So at the LA 1 show, Ed was talking about this commercial he saw for a Christian Rock album, and then went on to criticize through song how they all look the same, act the same, can't think for themselves and are all sheep. Which I thought was somewhat comical.
But in retrospect it was certainly more ironic than anything.
The fact that Ed was pontificating this to the obnoxious chick to my right who kept yelling how much she loves and worships Ed, how sexy he was, telling her friend about the time she touched him, laughing at jokes that weren't really jokes, woohoo-ing and clapping things that didn't warrant applause, and shouting fuck yeah! before Ed was halfway through a sentence.
And then there was the couple to my left, overly consumed with what Ed was drinking so that they could start drinking it, so happy to see "his beard and long hair back", and wondering what kind of jeans he was wearing.
I guess it is just funny to mock one group of mindless followers to a live group of mindless followers hanging on his every word--the only difference is the messenger.
I’m always a little amazed at how stupid the majority of Pearl Jam crowds are--kind of embarrassing to be honest.
Gee, I wonder if you're religious? Smart religious people are the worst. They employ tactics to make themselves appear fair and reasonable when, in fact, their minds are completely made up. They do not have the ability to judge and reason the universe in a purely physical sense...you know...because a dead guy is their savior and is the "son" of an imaginary celestial being, proof of which does not exist now and "reason", to me, would certainly indicate that said proof shall never arrive. Go on hating though! Sometimes it's only hypocrisy that can reveal truth.
Toledo '96, Cleveland '98, Columbus '00, Cleveland '03, Toledo '04
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
Gee, I wonder if you're religious? Smart religious people are the worst. They employ tactics to make themselves appear fair and reasonable when, in fact, their minds are completely made up. They do not have the ability to judge and reason the universe in a purely physical sense...you know...because a dead guy is their savior and is the "son" of an imaginary celestial being, proof of which does not exist now and "reason", to me, would certainly indicate that said proof shall never arrive. Go on hating though! Sometimes it's only hypocrisy that can reveal truth.
so why do atheists and believers always claim they know it. Why? It must be something, very important to them. Look at how fast this thread expanded. No one knows, nothing was ever proven, neither the existance of God nor the opposite.
If it was as clear as the atheists and the believers say, why is the discussion not over? It is not clear.
I think the likeliness of Gods existence is very very low.
But i think it is way more likely than the existance of the human brain.
so why do atheists and believers always claim they know it. Why? It must be something, very important to them. Look at how fast this thread expanded. No one knows, nothing was ever proven, neither the existance of God nor the opposite.
If it was as clear as the atheists and the believers say, why is the discussion not over? It is not clear.
I think the likeliness of Gods existence is very very low.
But i think it is way more likely than the existance of the human brain.
No! We're giving up too early! I'm sure that a fucking Pearl Jam message board is going to be the one to definitively answer a question no one's been able to resolve in all of human history. I say by page 20 of this thread, we'll have THE answer!
You know, like on the Simpsons where Homer becomes smart and develops a mathematical equation that disproves God, even convincing Flanders. Let's work on that.
I guess I could just read stories a bunch of dudes made up to control people in the desert thousands of years ago. Call me crazy, but I prefer empirical evidence.
It is a theory and every real scientist calls it that.
A question to you: Do you think it is a coincidence that the big bang theory popped up in the very epoche when the A-bomb was invented?
No! We're giving up too early! I'm sure that a fucking Pearl Jam message board is going to be the one to definitively answer a question no one's been able to resolve in all of human history. I say by page 20 of this thread, we'll have THE answer!
You know, like on the Simpsons where Homer becomes smart and develops a mathematical equation that disproves God, even convincing Flanders. Let's work on that.
I have THE answer: Nobody (NOBODY!!!) can prove God exists or doesn't exist. The only thing that we know is 1) We were born x number of years ago 2) Someday we will die!!! 3) We should all (meaning all of humanity) be kind to each other and have fun while we're on this weird trip!!! 4) chocolate is yummy.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
It is a theory and every real scientist calls it that.
And every real scienitist knows...
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Gee, I wonder if you're religious? Smart religious people are the worst. They employ tactics to make themselves appear fair and reasonable when, in fact, their minds are completely made up. They do not have the ability to judge and reason the universe in a purely physical sense...you know...because a dead guy is their savior and is the "son" of an imaginary celestial being, proof of which does not exist now and "reason", to me, would certainly indicate that said proof shall never arrive. Go on hating though! Sometimes it's only hypocrisy that can reveal truth.
"Smart religious people are the worst. They employ tactics to make themselves appear fair and reasonable when, in fact, their minds are completely made up."
Kinda like you smart non religious people? How ironic.
"Go on hating though! "
More irony. Thanks for once again, proving my point.
Evil Rabbit, I'm with ya. I'm 43 years old, was a Christian for the first 30 years of my life till one day it dawned on me that I was Christian, not because it sounded logical, but because I was told I was Christian by my parents, grandparents, etc. I never thought to question it. But I always had a nagging doubt and once I decided I could question it, I really looked into it and my eyes were opened. One of the things that started me questioning an Amorphopological God was, The world is 13 billion years old, where was "He" all that time? And, if "He" created something as complex as "the world", who created "Him". I read Dawkins, et al and that cemented my "non-belief".
God is eternal. God is above the concept of time. And he is above our reason. If we let our hybris go, we dont need everything to be explained. That is were our faith can comes in. Do you believe science can answer everything? It is clear to me that the wolrd is absurd and the deepest truths are paradox. Only in trusting God can I cope with the world and feel free. I hope you will join us someday.
Richard Dawkins book 'The God delusion' is known, also by atheist intellectualls, as being a work of polemic. It is really weak. There are better atheist opinion than Dawkins.
First, why do people give a shit where threads end up going? As long as there's healthy discussion, who cares where the conversation goes? "Ooh, ooh, you're getting off-topic from what I first asked? boo-hoo."
Second, it seems to me that the religious folk are dodging anything brought up which is valid (see earlier posts about eyeball evolution, the Good Samaritan, the violence in Leviticus, etc.) Instead, they ask for respect for their religion, to which I respond: why? Should I respect Tom Cruise too? Screw that. For far too long, believers have hidden behind this insistence on respect for their childish bullshit beliefs, which affect me everyday. How you ask? For one, let scientist do some stem-cell research so the people I see suffering from disease might eventually be cured. Please!
Third, the argument that evolution is just a theory is another old trick and if you use it you make yourself look very unintelligent. I quote...
"In common usage, "theory" means an idea or a hunch: "I have a theory about why she left him." No one really knows what the reasons were, but we can guess.
That's not what "theory" means within science. When scientists speak of the theory of gravitation, cell theory or evolutionary theory, they are talking about scientific concepts that have been so thoroughly tested that they are very unlikely to change. Theories are the results of decades or centuries of scientific effort. They draw on many interconnected observations and ideas. They are the end products of science, not stages on the way to the truth.
In science, a hunch or conjecture is called a hypothesis, not a theory. When Copernicus proposed in the early 16th century that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, his idea was a hypothesis. But four centuries of observation and thinking have convinced us that heliocentrism is a theory, not just an intriguing idea. It is compatible with everything we know about the solar system and explains observations that cannot be explained in other ways.
Ideally, English would have a different word for these comprehensive organizing concepts in science. But for now, "theory" is doing double duty. So calling evolution a theory may seem to denigrate it in everyday terms, but in scientific terms that's high praise."
Are you a screenwriter?
www.screenplaymechanic.com
First, why do people give a shit where threads end up going? As long as there's healthy discussion, who cares where the conversation goes? "Ooh, ooh, you're getting off-topic from what I first asked? boo-hoo.
You have a pretty interesting definition of "healthy." More like "tired".
I would assume the original poster cares because he/she created a topic that was new and interesting and it got hijacked by a topic that isn't.
I for one am tired of reading "Bla bla bla God exists" and "Bla bla bla God doesn't." As I said before, you people aren't enlightening anyone, on either side. There isn't a single thing being said I haven't seen 1,000,000 times before.
I saw this thread yesterday and I knew that every member on the board would have to get ugly and insult someone before we were done. I am Christian but I think that this is the only topic worse than who the best drummer is.
Evil Rabbit, I know what a theory is, thanks. A real scientist would never claim a theory to be 'the truth'. My post was an answer to that.
Also, evil Rabbit, I already tried to answer your question concerning the time before Christ. Theologians of all times thought about that, for example Augustin (4th century?) Thomas Aquinas and Karl Rahner had great insights in the problem of time. Consider space and time is just how humans perceive reality. Consider that God does not need time at all. He is eternal. He has all the moments of our time in front of him, all at once.
Karl Rahner said, that if you act like Jesus said, you are a Christian, if you know him or not. I know this is not political correct, but maybe it helps you understand how people before Jesus could follow the right religion. Remember, Jesus was a Jew himself, so, it is not that narrow-minded as you might think.
God is eternal. God is above the concept of time. And he is above our reason. If we let our hybris go, we dont need everything to be explained. That is were our faith can comes in. Do you believe science can answer everything? It is clear to me that the wolrd is absurd and the deepest truths are paradox. Only in trusting God can I cope with the world and feel free. I hope you will join us someday.
And at last, evilrabbit, you didnt answer my question : Do you think it is a coincidence that the big bang theory popped up in the very epoche when the A-bomb was invented?
World's most famous philosophical Atheist changes mind
11/06/07
When Professor Antony Flew, the world's most famous "philosophical atheist", announced in 2004 that he had changed his mind, it caused something of a theological earthquake. The aftershocks were amplified because it was further reported that he was persuaded by intelligent design.
Now he has published a book, There is a God, setting out his new position. He does not pull his punches: Richard Dawkins is engaged in an exercise of "popular mystification", he says. He also now believes that the presumption of proof is on the atheists to make their case.
He deploys a parable to capture something of what's at stake. Consider a satellite phone washed up on the shores of an island and found by a lost tribe. The tribe have had no contact with modern civilisation and have no idea what it is. However, they discover that some combinations of key punches lead to what sound like human voices being heard through the device. The proto-scientists of the tribe get to work on it and find that if they damage the phone in various ways that the voices cease. They conclude that the voices are an epiphenomenon of the phone's mechanism. A debate then ensues between the scientists and the priests of the tribe - the priests arguing that it could be that the phone is communicating with some other place. The scientists are not convinced.
Flew's new creed, in a nutshell, is that the universe was brought into existence by a superior mind - an infinite intelligence - as were the intricate laws of nature; and that life and reproduction originate in God. Contemporary science produces three reasons for thinking this: first, that nature obeys rational laws; second, that life emerged from lifeless matter; third, the very existence of the natural world itself. He still does not believe in an afterlife for humankind.
Three scientific puzzles have been particularly important in his change of mind: how did the laws of nature come to be; how did life come to be from non-life; how did the universe come into existence? Put together, these lead him to believe that the design argument for the existence of God can be formulated clearly. To put it another way, the universe is "reason incarnate", that incarnation being of divine reason - or as Flew has it: "The laws of nature pose a problem for the atheist because they are a voice of rationality heard through the mechanisms of matter." The universe as the mind of God makes sense of that.
Consider one issue, the so-called fine tuning of the universe. This is the observation that various fundamental constants have to be "set" to an unimaginable degree of accuracy for order and life to have emerged. One response is to propose the existence of a multiverse, which is essentially to say that somewhere all combinations of the constants have been tried out, we just happen to live in the place where they are right, as we inevitably would. Flew rejects this since saying everything is possible explains nothing, does not answer why everything is possible, and is a massively complex proposal to say the least. Intelligence behind the fine tuning, the laws and the existence of the universe is far simpler.
He also examines the current biological theories for the origins of life. Flew finds them unconvincing since, first they require the universe to have existed for far, far longer than it has; second they still don't explain how life can have emerged from lifeless matter. The deep philosophical question is how mindless matter can produce life, some of it conscious, with intrinsic ends and self-replicating tendencies. Putting it down to chance simply misses the point.
Further, there is good reason to think that all such issues simply fall outside the remit of science alone. Science presumes laws and so cannot ask how the laws came into being. When it does, it conjures up more laws, and so on, and so on. Flew recalls Einstein's comment that the man of science is a poor philosopher.
Incidentally, Intelligent Design, as advocated by conservative evangelicals, is not addressed head-on in There is a God. I suspect Flew wouldn't have much time for it as an alternative to Darwinism: divine intelligence, for him, is an issue where natural selection falls short, notably at the origins of life.
Needless to say, this is only to skim the arguments that Flew presents in his book, though he explores intricacies with admirable clarity. He is keen to point out throughout that the conclusion he has reached now should not be seen as a conversion. This is a wholly rational discovery of the divine for him - natural theology not revealed theology, in the traditional terms. Or as Flew says, he is just continuing to follow the evidence where it leads, as he has done across a lifetime considering the arguments about theism.
He says the book is his "last will and testament": he is a deist. The conclusion can provide only limited comfort to believers since his is the God of the philosophers, not Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. What is the case now, though, is that as he was once the chief architect of profound challenges to believers, he now does the same against atheism. His position echoes that of Einstein (who he goes to some length to "reclaim" from Dawkins in The God Delusion). Einstein said: "My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.'"
There is no such thing as complete and total open-mindedness on any topic. Take religion, politics, homosexuality, boxers/briefs whatever and there are two sides and one person believes one thing and the other believes the opposite. One guy, an atheist, said on this board that religions are man-made thought systems, which is true, but without religion there would be no need for his thought system. Someone who doesn't believe a certain thing accuses those who do of being "sheep" while at the same time proclaiming their own open-mindedness. People may be able to educate themselves about the beiefs of other people and may be willing to accept that some people feel that way, but 99 out of 100 of those people are never open to accepting those views as a legitimate system of thought.
All I have to do is revel in the everyday....then do it again tomorrow
They say every sin is deadly but I believe they may be wrong...I'm guilty of all seven and I don't feel too bad at all
First, why do people give a shit where threads end up going? As long as there's healthy discussion, who cares where the conversation goes? "Ooh, ooh, you're getting off-topic from what I first asked? boo-hoo."
I would agree if this were a healthy discussion--I think it is kind of pointless, inclusive, circular, and trite.
My point remains. I don't care if you are religious or atheist, as long as you are a kind human.
Really there is no difference between you and the people you seem to enjoy arguing with.
"Your an idiot, God is a fabrication of your mind, I can't believe how naive and simple minded you are."
"No your a moron, God is everywhere and created the eye ball, if you don't believe in God you have no morals, I can't believe how naive and simple minded you are."
The fact is I found it ironic and quite comical that Ed would sing "don't ever think for yourself, don't be different, don't ever ask questions" to room full of lackeys hanging on his every word, taking their political and religious queues from a songwriter in a form of idol worship not much different than the lackeys that fill the pews each Sunday.
Again, not all religious people are mindless sheep and neither were all the folks in the Wiltern, but there are large populations in both groups who are. So for one to mock the other might be more than just ironic, and borderline hypocritical.
"Smart religious people are the worst. They employ tactics to make themselves appear fair and reasonable when, in fact, their minds are completely made up."
Kinda like you smart non religious people? How ironic.
"Go on hating though! "
More irony. Thanks for once again, proving my point.
Here's the difference between a believer and a non-believer: A believer accepts, at least in part, ancient writings and religious doctrine as the basis for their belief in "god". A non-believer accepts nothing that cannot be proven tangibly.
If the fundamental basis (and let's be honest with ourselves here) for your belief is what you've been taught from these ancient writings and religious doctrine, then how can you, even for a second, believe that you're in any position to comment on the existence of any god. Your only proof is a book that was supposedly "inspired" by god.
Disbelief is just that. Belief is something quite different. You say it's there, I only ask that you show it to me...then I'll be quiet.
Toledo '96, Cleveland '98, Columbus '00, Cleveland '03, Toledo '04
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
Great article, Crazy Breed. I always like to hear arguments like that. To disprove scientific atheists on their own field.
The Wachowski Brothers once said, that without a God, everything, the whole universe and beyound is just a 'Ooops.' and an unlimited unlikely oops also. It is so unlikely, that to believe in that, your faith musst be stronger than the faith of any believer. Life emerges from lifeless matter. the fact that something exists, why not nothing? all the factors that earth needed to provide the conditions: the right distance to the sun, the moon, the magnetic field, the temperature, the size, the Oxygen and those others air ingredients (sorry) and then another 10 miracles like life, evolution, planet not being hit so far by meteoroid so we all die, and at last not least: the human mind!
if you believe all this (and im sure there is way more) is a coincidence, than you believe in coincidence. I think it is more likely that there is a God. (what humans made out of this insight, is a hole other story.)
As I get older (and maybe the slightest bit wiser), I have come to realize that a few things are pointless to discuss beyond a get to know you type conversation. These things include:
1) Personal preferences in any kind of art
2) Political stands
3) Religious beliefs
Some people continue to waste time discussing such things, which frankly confuses me. When was the last time you changed your well thought out tastes and beliefs because someone told you that you were wrong? My guess is never.
"Goddamn Romans. Sure know how to make a ... drum room." --Matt Cameron
Here's the difference between a believer and a non-believer: A believer accepts, at least in part, ancient writings and religious doctrine as the basis for their belief in "god". A non-believer accepts nothing that cannot be proven tangibly.
If the fundamental basis (and let's be honest with ourselves here) for your belief is what you've been taught from these ancient writings and religious doctrine, then how can you, even for a second, believe that you're in any position to comment on the existence of any god. Your only proof is a book that was supposedly "inspired" by god.
Disbelief is just that. Belief is something quite different. You say it's there, I only ask that you show it to me...then I'll be quiet.
I understand your point. I'm only saying, don't call me a moron for having faith and I won't call you a moron for not. Fair?
i know this thread isn't going anywhere, but as the religious discussion is going on, i gotta ask a question:
i wonder if there are any people or ethnic groups who don't, and never have believed in some sort of spiritual-god-like-thing.
i mean people all over the world have different religious ideas and they have had it for thousands of years. why is that? do you know of any tribe or so, that definitely hasn't a belief that could be described as sort of a religion?
and i'm not against atheists at all. one shouldn't care what a person believes in. it's your decision, and should be. as long as you are a peaceful and kind person, there's nothing wrong with any believe or non-believe.
The fact is I found it ironic and quite comical that Ed would sing "don't ever think for yourself, don't be different, don't ever ask questions" to room full of lackeys hanging on his every word, taking their political and religious queues from a songwriter in a form of idol worship not much different than the lackeys that fill the pews each Sunday.
I could not agree with you more. Especially the part above....
What I find funny about this conversation, is the lackeys might change their tune when they find out that their messiah believes in God afterall (Iconoclasts was an interesting show).
I understand your point. I'm only saying, don't call me a moron for having faith and I won't call you a moron for not. Fair?
Definitely not calling you a moron. My only point about religion is this:
Religion satisfies, too easily, the human need to know "why" and "how". "Why" and "how" are the same questions that motivate science. My opinion is just that the "why" and "how" as answered by the recognized (mostly ancient) faiths are wrong. I still want to know the answer to both questions. It's just my opinion that they are, as yet, unanswered by anything that I've seen. Hence, "religion is the opiate of the masses", as stated by Ben Franklin. It fills the void in us that would normally inspire us to explore, learn, grow and create. To me, it's a giant crutch for mankind's fragile ego. God forbid we not be the most important entities in the universe.
Toledo '96, Cleveland '98, Columbus '00, Cleveland '03, Toledo '04
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
Great article, Crazy Breed. I always like to hear arguments like that. To disprove scientific atheists on their own field.
The Wachowski Brothers once said, that without a God, everything, the whole universe and beyound is just a 'Ooops.' and an unlimited unlikely oops also. It is so unlikely, that to believe in that, your faith musst be stronger than the faith of any believer. Life emerges from lifeless matter. the fact that something exists, why not nothing? all the factors that earth needed to provide the conditions: the right distance to the sun, the moon, the magnetic field, the temperature, the size, the Oxygen and those others air ingredients (sorry) and then another 10 miracles like life, evolution, planet not being hit so far by meteoroid so we all die, and at last not least: the human mind!
if you believe all this (and im sure there is way more) is a coincidence, than you believe in coincidence. I think it is more likely that there is a God. (what humans made out of this insight, is a hole other story.)
i know this thread isn't going anywhere, but as the religious discussion is going on, i gotta ask a question:
i wonder if there are any people or ethnic groups who don't, and never have believed in some sort of spiritual-god-like-thing.
i mean people all over the world have different religious ideas and they have had it for thousands of years. why is that? do you know of any tribe or so, that definitely hasn't a belief that could be described as sort of a religion?
and i'm not against atheists at all. one shouldn't care what a person believes in. it's your decision, and should be. as long as you are a peaceful and kind person, there's nothing wrong with any believe or non-believe.
No there is not. Every people, every tribe believe in somethin bigger than themselves, even if it is a mountain or so. That was my God proof years ago: it is natural to believe in God, so, according to the evolution theory, everything in nature is there for a good reason.... i know its not conclusive.
by the way, before 17th hundred, there was no atheism. Feuerbach was the first. I wonder how it was like then.. all this time. and, now, it is, idont know 90 percent of the people on earth believe in a god.
and then we have some people today who dont believe in what always was known to be. Most of atheist argue with science, which is kind of weird to me. Most nobel prize winners were believers. plus science invented all those weapons. I guess its because it is very successful and dominates industry nations like ours.
Plus: I dont understand people contributing to this thread saying how little sense it makes to argue, to ask these questions. It makes sense to me. So what is your point in posting? (Its almost like on this stupid antsmarching.org forum, those people hurt my brain)
Comments
Gee, I wonder if you're religious? Smart religious people are the worst. They employ tactics to make themselves appear fair and reasonable when, in fact, their minds are completely made up. They do not have the ability to judge and reason the universe in a purely physical sense...you know...because a dead guy is their savior and is the "son" of an imaginary celestial being, proof of which does not exist now and "reason", to me, would certainly indicate that said proof shall never arrive. Go on hating though! Sometimes it's only hypocrisy that can reveal truth.
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
so why do atheists and believers always claim they know it. Why? It must be something, very important to them. Look at how fast this thread expanded. No one knows, nothing was ever proven, neither the existance of God nor the opposite.
If it was as clear as the atheists and the believers say, why is the discussion not over? It is not clear.
I think the likeliness of Gods existence is very very low.
But i think it is way more likely than the existance of the human brain.
You know, like on the Simpsons where Homer becomes smart and develops a mathematical equation that disproves God, even convincing Flanders. Let's work on that.
It is a theory and every real scientist calls it that.
A question to you: Do you think it is a coincidence that the big bang theory popped up in the very epoche when the A-bomb was invented?
I have THE answer: Nobody (NOBODY!!!) can prove God exists or doesn't exist. The only thing that we know is 1) We were born x number of years ago 2) Someday we will die!!! 3) We should all (meaning all of humanity) be kind to each other and have fun while we're on this weird trip!!! 4) chocolate is yummy.
And every real scienitist knows...
"Smart religious people are the worst. They employ tactics to make themselves appear fair and reasonable when, in fact, their minds are completely made up."
Kinda like you smart non religious people? How ironic.
"Go on hating though! "
More irony. Thanks for once again, proving my point.
God is eternal. God is above the concept of time. And he is above our reason. If we let our hybris go, we dont need everything to be explained. That is were our faith can comes in. Do you believe science can answer everything? It is clear to me that the wolrd is absurd and the deepest truths are paradox. Only in trusting God can I cope with the world and feel free. I hope you will join us someday.
Richard Dawkins book 'The God delusion' is known, also by atheist intellectualls, as being a work of polemic. It is really weak. There are better atheist opinion than Dawkins.
Second, it seems to me that the religious folk are dodging anything brought up which is valid (see earlier posts about eyeball evolution, the Good Samaritan, the violence in Leviticus, etc.) Instead, they ask for respect for their religion, to which I respond: why? Should I respect Tom Cruise too? Screw that. For far too long, believers have hidden behind this insistence on respect for their childish bullshit beliefs, which affect me everyday. How you ask? For one, let scientist do some stem-cell research so the people I see suffering from disease might eventually be cured. Please!
Third, the argument that evolution is just a theory is another old trick and if you use it you make yourself look very unintelligent. I quote...
"In common usage, "theory" means an idea or a hunch: "I have a theory about why she left him." No one really knows what the reasons were, but we can guess.
That's not what "theory" means within science. When scientists speak of the theory of gravitation, cell theory or evolutionary theory, they are talking about scientific concepts that have been so thoroughly tested that they are very unlikely to change. Theories are the results of decades or centuries of scientific effort. They draw on many interconnected observations and ideas. They are the end products of science, not stages on the way to the truth.
In science, a hunch or conjecture is called a hypothesis, not a theory. When Copernicus proposed in the early 16th century that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, his idea was a hypothesis. But four centuries of observation and thinking have convinced us that heliocentrism is a theory, not just an intriguing idea. It is compatible with everything we know about the solar system and explains observations that cannot be explained in other ways.
Ideally, English would have a different word for these comprehensive organizing concepts in science. But for now, "theory" is doing double duty. So calling evolution a theory may seem to denigrate it in everyday terms, but in scientific terms that's high praise."
www.screenplaymechanic.com
I would assume the original poster cares because he/she created a topic that was new and interesting and it got hijacked by a topic that isn't.
I for one am tired of reading "Bla bla bla God exists" and "Bla bla bla God doesn't." As I said before, you people aren't enlightening anyone, on either side. There isn't a single thing being said I haven't seen 1,000,000 times before.
much to involved to easily sum up or explain.if you really want to learn/know read this book
http://www.lifelineprinting.com/hislop_alexander_two_babylons.htm?gclid=CNrxod6C4JICFSccagodpAoQ_g
Also, evil Rabbit, I already tried to answer your question concerning the time before Christ. Theologians of all times thought about that, for example Augustin (4th century?) Thomas Aquinas and Karl Rahner had great insights in the problem of time. Consider space and time is just how humans perceive reality. Consider that God does not need time at all. He is eternal. He has all the moments of our time in front of him, all at once.
Karl Rahner said, that if you act like Jesus said, you are a Christian, if you know him or not. I know this is not political correct, but maybe it helps you understand how people before Jesus could follow the right religion. Remember, Jesus was a Jew himself, so, it is not that narrow-minded as you might think.
God is eternal. God is above the concept of time. And he is above our reason. If we let our hybris go, we dont need everything to be explained. That is were our faith can comes in. Do you believe science can answer everything? It is clear to me that the wolrd is absurd and the deepest truths are paradox. Only in trusting God can I cope with the world and feel free. I hope you will join us someday.
And at last, evilrabbit, you didnt answer my question : Do you think it is a coincidence that the big bang theory popped up in the very epoche when the A-bomb was invented?
11/06/07
When Professor Antony Flew, the world's most famous "philosophical atheist", announced in 2004 that he had changed his mind, it caused something of a theological earthquake. The aftershocks were amplified because it was further reported that he was persuaded by intelligent design.
Now he has published a book, There is a God, setting out his new position. He does not pull his punches: Richard Dawkins is engaged in an exercise of "popular mystification", he says. He also now believes that the presumption of proof is on the atheists to make their case.
He deploys a parable to capture something of what's at stake. Consider a satellite phone washed up on the shores of an island and found by a lost tribe. The tribe have had no contact with modern civilisation and have no idea what it is. However, they discover that some combinations of key punches lead to what sound like human voices being heard through the device. The proto-scientists of the tribe get to work on it and find that if they damage the phone in various ways that the voices cease. They conclude that the voices are an epiphenomenon of the phone's mechanism. A debate then ensues between the scientists and the priests of the tribe - the priests arguing that it could be that the phone is communicating with some other place. The scientists are not convinced.
Flew's new creed, in a nutshell, is that the universe was brought into existence by a superior mind - an infinite intelligence - as were the intricate laws of nature; and that life and reproduction originate in God. Contemporary science produces three reasons for thinking this: first, that nature obeys rational laws; second, that life emerged from lifeless matter; third, the very existence of the natural world itself. He still does not believe in an afterlife for humankind.
Three scientific puzzles have been particularly important in his change of mind: how did the laws of nature come to be; how did life come to be from non-life; how did the universe come into existence? Put together, these lead him to believe that the design argument for the existence of God can be formulated clearly. To put it another way, the universe is "reason incarnate", that incarnation being of divine reason - or as Flew has it: "The laws of nature pose a problem for the atheist because they are a voice of rationality heard through the mechanisms of matter." The universe as the mind of God makes sense of that.
Consider one issue, the so-called fine tuning of the universe. This is the observation that various fundamental constants have to be "set" to an unimaginable degree of accuracy for order and life to have emerged. One response is to propose the existence of a multiverse, which is essentially to say that somewhere all combinations of the constants have been tried out, we just happen to live in the place where they are right, as we inevitably would. Flew rejects this since saying everything is possible explains nothing, does not answer why everything is possible, and is a massively complex proposal to say the least. Intelligence behind the fine tuning, the laws and the existence of the universe is far simpler.
He also examines the current biological theories for the origins of life. Flew finds them unconvincing since, first they require the universe to have existed for far, far longer than it has; second they still don't explain how life can have emerged from lifeless matter. The deep philosophical question is how mindless matter can produce life, some of it conscious, with intrinsic ends and self-replicating tendencies. Putting it down to chance simply misses the point.
Further, there is good reason to think that all such issues simply fall outside the remit of science alone. Science presumes laws and so cannot ask how the laws came into being. When it does, it conjures up more laws, and so on, and so on. Flew recalls Einstein's comment that the man of science is a poor philosopher.
Incidentally, Intelligent Design, as advocated by conservative evangelicals, is not addressed head-on in There is a God. I suspect Flew wouldn't have much time for it as an alternative to Darwinism: divine intelligence, for him, is an issue where natural selection falls short, notably at the origins of life.
Needless to say, this is only to skim the arguments that Flew presents in his book, though he explores intricacies with admirable clarity. He is keen to point out throughout that the conclusion he has reached now should not be seen as a conversion. This is a wholly rational discovery of the divine for him - natural theology not revealed theology, in the traditional terms. Or as Flew says, he is just continuing to follow the evidence where it leads, as he has done across a lifetime considering the arguments about theism.
He says the book is his "last will and testament": he is a deist. The conclusion can provide only limited comfort to believers since his is the God of the philosophers, not Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. What is the case now, though, is that as he was once the chief architect of profound challenges to believers, he now does the same against atheism. His position echoes that of Einstein (who he goes to some length to "reclaim" from Dawkins in The God Delusion). Einstein said: "My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.'"
They say every sin is deadly but I believe they may be wrong...I'm guilty of all seven and I don't feel too bad at all
My point remains. I don't care if you are religious or atheist, as long as you are a kind human.
Really there is no difference between you and the people you seem to enjoy arguing with.
"Your an idiot, God is a fabrication of your mind, I can't believe how naive and simple minded you are."
"No your a moron, God is everywhere and created the eye ball, if you don't believe in God you have no morals, I can't believe how naive and simple minded you are."
The fact is I found it ironic and quite comical that Ed would sing "don't ever think for yourself, don't be different, don't ever ask questions" to room full of lackeys hanging on his every word, taking their political and religious queues from a songwriter in a form of idol worship not much different than the lackeys that fill the pews each Sunday.
Again, not all religious people are mindless sheep and neither were all the folks in the Wiltern, but there are large populations in both groups who are. So for one to mock the other might be more than just ironic, and borderline hypocritical.
Here's the difference between a believer and a non-believer: A believer accepts, at least in part, ancient writings and religious doctrine as the basis for their belief in "god". A non-believer accepts nothing that cannot be proven tangibly.
If the fundamental basis (and let's be honest with ourselves here) for your belief is what you've been taught from these ancient writings and religious doctrine, then how can you, even for a second, believe that you're in any position to comment on the existence of any god. Your only proof is a book that was supposedly "inspired" by god.
Disbelief is just that. Belief is something quite different. You say it's there, I only ask that you show it to me...then I'll be quiet.
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
They say every sin is deadly but I believe they may be wrong...I'm guilty of all seven and I don't feel too bad at all
The Wachowski Brothers once said, that without a God, everything, the whole universe and beyound is just a 'Ooops.' and an unlimited unlikely oops also. It is so unlikely, that to believe in that, your faith musst be stronger than the faith of any believer. Life emerges from lifeless matter. the fact that something exists, why not nothing? all the factors that earth needed to provide the conditions: the right distance to the sun, the moon, the magnetic field, the temperature, the size, the Oxygen and those others air ingredients (sorry) and then another 10 miracles like life, evolution, planet not being hit so far by meteoroid so we all die, and at last not least: the human mind!
if you believe all this (and im sure there is way more) is a coincidence, than you believe in coincidence. I think it is more likely that there is a God. (what humans made out of this insight, is a hole other story.)
1) Personal preferences in any kind of art
2) Political stands
3) Religious beliefs
Some people continue to waste time discussing such things, which frankly confuses me. When was the last time you changed your well thought out tastes and beliefs because someone told you that you were wrong? My guess is never.
I understand your point. I'm only saying, don't call me a moron for having faith and I won't call you a moron for not. Fair?
i wonder if there are any people or ethnic groups who don't, and never have believed in some sort of spiritual-god-like-thing.
i mean people all over the world have different religious ideas and they have had it for thousands of years. why is that? do you know of any tribe or so, that definitely hasn't a belief that could be described as sort of a religion?
and i'm not against atheists at all. one shouldn't care what a person believes in. it's your decision, and should be. as long as you are a peaceful and kind person, there's nothing wrong with any believe or non-believe.
Munich, Germany 2007
I could not agree with you more. Especially the part above....
What I find funny about this conversation, is the lackeys might change their tune when they find out that their messiah believes in God afterall (Iconoclasts was an interesting show).
Definitely not calling you a moron. My only point about religion is this:
Religion satisfies, too easily, the human need to know "why" and "how". "Why" and "how" are the same questions that motivate science. My opinion is just that the "why" and "how" as answered by the recognized (mostly ancient) faiths are wrong. I still want to know the answer to both questions. It's just my opinion that they are, as yet, unanswered by anything that I've seen. Hence, "religion is the opiate of the masses", as stated by Ben Franklin. It fills the void in us that would normally inspire us to explore, learn, grow and create. To me, it's a giant crutch for mankind's fragile ego. God forbid we not be the most important entities in the universe.
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
Here is a threat that explores this question:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7239
very well said my friend!!
No there is not. Every people, every tribe believe in somethin bigger than themselves, even if it is a mountain or so. That was my God proof years ago: it is natural to believe in God, so, according to the evolution theory, everything in nature is there for a good reason.... i know its not conclusive.
by the way, before 17th hundred, there was no atheism. Feuerbach was the first. I wonder how it was like then.. all this time. and, now, it is, idont know 90 percent of the people on earth believe in a god.
and then we have some people today who dont believe in what always was known to be. Most of atheist argue with science, which is kind of weird to me. Most nobel prize winners were believers. plus science invented all those weapons. I guess its because it is very successful and dominates industry nations like ours.
Plus: I dont understand people contributing to this thread saying how little sense it makes to argue, to ask these questions. It makes sense to me. So what is your point in posting? (Its almost like on this stupid antsmarching.org forum, those people hurt my brain)