Preserved Topic: Peanut Gallery for "Does God Exist?" III (Page 1 of 3)

Please continue the conversation here. Also, would an admin please close down the other thread? Thanks.

How are things coming along InSiDeR?

Cell Number: 494

Should be tommorow or tuesday, most likely tommorow unless I run out of time.


___________________
tri-eye

quote:

---

edit for obvious reasons

---

Nope...not obvious. What were they?

Koan 63, written on the wall of cell number 250:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

Um, yeah, I second that motion. It may be obvious to the people who read the first post, but it isn't obvious to me. And it's going to be less obvious the more time passes. Imagine someone coming across that thread in the archives...

I just assumed he would replace that comment with the stuff he's working on so it shouldn't confuse the archives.

Oh, OK. If that's the case then no prob.

Yes, people didn't like my not so well thought out response before so I edited it out to stop myself from becoming even more of a fool, when I am ready to respond ill edit back in.


___________________
tri-eye

Hmmm...I thought Synthetic wanted to pay us a visit...and expound on his beliefs...and mybe learn more about mine...but...

Oh, well... from Synthetic

quote:

---

Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.

---

Uhhh...not only is that flawed logic...it could very easily describe the 'Big Bang'...maybe it was the 'first cause'? Though I don't personally believe either of the two are the 'First Cause'...our perception of Time limits our understanding...we seem to think of cause and effect...event and influence thereof...but from such a long-distance standpoint, nothing moves much...or actually happens...from an 'infinite' standpoint, nothing happens, at all.

But we are linear creatures...caught in the time-stream...and therefore our perceptions are shaded by this. I personally believe there was (or is) something even behind the Big Bang, but not God...otherwise, we could someday reach this power ...no, I believe there are processes we don't yet understand...

Aah...I see that InSiDeR has posted...interesting...

Well, in comparison to the last post, it's much, much better. And actually raises a few points...*whew*

So, bring on the questions! Yeehaawww!!!!

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 07-01-2002).]

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 07-01-2002).]

Excellent. We're back on track. According to BeeKay's setup, I think I'm the first to take a question of his choosing.

Thankya WS

Thanks InSiDeR!

Thankya CFB!

Thanks Slime!

lol, ok enough...

as WS said, bring on the questions


___________________
tri-eye

InSiDer -
Much better! But you didn't post the sources for your references. I'd be interested in knowing where your quotes came from.

You have an interesting position. I'm gonna have to read it a couple of times and think up some good questions for ya...

Some of them from a few atheistic websites that I know of, and some from some google research .


___________________
tri-eye

I have to agree ... It's important to know who/what you are quoting. Please take the time to edit your post with that information at your convenience. We won't stop the debate to wait on this, but please do so before the debate is over and the thread is archived.

All righty then. Question time. Give me some time to read through the peanut gallery threads and pick something out. If anyone has a question they are passionate about seeing in the formal debate, please speak up ASAP.

Cell Number: 494

Just go to google and type "proof that god doesn't exist" or "proof there is no god" and you'll find some of my quotes.

Insider, I believe it's called 'showing your work'...

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

I know but, I tend to lose my work .

Oh good grief insider! Go to Google, find your sources again and attribute your quotes properly. Stop being so dadgum lazy. If you want anyone to take you seriously, then please act responsibly. Thank you.

Nuuuuurse! Please increase the boy's meds!

Cell Number: 494

alrighty then....

Koan 63, written on the wall of cell number 250:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

Honestly Beekay, this is the only day I have found any time to spend on the computer aside from a few quick minute posts that I find time for every once in a while. As I said I am going to take a week trip starting wednesday and ending I think saturday, so I won't be able to get to the PC.


___________________
tri-eye

My God InSiDeR, your pretty darn lazy. huh?

Aww...well...I've seen some of the quotes, and I really don't think It's all that important even though I'd like to see them, but, really, people, I didn't document my sources like WS or Bugs did...

Like I said:

quote:

---

We won't stop the debate to wait on this, but please do so before the debate is over and the thread is archived.

---

We're in no rush; just do it please. Thanks.

Cell Number: 494

InSiDeR: I hope you're not saying that you're not going to bother... I'd really like to see your sources.

BeeKay: "dadgum" Hehe

Hey Suho, when did you trip 1000 on the post-meter? Congrats, dadgumit!

Cell Number: 494

InSiDer, like everyone's said, when you get back, it would be nice to have the sources listed for archival sake... It's even more important if they're different sources, because the language of them is so similar. And who knows how long your google search will stay the same?

I'm curious, just because they all sound so Henry Rollins-ish... which isn't a bad thing, I like Henry Rollins' work... but in the interest of record keeping... you know how it is...
Have fun on your trip!

*Ahh... the questions! Someone pass me some peanuts and a Polar Beer... This is the fun part!*

The first question has been tossed out to the debators. Let's see how Bugimus and WS tackle it.

~throws more peanuts to the crowd~

Cell Number: 494

you know what I've realized? Atheists are just like religiouse fanatics...

I know you all are joking about me being lazy ( or so I think you are ) but I sure as hell am not, I am working with my dad every day for a new guitar for my birthday, I just don't have the damn time to get to the PC. I will cite the webpages and they will be archived happily and we will all smile and say "wow that was a great debate."

YES, WE WILL


___________________
tri-eye

Well, the extreme ones are.

There are reasonable people in both the groups of people who do believe in god and the people who don't. (And agnostics, too.) And all the groups have their fanatics.

Ok, work is cited and all is well good luck all!

InSiDer - thanks for the cites. That helps a lot...

quote:

---

There are reasonable people in both the groups of people who do believe in god and the people who don't. (And agnostics, too.) And all the groups have their fanatics.

---

I agree with Slime on that one... All sects have fanatics, as well as "normal" devotees... Athiests can't be counted out. It's the fanatics who get heard the most though, from just about any sect.

*Hey Slime, I'll be in your neck of the woods this weekend... Good ol' Mass.... Got a sister in East Boston I'll be visiting... ~waving~

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 07-02-2002).]

InSiDeR: thank you for the sources

BeeKay: Heh, thanks. Didn't notice that. I'm in the quadruple digits now. Not sure exactly when it happened... probably somewhere in the sig contest, maybe.

And a nice question from bodhi... now while Bugs is forming his reply, maybe I can come up with a nice question. Unfortunately, my forte is mindless, witty comments, and I don't even do those too well!

I have a question, thought not for the debate: Evolutionists critizise creationists because their ideas about the beggining of life take "faith" to work, but doesn't evolution?


________________
counterfeitbacon <A HREF="http://www.ozoneasylum.com/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=OZONE&number=7" TARGET=_blank>

Hmmm...now let's consider this...though one doesn't have to accept Evolution (*waves at Synthetic*)...the evidence is overwhelming...see here http://www.indiana.edu/~origins/links/evolinks.html for all your Evolution needs...

Now, to the point...I take it you mean the 'beginning' of life...for that is where 'Evolution' starts, right? Well, scientists have tried, again and again to 'create' the amino acids (proteins) that form the 'building blocks' of Life as we know it (well, it is possible to 'build' them, but to create the conditions, that's where they were stumbling...)...in an 'earth-like' environment...and couldn't. For a long time, this was puzzeling...how could these 'building blocks' then of got started? Many Creationists pointed at this as 'proof' that there must be a God that did it...but how wrong (yes, once again...) they were...

Because a group of scientists in Germany found out how to 're-create' the conditions...and surprise! They are not to be found on Earth at all, but in space!. It seems the little critters need large amounts of radiation and energy to form...this in and of itself is exciting, because it leads to the conclusion that Life did not start here on Earth after all, but in space...which then leads to the conclusion that Life is probably to be found just about everywhere...making it not so unique as was previously thought...and the finding of Life out there will prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt...(of course, there are those of us that already know that Life exists out there, but I mean official acknowledgement...and don't ask me how I know this...Bugs kinda knows, and that's all I'm going to say on the subject).

I hope this goes a little way to providing the information that you asked for...of course, with this evidence, we once again are pointed back to the 'Creation' of the Universe(s)...and what started it...but the Life question is pretty much answered...or at least explained in a 'scientific' manner...

And now a question (or two, actually...)...

How old is the Bible, and when was the first book created? Does anyone know? It's not a question for the debate, more a curiosity question...(and for that matter, let's consider all such books...be it Christianity, Hindu, Confucius, Moslem, etc...when did the 'first' book(s) appear?

Also, I am wondering about the 'Timeline of Man' in the Bible...just how many years is it? The Bible lists Mankind back to Adam and Eve, right? So one should be able to estimate the 'Time-line' from that...just how many years is it? How old is Man, according to the Bible? Anyone know?

This link http://www.serve.com/lambhorn/versus4.html makes a stab at the Timeline...and computes it to be in the neighborhood of 5000-6000 years...I'm wondering if someone has anything else...

Wow, this is interesting http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_430000/430944.stm . I didn't know this...and in case someone is asking 'what has this to do with the debate?'...well, wait...and you will see..(hehe..)..

Because...wait for it...of this http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects/tools/Prehistory.html

Now, considering the Timeline in the Bible, man is about, oh, 5000-6000 years old. Now, obviously, if the Aboriginals of Australia are 60,000+ years old, there is a conflict...so who is right? Well, don't blame the poor old Aboriginies...they can't do anything about it...after all, it's not their fault that they have such an old culture (the oldest, known culture). And the extensive tests done to prove the dating have proved this (even though there are rabid pro-creationists that still deny it...of course, they must deny it). And all of my searching on Google hasn't turned up another Timeline for the Bible...hmmm.

But wait...let's pretend that the Bible is correct (or the Timeline, anyway...). So that would mean that the Aboriginals are only, say, 4000+ years old...so they couldn't have reached America 11,000 years ago...in fact, there couldn't have been Americans there to reach...hmmm...so I guess that means that the tales of both the Aboriginals and the Native American Indians (my people) are lies...or fantasy...even though they both include tales of pre-historic animals (mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, antelops, etc) (and so do the cave and wall paintings in both landmasses that existed in only those older times...)

So...let us examine the great Flood. For these animals either existed before the great Flood (and died out in the Flood), or, they were taken aboard the Ark (and we'll get to the Ark thing...). However, if taken aboard the Ark (the only way one could explain these 'cave and wall paintings'), then how did their bones get to the Americas, and the Australias in such number? For the moment, let's just ignore the time issue (we'll cover that later...). Just how did the bones get there? Well, we will have to decide that they existed before the Flood (for such large numbers, that must be true). So when did the Flood actually happen? Well, it must be within those 5000-6000 years, and pretty early on.

However, if these animals existed before the Flood (and were all wiped out by it), then how did the people that came afterwards even know that they had existed, to make these paintings? And that, indeed, is the problem...for Wooly Mammoths are certainly not mentioned in the Bible...and one would think they would be, considering that they were seemingly impressive beasts...though they didn't exist in the area of Noah...so maybe he didn't know of their existance...which would mean that the original eight people that re-populated the earth after the Flood, didn't know of them, either...so how did they (the paintings) get there? And come to think of it...they must have been created after the FLOOD (from a creationist view) because the water would have destroyed them if
they had been created before...(man, this creationist stuff is getting hard to believe at all)...so how did they get the idea of these animals that existed before the Flood? And why would they then paint them on the walls?

The Ark...well, considering what we know now about animals (and numbers), the Ark thing is very hard to swallow...if you take the Bible literally. I mean, c'mon, to house all those animals (a pair from every species), this Ark would have to be enourmous...much bigger than that given in the Bible. And what happened to all the pre-historic animals? No wooly mammoths?

The time issue...ok, it is very hard to disprove moderne dating science...it's become pretty accurate these days...but there are always those that still deny the accuracy...so how accurate are moderne methods of finding out the date of something? Well, let's skip that for a moment, and use things that can only be accurate...such as Redwood trees (they live for thousands of years) and stratas in the earth (very remarkable way of tracking time...) and, of
course the air bubbles in artic ice (and antartic) (a very nice way of time tracking...)

Since we are only talking about a 'short' period of time (5000-6000) years, these would do marvelously...unfortuneatly for the Creationists, they all support the scientists views...hmm....and my peoples 'legends' and the Aboriginies...

So what about the other methods? Well, we won't even go into it...because if one accepts that they are accurate, then the Bible is clearly wrong...so irregardless of whether or not they are, Creationists won't believe it...because they cannot! To do so, would then result in a different view of the Bible...that it is not literal...and therefore, cannot be the direct word of God...which invalidates the Bible, anyway.

To wrap things up...the Aboriginies of Australia really throw the whole Bible thing for a loop...now who would have thought that?

Here another link for Timelines http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~kiener/RELG109_TimeLine.html . A rather good one, I think...




[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 07-03-2002).]

OK I have a general question:

I have long argued that the flashlight of science has slowly pushed God into the darker corners of time and space until he exists in the shadows around the Big Bang but I may be giving people too much credit for 'scientific rationality'.

The move to monotheism was more of a marketing exercise than a paragdigm shift in belief systems. The emerging Christian church just absorbed local 'pagan' beliefs (building churchs on earlier temples, hijacking the old holidays, etc.) and providing a pantheon of saints to replace the minor dieties (don't pray to Rongad the Mighty before travelling just say a quick pray to St. Christopher), providing Mary to replace various Earth Mothers and the Hol Spirit to replace the major dieties (Jesus' powers were only really codified at Nicea (sp?) and are just a mishmash of powers taken from local Gods in the Near East).

I know from my own experience in Catholicism that the supersitious belief in saints and holy men is still strong (my birth is still accreditted to a miracle in some parts of my family) and that some of the ceremonies and beliefs in other parts of the world would be unrecognisable to western Catholics.

Some my question(s) (after a quick side excursion to Rantsville) is are the modern montheistic religions really any more advanced than the belief systems of our ancestors (just repackaged and resold for a new era)? Also have the monotheistic religions brought us closer to uncovering some fundamental truth or added extra layers of doctrine and confusion?

Sorry about the dodgy spelling

[edit: I'm also not suggesting it was as cynical as a marketing exercise but you must adapt to survive and the early church was forged in the crucible of considerable persecution and the various schism (New Coke/Cherry Coke anyone?) have not made things easy]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

WS - there was a churchman in the 1500's (if I remember correctly, I'll let you know when I take the class next semester) who calculated the timeline of existence from Adam and Eve through the 'begats' chapters of Genesis to a specific date in the year 4004 BC. That's as far as the Bible is concerned, and taking the ages of Old Testament characters literally. i.e.: Noah lived to be 600something years of age, Moses 900something... If you want to wrap Biblical theory around scientific theory, exactly how long were those first 7 'days'? In the grand scheme of things, it could have been millions of years. Time is relative...

Emps - Before Judaism, the only other monotheistic religion was Zoroastrianism. Zoroaster was considered pretty crazy by the rest of the cultures in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, because he maintained that there was only one god. When THe Sumerians and Babylonians all had one for every purpose. His ideas didn't really catch on for probably a thousand years or so. Then the Jewish peoples started writing about Yahweh in the Old Testament, and for many years, the Jews were persecuted, and then they conquered both Israel (southern modern Israel) and Judah (northern modern Israel). That's when they had a place to call their own and set up their own temple and what not. A small sect of Jewish rebels surrounded a man called Jesus long about 27 AD, and began what became known as the Christian sect, for the nickname that the Greeks gave to Jesus, "Christos"... Then it was the Christian's turn to be persecuted. At least, all that is what they taught me in the Old Testament and Hebrew classes I took several years back. The rest, as they say, is history...

Constantine the Great is the man who really pushed Christianity to the 4 corners of the world. His faith was so great, that he sent his mother Helena to Jerusalem to build a cathedral on every place that had import in Jesus' life. And she did, and they still stand today. Or at least, they stand where the locals at the time told her the events happened... It was during his time, or shortly there after that the council at Nicea took place, and the formal statement of Christian beliefs was laid down. (You did spell that right Emps.) After that, he made Christianity THE religion of the Roman Empire and forced everyone to at least say they worshipped the Christ, even if they didn't in their basements. But if you look at most religious stories, the basic myth structure is the same. There are many stories about a Great Flood, there are many many stories about the birth of a God, and many many many stories of death and ressurections. The Egyptian Isis/Osiris, the Sumerian Innana myth, Greek Persephone/Hades, Celtic Cerridwen/Herne etc... Mostly, just the names and places and method of death changed, the general gist of the story is the same, a god is born, dies, and rises again. It's the cycle of the year if you look closely enough.

Ok, ok, I'll stop. Religious mythology is something that interests me heavily, in case you couldn't tell. At one point, I was an anthropology major intent on a doctorate in religion... *sigh* then art stole my soul away, and I strive every day to get it back!

Hmmm...do both...the best of both worlds...nice.

That with the cycle of the year...very interesting...though my people mostly measured time in months...cycles of the moon.

The Aboriginies of Australia have the oldest recorded culture and religion (60,000+ years)...so, I guess one should start there first, and then proceed...then one could start comparing. Of course, you'll need to put them all in chronological order, first, and then compare them. Wonder if anyone has actually done that? Anybody know?

Hmm...this is as close as I can find http://atheism.about.com/library/chronologies/blchron_index.htm . Interesting. Nobody has tried to chronologically tie all the religions together...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 07-03-2002).]