Christian version of Darwin's Origin of Species

Gern Blansten

so what you are saying is that god keeps us just the right distance from the sun....yes I believe that

Cosmo

Gern Blansten wrote:

so what you are saying is that god keeps us just the right distance from the sun....yes I believe that

...
Nope.
Just that at this time, in this space... the Earth is just the right distance from the Sun to sustain life. It wasn't always that situation... and it won't always be that situation. Eventually, the planet will no longer exist and life here will cease to exist.
Is this what God 'designed' for us? No. This is simply what happened... the Earth formed... the right conditions existed... life flourished... we evolved. Eventually, it will all be gone, most likely when the Sun cools and consumes us (unless another asteroid takes us out, like the one that did the dinosaurs in).
Where's the 'Intelligence' in that design?

gabers

Jasunmark wrote:

gabers wrote:

I'm just saying at the end of the day, we don't really know how the universe began.

So just to be safe we better throw in "it also could have been made by a lonely God in a big white dress so someone would worship him."

Fucking Christ.

That is the popular way to visualize God. I don't think that is the case. I think God wears a black bodysuit with turtleneck with a soul patch just like yours. Just like Jesus was surely not a fair haired, blue eyed surfer dude like depicted in most paintings. Maybe God really is Alanis Morrissette. Nobody really knows. And of course you're right, maybe he doesn't exist. But I believe he does.

soulsinging

Shawshank wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Shawshank wrote:

How fucking closed-minded do you have to be in order to believe our world/universe is here just by an accidental set of circumstances.

About as delusional as you have to believe that a big human being in the sky that loves only humans made this all up 5000 years ago and is just throwing a bunch of tragedy at us to test our faith in him.

That was the predictable response I was expecting.

Ask a stupid, ignorant, stereotypical question, you're going to get a stupid, ignorant, stereotypical response.

catefrances

Gern Blansten wrote:

catefrances wrote:

he still stands wrote:

"Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1] It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.[2]" - wikipedia

a bad place to end the definition and so...

An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have definitive knowledge of this.

I guess agnostic in the sense that I will not claim to understand the first second of the universe and while I do not feel any superior being is involved until science discovers the cause I am willing to leave a window open for the invisible man.

but I don't think it is likely

and thats where we differ. for me there is no possibility that God exists. and the door is not only closed but locked and deadbolted. i do believe richard dawkins calls that being level 7 degree atheist. he himself classes himself as a level 6 atheist... which means he is as agnostic only to the extent that he is agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.

i thought when i was young that i believed in God but looking abck i think i was agnostic. then i stopped believing in the possibility of Gods existence. i was 11 years old. nothing since has made me change my mind or even sway from my conviction.

haffajappa

Shawshank wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Shawshank wrote:

How fucking closed-minded do you have to be in order to believe our world/universe is here just by an accidental set of circumstances.

About as delusional as you have to believe that a big human being in the sky that loves only humans made this all up 5000 years ago and is just throwing a bunch of tragedy at us to test our faith in him.

That was the predictable response I was expecting.

HAHA... closed minded.
I find that hilarious... since usually the opposite side would argue being close-minded...

just as close minded as the church who condemned a man who suggested the earth wasn't the center of the universe? and dinosaurs were just placed here by intelligent design just to trick us like bill hicks mentions ever so comically! oh yes and all the good points soulsinging brought up...

some people are just too afraid to believe man was not the ultimate product the universe was destined for.
i have some news for you, after we're gone the earth and the universe will be here for a lot longer.

Prince Of Dorkness

gabers wrote:

Maybe God really is Alanis Morrissette. Nobody really knows. And of course you're right, maybe he doesn't exist. But I believe he does.

So to cover all the basis, why don't we also make sure school kids also know he words to "You Oughta Know" as well?

You are pretty much a text book example of why kids are dumb. "Oh... I don't know... I believe God might have been... you know... like... maybe he made the universe... so maybe we should allow both points of view in science class... doesn't seem like it would hurt..."

Prince Of Dorkness

Shawshank wrote:

How fucking closed-minded do you have to be in order to believe our world/universe is here just by an accidental set of circumstances.

Yes, I'd rather believe in a guy who could raise the dead, walk on water, turn said water into wine and fill baskets with fish but couldn't talk a bunch of Italians in skirts from tacking him to a post.

Random_Wookie

Jasunmark wrote:

gabers wrote:

Maybe God really is Alanis Morrissette. Nobody really knows. And of course you're right, maybe he doesn't exist. But I believe he does.

So to cover all the basis, why don't we also make sure school kids also know he words to "You Oughta Know" as well?

You are pretty much a text book example of why kids are dumb. "Oh... I don't know... I believe God might have been... you know... like... maybe he made the universe... so maybe we should allow both points of view in science class... doesn't seem like it would hurt..."

religion is not science and sceince is not religion
intelegent design is not science it assumes that these animals magically apearred from now where

sceince is the quest for knowledge and understanding
religion is the surpression of knowledge and could if you want to see it a form of control

haffajappa

Jasunmark wrote:

Shawshank wrote:

How fucking closed-minded do you have to be in order to believe our world/universe is here just by an accidental set of circumstances.

Yes, I'd rather believe in a guy who could raise the dead, walk on water, turn said water into wine and fill baskets with fish but couldn't talk a bunch of Italians in skirts from tacking him to a post.

I dont think ive laughed so hard in a while.
"tacking him to a post" LOL

gabers

Jasunmark wrote:

gabers wrote:

Maybe God really is Alanis Morrissette. Nobody really knows. And of course you're right, maybe he doesn't exist. But I believe he does.

So to cover all the basis, why don't we also make sure school kids also know he words to "You Oughta Know" as well?

You are pretty much a text book example of why kids are dumb. "Oh... I don't know... I believe God might have been... you know... like... maybe he made the universe... so maybe we should allow both points of view in science class... doesn't seem like it would hurt..."

My point, Mr. Wise Ass, is that you don't know just like I don't know. I don't think creationism should be taught in public schools. I believe in an absolute separation of church and state. Being an atheist doesn't make you smarter. Too many atheists, especially on this board, have a over-inflated sense of intelligence and enlightenment. :roll: Get over yourself.

he still stands

gabers wrote:

Jasunmark wrote:

gabers wrote:

Maybe God really is Alanis Morrissette. Nobody really knows. And of course you're right, maybe he doesn't exist. But I believe he does.

So to cover all the basis, why don't we also make sure school kids also know he words to "You Oughta Know" as well?

You are pretty much a text book example of why kids are dumb. "Oh... I don't know... I believe God might have been... you know... like... maybe he made the universe... so maybe we should allow both points of view in science class... doesn't seem like it would hurt..."

My point, Mr. Wise Ass, is that you don't know just like I don't know. I don't think creationism should be taught in public schools. I believe in an absolute separation of church and state. Being an atheist doesn't make you smarter. Too many atheists, especially on this board, have a over-inflated sense of intelligence and enlightenment. :roll: Get over yourself.

well said. I keep saying that atheists are equally fanatical and dogmatic about their beliefs as fundamental christians and moslems, and all you have to do is look at this board for confirmation of that.

Gern Blansten

Hardly....to us it seems silly....kind of like saying..."boy those people that believe in gravity are really dogmatic about their beliefs"

sorry but you sound silly....

Prince Of Dorkness

Um... I'm not an atheist. But I keep my beliefs to myself and I don't think they belong in school.

Gern Blansten

Jasunmark wrote:

Um... I'm not an atheist. But I keep my beliefs to myself and I don't think they belong in school.

agreed...when I was a believer I always considered it very personal...not something to broadcast...mainly because there are so many different beliefs

It amazes me now on Facebook how many people will post stuff about thanking Jesus for mundane things or asking for prayers for their kids football games, etc.

he still stands

Gern Blansten wrote:

Hardly....to us it seems silly....kind of like saying..."boy those people that believe in gravity are really dogmatic about their beliefs"

sorry but you sound silly....

Thanks for illustrating my point. You have it all figured out, don't you? :roll:

"Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, "My current model" -- or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel -- "contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised." In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude." - Robert A Wilson

Gern Blansten

oh well if Robert A Wilson said it I'll change my mind

:roll: :roll:

he still stands

Gern Blansten wrote:

oh well if Robert A Wilson said it I'll change my mind

:roll: :roll:

The message is what is important, not who said it. Hell... last night my buddy quoted Rush Limbaugh and I agreed with the statement.

I'm certainly not trying to proselytize my agnostisicm... I just feel like I'm screaming "I don't know" in this argument and you're screaming "I know" and we're debating who is right. We're all just robots, maybe my robot contains a little more mysticism than most.

Cosmo

he still stands wrote:

"Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, "My current model" -- or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel -- "contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised." In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude." - Robert A Wilson

...
Isn't Mr. Wilson referring to Religion, here?
Science has changed since Medieval times... Religion has not. Knowledge adjusts to new discoveries... Belief (dogma) does not. Science texts are updated... the Bible remains unchanged.
...
I do agree with you when you say you don't know... I know that is the truth. No one knows. Anyone who claims to know the truth about God's existance (or non-existance) is not speaking the truth. They may BELIEVE it with all of their heart... but, no matter how much emotion or passion you throw into belief... it still does not make it truth.

he still stands

Cosmo wrote:

he still stands wrote:

"Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, "My current model" -- or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel -- "contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised." In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude." - Robert A Wilson

...
Isn't Mr. Wilson referring to Religion, here?
Science has changed since Medieval times... Religion has not. Knowledge adjusts to new discoveries... Belief (dogma) does not. Science texts are updated... the Bible remains unchanged.
...
I do agree with you when you say you don't know... I know that is the truth. No one knows. Anyone who claims to know the truth about God's existance (or non-existance) is not speaking the truth. They may BELIEVE it with all of their heart... but, no matter how much emotion or passion you throw into belief... it still does not make it truth.

No... my interpretation is that Wilson is saying that any belief or certitude about the universe/god/reality is delusional. It doesn't matter if it is theistic or atheistic. He goes on to point out that if you look at history, what we "knew" at one point in time is rarely the same at a latter point in time.

Model agnosticism seems to be the right term: no one model is 100% correct but no model is 100% incorrect either. Every model is in some sense true, some sense false, some sense meaningless, some true/false, some true/meaningless, some false/meaningless, and some true/false/meaningless.