run a con game on the host cell and make this intelligent group of cells open the door, get up against the wall, and stick up the joint? Who's the dumb one here. It sure ain't the virus who's supposed to be somewhere in between living and non-living.
So this means the host cell has been paid off by the thugs? Otherwise, how to explain a ''crashing the party.''
I can hear the virus talking now:
Haven't you guys learned anything in all these millenia. Everytime I knock on the door someone lets me in. I know, I know, the biologists (in 2007) say we can't pull this trick off until we get inside, but they don't want to explain how an IQ of 50 can coerce one of 140 to open the door... when they know we gone kick some ass up in heah. Not only that we take over the operating instructions and tell the host cell its own instructions don't mean jack and then gangster the host with new and unusual software. Now ain't this some stuff. The host cell can't do anything about it until the virus either decides to gum up the entire cell or go somewhere else and ridicule them.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Viruses can easily exploit cells simply because they have co-evolved with cells.
All a virus is, is genetic material encased in a capsule of protein. It is this coat of protein that is similar in molecular structure to the cell of whatever the virus infects. Which is why viruses can escape detection. They take over cells by injecting their genetic material which overrides that of the cell.
This all may seem like "intelligence", but it's not. It is simple biochemical reactions. Viruses have lived and co-existed as long as cells. They are just free-floating molecules that don't act or behave in any manner, just replicate and spread.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Hokmath Yisra'el does not posit anyone not of the Tribes be compelled to worship in the traditional customs of Judah or Israel. Nor does it hold to a concept of damnation. Hokmei Yisra'el teach that a non-Israelite/non-Jew who keeps to a certain set of precepts is as worthy as the highest observant priest and that all who strive to live morally have an afterlife.
The afore mentioned principles are: 1. Do not worship manufactured divinities. 2. Do not murder (including suicide and infanticide). 3. Do not steal (including kidnapping for slavery). 4. Do not be sexually immoral (incest, adultery, cross-species sex). 6. Do not curse by the Creator. 5. Do not eat the limb of the living animal. 7. Set up courts and administer law (justice).
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The beauty of existence is that we have the right to believe and not believe. Although the leaders of all religions believe in compulsion, i.e., you must believe in my religion or you are damed, the Creator allows us the free-will to chose to believe or not.
Thanks for the correction.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
I cannot think of any time existing before Time T(zero) and I cannot think of a situation where there is zero space. So the universe has always existed but in pulsating--i.e. expanding and contracting fashion.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
''Viruses can easily exploit cells simply because they have co-evolved with cells.''
If they co-evolved with cells this sounds like some equalness involved in the deal, but it isn't, at least the way I see it. Now I don't have a problem with the evolving in the same house but at some point the host cell tried to outrun the virus type yet couldn't quite get away from it. All I'm saying is if the virus is in fact a lowly organism then how is it it can gain access to a living cell if it, the virus, is in a somewhere in between state of existence. Here we have something that really isn't supposed to be sophisticated, according to some I think, yet it can pull off the congame on a cell that is supposed to know what it is doing. Looks like some dirty dealin' goin' on here. Yet you say it is nothing more than simple biochemical reactions. I'll bet the host cells don't see it that way. Kinda like a bicycle getting to the finish line before a Masserati even after starting together.
''They are just free-floating molecules that don't act or behave in any manner, just replicate and spread.''
If they don't act or behave in any manner how is it they replicate and spread?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by sam p:
quote:I take it that you are referring to my question about a cell. Sure a cell would have to be 'alive', in order to set it apart from the non-living, but do you have material that suggests that cells by themselves are generally conscious? I suppose the same question can be asked about the smaller entities, including DNA and RNA, that make up a single cell - which is by itself complex enough, let alone a multicellular organism.
There's a lot of evidence which suggests that "consciouness" is a continuum that ranges from never alive to nirvana.
Examples to be *cited*?
I think it is necessary to realize that being alive and being able to be sensitive to the environment, is not one and same thing as being able to think. What mechanism would allow a single cell to think? And like I asked earlier, one could ask the same question about the more microscopic elements that make up a single cell; do they think?
quote:Originally posted by sam p:
Certainly bacteria are closer to the low end of the scale than the high end but new research shows that the behavior of many simple organisms change based on enviromental factors such as species population. One bacterium will simply multiply if able until it hits a sort of critical mass and then it glows. This is apparently the result of changes in each (or most) of the bacteria rather than a chemical property. This would imply communication and at least a low level consciousness.
How would the change in the bacteria not be affiliated with chemical property? Obviously, information is passed between different components of a cell, which would enable the system to work in the first place; is this what you mean by 'consciousness'. I mean, what is DNA alone, if not to code *information* for the production of proteins and to instruct pre-existing proteins? So yes, information is circulated in cells and between cells, which would be the whole idea behind "organization" in multicellular organisms, but does this tell us that the components involved are themselves "thinkers"?
quote:Originally posted by sam p:
Individual human cells are most probably far lower on the "consciousness" scale than bacteria or even viruses but I wouldn't be surprised if it were learned that some body parts and their associated ganglia had a very high level of consciousness of which we're not aware. All communication with such structures occurs in the most primitive parts of the brain and the medula.
Should it be fair game, in terms of what you just mentioned about bacteria, that since certain human cells have been known to react to the environment, that they too perhaps are capable of thinking?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Djehuti says...
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Viruses can easily exploit cells simply because they have co-evolved with cells.
All a virus is, is genetic material encased in a capsule of protein. It is this coat of protein that is similar in molecular structure to the cell of whatever the virus infects. Which is why viruses can escape detection. They take over cells by injecting their genetic material which overrides that of the cell.
This all may seem like "intelligence", but it's not. It is simple biochemical reactions. Viruses have lived and co-existed as long as cells. They are just free-floating molecules that don't act or behave in any manner, just replicate and spread.
No question from me there, but then you also say this:
As for viruses, according to most rules of biology they are not even alive since they merely replicate and that is all they do. So I don't know how they can possess any type of conciousness at all. - by Djehuti
Not sure what *most rules* might entail here, but viruses are considered to be *borderline living*, precisely because of what you just noted - the ability to replicate and spread. When they don't have a host, then they act virtually like non-living objects, devoid of any detective organic activity. However, when they get into a host, they replicate, which no non-living object is capable of doing. They'd have to be alive at this point, in order to replicate, even if not "conscious".
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
I cannot think of any time existing before Time T(zero) and I cannot think of a situation where there is zero space. So the universe has always existed but in pulsating--i.e. expanding and contracting fashion.
You cannot conceive of such a point in time, because you've never had the chance to experience such a situation. According to most scientific conscensus, the Universe does appear to have a beginning, and this is what is usually dubbed as the "Big Bang" theorey. This theorey posits that there was indeed a point when the universe as we know it, didn't exist, but rather started out as a dense but unstable matter of some sort. In most cases, if something has a beginning, it is also bound to have an end.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I love Jesus because he freed mankind from dependence on the brahman, priest, cohen, imam or rabbi. Jesus taught that upon this rock I make my church. This was a simple teaching but what he said was that one can communicate with his Creator, anytime and anywhere as long as he prayed...
Jesus taught that this was unacceptable. You had no need for Mosque, Church or Temple worship, the Creator was there for you to consult through prayer anytime you felt like communicating with Him/Her in anyway you saw fit.
Most of these "Abrahamic" faiths, if not all, teach that in principle, that the Supreme Being is omnipresent, and hence, one can call upon this Being virtually anywhere, and by extension outside sacred temples of worship.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote:
You cannot conceive of such a point in time, because you've never had the chance to experience such a situation. According to most scientific conscensus, the Universe does appear to have a beginning, and this is what is usually dubbed as the "Big Bang" theorey. This theorey posits that there was indeed a point when the universe as we know it, didn't exist, but rather started out as a dense but unstable matter of some sort. In most cases, if something has a beginning, it is also bound to have an end.
But that does not preclude the possibility of a "contracting-expanding phase universe".
On the other hand, to argue that the universe just popped up from nowhere at a non-existent time boggles my imagination.
Posted by sam p (Member # 11774) on :
[quote]Should it be fair game, in terms of what you just mentioned about bacteria, that since certain human cells have been known to react to the environment, that they too perhaps are capable of thinking? [/q]
I'm just guessing that individual cells have less need for intelligence than individual bacteria so probably are much less intelligent. Obviously I might be wrong. You're right that cells will react to the enviroment.
It's also obvious that the intelligence or consciousness of a single celled organism must be very slight. They're a lot smarter and aware than a stone or this computer though.
I would think that an animal has to be pretty complex with complex behavior before the concept of a creator might be considered by many individuals of the species. Language and communication are probably key as well in other species (there's less doubt it was in man). Elephants, for instance, display a lot of complex behavior and even treat the bones of their ancestors with a sort of reverence. Whales have a language which appears to be nearly as complex as elephants though we've yet to find much behavior which could indicate belief in a creator. Some species have extremely complex behavior but are apparently of low intelligence. Termites build vast airconditioned cities with farms in them but it's difficult to ascribe a high level of awareness or intelligence to them.
Even plants get in on some complex behavior but who's going to believe that they pray on Sundays or tithe in some way.
It seems that it's language which enables complex ideas to be communicated. It probably even facilitates the formation of these ideas. If thought is the processing of concepts then language might increase the complexity of the concepts which can be processed. It may well follow that the concept of "God" is a natural outgrowth of this complexity. Likely too, though, is that god is to some extent a measure of the level of consciousness. This last absolutely does not apply to individuals only to species.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Djehuti says...
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Viruses can easily exploit cells simply because they have co-evolved with cells.
All a virus is, is genetic material encased in a capsule of protein. It is this coat of protein that is similar in molecular structure to the cell of whatever the virus infects. Which is why viruses can escape detection. They take over cells by injecting their genetic material which overrides that of the cell.
This all may seem like "intelligence", but it's not. It is simple biochemical reactions. Viruses have lived and co-existed as long as cells. They are just free-floating molecules that don't act or behave in any manner, just replicate and spread.
No question from me there, but then you also say this:
As for viruses, according to most rules of biology they are not even alive since they merely replicate and that is all they do. So I don't know how they can possess any type of conciousness at all. - by Djehuti
Not sure what *most rules* might entail here, but viruses are considered to be *borderline living*, precisely because of what you just noted - the ability to replicate and spread. When they don't have a host, then they act virtually like non-living objects, devoid of any detective organic activity. However, when they get into a host, they replicate, which no non-living object is capable of doing. They'd have to be alive at this point, in order to replicate, even if not "conscious".
According to the most widely accepted view of life at least in regards to organic life, they must follow these rules:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state.
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
Viruses don't follow the first rule because they are not of a system complex enough for any homeostasis. They don't follow the second rule of course because they are not composed of cells but are themselves sub-cellular in nature; Rule three is out because again they have no complex system and don't perform any major work for metabolism; Rule four, they don't grow but remain virtually the same in size; Rule six, they don't respond to any stimuli.
As for rule five, they do adapt in particular to cell defenses but only because they use the genetic material of that cell. They have no independent genetic material of their own to which they use to adapt. Similar can be said for rule 7, in which they cannot reproduce on their own but use cells to make copies of them.
By these rules, viruses are not actually alive but are just extra-cellular 'stuff' whose very existence is unfortunately detrimental to the cells they infect. They are in biological limbo in the sense that they are actually alive but at the same time not truely 'dead'.
But they definitely have no "intelligence" because intelligence by its very definition involves some sort of thought process. It can be argued that cells do think by the use of their nucleus which is the 'brain' of the cell and the adaptablity of the chromosomes within a kind of 'learning'. But viruses are mere fragmentary shadows of what cells are.
quote:You cannot conceive of such a point in time, because you've never had the chance to experience such a situation. According to most scientific conscensus, the Universe does appear to have a beginning, and this is what is usually dubbed as the "Big Bang" theorey. This theorey posits that there was indeed a point when the universe as we know it, didn't exist, but rather started out as a dense but unstable matter of some sort. In most cases, if something has a beginning, it is also bound to have an end.
Perhaps there is truth into ancient beliefs that the universe runs in cylces from beginning to end and beginning again?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
Mystery Solver wrote:
quote:
You cannot conceive of such a point in time, because you've never had the chance to experience such a situation. According to most scientific conscensus, the Universe does appear to have a beginning, and this is what is usually dubbed as the "Big Bang" theorey. This theorey posits that there was indeed a point when the universe as we know it, didn't exist, but rather started out as a dense but unstable matter of some sort. In most cases, if something has a beginning, it is also bound to have an end.
But that does not preclude the possibility of a "contracting-expanding phase universe".
That is a non-issue. The issue was with regards to your suggestion that the universe may not have a beginning at all.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Djehuti says...
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Viruses can easily exploit cells simply because they have co-evolved with cells.
All a virus is, is genetic material encased in a capsule of protein. It is this coat of protein that is similar in molecular structure to the cell of whatever the virus infects. Which is why viruses can escape detection. They take over cells by injecting their genetic material which overrides that of the cell.
This all may seem like "intelligence", but it's not. It is simple biochemical reactions. Viruses have lived and co-existed as long as cells. They are just free-floating molecules that don't act or behave in any manner, just replicate and spread.
No question from me there, but then you also say this:
As for viruses, according to most rules of biology they are not even alive since they merely replicate and that is all they do. So I don't know how they can possess any type of conciousness at all. - by Djehuti
Not sure what *most rules* might entail here, but viruses are considered to be *borderline living*, precisely because of what you just noted - the ability to replicate and spread. When they don't have a host, then they act virtually like non-living objects, devoid of any detective organic activity. However, when they get into a host, they replicate, which no non-living object is capable of doing. They'd have to be alive at this point, in order to replicate, even if not "conscious".
According to the most widely accepted view of life at least in regards to organic life, they must follow these rules:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state.
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
Viruses don't follow the first rule because they are not of a system complex enough for any homeostasis. They don't follow the second rule of course because they are not composed of cells but are themselves sub-cellular in nature; Rule three is out because again they have no complex system and don't perform any major work for metabolism; Rule four, they don't grow but remain virtually the same in size; Rule six, they don't respond to any stimuli.
As for rule five, they do adapt in particular to cell defenses but only because they use the genetic material of that cell. They have no independent genetic material of their own to which they use to adapt. Similar can be said for rule 7, in which they cannot reproduce on their own but use cells to make copies of them.
By these rules, viruses are not actually alive but are just extra-cellular 'stuff' whose very existence is unfortunately detrimental to the cells they infect. They are in biological limbo in the sense that they are actually alive but at the same time not truely 'dead'.
But they definitely have no "intelligence" because intelligence by its very definition involves some sort of thought process. It can be argued that cells do think by the use of their nucleus which is the 'brain' of the cell and the adaptablity of the chromosomes within a kind of 'learning'. But viruses are mere fragmentary shadows of what cells are.
Djehuti, I don't know of any objective material that suggests that viruses are absolutely not alive, but I have heard about them being "borderline" between the living and non-living, precisely because by themselves they cannot do any the above mentioned things. They do however, biologically replicate and spread, with the help of host cells. Do you know of any non-living natural thing that does this, besides viruses?
quote:Originallly posted by Djehuti
quote:You cannot conceive of such a point in time, because you've never had the chance to experience such a situation. According to most scientific conscensus, the Universe does appear to have a beginning, and this is what is usually dubbed as the "Big Bang" theorey. This theorey posits that there was indeed a point when the universe as we know it, didn't exist, but rather started out as a dense but unstable matter of some sort. In most cases, if something has a beginning, it is also bound to have an end.
Perhaps there is truth into ancient beliefs that the universe runs in cylces from beginning to end and beginning again?
What objective evidence suggests that the Universe has no beginning, and how does it address the majority scientific consensus of a "Big Bang"?
As for Sam p., I'll address your post [and any other followups to my post] later; got a few things to do at the moment.
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Lamin says:
These are the issues:
1)The problem of evil(theodicy)
This is assuming one has a 'need' to subscribe to the problem of evil being ''caused'' by an intelligent designer or God/s. I don't have this subscription to apology at all.
Lamin writes, in frustration, maybe justifiably so: 2)The not so perfect designs that humans have to try to correct. Example: conjoined twins. The question being how can a supposedly perfect being create such imperfection in physical(dwarfism, e.g) and moral(serial murderers and sadistic torturers, e.g.) design.
Assuming a Deity or whomever is responsible for the conjoined twins, among many other congenital abnormalities, plus the others mentioned, and it was done in a non-altruistic manner, then Lamin's query that a ''try to correct'' makes sense. But if the conjoined twins are fashioned from a lack of omniscience in that area, yet in an altruistic sense at the onset, then no explanation is needed as it regards a human correction attitude in the conjoined twins because it will have been outside the Deities expertise.
Lamin also assumes we humans have the ability, or will have the ability, at some future medical point, to correct the Deities' mistakes, if this is what they are. That said, I believe one day humanity will have this corrective ability.
3)Pascal's wager. How do you bet?
Pascal doesn't address what I've just said. I don't erroneously believe in anything. We are here. Either evolution or God did it, depending on one's view with nuances tacked onto the end of it. The God/s perspective doesn't take much to offer as a reasonable explanation—for some. On the other hand if one is locked into internalizing the explanation then there will always be a problem in terms of the 'whys.'
Mystery Solver says: OR ELSE that for some - at least in their minds, that there is more to it than that, which is that they have actually put some long and hard thought to this - that supposedly goes beyond what they were merely told at a very young age, and have thus arrived at the conclusion that there must be intellectual intervention by a "Supreme being"...as so-proclaimed by the advocates of the likes of "intellegent design"?
Yes.
Clyde Winters says: ''First of all, we are not "hardwired" for belief in God.''
This is a definitive and specific statement. Is there any way to prove humans aren't specifically hardwired?
''The Creator gives humans "free will". As a result, we have the right to believe or not believe in God on this plane.''
Then it's likely God will disagree with the free will he gives you once you make a decision to use it against his wishes. Seems to me free will should have been left alone, on that other plane of existence Winters spoke of.
Sam p wrote: ''It is language and its results which give rise to theology.''
I guess it would have been difficult to express theology without it.
''It is our supersized speech center which has led to our interest in deities...''
So evolution placed these supersized speech centers in humans just to have them talk about Deities?
''Just as the tower of babel disordered the language it equally disordered theology.''
... because someone had a bigger stick?
I couldn't have comment any better then this ...
While analyzing the theory of a so-called God head it is important to note or even question who is the real god[s]. Did God create us or did we create GOD?
I believe humanity makes god into what they want god to be, so to speak.
Example:
As an X Christian I was taught that god cannot look upon evil but yet I read:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
And:
Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
I believe we create our own theories of god according to our own beliefs: even if it is in the bible/Tanakh/Torah.
We are a needy species and want to place our problems on a being that is higher then ourselves. We deny our spiritual awareness and substitute it for a being that cannot be proven without modern eye witnesses. Its ironic that our supposed ancient writers teach that this deity walked amongst us ... whether it was to meet Ibrahim/Abraham or whether it was Yahshua or even Mohammad as god in the person's or messengers.
Buddhism teach the enlightenment of ones self which is what it is truly about. Know thyself is the true theme of humanity and that is something that we should invest our time in. Not as individuals but as a unite that looks to evolve mentally. I believe the whole theory of God has created more war and more importantly deaths.
Your post was well written.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by sam p:
quote:Should it be fair game, in terms of what you just mentioned about bacteria, that since certain human cells have been known to react to the environment, that they too perhaps are capable of thinking?
I'm just guessing that individual cells have less need for intelligence than individual bacteria so probably are much less intelligent. Obviously I might be wrong. You're right that cells will react to the enviroment.
It's also obvious that the intelligence or consciousness of a single celled organism must be very slight. They're a lot smarter and aware than a stone or this computer though.
I'm not yet rejecting or accepting the possibility of some level of "consciousness" in single-cell organisms, pending being informed about the mechanisms behind it. As it stands right now, no indicators have been provided to entertain the possibility. So, when you say that that "individual cells have less need for intelligence than bacteria", and are therefore likely to be "much less intelligent", I'm thinking to myself with regards to how that could be. Wouldn't coordination between cells in multicellular, necessitate feedback between cells. Do cells require consciousness to respond to such feedback? Well, if it 'cause and effect', perhaps not necessarily so. But then, you have the central nervous system; does information not flow between its components, and do they need to be "conscious" for this to work? I mean, how do we get individual cells to come together and work together? To some, DNA and RNA immediately comes to mind, but as one goes much further back into time - to primitive earth, when these likely didn't exist, what then accounts for this coming [of both elements that makeup the cells themselves - types in both single cell organisms and muliticellular organisms, and coordination between cells in multicellular organisms] together and coordination? Happenstance, i.e. trial and error of interaction between the elements that came to makeup the biological elements of a single cell perhaps?
I got a little carried away with the series of questions, but in some ways, single cells in multicellular organisms seem to be more structurally complex than the single-cell of organisms like bacteria. The point is, that bacteria themselves are essentially single-cells; how does this make them any more conscious than single cells of multicellular organisms?
Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious:
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Lamin says:
These are the issues:
1)The problem of evil(theodicy)
This is assuming one has a 'need' to subscribe to the problem of evil being ''caused'' by an intelligent designer or God/s. I don't have this subscription to apology at all.
Lamin writes, in frustration, maybe justifiably so: 2)The not so perfect designs that humans have to try to correct. Example: conjoined twins. The question being how can a supposedly perfect being create such imperfection in physical(dwarfism, e.g) and moral(serial murderers and sadistic torturers, e.g.) design.
Assuming a Deity or whomever is responsible for the conjoined twins, among many other congenital abnormalities, plus the others mentioned, and it was done in a non-altruistic manner, then Lamin's query that a ''try to correct'' makes sense. But if the conjoined twins are fashioned from a lack of omniscience in that area, yet in an altruistic sense at the onset, then no explanation is needed as it regards a human correction attitude in the conjoined twins because it will have been outside the Deities expertise.
Lamin also assumes we humans have the ability, or will have the ability, at some future medical point, to correct the Deities' mistakes, if this is what they are. That said, I believe one day humanity will have this corrective ability.
3)Pascal's wager. How do you bet?
Pascal doesn't address what I've just said. I don't erroneously believe in anything. We are here. Either evolution or God did it, depending on one's view with nuances tacked onto the end of it. The God/s perspective doesn't take much to offer as a reasonable explanation—for some. On the other hand if one is locked into internalizing the explanation then there will always be a problem in terms of the 'whys.'
Mystery Solver says: OR ELSE that for some - at least in their minds, that there is more to it than that, which is that they have actually put some long and hard thought to this - that supposedly goes beyond what they were merely told at a very young age, and have thus arrived at the conclusion that there must be intellectual intervention by a "Supreme being"...as so-proclaimed by the advocates of the likes of "intellegent design"?
Yes.
Clyde Winters says: ''First of all, we are not "hardwired" for belief in God.''
This is a definitive and specific statement. Is there any way to prove humans aren't specifically hardwired?
''The Creator gives humans "free will". As a result, we have the right to believe or not believe in God on this plane.''
Then it's likely God will disagree with the free will he gives you once you make a decision to use it against his wishes. Seems to me free will should have been left alone, on that other plane of existence Winters spoke of.
Sam p wrote: ''It is language and its results which give rise to theology.''
I guess it would have been difficult to express theology without it.
''It is our supersized speech center which has led to our interest in deities...''
So evolution placed these supersized speech centers in humans just to have them talk about Deities?
''Just as the tower of babel disordered the language it equally disordered theology.''
... because someone had a bigger stick?
I couldn't have comment any better then this ...
While analyzing the theory of a so-called God head it is important to note or even question who is the real god[s]. Did God create us or did we create GOD?
I believe humanity makes god into what they want god to be, so to speak.
Example:
As an X Christian I was taught that god cannot look upon evil but yet I read:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
And:
Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
I believe we create our own theories of god according to our own beliefs: even if it is in the bible/Tanakh/Torah.
We are a needy species and want to place our problems on a being that is higher then ourselves. We deny our spiritual awareness and substitute it for a being that cannot be proven without modern eye witnesses. Its ironic that our supposed ancient writers teach that this deity walked amongst us ... whether it was to meet Ibrahim/Abraham or whether it was Yahshua or even Mohammad as god in the person's or messengers.
Buddhism teach the enlightenment of ones self which is what it is truly about. Know thyself is the true theme of humanity and that is something that we should invest our time in. Not as individuals but as a unite that looks to evolve mentally. I believe the whole theory of God has created more war and more importantly deaths.
Your post was well written.
Real talk brother. Real talk.
You EgyptSearch denizens are the best on the Net.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
This is what happens when one group co-opts the books of a people they don't belong to and have no idea what tenants that people hold to -- or else they jealously want to make believe that they are that people or somehow replaced that people.
Christianity must be backed up from their own Greek Scriptures because Christianity has not a thing in this world to do with the Hebrew Scriptures except to manipulatively distort them leading to conclusions which must of course be paradoxical to say the least.
Israel's/Judah's idea of deity is above the good vs evil duality as the Isaiah and Amos quotes -- a distinction in regard to Zoroasterism with its conflicting deities Ahura Mazda (of light and good) and Ahriman (of dark and evil) -- illustrate quite nicely.
A Creator of a world of polarities, and every point in between, must be dimensionally infinite outside and above Its creation and Its design.
Thus evil is no problem. Humanities application or containment of evil is their challenge and why they have free will to choose whatever path and make what they may of the world(s) allotted them.
Underlying principles of physics, chemistry, and biology are responsible for every abberation under the sun (and above it too) via their parametered permutations. Why should a Creator of (a) self sustaining ordered universe/multiverses be beholden to one of Its creation's idea of what is good or bad, right or wrong, benevolent or evil?
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious:
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Lamin says:
These are the issues:
1)The problem of evil(theodicy)
This is assuming one has a 'need' to subscribe to the problem of evil being ''caused'' by an intelligent designer or God/s. I don't have this subscription to apology at all.
Lamin writes, in frustration, maybe justifiably so: 2)The not so perfect designs that humans have to try to correct. Example: conjoined twins. The question being how can a supposedly perfect being create such imperfection in physical(dwarfism, e.g) and moral(serial murderers and sadistic torturers, e.g.) design.
Assuming a Deity or whomever is responsible for the conjoined twins, among many other congenital abnormalities, plus the others mentioned, and it was done in a non-altruistic manner, then Lamin's query that a ''try to correct'' makes sense. But if the conjoined twins are fashioned from a lack of omniscience in that area, yet in an altruistic sense at the onset, then no explanation is needed as it regards a human correction attitude in the conjoined twins because it will have been outside the Deities expertise.
Lamin also assumes we humans have the ability, or will have the ability, at some future medical point, to correct the Deities' mistakes, if this is what they are. That said, I believe one day humanity will have this corrective ability.
3)Pascal's wager. How do you bet?
Pascal doesn't address what I've just said. I don't erroneously believe in anything. We are here. Either evolution or God did it, depending on one's view with nuances tacked onto the end of it. The God/s perspective doesn't take much to offer as a reasonable explanation—for some. On the other hand if one is locked into internalizing the explanation then there will always be a problem in terms of the 'whys.'
Mystery Solver says: OR ELSE that for some - at least in their minds, that there is more to it than that, which is that they have actually put some long and hard thought to this - that supposedly goes beyond what they were merely told at a very young age, and have thus arrived at the conclusion that there must be intellectual intervention by a "Supreme being"...as so-proclaimed by the advocates of the likes of "intellegent design"?
Yes.
Clyde Winters says: ''First of all, we are not "hardwired" for belief in God.''
This is a definitive and specific statement. Is there any way to prove humans aren't specifically hardwired?
''The Creator gives humans "free will". As a result, we have the right to believe or not believe in God on this plane.''
Then it's likely God will disagree with the free will he gives you once you make a decision to use it against his wishes. Seems to me free will should have been left alone, on that other plane of existence Winters spoke of.
Sam p wrote: ''It is language and its results which give rise to theology.''
I guess it would have been difficult to express theology without it.
''It is our supersized speech center which has led to our interest in deities...''
So evolution placed these supersized speech centers in humans just to have them talk about Deities?
''Just as the tower of babel disordered the language it equally disordered theology.''
... because someone had a bigger stick?
I couldn't have comment any better then this ...
While analyzing the theory of a so-called God head it is important to note or even question who is the real god[s]. Did God create us or did we create GOD?
I believe humanity makes god into what they want god to be, so to speak.
Example:
As an X Christian I was taught that god cannot look upon evil but yet I read:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
And:
Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
I believe we create our own theories of god according to our own beliefs: even if it is in the bible/Tanakh/Torah.
We are a needy species and want to place our problems on a being that is higher then ourselves. We deny our spiritual awareness and substitute it for a being that cannot be proven without modern eye witnesses. Its ironic that our supposed ancient writers teach that this deity walked amongst us ... whether it was to meet Ibrahim/Abraham or whether it was Yahshua or even Mohammad as god in the person's or messengers.
Buddhism teach the enlightenment of ones self which is what it is truly about. Know thyself is the true theme of humanity and that is something that we should invest our time in. Not as individuals but as a unite that looks to evolve mentally. I believe the whole theory of God has created more war and more importantly deaths.
Your post was well written.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Djehuti, I don't know of any objective material that suggests that viruses are absolutely not alive, but I have heard about them being "borderline" between the living and non-living, precisely because by themselves they cannot do any the above mentioned things. They do however, biologically replicate and spread, with the help of host cells. Do you know of any non-living natural thing that does this, besides viruses?
Exactly why I said most accepted view of what organic life is. One could delve into the matter of semantics as to what life is but those rules I listed is what is the consensus for biological life. A virus is not a living organism but an entity that is just a branch off to the begginings of cell evolution.
quote:What objective evidence suggests that the Universe has no beginning, and how does it address the majority scientific consensus of a "Big Bang"?
As for Sam p., I'll address your post [and any other followups to my post] later; got a few things to do at the moment.
Where did I say the universe had no beggining? I merly stated the possibity that its begging stemmed from an end. There is a theory that states once the universe reaches total energy entropy, anti-energy will condense it back again into a point singularity from which another big-bang will occur.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This is what happens when one group co-opts the books of a people they don't belong to and have no idea what tenants that people hold to -- or else they jealously want to make believe that they are that people or somehow replaced that people.
Christianity must be backed up from their own Greek Scriptures because Christianity has not a thing in this world to do with the Hebrew Scriptures except to manipulatively distort them leading to conclusions which must of course be paradoxical to say the least.
Israel's/Judah's idea of deity is above the good vs evil duality as the Isaiah and Amos quotes -- a distinction in regard to Zoroasterism with its conflicting deities Ahura Mazda (of light and good) and Ahriman (of dark and evil) -- illustrate quite nicely.
A Creator of a world of polarities, and every point in between, must be dimensionally infinite outside and above Its creation and Its design.
Thus evil is no problem. Humanities application or containment of evil is their challenge and why they have free will to choose whatever path and make what they may of the world(s) allotted them.
Underlying principles of physics, chemistry, and biology are responsible for every abberation under the sun (and above it too) via their parametered permutations. Why should a Creator of (a) self sustaining ordered universe/multiverses be beholden to one of Its creation's idea of what is good or bad, right or wrong, benevolent or evil?
I couldn't have put it better myself. Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
alTakruri wrote:
quote:This is what happens when one group co-opts the books of a people they don't belong to and have no idea what tenants that people hold to -- or else they jealously want to make believe that they are that people or somehow replaced that people.
I have to agree with this statement 100%. Even further more, the people who claim to be these people are not culturally the originals.
alTakruri wrote:
quote:Christianity must be backed up from their own Greek Scriptures because Christianity has not a thing in this world to do with the Hebrew Scriptures except to manipulatively distort them leading to conclusions which must of course be paradoxical to say the least.
I have to agree with this as well ... but there is another problem here which I think must be brought up. The oldest so-called copy of the Hebrew is the Septuagint which was written around 250 B.C.E ... A lot of Jews and Yisra`elites like to refer to the Masoretic Text and even worse the JW's/Jehovah Witnesses use the Textus Receptus.
The one thing that these text have in common is that neither of them are the original so-called Hebrew writings.
Septuagint ... was supposed to be translated by Jew/Yisra`elites ... O ... where is the original Hebrew Text? The Dead Sea Scrolls? Well the DSS read different from both with some similarities in certain areas; but read different from both. And yet that is even fairly new. But even to that, it was a new religion verse some of the religions that's been around thousands of years prior ... one that come to mind is Voodoo/Vodoun which is said to be 10,000 old +.
I say this all the ... show me the original Greek ... Every culture that was a written culture have their original such as the Kmtians, Zoroaster ... etc but the Yisra`elites don't have them ... and even the Dead Sea Scroll was interpreted by people who were not the original. They release little pieces that help their concept but they have not released all of it because they know that is will not mirror Judaism for today or Christianity.
This isn't just about the Yisra`elite culture its about religion in general.
alTakruri wrote:
quote:Israel's/Judah's idea of deity is above the good vs evil duality as the Isaiah and Amos quotes -- a distinction in regard to Zoroasterism with its conflicting deities Ahura Mazda (of light and good) and Ahriman (of dark and evil) -- illustrate quite nicely.
Agreed!!! Yet many people are not aware of this. Those scriptures that I used was an example of how distorted peoples ideas are even in matter of there own theories (Christianity for one). I was once a part of that religion so that was an example based off of my experience while in that religion.
alTakruri wrote:
quote:A Creator of a world of polarities, and every point in between, must be dimensionally infinite outside and above Its creation and Its design.
Thus evil is no problem. Humanities application or containment of evil is their challenge and why they have free will to choose whatever path and make what they may of the world(s) allotted them.
Agreed!!! I had this talk with my kids and they very well understand this concept ...
Example:
A man lives in a country where they are allowed to marry a 15 year old virgin and this is the normal in his country ... there are no laws against such action because it is his tradition, but he comes to the US and tries to keep his traditions. This man if caught in America will be imprisoned and brutally raped in prison by other men because it is frowned upon severely in America.
What is good in his country is bad in another ... We are the controllers of what's good and what's bad, and because we want our laws or traditions to out power another we say that a deity gave these laws and the country that is in power or rules they world will out-power the traditions of those who cannot defend their traditions.
P.S. Example people ... I agree with the US on this thing here but it was an example ... what is good or evil is based on individual traditions so then the question must be asked ... what is good or evil in the sense of these word?
Is their one universal evil? Murder? If that is true then why do so many die in the name of religion? Rape? If true then why have so many been raped by religious folks?
alTakruri wrote:
quote:Underlying principles of physics, chemistry, and biology are responsible for every abberation under the sun (and above it too) via their parametered permutations. Why should a Creator of (a) self sustaining ordered universe/multiverses be beholden to one of Its creation's idea of what is good or bad, right or wrong, benevolent or evil?
Damn this quote is good!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Perhaps there is truth into ancient beliefs that the universe runs in cylces from beginning to end and beginning again?
It is true. We have been conditioned to believe that time is linear. Past-->Present--> Future. This is false to me. I believe that time is a circle and you can jump in at anytime.
It has to be a circle or how else can some people claim to see the future.
As a result, I believe that when we decide to play a role in the Creator's great Book, we can jump into to any period of time, due to the fact that time Just Is. Time probably does not exist where we came from, it is a phenomena that is necessary for existence on this plane.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: alTakruri wrote:
quote:Underlying principles of physics, chemistry, and biology are responsible for every abberation under the sun (and above it too) via their parametered permutations. Why should a Creator of (a) self sustaining ordered universe/multiverses be beholden to one of Its creation's idea of what is good or bad, right or wrong, benevolent or evil?
Damn this quote is good! [/QB]
AlTakruri is absolutely correct, in my opinion, the Creator would not have to be beholden to His creation's idea, but the entity that created these ideas would. This results from the fact that if we are all playing roles in the Creator's Great Book we make the final judgment as to what is right or wrong, good or bad.
For example, someone is murdered by someone. We assume that this person is a monster, because our individual feelings, tell us what this person did is wrong.
How are we to say the person who murdered someone is wrong when his actions were dictated by the specific role he played in the Great Book, when he murdered someone. Who are to say that these two humans had made an agreement at home to play the murderer and the murdered.
If s/he was suppose to commit a murder to teach us something then s/he was really carrying out the assignment he chose when he agreed to come on this plane.
This means that the murderer is only wrong depending on how he percieves his actions. We see this person as good or bad based on our perceptions of what is right or wrong. This is why all of the major monotheistic religions make it clear that the Creator fulgives all of our trepasses. They are forgiven because they were done in service to completing the Great Book of the Lord.
Judgment of the individual then, is done by the individual him/herself who has decided what is right and wrong. This is the worst sort of judgment, because you know all about yourself and you would be a most critical judge of yourself.
The Creator has given us a way out of this severe judgment. The way out is forgiveness of others who have wronged us.
Therefore, to judge youself most compassionately, you must learn to forgive others. By learning to forgive them, you may have a better chance of leaving this plane and going home instead of creating a severe punnishment for yourself--by forgiving yourself.
This is why the Egyptian records talk about doing good; And the wonderful station we can assume by recognizing GOOD and treating our fellow brothers and sisters , as we would treat ourselves: i.e., good.
.
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
Clyde Winters wrote ->
quote:Judgment of the individual then, is done by the individual him/herself who has decided what is right and wrong. This is the worst sort of judgment, because you know all about yourself and you would be a most critical judge of yourself.
The Creator has given us a way out of this severe judgment. The way out is forgiveness of others who have wronged us.
How do you know for sure that the creator has given us a way out? Is the way out to become SLAVES to god or is the way our freedom to be free?
This is the problem with religionists ... They say God offers you a way out, but there idea of a way out is a way into servitude.
I am free because I think free and my physical is not enslaved to man made traditions.
A lot of so-called religions offer you a way out but just like the government who say there people are free (which is just an illusion) you are not.
If I have to pray 5 times a day ... go hungry i.e. fast or go to church/temple whatever then that is not a way out but a way in bondage.
Posted by sam p (Member # 11774) on :
I think we're in danger of drifting off into politics here.
It doesn't really matter what god, gods, goddesses, deities, creators or prophets think of murder except to those individuals who believe it matters. Murder is a societal problem which has to be dealt with for societal reasons. It's simply extremely expensive and destructive to allow anyone to kill people. Even when the victim is more valuable to society in the grave it sends a bad message to allow it to occur.
This may be a relevant question in a theocracy or to religious people but the US was founded by pragmatists not theologians. Most countries are operated along common law maxins that have evolved over thousands of years and do have some religious tenets at their roots. But law remains the framework in which man best flourishes historically. One can argue any of the finer points but many of the ten commandments remain unlawfull in most places.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: Clyde Winters wrote ->
quote:Judgment of the individual then, is done by the individual him/herself who has decided what is right and wrong. This is the worst sort of judgment, because you know all about yourself and you would be a most critical judge of yourself.
The Creator has given us a way out of this severe judgment. The way out is forgiveness of others who have wronged us.
How do you know for sure that the creator has given us a way out? Is the way out to become SLAVES to god or is the way our freedom to be free?
This is the problem with religionists ... They say God offers you a way out, but there idea of a way out is a way into servitude.
I am free because I think free and my physical is not enslaved to man made traditions.
A lot of so-called religions offer you a way out but just like the government who say there people are free (which is just an illusion) you are not.
If I have to pray 5 times a day ... go hungry i.e. fast or go to church/temple whatever then that is not a way out but a way in bondage.
Religion is the problem, not faith in a Creator. The Creator allows us to believe or not believe.
People get in trouble when they join a religion. It is then, and only then, that people are forced to do anything.
For example, to become a Muslim you make the declaration of faith: There is One God Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.
After making this declaration you are a Muslim (a believer). Surah al-Baqarah tells you what to do to be a good believer:
"This is a perfect book; there is no doubt in it , it is a guidance for the righteous, Who believe in the unseen and observe Prayer and spend out of what We have provided for them; And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee and that which was revealed before thee and they have firm faith in the Hereafter" (Qur'an 2: 3-5)
These surahs make it clear that the true believer prays, helps other people,believes in the prophets that came before Muhhammad and a return Home to the Hereafter: the Last Abode.
You see you are in islam (submission to the moral law) when you pray for guidance and way free of harming yourself and others. By helping you fellow man you are in ibaada ('service to God').
There is nothing here about praying 5 times a day, going to the Mosque, or fasting. To be a good believer you just have to acknowledge that God exist and believe in the prophets and pray.
The word we translate as Hereafter, is al-Aakhirah 'the last abode'. This does not say hereafter it simply implies that you go to last abode after living on the earth.
Praying five times a day, fasting, going to temple /mosque/church has nothing to do belief in Allah. These things are all based on sunnah (practice) that people claim Muhammad performed. If someone performs these practices they do so because they want too, or to impress their fellow man. These practices don't impress the Creator, because he has made it clear that" there is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:257).
It is belief in a Religion that fails you, and leads to people being forced to do this or that. Faith or non faith in a Creator is free, it demands no money,going to mosque/church/temple, fasting and praying five times.It only requires you learning to communicate with your Creator, helping your fellow man.
How is praying to god making you a slave? How is helping your fellow man, making you a slave?
Slavery comes from joining a religion,and allowing your co-religionists and religious leaders to tell you what is right and wrong , and what makes you the "perfect believer". It is your co-religiousness who will criticize you if you don't attend Mosque regularly for prayer, fast, wear beard, traditional garb and etc. and etc.
Having faith in a Creator is not slavery. Joining a religion enslaves you.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by sam p: I think we're in danger of drifting off into politics here.
It doesn't really matter what god, gods, goddesses, deities, creators or prophets think of murder except to those individuals who believe it matters. Murder is a societal problem which has to be dealt with for societal reasons. It's simply extremely expensive and destructive to allow anyone to kill people. Even when the victim is more valuable to society in the grave it sends a bad message to allow it to occur.
This may be a relevant question in a theocracy or to religious people but the US was founded by pragmatists not theologians. Most countries are operated along common law maxins that have evolved over thousands of years and do have some religious tenets at their roots. But law remains the framework in which man best flourishes historically. One can argue any of the finer points but many of the ten commandments remain unlawfull in most places.
Your final statement contradicts your entire post. If the ten commandments are part of the frame work of the law, and they came from a Creator, then law for most nations had a religious genesis.
Moreover Murder is not murder. In the USA people were paid bounties if they killed Indians. Briitish murdered all the Tasmanians. Finally, thousands of Afro-Americans have been killed by whites and every body knew they murdered Blacks, yet they were never tried by the law.
The law is a joke. Law exist as a way to protect the privilege, of the privileged. The adminstrators of the law always invoke a religious element in the proceedings--i.e., to promise to tell the truth based on your adherence to a religious book (take your choice Torah, Bible or Qur'an).
Moreover the people who administer the law are also the people who claim they live by a moral code and are very just based on their "religion".
.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Djehuti, I don't know of any objective material that suggests that viruses are absolutely not alive, but I have heard about them being "borderline" between the living and non-living, precisely because by themselves they cannot do any the above mentioned things. They do however, biologically replicate and spread, with the help of host cells. Do you know of any non-living natural thing that does this, besides viruses?
Exactly why I said most accepted view of what organic life is. One could delve into the matter of semantics as to what life is but those rules I listed is what is the consensus for biological life. A virus is not a living organism but an entity that is just a branch off to the begginings of cell evolution.
You say yes, but the rest of your post tells me that you are not really listening to what is being said. I'm telling you that the prevailing consensus is that viruses are **borderline** between the living and non-living, because they have traits that fall into one or the other, depending on what environment they're found. Therefore, to simply say that they are unequivocably non-living, isn't supported by evidence.
Your own reiteration that they do in fact replicate, which doesn't happen without biologically coded information [genes, i.e. DNA or RNA], contradicts your point about them being strictly non living organisms. This also means, that as they attempt to quickly replicate inside a host cell, they are bound to under go some genetic mutations.
Once they have a host cell, they do replicate, which is essentially *reproduction* for them.
In connection with genetic mutations, there are indications that viruses can *adapt*, again with the assistance of host cells. E.g. the AIDS virus. This means that they are able to be vetted out for 'survival of the fittest' and propagate under natural selection. These mere examples are the sort that demonstrate how viruses meet certain traits of the living, *as long as they have a host cell to assist them to do so*.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:[What objective evidence suggests that the Universe has no beginning, and how does it address the majority scientific consensus of a "Big Bang"?
As for Sam p., I'll address your post [and any other followups to my post] later; got a few things to do at the moment.
Where did I say the universe had no beggining? I merly stated the possibity that its begging stemmed from an end.
If the universe is some sort of 'a loop', and goes in cycles without any end in sight, isn't this de facto saying that it has no beginning or end?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Exactly why I said most accepted view of what organic life is. One could delve into the matter of semantics as to what life is but those rules I listed is what is the consensus for biological life. A virus is not a living organism but an entity that is just a branch off to the begginings of cell evolution.
You say yes, but the rest of your post tells me that you are not really listening to what is being said. I'm telling you that the prevailing consensus is that viruses are **borderline** between the living and non-living, because they have traits that fall into one or the other, depending on what environment they're found. Therefore, to simply say that they are unequivocably non-living, isn't supported by evidence.
Your own reiteration that they do in fact replicate, which doesn't happen without biologically coded information [genes, i.e. DNA or RNA], contradicts your point about them being strictly non living organisms. This also means, that as they attempt to quickly replicate inside a host cell, they are bound to under go some genetic mutations.
Once they have a host cell, they do replicate, which is essentially *reproduction* for them.
In connection with genetic mutations, there are indications that viruses can *adapt*, again with the assistance of host cells. E.g. the AIDS virus. This means that they are able to be vetted out for 'survival of the fittest' and propagate under natural selection. These mere examples are the sort that demonstrate how viruses meet certain traits of the living, *as long as they have a host cell to assist them to do so*.[/quote] Well as for their "border line" status, is that not what I said?? They are not truly alive by biological definition but one cannot say they are dead since they perform activities. By biological defintions they cannot reproduce since they merely use the genetic codes as well as protein material of other cells to make more of themselves instead of using their own material.
quote:If the universe is some sort of 'a loop', and goes in cycles without any end in sight, isn't this de facto saying that it has no beginning or end?
Yes, no 'definite' beggining or end. If that the theory is true, that is.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Exactly why I said most accepted view of what organic life is. One could delve into the matter of semantics as to what life is but those rules I listed is what is the consensus for biological life. A virus is not a living organism but an entity that is just a branch off to the begginings of cell evolution.
You say yes, but the rest of your post tells me that you are not really listening to what is being said. I'm telling you that the prevailing consensus is that viruses are **borderline** between the living and non-living, because they have traits that fall into one or the other, depending on what environment they're found. Therefore, to simply say that they are unequivocably non-living, isn't supported by evidence.
Your own reiteration that they do in fact replicate, which doesn't happen without biologically coded information [genes, i.e. DNA or RNA], contradicts your point about them being strictly non living organisms. This also means, that as they attempt to quickly replicate inside a host cell, they are bound to under go some genetic mutations.
Once they have a host cell, they do replicate, which is essentially *reproduction* for them.
In connection with genetic mutations, there are indications that viruses can *adapt*, again with the assistance of host cells. E.g. the AIDS virus. This means that they are able to be vetted out for 'survival of the fittest' and propagate under natural selection. These mere examples are the sort that demonstrate how viruses meet certain traits of the living, *as long as they have a host cell to assist them to do so*.
Well as for their "border line" status, is that not what I said??
Where specifically?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
They are not truly alive by biological definition but one cannot say they are dead since they perform activities. By biological defintions they cannot reproduce since they merely use the genetic codes as well as protein material of other cells to make more of themselves instead of using their own material.
That would be incorrect. They do replicate, albeit inside host cells, which is "reproduction" of the virus. The ability to biologically replicate, is what constitutes reproduction.
What you fail to see, it seems, is that viruses contain their *own* genetic codes; without it, they wouldn't be able to use host cells to replicate in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:If the universe is some sort of 'a loop', and goes in cycles without any end in sight, isn't this de facto saying that it has no beginning or end?
Yes, no 'definite' beggining or end. If that the theory is true, that is.
The majority scientific consensus of the "Big Bang theorey" suggests otherwise, that the universe has a starting point, and therefore has a beginning. What evidence does any other theorey have against this consensus, about what the universe looked like before being this dense point that then exploded to what we see today as the "Universe"?
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: Clyde Winters wrote ->
quote:Judgment of the individual then, is done by the individual him/herself who has decided what is right and wrong. This is the worst sort of judgment, because you know all about yourself and you would be a most critical judge of yourself.
The Creator has given us a way out of this severe judgment. The way out is forgiveness of others who have wronged us.
How do you know for sure that the creator has given us a way out? Is the way out to become SLAVES to god or is the way our freedom to be free?
This is the problem with religionists ... They say God offers you a way out, but there idea of a way out is a way into servitude.
I am free because I think free and my physical is not enslaved to man made traditions.
A lot of so-called religions offer you a way out but just like the government who say there people are free (which is just an illusion) you are not.
If I have to pray 5 times a day ... go hungry i.e. fast or go to church/temple whatever then that is not a way out but a way in bondage.
Religion is the problem, not faith in a Creator. The Creator allows us to believe or not believe.
People get in trouble when they join a religion. It is then, and only then, that people are forced to do anything.
For example, to become a Muslim you make the declaration of faith: There is One God Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.
After making this declaration you are a Muslim (a believer). Surah al-Baqarah tells you what to do to be a good believer:
"This is a perfect book; there is no doubt in it , it is a guidance for the righteous, Who believe in the unseen and observe Prayer and spend out of what We have provided for them; And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee and that which was revealed before thee and they have firm faith in the Hereafter" (Qur'an 2: 3-5)
These surahs make it clear that the true believer prays, helps other people,believes in the prophets that came before Muhhammad and a return Home to the Hereafter: the Last Abode.
You see you are in islam (submission to the moral law) when you pray for guidance and way free of harming yourself and others. By helping you fellow man you are in ibaada ('service to God').
There is nothing here about praying 5 times a day, going to the Mosque, or fasting. To be a good believer you just have to acknowledge that God exist and believe in the prophets and pray.
The word we translate as Hereafter, is al-Aakhirah 'the last abode'. This does not say hereafter it simply implies that you go to last abode after living on the earth.
Praying five times a day, fasting, going to temple /mosque/church has nothing to do belief in Allah. These things are all based on sunnah (practice) that people claim Muhammad performed. If someone performs these practices they do so because they want too, or to impress their fellow man. These practices don't impress the Creator, because he has made it clear that" there is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:257).
It is belief in a Religion that fails you, and leads to people being forced to do this or that. Faith or non faith in a Creator is free, it demands no money,going to mosque/church/temple, fasting and praying five times.It only requires you learning to communicate with your Creator, helping your fellow man.
How is praying to god making you a slave? How is helping your fellow man, making you a slave?
Slavery comes from joining a religion,and allowing your co-religionists and religious leaders to tell you what is right and wrong , and what makes you the "perfect believer". It is your co-religiousness who will criticize you if you don't attend Mosque regularly for prayer, fast, wear beard, traditional garb and etc. and etc.
Having faith in a Creator is not slavery. Joining a religion enslaves you.
.
Ok ... since this seems to be a difficult concept for you to handle ... I implore you to point out the Most High to me or as you would say Allah/Ellah/Eloh/Eloh[im]i.e. Y`hwah. If you have met him then please show him to me or even tell me what he looks like if it is a HE so to speak.
Having faith n a creator is slavery because the very meaning of Islam is servitude or am I wrong. Christianity demands devotion to their religious ideology which means you are enslaved to another mans philosophy; this is as weak as it gets.
The Yisra`elites were punished to the highest degree because they didn't follow the guidelines of their enslaver or Deity. It seems to me that you fall into this b/s as well.
I get so sick of people preaching to me but don't nobody have anything substantial to say. You believe in Allah/E-loh[im] but you have no real proof that he exist[ED], yet you claim that your so-called documentation came from some dude named Mohammad is supposed to be believed without question. R U Serious? Prove it or don't believe it is my philosophy ... Only the weak minded will believe such foolish B/S without questioning it and finding answers. If there is no answer then there is no real question because every question has an answer.
If you haven't met the Most High/Allah/E-loh/Y`hwah personally then you can't say anything that would make me truly believe you. In the ancient days according to Grecian documentation of so-called Hebrew scriptures the Most High always showed himself to the people ... Why did he stop now? Do you have a so-called logical explanation for me? Absolutely not! You will say that man is being punished for their evil doings and the Most High cannot look upon evil in its purest form yet the Most High created all things which basically mean he cannot look up its own creation ... lol B/S!!!!
He sent his messenger Mohammad? Shut up with that b/s and tell that to someone who is needy!
Proof or shut it down and continue to show me graphic or pseudo linguistic information that you couldn't possibly believe in yourself.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
RU2Religious
quote:
If you haven't met the Most High/Allah/E-loh/Y`hwah personally then you can't say anything that would make me truly believe you. In the ancient days according to Grecian documentation of so-called Hebrew scriptures the Most High always showed himself to the people ... Why did he stop now? Do you have a so-called logical explanation for me? Absolutely not! You will say that man is being punished for their evil doings and the Most High cannot look upon evil in its purest form yet the Most High created all things which basically mean he cannot look up its own creation ... lol B/S!!!!
First of all no one has ever met the Creator. Moses saw him in the form of a firey bush. The other prophets only recieved information via Angels, i.e., Gabriel, Ariel and etc. So even if someone told you they had spoken to the Creator you probably wouldn't believe them unless you wanted to believe.
Everything is ying and yang. As a result, your role in life may be the skeptic searcher.
You appear to want someone to provide you with some evidence of a Creator--which is impossible if you are not meant to belief. Remember the Creator could make everyone belief if he saw fit. Instead , S/He allows you to choose.
You have not read what I have written. I said that the Creator punishes no one, because we are only probably playing a role in his Great Book. You probably go to the Movies and have a favorite genre.
The people in the films are play acting but it appears Oh so real. Our life on earth is just as intense.
If we are playing a role in the Great Book, this is all illusion just like the movies we see at the threatre. Therefore what we see as evil is only such due to our ideas about good and bad. Ideas which were partially scripted by the Creator, who allows us the free will to make the scene materialize anyway we see fit.
You only expect punishment from the Creator if you belong to a religious group. It is the leader of your group and co-religiousionists who propagate this reality of punishment.
Many people today no longer believe in a religion. They don't go to temple, mosque or church but--they are good people who treat their neighbor as they would want themselves to be treated and have strong faith in a Creator.
It is the people who belong to religions that are fighting. In many conflicts the combatants belong to different sects of the same religion,e.g., Shia against Sunni in Iran. In the U.S., the Catholics don't like the Baptist, and both groups dispise Jehovah Witnesses.
The only slaves you find are people who believ in religions. People who are enslaved by religions do this on their own. They invent dogmas which have no basis in fact but sound great because it allows the individual to feel part of a group, and nurtures the individual's ego through the belief that the follower of a specific religion is better than members of another religion, and the nonbeliever.
The belief in a Creator makes no one a slave. It is belief in a religion and becoming a member of a group that enslaves you.
.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Mystery Solver said to Djehuti: ''What you fail to see, it seems, is that viruses contain their *own* genetic codes; without it, they wouldn't be able to use host cells to replicate in the first place.''
I agree. Further, according to what I've read, if the virus is an RNA type then this same dumb-as-a-rock, outside the cell virus evidently has the wherewithal to recognize what needs to be done to turn its own RNA into DNA using the host cell's equipment to do that too even before it inserts itself into the host DNA. Looks like these little Einsteins got it down pat; all the while the host cell is up against the wall looking on helplessly. The fact is they have their instructions in place before they set out on the road to mayhem.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Ru 2 religious, thanks for the compliment. However I see a need to elaborate somewhat.
You said: ''Did God create us or did we create GOD?''
While I agree there is no way to know of the existence of God in the way of observable evidence I do believe, as an article of faith, from a non-christian perspective, or any other persuausion for that matter, that there is something substantive to the idea of a God as a reality simply because it is an issue that has refused to go away after the past few thousand years. My comedic side tells me ''cavemen'' had a lot better things to do with their time than sit 'round a campfire watching a volcano belch flame and smoke and say there goes God again, acting up, or that thunderstorms or lightning wouldn't be recognized for what they are as natural phenomena.
''I believe humanity makes god into what they want god to be, so to speak.''
It goes without saying because witness the many thousands of beliefs around the world today.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
I've been aware of this one more than 30 years ago and to some it sure is troubling... but not to me. I've seen some figuratively jump through semantical hoops and do the scriptural gymnastics route to calm the storm on this one. Of course some Biblical scholar/s could turn the pages enough and say that isn't what it means. And reading several verses above and below won't hide the fact what's been set down in print. To deny it also means to deny other parts of the book.
I said above Isaiah 45:7 doesn't trouble me at all. The reason is my intuition tells me that if there is a God and he/she, whomever, is responsible for this ''creation'' of humankind then we have no one else to blame for this condition we find ourselves in. We are not the creators but the created. Is there such a thing as saying some people have too much of this predisposition and others are predisposed to an opposite. The fact is we do what it is we are preprogramed to do. We have no control over us. We are predisposed to ''their'' unfathomable actions, good and bad, and in the process become an enigma ourselves. Every human on this planet when talking about the Deities should have a mirror in his/her pocket. It doesn't matter the direction one takes, it doesn't matter if you change your mind at the last moment; it's already set in stone for you. This condition we find ourselves in has no other answer to it. There is no way out.
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
Mr. Clyde Winter whom I respect tho many may ask why .. but I do respect him thus I will respond so that I can collab with you on this topic....
Winters wrote:
quote:First of all no one has ever met the Creator. Moses saw him in the form of a firey bush. The other prophets only recieved information via Angels, i.e., Gabriel, Ariel and etc. So even if someone told you they had spoken to the Creator you probably wouldn't believe them unless you wanted to believe.
Everything is ying and yang. As a result, your role in life may be the skeptic searcher.
You appear to want someone to provide you with some evidence of a Creator--which is impossible if you are not meant to belief. Remember the Creator could make everyone belief if he saw fit. Instead , S/He allows you to choose.
Actually Abraham did meet with him personally according to the Torah ...
Verses:
quote:Genesis 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; Genesis 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, Genesis 18:3 And said, My Lord (adonay i.e. another name for Ha Shem/The Name/God), if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
So God according to the bible did meet Abraham and Jacob had a fight with him which ended in a knee break ... The scriptures call him an angel at first but then Jacob named the place Elbethel because as he said:
Genesis 35:7 And he built there an altar, and called the place Elbethel: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother.
And for these reasons I declare that God appeared unto men in the past but he hasn't appeared to modern men. Why is that? Did God die of old age or did God just loose communication with humanity or does he send humans who cannot be trusted to give us a message from the angel Gabriel (Christian and Muslim faith Gabriel came as a messenger)? Why should I trust a man whom said God appeared unto him or a man that many proclaimed to be God (Y`shua) and without sin?
Jesus didn't proclaim to be without sin right?
Luk 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Luk 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
This is admission that he is not perfect but his so-called father is which is the only one that man should call good!
We know that Jesus didn't think he was god because he said:
Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
So that is admission that he didn't think he was without so-called sin because he didn't think that he was God as he separated himself from God in the scripture directly above.
Mr. Winter please be patient with me because I write long sometimes ...
The last part of the statement above that you made I want to respond to directly because it goes along with me theory (which is all that it is; not an ounce of proof to this).
When you say creator who are you talking about. If it/he/she wants to appear then it will see fit.
Y`shua/Jesus didn't believe that because according to the Grecian Jesus though we were God which direct you to my statement (did we create god or did God create us).
Y`shua/Jesus said:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
But he further said:
Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you
Jesus was saying like many people other then Africans which was adopted from African teachings is "Know Thyself" or "To Thyself be true".
Grumman f6f wrote:
quote:While I agree there is no way to know of the existence of God in the way of observable evidence I do believe, as an article of faith, from a non-christian perspective, or any other persuausion for that matter, that there is something substantive to the idea of a God as a reality simply because it is an issue that has refused to go away after the past few thousand years. My comedic side tells me ''cavemen'' had a lot better things to do with their time than sit 'round a campfire watching a volcano belch flame and smoke and say there goes God again, acting up, or that thunderstorms or lightning wouldn't be recognized for what they are as natural phenomena.
On this particular phrase that you wrote I have to say or even write what John Henrik Clarke wrote, but because I don't know where the original quote is on my computer I will paraphrase:
"Man has always known that their was a force greater then him and he knew it was the spirit, but then someone created the word God. Then someone said my God is greater then your. Then someone said, I have the truth because I have the true God, but then someone said my God is greater then yours and I have the truth ... thus the beginning of the religious wars"
It is not a question of was there something that started the Laws of Motion to activate but the question is ... did it start by itself or didn't something provoke it to move. For this reason I do believe there is a God! Wow, I said it ... without movement or forced movement ... a rock will sit in the same place for eternity so thus something had to push or start the Laws of Motion ...
Yet that which started the laws of motion ... is it the same deity of the newly found Judaic, Islam or Christian religion? I think not because this movement started at least 15 million to 15 billion years ago ...
I speak the way that I speak because I reject mans traditions, but I'm not an atheist either. If there is a so-called deity that started the laws of movement or Motion then who is it and why haven't it made itself appear for a few thousand years. Or did motion create itself and to this day the Universe is still expanding ... what is the real answer?
The 3 religions I named do not have that answer ... tho Islam knows a lot about Astrology or Astronomy. So does Judaism as they believe Abram/Ibram come from Ur of the Chaldess which means "City of Astrologers".
[quote]
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
R U 2 religious wrote:
''Yet that which started the laws of motion ... is it the same deity of the newly found Judaic, Islam or Christian religion? I think not because this movement started at least 15 million to 15 billion years ago ...''
Sho' you right on this one.
''If there is a so-called deity that started the laws of movement or Motion then who is it and why haven't it made itself appear for a few thousand years. Or did motion create itself and to this day the Universe is still expanding ... what is the real answer?''
I sure do see your frustration here because I've said the same thing over the years, as have undoubtedly many tens of thousands of others. However, the ''making an appearance'' aspect doesn't bother me; that's another one of those unknowables that can be attributed to man. That said, many believers cling to the idea of a return; some almost to the point of damning others for having doubts about it.
What I do find interesting though is the seemingly innate belief of multitudes of people who swear by a deity or deities of some kind. Some will kill you just for mentioning that deity in a disparaging light and if I was in another part of the world I would be torched for my special brand of understanding, which is interesting in itself because every time I open my mouth to talk about this stuff ''blasphemy'' is par for the course. And I don't know why I feel the way I do on these matters, I just do.
I've carried this basic idea of a ''we are them'' disposition since I was in my middle twenties (65 now) but didn't really do any ''serious'' thinking until I got much older. With this attitude, this feeling, is there something to the God gene after all? I don't have a clue. Something drives people to see diferently, even looking at the same material. Case in point, most evolutionary biologists, seemingly, can't understand why religious folks need to have a deity of some kind to explain this idea scientists call natural forces. Well, as an outsider, meaning I don't know why and how some can say natural forces when those forces, at least as it pertains to humans, are intelligent to begin with, thus making it not natural in my opinion, I can't get it through my head how it can be said, as per Richard Dawkins, that it is a delusion to believe in a deity or even a whole bunch of them. What I'm saying here is what difference should it make if all evolutionary biologists believed in a deity as a matter of course. Why does it have to be a contentious topic. Can't we say yes, there is intelligent design behind the mechanism of evolution to see it through. After all, there are hominid-type fossils all over the place. So what's a creationist to do with this, sweep it under the rug. I think not. And given my radical ideas on this particular aspect in the sense of the deities not being as super as we would like to think, can it be the hominid fossils are trial and error... kind of like an engineer designing a newer model television but after the first production model realizes there should have been filters in place to correct moiré patterns (lines in a jacket, wire fence diamond shapes that move). But this radical idea certainly separates me from a lot of people in that the human idea of a deity who has all the ''omnis tacked on as descriptors of this deity can't possibly be the one in the Old Testament and other religions.This is so farfetched they moan, all the while traveling in the dark, drenched in their own silent insecurities when someone like me has the audacity to even bring this up and make them think just a little. To this I say, to educated and uneducated alike, I have no insecurities, I have been free all my life. I owe no explanation why I see this topic the way I do. Ockham's razor works just fine for me here. I don't flail my arms and stomp my feet to make others see it. This is my truth. What others can't see is a personal decision brought on by the inner workings of their mind; yet it may not be theirs after all.
Finally, I've long said the creator/s of the universe, if any, and I do find this one very difficult to wrap myself around simply because I don't have the requisite attitude to ''see'' it, surely must have more important things to do than run to and fro on the earth wondering what's up with the latest creators' creation trying to fgure out just what it is humankind can't get right, as if there is any right to be had from the Deities' perspective of creation anyway.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
You make many points in your post. They provide keen insight into who we are.
The discussion of Jessus' comments are very important. It is written:
Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
This is the most important lesson we should learn that is that no human is better than any other human including Jesus and Muhammad. This was made clear by Muhammad also, who claimed that we should believe in all the prophets. Jesus informs us that the Creator is our Father and our God.
Although Jesus made it clear we were all the same, his followers teach that Jesus is not only the Son of God, but among some sects God Himself. Given the teachings of Jesus this idea was manufactured by human beings , just like you and me.
Motion has nothing to do with Creation on this plane, breath does. Spirit or breath is the creative principle on this plane. As a result, Creation was set in motion with the word=breath. Thus we read:
quote:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was a formless void....God said,"Let there be light" and there was light.... God said,"Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth.
God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them" (Gen 1:1-26).
This statement explains why the Grecians said humans were gods, they probably reached this conclusion due to Gen.1:25, where it is noted that we are made in the image of God. This phrase makes it obvious that humans did not create God.
As I said before, no human has seen the Creator on this plane. For example, in the chapter and verse you mention regarding Abraham, it is made clear that Abraham was visited by three men, probably angels. The same three men later visited Lot.
Just because Abraham addressed them as Lord did not mean they were god. Lord is simply a form of address given people we respect deeply or royals like the royalty in Britain.
Secondly, Jacob did not see god. In 32:35 we read:
"And there was one that wrestled with him [Jacob] until daybreak who, seeing that he could not master him, struck him in the socket..." Granted he named the city where this occurned Piniel, there is no mention of god interacting with him until later. As a result, it is agreed by most Bible scholars that this individual was an angel.
When God appeared to Jacob, he told him again that his name was Isreal (Gen.35:10). He also declared that his name was El-Shaddai 'God Almighty". If the Creator is God Almighty how could Jabob have been able to bind him with his human powers.
.
quote:Originally posted by R U 2 religious: Mr. Clyde Winter whom I respect tho many may ask why .. but I do respect him thus I will respond so that I can collab with you on this topic....
Winters wrote:
[QUOTE]First of all no one has ever met the Creator. Moses saw him in the form of a firey bush. The other prophets only recieved information via Angels, i.e., Gabriel, Ariel and etc. So even if someone told you they had spoken to the Creator you probably wouldn't believe them unless you wanted to believe.
Everything is ying and yang. As a result, your role in life may be the skeptic searcher.
You appear to want someone to provide you with some evidence of a Creator--which is impossible if you are not meant to belief. Remember the Creator could make everyone belief if he saw fit. Instead , S/He allows you to choose.
Actually Abraham did meet with him personally according to the Torah ...
Verses:
quote:Genesis 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; Genesis 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, Genesis 18:3 And said, My Lord (adonay i.e. another name for Ha Shem/The Name/God), if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
So God according to the bible did meet Abraham and Jacob had a fight with him which ended in a knee break ... The scriptures call him an angel at first but then Jacob named the place Elbethel because as he said:
Genesis 35:7 And he built there an altar, and called the place Elbethel: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother.
And for these reasons I declare that God appeared unto men in the past but he hasn't appeared to modern men. Why is that? Did God die of old age or did God just loose communication with humanity or does he send humans who cannot be trusted to give us a message from the angel Gabriel (Christian and Muslim faith Gabriel came as a messenger)? Why should I trust a man whom said God appeared unto him or a man that many proclaimed to be God (Y`shua) and without sin?
Jesus didn't proclaim to be without sin right?
Luk 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Luk 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
This is admission that he is not perfect but his so-called father is which is the only one that man should call good!
We know that Jesus didn't think he was god because he said:
Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
So that is admission that he didn't think he was without so-called sin because he didn't think that he was God as he separated himself from God in the scripture directly above.
Mr. Winter please be patient with me because I write long sometimes ...
The last part of the statement above that you made I want to respond to directly because it goes along with me theory (which is all that it is; not an ounce of proof to this).
When you say creator who are you talking about. If it/he/she wants to appear then it will see fit.
Y`shua/Jesus didn't believe that because according to the Grecian Jesus though we were God which direct you to my statement (did we create god or did God create us).
Y`shua/Jesus said:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
But he further said:
Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you
Jesus was saying like many people other then Africans which was adopted from African teachings is "Know Thyself" or "To Thyself be true".
Grumman f6f wrote:
quote:While I agree there is no way to know of the existence of God in the way of observable evidence I do believe, as an article of faith, from a non-christian perspective, or any other persuausion for that matter, that there is something substantive to the idea of a God as a reality simply because it is an issue that has refused to go away after the past few thousand years. My comedic side tells me ''cavemen'' had a lot better things to do with their time than sit 'round a campfire watching a volcano belch flame and smoke and say there goes God again, acting up, or that thunderstorms or lightning wouldn't be recognized for what they are as natural phenomena.
On this particular phrase that you wrote I have to say or even write what John Henrik Clarke wrote, but because I don't know where the original quote is on my computer I will paraphrase:
"Man has always known that their was a force greater then him and he knew it was the spirit, but then someone created the word God. Then someone said my God is greater then your. Then someone said, I have the truth because I have the true God, but then someone said my God is greater then yours and I have the truth ... thus the beginning of the religious wars"
It is not a question of was there something that started the Laws of Motion to activate but the question is ... did it start by itself or didn't something provoke it to move. For this reason I do believe there is a God! Wow, I said it ... without movement or forced movement ... a rock will sit in the same place for eternity so thus something had to push or start the Laws of Motion ...
Yet that which started the laws of motion ... is it the same deity of the newly found Judaic, Islam or Christian religion? I think not because this movement started at least 15 million to 15 billion years ago ...
I speak the way that I speak because I reject mans traditions, but I'm not an atheist either. If there is a so-called deity that started the laws of movement or Motion then who is it and why haven't it made itself appear for a few thousand years. Or did motion create itself and to this day the Universe is still expanding ... what is the real answer?
The 3 religions I named do not have that answer ... tho Islam knows a lot about Astrology or Astronomy. So does Judaism as they believe Abram/Ibram come from Ur of the Chaldess which means "City of Astrologers".
quote:
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Where specifically?
Right here:
quote:Djehuti wrote By these rules, viruses are not actually alive but are just extra-cellular 'stuff' whose very existence is unfortunately detrimental to the cells they infect. They are in biological limbo in the sense that they are actually alive but at the same time not truely 'dead'.
quote:That would be incorrect. They do replicate, albeit inside host cells, which is "reproduction" of the virus. The ability to biologically replicate, is what constitutes reproduction.
What you fail to see, it seems, is that viruses contain their *own* genetic codes; without it, they wouldn't be able to use host cells to replicate in the first place.
According to the rules of biological life. An organism reproduces using its own genetic code as well as it's own material. In that case, it fails the rule because they use host cells to replicate and cannot replicate on their own. They also cannot respond to stimuli, they do not metabolize or perform any other activity besides replication. Therefore they are not organsims and not truly 'alive'.
quote:The majority scientific consensus of the "Big Bang theorey" suggests otherwise, that the universe has a starting point, and therefore has a beginning. What evidence does any other theorey have against this consensus, about what the universe looked like before being this dense point that then exploded to what we see today as the "Universe"?
That the universe has a begging is a given. The question is was the universe always in that state. We have the theory of total entropy which states the universe will come to an end when all the energy is expended into heat. But then recent findings suggest the presence of anti-energy will jump-start the universe again in the form of cosmic condensation back into a point singularity.
Posted by sam p (Member # 11774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: R U 2 religious wrote:
''Yet that which started the laws of motion ... is it the same deity of the newly found Judaic, Islam or Christian religion? I think not because this movement started at least 15 million to 15 billion years ago ...''
Sho' you right on this one.
''If there is a so-called deity that started the laws of movement or Motion then who is it and why haven't it made itself appear for a few thousand years. Or did motion create itself and to this day the Universe is still expanding ... what is the real answer?''
I sure do see your frustration here because I've said the same thing over the years, as have undoubtedly many tens of thousands of others. However, the ''making an appearance'' aspect doesn't bother me; that's another one of those unknowables that can be attributed to man. That said, many believers cling to the idea of a return; some almost to the point of damning others for having doubts about it.
What I do find interesting though is the seemingly innate belief of multitudes of people who swear by a deity or deities of some kind. Some will kill you just for mentioning that deity in a disparaging light and if I was in another part of the world I would be torched for my special brand of understanding, which is interesting in itself because every time I open my mouth to talk about this stuff ''blasphemy'' is par for the course. And I don't know why I feel the way I do on these matters, I just do.
I've carried this basic idea of a ''we are them'' disposition since I was in my middle twenties (65 now) but didn't really do any ''serious'' thinking until I got much older. With this attitude, this feeling, is there something to the God gene after all? I don't have a clue. Something drives people to see diferently, even looking at the same material. Case in point, most evolutionary biologists, seemingly, can't understand why religious folks need to have a deity of some kind to explain this idea scientists call natural forces. Well, as an outsider, meaning I don't know why and how some can say natural forces when those forces, at least as it pertains to humans, are intelligent to begin with, thus making it not natural in my opinion, I can't get it through my head how it can be said, as per Richard Dawkins, that it is a delusion to believe in a deity or even a whole bunch of them. What I'm saying here is what difference should it make if all evolutionary biologists believed in a deity as a matter of course. Why does it have to be a contentious topic. Can't we say yes, there is intelligent design behind the mechanism of evolution to see it through. After all, there are hominid-type fossils all over the place. So what's a creationist to do with this, sweep it under the rug. I think not. And given my radical ideas on this particular aspect in the sense of the deities not being as super as we would like to think, can it be the hominid fossils are trial and error... kind of like an engineer designing a newer model television but after the first production model realizes there should have been filters in place to correct moiré patterns (lines in a jacket, wire fence diamond shapes that move). But this radical idea certainly separates me from a lot of people in that the human idea of a deity who has all the ''omnis tacked on as descriptors of this deity can't possibly be the one in the Old Testament and other religions.This is so farfetched they moan, all the while traveling in the dark, drenched in their own silent insecurities when someone like me has the audacity to even bring this up and make them think just a little. To this I say, to educated and uneducated alike, I have no insecurities, I have been free all my life. I owe no explanation why I see this topic the way I do. Ockham's razor works just fine for me here. I don't flail my arms and stomp my feet to make others see it. This is my truth. What others can't see is a personal decision brought on by the inner workings of their mind; yet it may not be theirs after all.
Finally, I've long said the creator/s of the universe, if any, and I do find this one very difficult to wrap myself around simply because I don't have the requisite attitude to ''see'' it, surely must have more important things to do than run to and fro on the earth wondering what's up with the latest creators' creation trying to fgure out just what it is humankind can't get right, as if there is any right to be had from the Deities' perspective of creation anyway.
I like your post and feel compelled to respond.
People are quick to jump for answers and this is simply human nature. Long ago their superstition led them to explain existence in terms of dieties but as our knowledge increases the basis for the old beliefs start to look silly or at best highly questionable. This doesn't mean the beliefs are necessarily wrong just the reasons for them.
People today are no different. We still want answers and we want them to dovetail with what we think we know. Since we don't really know much of anything we turn to the process which underlies our technology as a sort of "god". This is a tremendous error and will lead us even further astray than mystical answers. If science is our religion and we created science then for practical purposes we ourselves are God. It was this sort of thinking that led to the Barbarism practice by Mengele or Pol Pot.
Science can never give us the answers to the important questions because the universe is chaotic and this chaos always shows up in long term or small scale events. There will always be the unforeseen as well as a constant revision of mans understanding of pysical law. Yes, we'll probably learn a great deal more about our past and the likely disposition of the universe but we'll be able to predict precious little along the way.
This isn't to say that scince is worthless. It provides us with the neat little magic tricks which we call technology. It gives us a lot of understanding of controlled events and allows us to see a little way into more foreseeable futures. Science, philosophy, math and logic form excellent ways to analyize and view reality but it should not be mistaken for reality itself.
We are left to determine for ourselves why things are as they are. We can develope cogent theories for almost anything but it seems the more we understand in the context of these theories the more we see the universe as a sort of intelligent thing. Yes, we are probably just projecting our own selves into the cosmos and recognizing the reflection but this occurs at all levels of consciousness to at least a small degree in all probability. Look at the awe in a baby's face as it masters a new talent or sees some wondrous sight for the first time. It's difficult to believe that this isn't really the source for our belief in a creator or a higher power; consciousness, and of course, a means to express it.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Sam p
quote:
This isn't to say that scince is worthless. It provides us with the neat little magic tricks which we call technology. It gives us a lot of understanding of controlled events and allows us to see a little way into more foreseeable futures. Science, philosophy, math and logic form excellent ways to analyize and view reality but it should not be mistaken for reality itself.
Excellent statement.
.
Posted by SaddenedAfrican (Member # 14348) on :
Imagine a transient life form that lives four seconds and its over.
1.2.3.4
Humanity is that four-second transient being barely grasping enormity of infinitude and an omnipotent Creator.
(were you a god) How much of your intelligence can you share to that short-lived being?
You could give the miserly lived being a ‘Hello’ and ‘Love You’, before it is dead.(The ‘Hello’ and ‘Love You’, represents revelations, miracles, religions and faiths.)
In the afterlife, we finally understand everything intended by our creation, since there, we join infinity.
Interesting Topic, and excellent contributions.
I just reread some of AlTakruris and Dr.Winters posts. You both are insightful men!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Where specifically?
Right here:
quote:Djehuti wrote
By these rules, viruses are not actually alive but are just extra-cellular 'stuff' whose very existence is unfortunately detrimental to the cells they infect. They are in biological limbo in the sense that they are actually alive but at the same time not truely 'dead'.
Good then, because that throws your claim that they are non-living right out of the window; they are "borderline". Your *conclusion* of what viruses constitute contradicts with what you're acknowledging above.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:That would be incorrect. They do replicate, albeit inside host cells, which is "reproduction" of the virus. The ability to biologically replicate, is what constitutes reproduction.
What you fail to see, it seems, is that viruses contain their *own* genetic codes; without it, they wouldn't be able to use host cells to replicate in the first place.
According to the rules of biological life. An organism reproduces using its own genetic code as well as it's own material. In that case, it fails the rule because they use host cells to replicate and cannot replicate on their own.
Not really. "Reproduction" in biology, is the capacity to biologically replicate or generate individuals of the same kind, sexually or asexualy. Viruses fit this definition, when they get a host cell. This is one of the aspects that allows viruses to tread into the living world.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
They also cannot respond to stimuli, they do not metabolize or perform any other activity besides replication. Therefore they are not organsims and not truly 'alive'.
On the other hand, they do adapt, grow and spread with the help of host cells. These traits place them in the territory of living organisms. Your claim that they are not living organisms, is what I've called out as being not supported scientifically.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:The majority scientific consensus of the "Big Bang theorey" suggests otherwise, that the universe has a starting point, and therefore has a beginning. What evidence does any other theorey have against this consensus, about what the universe looked like before being this dense point that then exploded to what we see today as the "Universe"?
That the universe has a begging is a given.
Not according to your cited "loop" theorey, which was the point of contention.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The question is was the universe always in that state. We have the theory of total entropy which states the universe will come to an end when all the energy is expended into heat. But then recent findings suggest the presence of anti-energy will jump-start the universe again in the form of cosmic condensation back into a point singularity.
The question from me is and was; what evidence do you have, with regards to the nature of the universe *before* being the dense point that exploded? According to the Big Bang theorey, this dense state marks the Universe's beginning. If the universe is expanding, then it is obviously not attempting to compress back into the unstable dense point. And if as you acknowledged, that the universe "will come to an end", then it cannot come back.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Maybe spiral for four dimensionals more so than linear or circular. With linearly there's progressive non-repetative movement. Were time circular events would have to repeat themselves endlessly.
Any beings of more than four dimensions can intersect any point of time be it past or future.
The Infinite Dimensional conceives all times at once.
Yes, time too is a creation. The Creator exists outside of time.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We have been conditioned to believe that time is linear. Past-->Present--> Future. This is false to me. I believe that time is a circle and you can jump in at anytime.
It has to be a circle or how else can some people claim to see the future.
As a result, I believe that when we decide to play a role in the Creator's great Book, we can jump into to any period of time, due to the fact that time Just Is. Time probably does not exist where we came from, it is a phenomena that is necessary for existence on this plane.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
In Hebrew cosmogony there are orders of angels. Ishiym (men) is one of these orders. Angel, in general, just means messenger (malakhiym translates as angels or messengers pending the context.
In Hebrew, adon, means lord just like in lord and lady. To address someone as adon is just the same as calling a man mister or sir. But see the text for which Hebrew word is actually used where, and in reference to whom. In this instance adoni is simply milord.
To understand the Ya`aqob wrestling the angel passage requires knowing his whole story. Long story short, Ya`aqob was at a crossroads in his life and was wrestling with his conscience over past deeds that would color an imminent, possibly retributive, event about to occur that would effect his entire nuclear family/household. He suffered a midnight anxiety/panic attack which due to its intensity resulted in a physical debility.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: As I said before, no human has seen the Creator on this plane. For example, in the chapter and verse you mention regarding Abraham, it is made clear that Abraham was visited by three men, probably angels. The same three men later visited Lot.
In the afterlife, we finally understand everything intended by our creation, since there, we join infinity.
Interesting Topic, and excellent contributions.
I just reread some of AlTakruris and Dr.Winters posts. You both are insightful men!
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Player 13: I can only give you my opinion...
I didn't quote your entire post to save space. I often find atheist/religion threads amusing. Natural disasters are one thing, but you can't blame God (and I'm speaking in general...not about any particular deity) for Man's wars. Atheists often-times pose question they know can't be answered and watch relgious people bend their minds in an attempt to answer it instead of just saying the obvious...which is they don't know.
Questions like..."if God is perfect, then why did he create Human's with faults?" The REAL answer is nobody knows. But I'm not going to pretend I know the mind of God either.
Another common argument against religion are the various relgiously inspired wars that have taken place in the name of a said God. Again, this is Man's perversion of written texts. Most texts like the Bible or Quran were written by oppressed or disadvantaged peoples and portray their belief in a better world. Which is why things like the Bible in their natural state are very positive and moralistic (like don't steal, etc, etc). It's only when Men get ahold of things that they twist the words of Holy texts to agree with their crooked and unholy beliefs. Things like Ham's Curse, the Crusades (which like most things was political and economic before it was religious). What people don't realize is that religion is often-times a secondary excuse for something and not the primary reasoning behind the said event.
To not believe in any kind of higher being is to believe that Humanity is the pinnacle of all things right or wrong. And that is simply not realistic or probable. Hell, there could be ET's that could be considered higher beings because they would be more advanced than we are (seriously). But I don't believe God is an alien...lol. I believe God is a being independent of all things. I don't know how he works or anything of that nature so don't ask. What I'm talking about is not a specific religion bogged down by a belief system. I'm speaking from a purely spiritual point of view.
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
"What evolutionary advantage this may convey (i.e. the gene), or what advantageous effect it is a side effect of, are questions that are yet to be fully explored. However, Dr. Hamer has theorized that self-transcendence makes people more optimistic, which makes them healthier and likely to have more children."
Considering its advantages, why does it show up in low frequencies among people? Surely there are other mechanisms the brain can use to elicit feelings of positivity or optimism anyway, so why a God gene...?
*
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Sundiata says: ''Considering its advantages, why does it show up in low frequencies among people? Surely there are other mechanisms the brain can use to elicit feelings of positivity or optimism anyway, so why a God gene...?''
Just as I said, my ''is there a God gene?'' was spoken from a position of doubt. My doubt. It may be there, maybe it isn't. I don't know either.
Seems kind of weird we're here talking about this stuff once you realize that everything humanity stands for can be found in ''nothing more'' than seminal fluid. Yet we all offer ideas and thoughts based on the results of that same, yet different fluid. Strange isn't it. So exactly where does the truth lie.
King_Scorpion says:
''Hell, there could be ET's that could be considered higher beings because they would be more advanced than we are (seriously). But I don't believe God is an alien...lol. I believe God is a being independent of all things.''
If God isn't earthbound then by definition He will be extraterrestrial even if He is ''independent of all things.''
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Sundiata says: ''Considering its advantages, why does it show up in low frequencies among people? Surely there are other mechanisms the brain can use to elicit feelings of positivity or optimism anyway, so why a God gene...?''
Just as I said, my ''is there a God gene?'' was spoken from a position of doubt. My doubt. It may be there, maybe it isn't. I don't know either.
Seems kind of weird we're here talking about this stuff once you realize that everything humanity stands for can be found in ''nothing more'' than seminal fluid. Yet we all offer ideas and thoughts based on the results of that same, yet different fluid. Strange isn't it. So exactly where does the truth lie.
King_Scorpion says:
''Hell, there could be ET's that could be considered higher beings because they would be more advanced than we are (seriously). But I don't believe God is an alien...lol. I believe God is a being independent of all things.''
If God isn't earthbound then by definition He will be extraterrestrial even if He is ''independent of all things.''
God, in the traditional sense, is not a being at all. ET's would be considered intellectual beings with physical and mental limits.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Good then, because that throws your claim that they are non-living right out of the window; they are "borderline". Your *conclusion* of what viruses constitute contradicts with what you're acknowledging above.
I said that biologically speaking they are nonliving. But again, 'living' can imply many other thing so is a matter of semantics. The fact that they are mobile and perform certain activities is one argument of living.
quote:Not really. "Reproduction" in biology, is the capacity to biologically replicate or generate individuals of the same kind, sexually or asexualy. Viruses fit this definition, when they get a host cell. This is one of the aspects that allows viruses to tread into the living world.
According to the rules of biology an organism must be able to reproduce using entirely its own genetic code as well as its own organic materials. Viruses fail in this regard as they use the genetic code and materials of the host cell.
quote:On the other hand, they do adapt, grow and spread with the help of host cells. These traits place them in the territory of living organisms. Your claim that they are not living organisms, is what I've called out as being not supported scientifically.
Viruses do not grow but remain the same size from the moment they are constructed. Adaptation is the only rule they truly follow but even then this adaptation is solely the result of random mutation of DNA usually in the genes of capsule protein surface.
quote:Not according to your cited "loop" theorey, which was the point of contention.[/qb]
Yes, again according to the theory the universe has no specific or initial beginning and no specific or terminal end.
quote:The question from me is and was; what evidence do you have, with regards to the nature of the universe *before* being the dense point that exploded? According to the Big Bang theorey, this dense state marks the Universe's beginning. If the universe is expanding, then it is obviously not attempting to compress back into the unstable dense point. And if as you acknowledged, that the universe "will come to an end", then it cannot come back.
Dude, I'm not the physicists who postulated the theory. I'm just repeating what I've read from their works. You've heard of the theory that the entire universe will come into totall entropy where all the energy is expended or loss in the form of heat. There's a new theory which states anti-energy will condense everything again. Actually it's more of a hypothesis to be precise since it is so new and of course we have no way of testing.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
King -Scorpion wrote:
''God, in the traditional sense, is not a being at all. ET's would be considered intellectual beings with physical and mental limits.''
I would think at some point God would have some limited mental and physical attributes because there is no way of knowing which one is being discussed; the ''who came before who'' conundrum. If the Old Testament Deity is being discussed then there are limitations on who he is. The ''traditional sense'' merely keeps God as something that can't be discussed thereby keeping the mystery intact. I'm just trying to understand how it can be determined God is traditional, when man sets the parameters for that description. If man does set the parameters for God then he can't be talking about the God/s in the Bible who seems to have limitations that we can see. In other words there is no sense of awe that would let me know these guys are truly beyond limits of understanding. Now there may be a Deity somewhere in the universe who can actually live up to the traditional sense but I don't believe it is the one we are familiar with.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Good then, because that throws your claim that they are non-living right out of the window; they are "borderline". Your *conclusion* of what viruses constitute contradicts with what you're acknowledging above.
I said that biologically speaking they are nonliving.
Makes no sense. Was it not biology that we were discussing? So, you were under the impression that when you said this:
They are in biological limbo in the sense that they are actually alive but at the same time not truely 'dead'. - Djehuti
..., that you weren't discussing biology?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
But again, 'living' can imply many other thing so is a matter of semantics. The fact that they are mobile and perform certain activities is one argument of living.
No semantics involved here, but your awkward gymnastics from saying that you presumably acknowlege that viruses are 'borderline', a term you never used per se but proclaim to acknowledge the fact, to saying a contradictory thing such as this:
biologically speaking they are nonliving - Djehuti.
What is a matter of semantics between saying viruses are "borderline" to the non-living and the living world, and "that they are non-living"? Any average thinking person can clearly see the distinction between the two claims.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Not really. "Reproduction" in biology, is the capacity to biologically replicate or generate individuals of the same kind, sexually or asexualy. Viruses fit this definition, when they get a host cell. This is one of the aspects that allows viruses to tread into the living world.
According to the rules of biology an organism must be able to reproduce using entirely its own genetic code as well as its own organic materials.
No such rule exists in biological definition of reproduction. It is a figment of your imagination.
And in any case, the virus not only uses its genetic instructions to reproduce more of its own kind, but uses its available "organic materials" to get into the cell and penetrate the nucleus. Without this capacity, it wouldn't be able to reproduce.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:On the other hand, they do adapt, grow and spread with the help of host cells. These traits place them in the territory of living organisms. Your claim that they are not living organisms, is what I've called out as being not supported scientifically.
Viruses do not grow
Again, this would be the matter of your own interpretation of what constitutes viral growth.
Growth of bacteriophages:
a. Lytic growth (ex: bacteriophage T4, animal and plant viruses infect through a similar set of steps)
Lytic Cycle: Life cycle that culminates with the host cell bursting and releasing virions.
(1) Adsorption: binding to a specific component of the host cell surface (receptor).
(2) Penetration: injection of viral nucleic acid into the host cell cytoplasm by passage through the hollow tail tube (due to syringe action of the contractile sheath).
(3) Reproduction of viral components: protein synthesis and nucleic acid replication using mostly host cell machinery.
(4) Assembly of viral components into intact viral particles.
(5) Release through lysis of the host cell (an alternative used by some viruses is extrusion through the host cell membrane, doesn't necessarily kill the cell).
(6) During lytic growth, a single bacteriophage particle infecting a bacterial cell can typically produce 50-200 progeny in 30-40 minutes.
b. Lysogenic growth (ex: E. coli bacteriophage l)
(1) adsorption
(2) penetration
(3) Integration of the viral DNA into the bacterial chromosome, where it is carried as a “silent” genetic element (prophage).
(4) However, the potential for lytic growth remains.
(5) Environmental stress (UV light, exposure to DNA-damaging chemicals, etc.) triggers excision of the viral DNA from the bacterial chromosome and the resumption of lytic growth.
(6) Only some, not all, phages are capable of lysogenic growth.
c. Lytic growth can be thought of as a “hit and run” strategy for viral reproduction and lysogenic growth as a “playing the waiting game” strategy.
Growth of animal viruses
a. Virus multiplication is similar to bacteriophage lytic growth (uncoating during phagacytosis versus injection, some lytic and others bud out from the cell (enveloped) => persistent infection (may not kill cell, but cell not function normally, other effects like surface enzymes that lyse red blood cells and immune system reacts to cell).
b. latent infection - delay between first infection and appearance of symptoms.
but remain the same size from the moment they are constructed.
See above and learn.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Adaptation is the only rule they truly follow but even then this adaptation is solely the result of random mutation of DNA usually in the genes of capsule protein surface.
False. It isn't the only rule. They contain their own genetic material, replicate (reproduce), grow and spread, for which it cannot be overemphasized, that a host cell is necessary to assist them to do so.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Not according to your cited "loop" theorey, which was the point of contention.
Yes, again according to the theory the universe has no specific or initial beginning and no specific or terminal end.
It does you no good to repeat; just answering the question that follows, is adequate enough. These sort of repetitions are simply spams.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:The question from me is and was; what evidence do you have, with regards to the nature of the universe *before* being the dense point that exploded? According to the Big Bang theorey, this dense state marks the Universe's beginning. If the universe is expanding, then it is obviously not attempting to compress back into the unstable dense point. And if as you acknowledged, that the universe "will come to an end", then it cannot come back.
Dude, I'm not the physicists who postulated the theory.
dude, *you* posted the material here. Do you meaninglessly post?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I'm just repeating what I've read from their works. You've heard of the theory that the entire universe will come into totall entropy where all the energy is expended or loss in the form of heat. There's a new theory which states anti-energy will condense everything again. Actually it's more of a hypothesis to be precise since it is so new and of course we have no way of testing.
Well, it is settled then. Your post lacks a coherent thought that can be supported objectively.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
It is really simple. Chances that life originated based on simple organic compounds arranging themselves (under the best situation) into RNA is 10 to the power of 60. That is a number greater than all the atoms in the Universe.
To be an Aetheist requires a great deal more faith than to believe in an entity of energy or of some other unknown substance with the ability to think without the need for an organic body and can move through time and space instantly.
Without struggle there is no improvement. Thus Evil is allowed to exist in order to allow this programming that we are a part of to run its proper course - optimization routines.
We could all just be part of someone or somethings very elaborate computer program.
SIMUNIVERSE.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Osirion
quote:
Without struggle there is no improvement. Thus Evil is allowed to exist in order to allow this programming that we are a part of to run its proper course - optimization routines.
We could all just be part of someone or somethings very elaborate computer program.
SIMUNIVERSE.
Or playing roles on this plane we agreed to play from the great book written by the Creator.
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: No semantics involved here, but your awkward gymnastics from saying that you presumably acknowlege that viruses are 'borderline', a term you never used per se but proclaim to acknowledge the fact, to saying a contradictory thing such as this:
biologically speaking they are nonliving - Djehuti.
What is a matter of semantics between saying viruses are "borderline" to the non-living and the living world, and "that they are non-living"? Any average thinking person can clearly see the distinction between the two claims.
LOL Sorry but I don't engage in "awkward gymnastics". You however seem to have poor reading comprehension. Viruses are technically and officially NOT living organisms. It's as simple as that. The semantics part of them being considered living only comes from the fact that they are active entities. Hence their "borderline" status between life and nonlife. I don't know how many times I have to explain this or if you are the only poster who does not understand this.
quote:No such rule exists in biological definition of reproduction. It is a figment of your imagination.
LOL Nope. The official rules in biology all state that viral replication is not true biological reproduction.
quote:And in any case, the virus not only uses its genetic instructions to reproduce more of its own kind, but uses its available "organic materials" to get into the cell and penetrate the nucleus. Without this capacity, it wouldn't be able to reproduce.
All true biological organisms must be able to reproduce on its own without the genetic or organic material of others for it to be biological reproduction.
quote:Again, this would be the matter of your own interpretation of what constitutes viral growth.
Growth of bacteriophages:
a. Lytic growth (ex: bacteriophage T4, animal and plant viruses infect through a similar set of steps)
Lytic Cycle: Life cycle that culminates with the host cell bursting and releasing virions.
(1) Adsorption: binding to a specific component of the host cell surface (receptor).
(2) Penetration: injection of viral nucleic acid into the host cell cytoplasm by passage through the hollow tail tube (due to syringe action of the contractile sheath).
(3) Reproduction of viral components: protein synthesis and nucleic acid replication using mostly host cell machinery.
(4) Assembly of viral components into intact viral particles.
(5) Release through lysis of the host cell (an alternative used by some viruses is extrusion through the host cell membrane, doesn't necessarily kill the cell).
(6) During lytic growth, a single bacteriophage particle infecting a bacterial cell can typically produce 50-200 progeny in 30-40 minutes.
b. Lysogenic growth (ex: E. coli bacteriophage l)
(1) adsorption
(2) penetration
(3) Integration of the viral DNA into the bacterial chromosome, where it is carried as a “silent” genetic element (prophage).
(4) However, the potential for lytic growth remains.
(5) Environmental stress (UV light, exposure to DNA-damaging chemicals, etc.) triggers excision of the viral DNA from the bacterial chromosome and the resumption of lytic growth.
(6) Only some, not all, phages are capable of lysogenic growth.
c. Lytic growth can be thought of as a “hit and run” strategy for viral reproduction and lysogenic growth as a “playing the waiting game” strategy.
Growth of animal viruses
a. Virus multiplication is similar to bacteriophage lytic growth (uncoating during phagacytosis versus injection, some lytic and others bud out from the cell (enveloped) => persistent infection (may not kill cell, but cell not function normally, other effects like surface enzymes that lyse red blood cells and immune system reacts to cell).
b. latent infection - delay between first infection and appearance of symptoms.
To the sources, yes. To you, NO. Viral growth is NOT the same as biological growth. The sources merely speak of viral development and assembly. They do not grow in size the way biological cells do. Nor do they perform any major, that is metabolic functions.
quote:False. It isn't the only rule. They contain their own genetic material, replicate (reproduce), grow and spread, for which it cannot be overemphasized, that a host cell is necessary to assist them to do so.
Your answer is false; see my above replies.
quote:It does you no good to repeat; just answering the question that follows, is adequate enough. These sort of repetitions are simply spams.
But I thought your questions were already answered. Repeat is what YOU are doing with your questions.
quote:dude, *you* posted the material here. Do you meaninglessly post?
No, but I don't understand why your questions seem so silly. The big bang theory explains how the universe starts or rather forms. Does it explain how it got that way in the first place? No. The theory I presented only states a possible answer to what will happen to the universe once total entropy occurs.
quote:Well, it is settled then. Your post lacks a coherent thought that can be supported objectively.
Nope. Your questions lacks any coherent thought this seems to cause more confusion.
You know 'Mystery', you've been repeating the same questions lately that have already been answered and so I'll have to agree with Rasol that you are just simply one of those folks who argue for the sake of arguing when you disagree with any facts or findings. I will leave it at that.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
No semantics involved here, but your awkward gymnastics from saying that you presumably acknowlege that viruses are 'borderline', a term you never used per se but proclaim to acknowledge the fact, to saying a contradictory thing such as this:
biologically speaking they are nonliving - Djehuti.
What is a matter of semantics between saying viruses are "borderline" to the non-living and the living world, and "that they are non-living"? Any average thinking person can clearly see the distinction between the two claims.
LOL Sorry but I don't engage in "awkward gymnastics". You however seem to have poor reading comprehension.
Demonstrated by what set of citations?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Viruses are technically and officially NOT living organisms. It's as simple as that.
You don't seem to have any sort of intellectual organization. How can you admit that viruses are "borderline" b/n the living and non-living in one breath, then say that they are non-living and that it is a matter of semantics?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The semantics part of them being considered living only comes from the fact that they are active entities.
What is the semantics involved with:
1)Viruses containing their own genetic instructions.
2)Viruses are able to reproduce more of themselves, in a host cell.
3)Viruses grow as exemplified.
4)Viruses do undergo genetic mutations, and hence adaptable to their environment.
To any normal-thinking person, these are concise biological traits that make viruses unmistakably tread into the living world, but what's your excuse for not getting this, and understanding that we are talking about biological traits?
I'll address the rest later, when I get time.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Are viruses alive?
Question: Are viruses living? Kim Michalek
Answer: There is a tremendous debate about this question - scientists do not agree on the answer. Some people consider them to be just a bunch of chemicals. Other people consider them to be living parasites, because they require the metabolic machinery of host cells to survive. But they do reproduce, and they do have genetic material, so many people consider them to be the simplest living organisms. Probably the safest answer is that viruses have both living and nonliving characteristics. Source: BIOLOGY, by Neil Campbell, third edition Ellen Mayo
And viruses are >>alive, although they're dormant most of the time. ... >Viruses are alive in that they evolved from living organisms. ... www.bio.net/bionet/mm/comp-bio/1992-July/000004.html - 5k - Cached - Similar pages
From Djehuti: ''Viruses are technically and officially NOT living organisms.''
And just where is it you think the rebuttal argument is coming from after the above lead off link? You aren't aware of this?: There is a tremendous debate about this question - scientists do not agree on the answer.
How do you reconcile your argument with the posted link above? Your view is specific, other links aren't. Your argument is based on your acceptance of favorable-leaning material. This means you have been ignoring what other scientists say and think about viruses and why they are controversial.
In an attempt to sway the argument Djehuti says this: ''I don't know how many times I have to explain this or if you are the only poster who does not understand this.''
Well the simple answer is you have to get it right yourself to make others see what you see and you can't do that—because of the controversy... just as it's been said all along.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
No semantics involved here, but your awkward gymnastics from saying that you presumably acknowlege that viruses are 'borderline', a term you never used per se but proclaim to acknowledge the fact, to saying a contradictory thing such as this:
biologically speaking they are nonliving - Djehuti.
What is a matter of semantics between saying viruses are "borderline" to the non-living and the living world, and "that they are non-living"? Any average thinking person can clearly see the distinction between the two claims.[/qb]
LOL Sorry but I don't engage in "awkward gymnastics".
You are right, "awkward gymnastics" was a pleasant way of describing your incoherent contradictory statements.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
You however seem to have poor reading comprehension.
as examplified by citaton(s)....?
However, I know what you seem to have...a poor functioning brain, and I can provide a very specific example of this:
1)One minute you admit, upon being pressured by facts contrary to your fantasy, that viruses are borderline b/n the living and non-living, and the next minute you claim that they are non-living.
2)You say that the idea of "borderline between the living & non-living" and that of "non-living" is just a matter of semantics. Even an idiot can make clear distinctions between the two ideas; what's your excuse for not getting it?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Viruses are technically and officially NOT living organisms.
According to which *official scientific consensus*, which ignores all the aforementioned biological facts presented, namely - recap:
1)Viruses containing their own genetic instructions.
2)Viruses are able to reproduce more of themselves, in a host cell.
3)Viruses grow as exemplified.
4)Viruses do undergo genetic mutations, and hence adaptable to their environment.
If the above ain't biology, pray tell then, what is it, Djehuti?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
It's as simple as that.
The only thing simple here, is your mind.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The semantics part of them being considered living only comes from the fact that they are active entities.
How do biological traits translate into semantics. E.g. you are supposed to have an organ called 'the brain'; should it be said that this biological reality is matter of semantics? LOL...or plain & simple, biological reality?
You are going off the cliff, as far the capacity to think is concerned on the ongoing discourse.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Hence their "borderline" status between life and nonlife.
And how does that equate with your conclusion that the "viruses are non-living".
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I don't know how many times I have to explain this or if you are the only poster who does not understand this.
You can spew a nonsense multiple times; it doesn't change the fact it is just that - incoherent rambling on.
But entertain me and call out a poster who doesn't see the contradiction in your acknowledgement of viruses being 'borderline between the living and non-living' and your conclusion that they are "non-living". Maybe this poster has more intellectual prowess than yourself to reconcile the two distinct conclusions.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:No such rule exists in biological definition of reproduction. It is a figment of your imagination.
LOL Nope. The official rules in biology all state that viral replication is not true biological reproduction.
Which organization made this "official" rule, and stated where about virus reproduction.
You are in effect attributing to science, that the idea of replication, as a result of coded genetic instruction, doesn't constitute reproduction. Cite the *scientific* source for this bizarre rationale.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:And in any case, the virus not only uses its genetic instructions to reproduce more of its own kind, but uses its available "organic materials" to get into the cell and penetrate the nucleus. Without this capacity, it wouldn't be able to reproduce.
All true biological organisms must be able to reproduce on its own without the genetic or organic material of others for it to be biological reproduction.
See above; this is a wild daydream of yours, as to what 'reproduction' constitutes in biology; a primary school kid could tell that.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Again, this would be the matter of your own interpretation of what constitutes viral growth.
Growth of bacteriophages:
a. Lytic growth (ex: bacteriophage T4, animal and plant viruses infect through a similar set of steps)
Lytic Cycle: Life cycle that culminates with the host cell bursting and releasing virions.
(1) Adsorption: binding to a specific component of the host cell surface (receptor).
(2) Penetration: injection of viral nucleic acid into the host cell cytoplasm by passage through the hollow tail tube (due to syringe action of the contractile sheath).
(3) Reproduction of viral components: protein synthesis and nucleic acid replication using mostly host cell machinery.
(4) Assembly of viral components into intact viral particles.
(5) Release through lysis of the host cell (an alternative used by some viruses is extrusion through the host cell membrane, doesn't necessarily kill the cell).
(6) During lytic growth, a single bacteriophage particle infecting a bacterial cell can typically produce 50-200 progeny in 30-40 minutes.
b. Lysogenic growth (ex: E. coli bacteriophage l)
(1) adsorption
(2) penetration
(3) Integration of the viral DNA into the bacterial chromosome, where it is carried as a “silent” genetic element (prophage).
(4) However, the potential for lytic growth remains.
(5) Environmental stress (UV light, exposure to DNA-damaging chemicals, etc.) triggers excision of the viral DNA from the bacterial chromosome and the resumption of lytic growth.
(6) Only some, not all, phages are capable of lysogenic growth.
c. Lytic growth can be thought of as a “hit and run” strategy for viral reproduction and lysogenic growth as a “playing the waiting game” strategy.
Growth of animal viruses
a. Virus multiplication is similar to bacteriophage lytic growth (uncoating during phagacytosis versus injection, some lytic and others bud out from the cell (enveloped) => persistent infection (may not kill cell, but cell not function normally, other effects like surface enzymes that lyse red blood cells and immune system reacts to cell).
b. latent infection - delay between first infection and appearance of symptoms.
To the sources, yes. To you, NO. Viral growth is NOT the same as biological growth.
Another incoherent incomplete thought. If the growth that the source is laying out isn't "biological", then what is it?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The sources merely speak of viral development and assembly. They do not grow in size the way biological cells do. Nor do they perform any major, that is metabolic functions.
How is "viral development" not growth, as the source cites, which you seem to be far too ill-intellectually equipped to understand? Genetic instructions are used, not only to replicate the the DNA instruction, but also other physical attributes of the original virus; how does this not constitute "biological" growth, as the citation correctly notes, but you are too ill-intellectually equipped to take home?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:False. It isn't the only rule. They contain their own genetic material, replicate (reproduce), grow and spread, for which it cannot be overemphasized, that a host cell is necessary to assist them to do so.
Your answer is false
Which answer, and why?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
; see my above replies.
You mean the incoherent hodgepodge; you bet.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:It does you no good to repeat; just answering the question that follows, is adequate enough. These sort of repetitions are simply spams.
But I thought your questions were already answered. Repeat is what YOU are doing with your questions.
Where was this answered:
The question from me is and was; what evidence do you have, with regards to the nature of the universe *before* being the dense point that exploded? According to the Big Bang theorey, this dense state marks the Universe's beginning. If the universe is expanding, then it is obviously not attempting to compress back into the unstable dense point. And if as you acknowledged, that the universe "will come to an end", then it cannot come back. - Mystery Solver.
Undoubtedly, those points seek to question your citations about an essentially eternal universe, without a beginning or an end, which goes against basic premise of the majority scientific consensus of the "Big Bang" theorey, that states that the universe indeed has a beginning, and will certainly have an end. You simply responded that you have no idea what your link is about, since you aren't a physicist. Do have a habit of posting things that you don't understand? That's essentially what you're telling me.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:dude, *you* posted the material here. Do you meaninglessly post?
No, but I don't understand why your questions seem so silly.
Because intelligent thinking and questioning thereof is a silly notion to you, perhaps.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The big bang theory explains how the universe starts or rather forms. Does it explain how it got that way in the first place? No.
Does your 'loop' theorey provide a definitive evidence of what the universe looked like before the unstable dense point, that the Big Bang theory calls the universe's beginning? The Big Bang theorey pretty much has come to objective observation that the universe is expanding. Common sense tells us then, it cannot be attempting to go back to the unstable dense form again, if it is trying to attain most efficient energy and move away from instability.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The theory I presented only states a possible answer to what will happen to the universe once total entropy occurs.
You proclaimed that the universe *ends*, only to regenerate itself. It makes no sense for something to *end* and then regenerate itself again. If this is the kind of thought that you're attributing to your citation, then both you and your source are superbly incoherent.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Well, it is settled then. Your post lacks a coherent thought that can be supported objectively.
Nope. Your questions lacks any coherent thought this seems to cause more confusion.
Which specific question lacks coherency, and why? Elaborate. The issue is that you are too thick to get the questions. But hey, I await your elaboration.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
You know 'Mystery', you've been repeating the same questions lately that have already been answered and so I'll have to agree with Rasol that you are just simply one of those folks who argue for the sake of arguing when you disagree with any facts or findings. I will leave it at that.
Jibberish, non-sequitur and logical fallacy. You know Djehuit, you've been dodging the questions and/or not even reading them correctly. This leaves you with the only tool in your bag, that you are well known for using: attack the person, rather than the idea being communicated. So, I'll have to agree with Clyde and others, who claim that you are troll who is only capable of frequently attacking people, and al Takruri about your knack for making premature judgement on things that you rarely understand, especially about people you've never even read. Two can play this game, that you are starting. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Precisely what are you referring to and exactly what do you want?
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: al Takruri about your knack for making premature judgement on things that you rarely understand, especially about people you've never even read. Two can play this game, that you are starting.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Short, very short context indeed.
Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
this thread has gone seriously off topic and I'm still confused
Except, Clyde Winters' words on Jesus' TRUE INTENT (as opposed to the DOCTRINES introduced by Paul the so-called apostle)was very inspiring. I lashed out at some fundamentalist pentecostal Nigerian Christians (who also happen to be members of my family) on Facebook yesterday and they just couldn't come back with anything. I disqualified them with LOGIC. Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote: My question is: WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK ABOUT THIS BOOK'S PROPOSITION THAT THE CREATOR CONCEPT IS A DELUSION??? [/QB]
From my point of view both Athiests and Theists are both full of shi'ite...
Posted by sam p (Member # 11774) on :
quote:From my point of view both Athiests and Theists are both full of shi'ite...
Exactly.
All the big questions are unanswerable and everytime we learn more there is increasing evidence these questions will always be unanswerable.
The little questions are unanswerable as well but this is far less apparent.
All we really have are our senses and a far too short lifespan. We might as well try to make the most of these gifts and enjoy our stay. When we shuffle off the mortal coil we'll mostly be remembered for how we treated other people. If more people lived accordingly it might be a more pleasant world.
If you want to believe in science or religion that's mostly OK but when that belief starts stacking the bodies like cordwood we should ask ourselves if our God(s) would really approve or what physical law says that some people should be murdered.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Nay-sayer asks: My question is: ''WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK ABOUT THIS BOOK'S PROPOSITION THAT THE CREATOR CONCEPT IS A DELUSION???''
Retrace your steps and you will discover this has already been discussed.
However, if one subscribes to this:
''From my point of view both Athiests and Theists are both full of shi'ite...''
...then there will have been no need to even start the topic. With this conversation-stifling attitude all that needed be done is, yes they are full of it or no they are not, in a simple poll form.This way an answer would have been provided to suit everyone, or nearly everyone; plus it would have been easily seen there was no substance to the topic to begin with under that format.
Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Nay-sayer asks: My question is: ''WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK ABOUT THIS BOOK'S PROPOSITION THAT THE CREATOR CONCEPT IS A DELUSION???''
Nay-Sayer didn't ask that question. I did.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
When I posted the below,
quote:Nay-sayer asks: My question is: ''WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK ABOUT THIS BOOK'S PROPOSITION THAT THE CREATOR CONCEPT IS A DELUSION???''
...and Horus said:
''Nay-Sayer didn't ask that question. I did.''
I was aware of this since quoted blocks were used but decided not to look on the other page for the original quote for correction. Since Nay-Sayer used Horus' comment in the form of a question to preface his comments my motivation was the same in replying to Nay-Sayer.
Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
^cool
Posted by Player 13 (Member # 7037) on :
Faith is just that, faith, it cannot be shown to be true or false, we believe what suits us, and there are a great many beliefs to choose from. We can even construct our own personal belief.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
Whenever a topic begins with asking the question of whether a Supreme Being exists, it is naturally going to be confronted from a scientific standpoint and/or a theological one. Hence, the discourse inevitably takes the form of alternating back and forth exchanges from a scientific perspective and theological perspective. It all comes down to when the Universe began, how it began, and thereof life on earth; these are the questions that both science and theology ultimately seek to answer. Clearly, this is what's happening here, and once it's understood, one absolves oneself from confusion.
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
^exactly MS
Posted by R U 2 religious (Member # 4547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: RU2Religious
quote:
If you haven't met the Most High/Allah/E-loh/Y`hwah personally then you can't say anything that would make me truly believe you. In the ancient days according to Grecian documentation of so-called Hebrew scriptures the Most High always showed himself to the people ... Why did he stop now? Do you have a so-called logical explanation for me? Absolutely not! You will say that man is being punished for their evil doings and the Most High cannot look upon evil in its purest form yet the Most High created all things which basically mean he cannot look up its own creation ... lol B/S!!!!
First of all no one has ever met the Creator. Moses saw him in the form of a firey bush. The other prophets only recieved information via Angels, i.e., Gabriel, Ariel and etc. So even if someone told you they had spoken to the Creator you probably wouldn't believe them unless you wanted to believe.
Everything is ying and yang. As a result, your role in life may be the skeptic searcher.
You appear to want someone to provide you with some evidence of a Creator--which is impossible if you are not meant to belief. Remember the Creator could make everyone belief if he saw fit. Instead , S/He allows you to choose.
You have not read what I have written. I said that the Creator punishes no one, because we are only probably playing a role in his Great Book. You probably go to the Movies and have a favorite genre.
The people in the films are play acting but it appears Oh so real. Our life on earth is just as intense.
If we are playing a role in the Great Book, this is all illusion just like the movies we see at the threatre. Therefore what we see as evil is only such due to our ideas about good and bad. Ideas which were partially scripted by the Creator, who allows us the free will to make the scene materialize anyway we see fit.
You only expect punishment from the Creator if you belong to a religious group. It is the leader of your group and co-religiousionists who propagate this reality of punishment.
Many people today no longer believe in a religion. They don't go to temple, mosque or church but--they are good people who treat their neighbor as they would want themselves to be treated and have strong faith in a Creator.
It is the people who belong to religions that are fighting. In many conflicts the combatants belong to different sects of the same religion,e.g., Shia against Sunni in Iran. In the U.S., the Catholics don't like the Baptist, and both groups dispise Jehovah Witnesses.
The only slaves you find are people who believ in religions. People who are enslaved by religions do this on their own. They invent dogmas which have no basis in fact but sound great because it allows the individual to feel part of a group, and nurtures the individual's ego through the belief that the follower of a specific religion is better than members of another religion, and the nonbeliever.
The belief in a Creator makes no one a slave. It is belief in a religion and becoming a member of a group that enslaves you.
.
Actually after rereading your post I found it a very good post ...
My bad ... bad interpretation on my part ... I regress!
Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Whenever a topic begins with asking the question of whether a Supreme Being exists, it is naturally going to be confronted from a scientific standpoint and/or a theological one. Hence, the discourse inevitably takes the form of alternating back and forth exchanges from a scientific perspective and theological perspective. It all comes down to when the Universe began, how it began, and thereof life on earth; these are the questions that both science and theology ultimately seek to answer. Clearly, this is what's happening here, and once it's understood, one absolves oneself from confusion.
Thanks for this Mystery Solver. I find that as time passes, my understanding of these things deepen. I found a video on youtube that throws light on what you said:
i.e."Hence, the discourse inevitably takes the form of alternating back and forth exchanges from a scientific perspective and theological perspective."
Please tell me what you think of the video and what it tries to explain.
Cheers.
Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
I think this pretty much sums it all up:
"The absolute is not within the reach of intellect, For intellect is grounded in the relative." Posted by Player 13 (Member # 7037) on :
There is no objective scientific evidence for the existence of any God. However science is not advanced enough to rule out God completely.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Interesting how you covered your tracks and straddled the fence at the same time.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ What is 'straddling the fence' about the fact that science is unable to prove the non-existence of God?
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
No, Djehuti, science isn't straddling the fence Player 13 is.
Posted by Naga Def Wolofi (Member # 14535) on :
There is no almighty God, that is a concept that has been extrapolated from ancestor and celestial body worship. Anyone that ascribes to the existence of a God has been conditioned by these misinterpretations through out history.
I think it is humorous how the people on this board act like they are scientists, but then believe in a God. A stalemate statement like "science can't disprove God" only goes into the category of the status quo...which would be the belief in a God for the government to control you and leave you helpless and blind.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The belief in God while for the most part being derived from older religious traditions is a personal belief that is moreso based on an individual's spiritual beliefs or rather beliefs in the existence of a spirit(s).
I'm not actually a religious person, but let's say I am open to the idea of a higher power or consciousness. Science is a tool for understanding the universe, but let's be honest we don't know or understand everything in the cosmos yet if we even can.
Posted by Naga Def Wolofi (Member # 14535) on :
^^^This has no bearing on the question of a God existing or not which is the point of contention.
Ignorance of the universe does not justify ignorance of how a God concept came into existence in human history.
By the way what is a "spirit" and what is "spiritual"?
I can't stand people that say "I am not religious, but I am spiritual" <---that is just an ignorant cop out really.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi:
I think it is humorous how the people on this board act like they are scientists, but then believe in a God.
Such an idea is humorous to you, because you unwarrantedly *assumed* that all scientists are atheists.
Plus, one either acknowledges a scientific fact or one doesn't; there is no room for "acting like a scientist".
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Naga Def Wolofi says: ''There is no almighty God, that is a concept that has been extrapolated from ancestor and celestial body worship.''
So how did the extrapolation form itself around the ancestors so much so that it persists to this day? You way out is much to fast, meaning you must have some proof there is no deity given the nature or your specific comment. Your belief leaves you stranded just like everyone else who is curious about it.
''I think it is humorous how the people on this board act like they are scientists, but then believe in a God.''
My issue isn't whether scientists, or some scientists, will be atheistic, that's just another human perception. Mine is how can Naga Def Wolofi allow himself to be hamstrung by a belief he doesn't know to be true either, that is, the non-existence of a Deity.
''A stalemate statement like "science can't disprove God" only goes into the category of the status quo...which would be the belief in a God for the government to control you and leave you helpless and blind.''
Which geographical area of the world are you referring to and how would that government control someone who has a belief in God in the sense they would be ''helpless and blind''? Keep in mind I'm not talking about an individual, or some individuals' strict adherence to religion brought on by themselves in many cases.
''Ignorance of the universe does not justify ignorance of how a God concept came into existence in human history.''
So Naga Def Wolofi says those who accept a Deity shouldn't have arrived at their conclusion because of their ignorance of the universe? I confess ignorance here. How are they related?
''I can't stand people that say "I am not religious, but I am spiritual''
I have questioned spirituality myself, and still do, since the brain is a very complex piece of equipment. Yet someone's spirituality is their truth, not mine. It isn't mine because I don't know it. Having said that why should the concept of spirituality upset you, other than the fact it, well, does (details). A lot of people don't see the need for denominational acceptance but feel in tune with themselves to such a degree they call it spiritual.
''that is just an ignorant cop out really.''
With regards to what?
Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
I think this pretty much still sums it all up:
"The absolute is not within the reach of intellect, For intellect is grounded in the relative."
Posted by Naga Def Wolofi (Member # 14535) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi:
I think it is humorous how the people on this board act like they are scientists, but then believe in a God.
Such an idea is humorous to you, because you unwarrantedly *assumed* that all scientists are atheists.
Plus, one either acknowledges a scientific fact or one doesn't; there is no room for "acting like a scientist".
You impose an "atheist" title onto me or anyone that knows there is no God?
It is scientific fact that a God is not needed for the physical universe nor biology. You need to do your research on that But if you like being a little boy and believing in sky daddies and fairies that make you feel comfortable and special yet expect people to take you serious about "bio-genetics" then HEY be my guest kiddo lol Posted by Naga Def Wolofi (Member # 14535) on :
quote:So how did the extrapolation form itself around the ancestors so much so that it persists to this day? You way out is much to fast, meaning you must have some proof there is no deity given the nature or your specific comment. Your belief leaves you stranded just like everyone else who is curious about it.
It's called law and government reprimand and propaganda. Wars, Swords, Guns, Imperialization, religious books do I need to go on? Why do people still believe in Santa Claus; myths last as long as they are continued to be built by those who have power and interest in them?
Now I will ask you to present evidence of a God, now of course you CAN'T present evidence of a God because there isn't one!!! So was that too hard?!?!
quote:My issue isn't whether scientists, or some scientists, will be atheistic, that's just another human perception. Mine is how can Naga Def Wolofi allow himself to be hamstrung by a belief he doesn't know to be true either, that is, the non-existence of a Deity.
Read the above reply lol. Positive claims warrant the burden of proof.
quote:Which geographical area of the world are you referring to and how would that government control someone who has a belief in God in the sense they would be ''helpless and blind''? Keep in mind I'm not talking about an individual, or some individuals' strict adherence to religion brought on by themselves in many cases.
This is actually a good question. I am referring to Christians and Muslims considering that 5 out of 6 billion people believe in this one deity from the two religion's books. They all believe due to violence and government and if you trace their family history back no matter how far back it goes they were forced to convert one way or another.
quote: So Naga Def Wolofi says those who accept a Deity shouldn't have arrived at their conclusion because of their ignorance of the universe? I confess ignorance here. How are they related?
My reply about the ignorance to the universe was to Djehuty's comment about how our ignorance of the Universe somehow is correlated to the possibility of a God. How are they related? Ask him.
quote:I have questioned spirituality myself, and still do, since the brain is a very complex piece of equipment. Yet someone's spirituality is their truth, not mine. It isn't mine because I don't know it. Having said that why should the concept of spirituality upset you, other than the fact it, well, does (details). A lot of people don't see the need for denominational acceptance but feel in tune with themselves to such a degree they call it spiritual.
I am not here to hear some testimony. I don't see what this has to do with anything I said.
quote:With regards to what?
The fact that spiritual vs religious belief in a God is no different therefore it's appeal to sympathy-like tone bears no merit in the contention.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi:
I think it is humorous how the people on this board act like they are scientists, but then believe in a God.
Such an idea is humorous to you, because you unwarrantedly *assumed* that all scientists are atheists.
Plus, one either acknowledges a scientific fact or one doesn't; there is no room for "acting like a scientist".
You impose an "atheist" title onto me or anyone that knows there is no God?
Take reading lessons - is my advice to you, def lil gal.
quote:
But if you like being a little boy and believing in sky daddies and fairies that make you feel comfortable and special yet expect people to take you serious about "bio-genetics" then HEY be my guest kiddo lol
If you like being a wussy little retard who jabbers on about something nobody has any idea about that makes you feel special and yet expect human beings to understand you, let alone take you seriously, then be my guest def lil munchkin, LOL.
..and please do keep rolling those little beedy red eyes of yours until they pop out, if it is supposed to give you some sort of a demented therapeutic soothing, LOL.
Posted by Naga Def Wolofi (Member # 14535) on :
Somebody got his clit burned. Ok white girl, don't let the big bad black guy scare you about your God delusion Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi:
Somebody got his clit burned.
Yeap, and you'll get some more [burning] done to you, if you don't hop along now to your little hole.
Posted by Player 13 (Member # 7037) on :
All religions have the same basic ingredients, with local variations. Laws are introduced in order to control the population. These laws come from a higher authority that can not be challenged because they come from a source beyond the reach, or question, of man. It keeps the population in check - follow the 'law' or be punished, obey and be rewarded, though not in this life of course which we admit is pretty horrible, but after you die and go to paradise. So go back to your grubby hovel, scratch a living from the dirt, bury your dead and don't bother us again with your stupid questions.
All religion is nothing more than an attempt to control a population by enforcing 'laws' that come from a higher authority that is beyond challenge, It is used as an extremely powerful tool to keep people 'in line'. It is particularly useful in circumstances where the population are under duress, be it poverty, starvation, tyranny. whatever, because then the powers that rule will assure you that you must accept your lot, lead a good life, don't rock the boat and cause any trouble, and you will be rewarded in the next life. The more you apply cold logic to it, the more senseless and totally meaningless the whole charade becomes, except as a means of control.
It can be no coincidence that the countries that have the poorest populations also have strongest and harshest religions.
It is of course just as impossible for me to prove that all religions are false as it is for believers to prove that religions are true.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
When Nag Def Wolofi says to me: ''Now I will ask you to present evidence of a God, now of course you CAN'T present evidence of a God because there isn't one!!! So was that too hard?!?!''
Then he uses this, from me:
''My issue isn't whether scientists, or some scientists, will be atheistic, that's just another human perception. Mine is how can Naga Def Wolofi allow himself to be hamstrung by a belief he doesn't know to be true either, that is, the non-existence of a Deity.''
To say:
''Positive claims warrant the burden of proof.'' all the while not realizing his claim is also a positive statement and requires the same kind of proof. I'm thinking Naga's comprehension suffers because of his predetermined attitude which doesn't allow for open-ended rebuttal for fear he will be asked to present the proof he has for the non-existence of a Deity.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi: ^^^This has no bearing on the question of a God existing or not which is the point of contention.
Ignorance of the universe does not justify ignorance of how a God concept came into existence in human history.
By the way what is a "spirit" and what is "spiritual"?
I can't stand people that say "I am not religious, but I am spiritual" <---that is just an ignorant cop out really.
You fail to realize that the origin of the concept of God is rooted in the concept of spirit since 'God' by definition is a spirit.
If you don't know what a spirit is regardless of if you believe in it or not, then your ignorance is greater than I thought.
A spirit is an entity that exists without physical form, but something more abstract usually energy.
Science has not proven either way that God as a supreme spiritual entity or force in the universe exists.
By the way, what I said was I'm not that religious period. I never said anything about being not religious "but spiritual". If you're going to try to quote me at least do so properly.
Posted by ?-2 (Member # 14571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi:
I think it is humorous how the people on this board act like they are scientists, but then believe in a God.
<<looooool>> which published worldwide study (polling) of scientists are you basing this crack-crap on - to suggest that there are no scientists who believe in a deity?
Posted by ? (Member # 14571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi:
You impose an "atheist" title onto me or anyone that knows there is no God?
hell ya, your disbelief in a god, makes you an atheist par excellence...your ignorance of this common sense, is a wonder onto itself <<lol>>
Posted by ? (Member # 14571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
You fail to realize that the origin of the concept of God is rooted in the concept of spirit since 'God' by definition is a spirit.
If you don't know what a spirit is regardless of if you believe in it or not, then your ignorance is greater than I thought.
huuuuge understatement! you're attempting to get through to some seriously blockheaded godless wacko who isn't even aware of the fact that h/she or it smacks of a freakin' atheist....this no-brainer reality obvioulsy flies over that low heavy brow-ridge skull of his/hers/its...need more be said? I think not!!!!! <<lol>>
Posted by Henu (Member # 13490) on :
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi: Somebody got his clit burned. Ok white girl, don't let the big bad black guy scare you about your God delusion
Naga Def Wolofi, consider this your first warning. Insults are not permitted here and will not be tolerated.
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Young H*O*R*U*S: My question is: WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK ABOUT THIS BOOK'S PROPOSITION THAT THE CREATOR CONCEPT IS A DELUSION???
Perfectly acceptable. How is it that "God" can create the Universe yet only leave behind circumstantial evidence that "He/She/It" is the author of creation?
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Circumstantial evidence convicts a lot of people in a court of law according to what I've read over the years. I guess a translation of circumstantial evidence could be a faith without the religious overtones. So the answer is still, views from the opposing camps; it's a standoff; take your pick.
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I like this analogy of a bullet shot from a gun as being representative of the invisible made visible.
At no time is a bullet made "invisible". High speed cameras have no problems at all photographing a bullet as it travels along it's trajectory...
Posted by Young H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:
quote:Originally posted by Young H*O*R*U*S: My question is: WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK ABOUT THIS BOOK'S PROPOSITION THAT THE CREATOR CONCEPT IS A DELUSION???
Perfectly acceptable. How is it that "God" can create the Universe yet only leave behind circumstantial evidence that "He/She/It" is the author of creation?
"The absolute is not within the reach of intellect, For intellect is grounded in the relative."
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: On the other hand, to argue that the universe just popped up from nowhere at a non-existent time boggles my imagination.
It is equally mind-boggling to accuse some all-powerful 'being' of having created the universe in the absense of any direct evidence...
Posted by Naga Def Wolofi (Member # 14535) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi: ^^^This has no bearing on the question of a God existing or not which is the point of contention.
Ignorance of the universe does not justify ignorance of how a God concept came into existence in human history.
By the way what is a "spirit" and what is "spiritual"?
I can't stand people that say "I am not religious, but I am spiritual" <---that is just an ignorant cop out really.
You fail to realize that the origin of the concept of God is rooted in the concept of spirit since 'God' by definition is a spirit.
If you don't know what a spirit is regardless of if you believe in it or not, then your ignorance is greater than I thought.
A spirit is an entity that exists without physical form, but something more abstract usually energy.
Science has not proven either way that God as a supreme spiritual entity or force in the universe exists.
By the way, what I said was I'm not that religious period. I never said anything about being not religious "but spiritual". If you're going to try to quote me at least do so properly.
Please cite the source that God means spirit. I have seen nothing of the sort.
Please define spirit. The definition you gave is not attested for:
spir·it /ˈspɪrɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spir-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul. 2. the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body. 3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death. 4. conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit. 5. a supernatural, incorporeal being, esp. one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits. 6. a fairy, sprite, or elf. 7. an angel or demon. 8. an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action: the spirit of reform. 9. (initial capital letter) the divine influence as an agency working in the human heart. 10. a divine, inspiring, or animating being or influence. Num. 11:25; Is. 32:15. 11. (initial capital letter) the third person of the Trinity; Holy Spirit. 12. the soul or heart as the seat of feelings or sentiments, or as prompting to action: a man of broken spirit. 13. spirits, feelings or mood with regard to exaltation or depression: low spirits; good spirits. 14. excellent disposition or attitude in terms of vigor, courage, firmness of intent, etc.; mettle: That's the spirit! 15. temper or disposition: meek in spirit. 16. an individual as characterized by a given attitude, disposition, character, action, etc.: A few brave spirits remained to face the danger. 17. the dominant tendency or character of anything: the spirit of the age. 18. vigorous sense of membership in a group: college spirit. 19. the general meaning or intent of a statement, document, etc. (opposed to letter): the spirit of the law. 20. Chemistry. the essence or active principle of a substance as extracted in liquid form, esp. by distillation. 21. Often, spirits. a strong distilled alcoholic liquor. 22. Chiefly British. alcohol. 23. Pharmacology. a solution in alcohol of an essential or volatile principle; essence. 24. any of certain subtle fluids formerly supposed to permeate the body. 25. the Spirit, God. –adjective 26. pertaining to something that works by burning alcoholic spirits: a spirit stove. 27. of or pertaining to spiritualist bodies or activities. –verb (used with object) 28. to animate with fresh ardor or courage; inspirit. 29. to encourage; urge on or stir up, as to action. 30. to carry off mysteriously or secretly (often fol. by away or off): His captors spirited him away. —Idiom 31. out of spirits, in low spirits; depressed: We were feeling out of spirits after so many days of rain.
[Origin: 1200–50; ME (n.) < L spīritus orig., a breathing, equiv. to spīri-, comb. form repr. spīrāre to breathe + -tus suffix of v. action]
Spirit derives from "breathing" because obviously humans didn't fully understand "air" because it isn't seen, but realized or used for breathing. So it makes perfect sense how this "spirit" you speak of has evolved from obfuscation. Spirit is talking about breath or air. The bible says ..and god breathed the breath of life into Adam. I can deal with that, but there is a problem. God and breath are two separate entities in this context and since you said God = spirit and spirit equals breath how then is your summation correct?
Please prove spirit.
Please prove God.
Waiting....
Posted by Naga Def Wolofi (Member # 14535) on :
quote:Originally posted by ?:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
You fail to realize that the origin of the concept of God is rooted in the concept of spirit since 'God' by definition is a spirit.
If you don't know what a spirit is regardless of if you believe in it or not, then your ignorance is greater than I thought.
huuuuge understatement! you're attempting to get through to some seriously blockheaded godless wacko who isn't even aware of the fact that h/she or it smacks of a freakin' atheist....this no-brainer reality obvioulsy flies over that low heavy brow-ridge skull of his/hers/its...need more be said? I think not!!!!! <<lol>>
^^^Funny how this isn't an insult, but I guess this is one of those Afrocentric sites run for and by filthy African Americans like that Mystery clown so they can say what they want while everyone else has to obey Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Actually, I think its an Egyptian or Horner who moderates this list outside dimensions of criticism of anything he does -- like some 2nd or 3rd world elitist or dictator head politico.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
''Filthy African Americans''? Really!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed, I have to ask exactly what 'oh so clean' background do you come from Naga? I assume West African by "Wolofi". Posted by Novel (Member # 14348) on :
Besides Michael Vick, has anybody ever seen a dog fight? This African versus African American is its equivalent. Somebody is benefited and wholly entertained but it is not the African or African American.
Continue entertaining?...
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Naga Def Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by ?:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
You fail to realize that the origin of the concept of God is rooted in the concept of spirit since 'God' by definition is a spirit.
If you don't know what a spirit is regardless of if you believe in it or not, then your ignorance is greater than I thought.
huuuuge understatement! you're attempting to get through to some seriously blockheaded godless wacko who isn't even aware of the fact that h/she or it smacks of a freakin' atheist....this no-brainer reality obvioulsy flies over that low heavy brow-ridge skull of his/hers/its...need more be said? I think not!!!!! <<lol>>
^^^Funny how this isn't an insult, but I guess this is one of those Afrocentric sites run for and by filthy African Americans like that Mystery clown so they can say what they want while everyone else has to obey
Hey lil d*ck sucking pimp, you're obviously too *def* and dense in that thick head for your own good, to see a warning when given one. It's high time your ass is outta here. That's the only thing that will effectively remedy your complete intellectual impedance.
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Novel: Besides Michael Vick, has anybody ever seen a dog fight? This African versus African American is its equivalent. Somebody is benefited and wholly entertained but it is not the African or African American.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Circumstantial evidence convicts a lot of people in a court of law according to what I've read over the years. I guess a translation of circumstantial evidence could be a faith without the religious overtones. So the answer is still, views from the opposing camps; it's a standoff; take your pick.
There is nothing conclusive about circumstantial evidence and I'd bet more people get off than get convicted when confroted by it in a court of law. The only "stand-off" that could possibly exist is that which is between Theists and Atheists. There is absolutely positively no direct evidence whatsoever that supports either POV...
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Don't fall for it cousin.
Neither AA basher guy is of African extraction. It's an old and well known ruse for some Euro to spoof African identity on the 'net and cause dissension between continental and diasporan Africans where there was relative harmony and understanding.
Once again, it's the old Jason and the Golden Fleece thing where he sows the dragon's teeth and they sprout up as warriors. He tosses a stone over their heads and it hits one in the back ranks. That one accuses and pushes the warrior behind him who inadvertantly steps on the foot of the warrior behind him who punches him in the face, and so on until next thing you know all the warriors have slain each other and Jason wins without drawing a sword.
How did it work? Because they were warriors not disciplined soldiers! Be a soldier not a warrior. Don't let a comment against an ethny be an excuse for you to attack the insulter's assumed ethny only to offend someone who's actually of that ethny but harbors none of the ill will of the spoofer. thing
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed, I have to ask exactly what 'oh so clean' background do you come from Naga? I assume West African by "Wolofi".
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
And I will agree there is nothing conclusive about circumstantial evidence in a lot of cases, yet in the absence of eyewitness testimony it comes down to that. That same evidence has convicted and freed some people no doubt.
As noted the standoff is between atheists and theists and as such your 'absolutely positively' has already been addressed in terms of faith-based beliefs from both sides.
However, what is interesting about religion and the belief in a deity ot two or three is the circumstantial aspect itself. This weighs heavily in determining their faith whereas an atheist uses no other circumstance to offer substance to its position other than a simple disbelief and in the process ''steal'' the theists circumstantiality. So, if I had to choose between the two it certainly wouldn't be atheism; I say this without even a hint of what it would take to subscribe to some religiosity. Finally if the two belief systems were in court and had to present circumstantial evidence I'm thinking the judge, after looking at the 'evidence', would ask the atheist where his circumstantial evidence is. After all, the theist would have many cultures around the world to draw circumstantial evidence from and yet the atheist would have none to offer support for his belief other than a mismanagement of the theist's material, which is circumstantiality itself—yet it remains above and beyond what the atheist can offer.
Seen another way the judge would have no alternative but to ask the atheist to adopt an agnostic line of defense because a simple disbelief offers nothing to the contrary. At least an agnostic would display something other than tunnel vision.
Posted by Player 13 (Member # 7037) on :
The obvious evidence is that all god beliefs are no more than the creations of man.
There are a thousands different religious/god beliefs. If there was a REAL god, why would he permit all this misleading information to mislead and confuse his flock? Man can communicate with the whole world via TV, Radio, Cell Phone and the Internet.
Certainly any real God should be able to do equally well! Why would he not announce directly from his heaven that he is the real god and all the others are fakes? Why would he not smite all the fakes?
Why does he permit all this confusion and doubt? The objective evidence is that all gods are purely the creation of men to assuage his panic fear of the finality of death.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him a God?
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: However, what is interesting about religion and the belief in a deity ot two or three is the circumstantial aspect itself. This weighs heavily in determining their faith whereas an atheist uses no other circumstance to offer substance to its position other than a simple disbelief and in the process ''steal'' the theists circumstantiality. So, if I had to choose between the two it certainly wouldn't be atheism; I say this without even a hint of what it would take to subscribe to some religiosity. Finally if the two belief systems were in court and had to present circumstantial evidence I'm thinking the judge, after looking at the 'evidence', would ask the atheist where his circumstantial evidence is. After all, the theist would have many cultures around the world to draw circumstantial evidence from and yet the atheist would have none to offer support for his belief other than a mismanagement of the theist's material, which is circumstantiality itself—yet it remains above and beyond what the atheist can offer.
Seen another way the judge would have no alternative but to ask the atheist to adopt an agnostic line of defense because a simple disbelief offers nothing to the contrary. At least an agnostic would display something other than tunnel vision.
I would think that in terms of circumstantial evidence in support of their belief system, the Atheist would be better armed than the Theist. Big Bang theory and Evolution being two examples of such evidence.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Player 13 says: ''Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.''
I have no trouble with this line of reasoning because I use it myself in an argumentative fashion.
''Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.''
Ditto for this one too.
''Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?''
If evil does originate outside the traditional concept of a creator then there can be no argument that evil isn't an honest disposition of the creator/s.
''Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him a God?'
Bingo.
Nay-Sayer wrote: ''I would think that in terms of circumstantial evidence in support of their belief system, the Atheist would be better armed than the Theist. Big Bang theory and Evolution being two examples of such evidence.''
Could you elaborate a bit on the atheist being better armed in terms of circumstantial evidence with the Big Bang? He may be, I just don't know how as of yet. While I would agree that the universe needs no explanation for a creator I'm not so sure on evolution not having design in control of it.
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Could you elaborate a bit on the atheist being better armed in terms of circumstantial evidence with the Big Bang? He may be, I just don't know how as of yet. While I would agree that the universe needs no explanation for a creator I'm not so sure on evolution not having design in control of it.
Intelligent Design is a flawed "theory" and there is nothing scientific about it. "Reasoning" that the more intricate and complex natural systems must have been designed by some "Intelligent Designer" - while dismissing any other possible explanation - is unreasonable. Nature has had billions of years to develop [or evolve] it's more complex systems - they didn't come into being overnight and require no creator.
OTOH, while the Big Bang is just a theory there is plenty of observable evidence for it. Residual microwave energy spread throughout the known universe and the observation that the universe is expanding comes to mind.
Posted by Naga Def Wolofi (Member # 14535) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed, I have to ask exactly what 'oh so clean' background do you come from Naga? I assume West African by "Wolofi".
Can you please stick to the topic and answer my questions.
Prove spirit
Prove God
Posted by Naga Def Wolofi (Member # 14535) on :
It's about time. Thank you Player 13 and Nay Sayer for bringing some sensability to the discussion.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Nay-Sayer says: ''Intelligent Design is a flawed "theory" and there is nothing scientific about it.''
Now you will be correct in saying Intelligent Design isn't a stand-alone unit but yet it doesn't have to prove any science behind it simply because one group of professionals, the evolutionary biologists, see methodological naturalism and the design people see indications of intelligence. I might add those who do see design are peering under the same evolutionary microscopes but draw vastly different conclusions based on personal observations. We aren't talking about some guy standing on a street corner being asked questions about a faith in the sense it's understood with the religious underpinnings. But given how we humans as a species are well on its way to doing things unheard of just a few short centuries ago and not even contemplated, I for one definitely see how design inferences can be drawn. Design isn't about creationism in the sense Darwinists would have one believe, although some will go the magic wand route. Creationists have ridden the coattails of design in hopes of attaching itself to the classroom which I don't agree with.
From what I've looked at concerning the workings of the human body it sure seems to me quite a stretch to travel under the assumption the human body is nothing more than random mutations and natural selection. Speaking of which, natural selection in oder to work would have to have something to select from in order to further evolution wouldn't it? So how is it the information can selected if there is nothing to select from initially. Puzzling.
''"Reasoning" that the more intricate and complex natural systems must have been designed by some "Intelligent Designer" - while dismissing any other possible explanation - is unreasonable.''
See above; with the added comment that what other possible explanation is there as it regards evolution. As far as I know evolution and design are the ones at odds with each other.
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
Nice article
quote:"While speaking out against the Christian fundamentalist movement and its political agenda, Hedges noticed another group -- this one on the left -- conspicuously allied with the neocons on the subject of America's role in world politics. The New Atheists, as they have been called, include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and bestselling author and journalist Christopher Hitchens -- outspoken secularists who depict religious structures and the belief in God as backward and anti-democratic."
and to listen to a podcast of the interview, click here and here .
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
^ the right link:
LINK Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
That is very interesting, Arwa, but nonetheless ... not surprising IMHO.
It's just interesting because white christian and athiest fighting seems to be at a peak, and numbers seem equal...
However, aside from abortion (and sometimes gay rights) they always seemed to express similar attitudes.
What are your takes on the Atheist party?
quote:Originally posted by Nay-Sayer: Nature
Nature? Not that this is my position Nay-Sayer (I defo don't adhere to "Intelligent Design") but what if Nature is the "creator".
quote: has had billions of years to develop [or evolve] it's more complex systems - they didn't come into being overnight and require no creator.
^Substantiation? ( Get my point? ) (Ask your self, is probability on your side? ... Well, I know, it ("life") would have had to have happened some where, but the sheer chances ...)
quote:OTOH, while the Big Bang is
a funny sounding name today, I'm not so sure about it with the DarkMatter and whatnot.
Actually, those were just interesting links, the real annoyance to the Big Bang Theory is this little bugger.
When I first read of the phenom and hypothetical energy in an article, I was quite excited, because I thought (then) the Bang theory was the most secure theory out there. I thought then.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:both atheists and theists are full of shi'ite
Well I'd say athists, the flat-earth society, and anti-Darwinists all have one thing in common. See my "Perspective" (or MS's quote below).
I think these quotes pretty much sum it up:
quote:Originally posted by Young H*O*R*U*S: I think this pretty much sums it all up:
"The absolute is not within the reach of intellect, For intellect is grounded in the relative."
Perspective: I believe science and theism seeks to solve the same thing, like mystery solver said:
quote:MS: these are the questions that both science and theology ultimately seek to answer.
I also believe what alTakruri has said on the biblical tip, but what are my beliefs compared to his conformation about biblical theology.
Props to Takruri, and that's why I'm careful when I scan the Book. I don't buy into what any man says but I do trust people like alTakruri and my Uncle who haved studied such a topic and know Hebrew, when it comes to perspective.
Posted by HORUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
^Yes indeed, in fact, according to buddhism, science will never be able to answer the ultimate question of WHO is the ABSOLUTE GOD? (The Dao/Tao?).
A lot of the anxieties that arise from not being able to answer this question however is removed by looking at things from nature's implied and seemingly immutable perspective (i.e. the law of nature). I believe these laws are the "manual" for the human being for living a productive and happy life on earth. But still ...
If the ABSOLUTE GOD has placed in us the desire to know of the ABSOLUTE GOD, then obviously it is possible to know of this ABSOLUTE GOD. No???
This is a very painful dilemma for me.
Do you think we look for the ABSOLUTE GOD only when we're not having a good time (i.e. breaking the laws of nature)? Do you think the "search" itself is a symptom of not "getting it"?
It has been my observation that when I am absolutely in the moment of happiness, when I'm on holiday in a beautiful city with many new things to see, or spending quality time with a beautiful woman ... these are the only moments when I don't feel the need to search for the ABSOLUTE GOD. I am simply happy and satisfied in the moment. But when I come down from my "high", the excruciating search continues ...
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
"The absolute is not within the reach of intellect, For intellect is grounded in the relative."
Actually, I don't fully agree with this statement.
The latter part of it is true, but the first part, not necissarily.
Anyone who's learned of Calculus can tell you how many times the absolute truth is derived from would-be approximations.
Also, what makes the search sad and painstaking?
Why can't it be wonder, intellectual curiousity, and excitement at either confirmations (like alTakruri's which I just read) or clues as to the fact that the matter gets much deeper.
Do you think about this sht all day? Or just get thoughts which spark like (oh!)?
I think your answer may be in the way you define "God", or see God, and possibly combined with the fact you may be predisposed to want to search for a God.
^And I do not adhere to atheist-in nature-rationalizations of God ie. like the obvious / simplistic "[the world ain't perfect but man want it to be so maybe that's why he be believing in things]" speach lamin did on the first page.
It's no different from some claiming atheisms "un-faith" to be the result of unpleasant life experiences.
I think everyone has their own unique way they view this world and the things therein (though as you know the views of some things can become perverted -> prmiddleeastern's and other's like him bias against those they chose to define as black - more simple things that confuse people that have the gaul to call others stupid themselves
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Nay-Sayer says: ''"Reasoning" that the more intricate and complex natural systems must have been designed by some "Intelligent Designer" - while dismissing any other possible explanation - is unreasonable.''
See above; with the added comment that what other possible explanation is there as it regards evolution. As far as I know evolution and design are the ones at odds with each other.
Right now there is no explaination, period. Nobody knows exactly how life came to be. However, what we do know is that the very first life forms on Earth were very simple in their structure. This fact alone shoots a gaping hole in the whole Intelligent Designer "theory", IMO. Why does a so-called "Intelligent Designer" need to "create" life forms of the simplest kind only to have the process of evolution be responsible for the more complex life forms? Why didn't the "Intelligent Designer" create or design complex life forms in the very beginning?
Please allow me to offer a counter "theory" to Intelligent Design which, I believe, is just as reasonable.
Extra Terrestrials from elsewhere visited Earth back when there was no life on the planet. When these Extra Terrestrials left the earth, they also left behind some micro organisms. These mirco organisms would go on to evolve into all living things currently on the planet Earth.
So, there you have it. Aliens are responsible for life on Earth. There is as much evidence for this as there is for Intelligent Design.
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
quote:Originally posted by Nay-Sayer: Nature
Nature? Not that this is my position Nay-Sayer (I defo don't adhere to "Intelligent Design") but what if Nature is the "creator".
quote: has had billions of years to develop [or evolve] it's more complex systems - they didn't come into being overnight and require no creator.
^Substantiation? ( Get my point? ) (Ask your self, is probability on your side? ... Well, I know, it ("life") would have had to have happened some where, but the sheer chances ...)
Nature isn't some "supernatural" force that nobody can see or measure to some degree. So, in that regard, I woud have no problem with nature being the "creator".
Now as far as what are the sheer changes of life appearing on Earth. Probably pretty slim. However, if you play the lottery, as slim as are the odds of you winning, given enough time - eventually you will win. It's only a matter of time given the right conditions. No "creator" needed.
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Perspective: I believe science and theism seeks to solve the same thing, like mystery solver said:
Science is simply an attempt to explain the world we live in objectively. It is a living, evolving process.
Theism, OTOH, is an attempt to explain the unknown using the unknown. It is rigid and dead, lacking in the ability adjust with new information.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
This is nothing to get all confounded about
quote:Nay-Sayer:
if you play the lottery, as slim as are the odds of you winning, given enough time - eventually you will win. It's only a matter of time given the right conditions. No "creator" needed.
Touche.
quote:Theism, OTOH, is an attempt to explain the unknown using the unknown. It is rigid and dead, lacking in the ability adjust with new information.
I guess in this line of thought I wouldn't evaluate any of my beliefs as theisms, (leave for some my own scientific hypotheses about girls things people and whatnot that I know I need education in relevant subjects before confirming).
I am interested to know how theisms are "rigid and dead, lacking in the ability adjust with new information"?
Is Buddhism a theism?
It would sound to me like you were attempting to explain dogma, which doeshave to confront and deny anything that is in contradiction to it or rather, anything it is in contradiction to.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
What's so bad about the un"known" anyway? Is *science* more about "knowing" things or evaluating things.
Knowing vs. thinking?
And by "knowing" I don't mean simple comprehention, I mean knowing (knowing,, the definite, defined, rigid), else this whole post would be rediculous. ahh, the limits of language.
But of course you were likely speaking of proving what is unconfirmed based on what is confirmed as science.
Where do the confirmations begin, NS. Who's to say that comprehension of "God's" within the boundaries of modern science; who uses biology to prove or disprove logic?Could we perhaps be working backwards here, with your approach? If you don't know, then ...
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): I am interested to know how theisms are "rigid and dead, lacking in the ability adjust with new information"?
Is Buddhism a theism?
It would sound to me like you were attempting to explain dogma, which doeshave to confront and deny anything that is in contradiction to it or rather, anything it is in contradiction to.
I don't consider Buddhism theistic in it's nature. However, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc are all theistic beliefs that are based on dead books.
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Where do the confirmations begin, NS. Who's to say that comprehension of "God's" within the boundaries of modern science; who uses biology to prove or disprove logic?Could we perhaps be working backwards here, with your approach? If you don't know, then ...
There is no comprehending of "God" within the boundaries of science because "God" is unscientific. There is no direct evidence for "God", only superstition and hearsay.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
What if he's the essential building block, could we prove that?
Humans created "God" before "God" created humans. So, I would define "God" as being a product of the human imagination. Nothing more.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
^Humans created "God" like humans created logic Posted by HORUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): My point is this:
What if he's the essential building block, could we prove that?
Nice stuff Alive, Alan Watts talks about this concept of God being the "building block" too ... very interesting.
Search for 'Alan Watts' on YouTube and watch the animated videos with his 'voice over'. He generally speaks from a buddhist perspective. Very nice Posted by HORUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
I tend to believe this very insightful statement from Dr. Nowak, in the article WhatBox_Alive posted:
quote:“Evolution describes the fundamental laws of nature according to which God chose to unfold life ...”
PRINCIPLE OF LEAST ACTION INTERACTIVE JAVA APPLICATION Posted by R U Serious - Get Out of Here (Member # 4547) on :
This was indeed a very good topic, tho it got a little heated // still it was very good.
I was going back over some of my writings (R U 2 religious) and it kind of laughed because it was the extreme opposite of what I actual believe ... yet it made for a decent debate.
I know that it is possible to believe in a God[s] and science at the same time. Acknowledging this fact is to acknowledge the 'God Science' which deal with creation and many other facets of life.
Example: (Torah) The God/Elohim\Gods created man in his own image. The God[s] formed out from the dust or 'Clay' for the correct translation (Genesis 2:7) which is the same story of the Egyptian Khun which formed man out of Soft Clay and then another God/Goddess blew breath into the body and it came to life. The Genesis story say the same thing but the Rauch(f) blew breath into man and he lived. 'Clay' is a combination of liquid/water and dirt ... which both Kemetic and Hebraic teaching say man was made of...
Now I have to ask, what is the difference these religious teaching and what science believe?
Science believe that all life started from methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. water is a component of 'Clay' as is one of the main features of man is Carbon/Earth i.e dust. Water is a combination of Hydrogen (Energy (primary element of the sun/Ra/Horus/Jesus)) and Oxygen (breath of life). Next we have the 'Rauch/Moving Wind' or 'Breath' which is a combination of 'Oxygen' and 'Nitrogen' which are natural elements.
Now if the spirit of God is 'the breath' or 'moving wind', then the spirit is simply air which is a nature element that sustains life as we know it. Who is right and who is wrong; science or religion? neither is wrong and possibly right in this sense so then the real question is 'what is god' being that the spirit of god is no different from air?
That is the true question because the creation theory is the same with science and religion, they just have two different ways of coming to the same conclusion.
Posted by HORUS^*^ (Member # 11484) on :
I really have to figure this out soon before I go crazy.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Can't that be said of all religous beliefs by atheists?![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)