Preserved Topic: Peanut Gallery for "Does God Exist?" III

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).]

bodhi23: I believe you are refering to Bishop Usher who worked out that a strit interpretation of the bible would make the world something like 4000 years old.

There are probably other precendents for monotheism but we are getting back to the limits of recorded history. Things are still controversial in relation to Akhenaten and the Atun (sp?) but it is possible that this heretical move away from the pantheon of Egytptian gods could have inspired Moses.

Thanks for the filling in of the details . In some ways it may have been a 'need' for a more popular brand of monotheism that forced the emergence of the early church. Constantine's edict of Milan in 313AD (where he outlawed persecution of monotheism) really set the stage for the Council of Nicaea in 325AD where he effectively created the modern version of Christianity. Although he was only baptised on his deathbed and the empire's religion remained pagan sun worship (Sol Invictus) with the Emperor as high priest the reason we have Sunday as our day of worship and not the Sabbath, why we celebrate Christmas on the day of Natalis Invictus - the rebirth of the sun and not Jesus' birthday and the origin of the halo.

Mithras (the decsendant of Zoatrianism) is also mixed in with this (and has its holy day on Sunday and celebrates 25th December and is often mistaken for Sol Invictus). Mithrasism contained elements like an immortal soul, some kind of judgement day and the resurrection of the dead.

In some ways Constantine wove all these elements together to form the form of Chritianity we know (a misxture of pagan beliefs and Judaism).

[edit I had a little nose around and came up with this:
www.sabbatarian.com/photos.html - annoying music and I wonder about their biases - see also their page: www.sabbatarian.com/Constantine.html - now I didn't know that about the 12 days of Xmas (the formatting of that text is appaling)
http://web.infoave.net/~toolong/solinvictus.html
www.thegreatestpuzzle.com/325j1.htm - good stuff here
www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/pagan.html
www.geocities.com/spenta_mainyu_2/mithras.htm - scroll down to Mithraism& Christiantiy

anyway thats enough to be going on with]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Hehe...thanks, Emps for the links...interesting stuff, indeed! I think I hear raving and ranting coming down the hall...from a foam-flecked mouth...wonder who that could be...'The Holy Bible is God's word, and isn't for the likes of you! Oh, ignorants! Ye shall burneth in Hell!'

I'll be back 1 week from today, I will be away from any PC for a full 6 1/2 days. Good luck WS.


___________________
tri-eye

Whoa, whoa, there's just way too much intelligence going on here for a peanut gallery.

Now where did I put those empty shells...

random observations on recent comments in this thread...

creationism - most of the comments seem to stem from a VERY fundamentalist viewpoint here. what if we looked at it from the viewpoint of the biblical creation of man (Adam) being the creation of man with a soul and not necessarily the first humanlike creature? (and yes, there is scriptural evidence to support this)

constantine - bodhi and emp make some great points, my one comment would be that his "faith" is highly debatable, his actions (tho they certainly did serve to assemble Christianity as we know it) could very well have been rather politcally motivated. and he and a council assembled the bible into more or less what we know today in around 330 AD (to answer an earlier question).

counterfeitbacon - darn good question

evolution question - how does evolution account for completely different species appearing spontaneously in the fossil record?

good discussion folks...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Uhhh...I think this

quote:

---

evolution question - how does evolution account for completely different species appearing spontaneously in the fossil record?

---

needs to be expanded on...why should that be unusual? A quicker change in the environmental conditions, for example, could cause abrupt evolution in many species at once...(note that 'abrupt' doesn't mean instant here...). Examples of this are the beginning and end of Ice ages...

One must keep in mind, that Evolution itself is a fact, it's just the theory of how it works that is debated...

And in response to the 'First Human with a soul' thing...are you then suggesting that the Aboriginals (and native americans) don't have souls? Ludicrous...absolute humbug. That was the original reason to wipe them out...but the church did decide they had souls...after killing a large majority of them first...

*shakes head in disbelief*

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 07-05-2002).]

Fig: I agree about Constantine - there isn't much evidence that anything he did on the religious front was done for anything but political reasons.

quote:

---

evolution question - how does evolution account for completely different species appearing spontaneously in the fossil record?

---

Species don't appear spontaneously in the fossil record expect (in the broadest interpretation) where the animals tend not to preserve well and the finds of them are incredibly rare.

Other than that this is a form of the arguement about the lack of transitional fossils. First there are two reasons to explain it:

1. Punctuated equilibrium

2. The fossil record is incomplete and so there will appear to be less smooth transitions.

This is also just not true - if you look at the hominid fossil record we clearly have remains that are like us but not us (around 600,000 years ago - in fact you probably extend this back to Homo erectus around 1.8 million years ago) and we see a gradual change to modern humans (around 100,000).

Again I'd direct people to the talk origins site (and in this case the Fossil Hominids FAQ although there are a wide number which address this issue).

[edit: And I agree with what WS said on the issues of souls - such an arguement has been used to justify some pretty nasty acts. I would also say that it is based on a number of unprovable assumptions and is awfully circular]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

WebShaman: Here is what I think, and this is an uneducated responce, but I have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about. Aboriginies are still around today, and are funcioning members of society. Those that aren't have feelings, religion and social events. Maybe Bugs could better expand on this, but my impression of a soul, and apparently Websters impression to, is:

quote:

---

The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

---

IMHO, they have souls, and the people who killed them for not having a soul were just trying to find an excuse to take over their land and freedoms, eg: The Native Americans.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong...

As for Adam and Eve

i hope i don't bore you with a little story (one of my favorites) from the KJV Bible
it speaks well to the topic of the debate

Acts:17:22-33

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars hill, and said, Ye men of Athens I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things that are therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life and breath and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he is not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art or man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he has raised him from the dead.

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

So Paul departed from among them.

I hate when people put words into one's mouth. nowhere did i say, or intend to imply, that with groups of people that co-existed that some had souls and some didn't. i'm almost offended that that closed-minded of a thought would even be attributed to me based on what i've written in here in the past. i've openly talked before about the wrongs that religion has in fact committed on societies in history and that people have often used God's name to cover their own predjudices.

*shakes own head in disbelief*

my basic thought on this comes from the translations from the original text in Genesis, which says something to the effect of that God breathed a "sprit of life" or soul into Adam. there are also references by biblical historians to creatures "like humans but not human" in the times before Adam. does it mean they didn't draw on cave walls, have tools, etc.? no, it simply means they lacked "neshama", a soul. how does this relate to the idea of aborigines pre-dating many other peoples? don't know, i hadn't ever read anything about that until this thread. i'm doing some reading on it in general now and trying to find out more on how this whole idea could work.

as far as evolution i was just asking a basic question, i don't have enough knowledge there to argue it as intelligently as i'd like to at this point. the one thing i do think is that with evolution that bothers me is that the statistical chance of life evolving is just so miniscule it, well...takes a lot of faith

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Fig: I don't think we were suggesting that is what you were saying just that similar arguements have been used to justify some pretty bad things

Yes the odds are low (the Drake equation shows out how small the odds could be) but the Anthropic Principle makes it clear that if if conditions weren't right then we wouldn't be here asking these questions



___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Ok, let's seperate the two topics for a minute - the 'soul' thing...actually, it is very common (well, to be blunt: just about all 'people' describe themselves as 'the people' and the rest are 'not people'...seems to be a very 'human' idea with most early tribes...it has always been my impression that the old testament is the history of the Hebrew tribe...thus, one would expect that...the 'us against them' thing...'We have souls, and they do not' sort of thing...)

Now, evolution...that's something entirely different. And the odds of it happening? Hehe, it used to be a small number (though if one looks through the information that I posted, one could see that it is not so unprobable as one might suspect...). However, since those pesky German scientists found the conditions that one needs to produce the 'amino acids' (building blocks - proteins)...the odds have vastly improved. So the origin of the building blocks of life are not difficult to explain...what is difficult is the 'chain' to more complex organisms...some of which is understood, some not so well...but we are getting there...

I take it that the moment that someone 'creates' life in the laboratory (from inanimate materials), the creationists (and god-believers) are going to go nuts...probably the word 'blasphemy' will be used repeatedly...which is really an exclamation of 'You can't do that...it erodes our Faith! That's reserved for god only!'....go figure....

I suppose I should also address Bugs' arguement using the idea of a conscience. Esp:

quote:

---

This Law of Human Nature, this sense of right and wrong, this conscience the vast majority of us experience is REAL.

---

I have a number of objections to this:

1. That there is a Law of Human Nature - you use the examples of 'civilisations' but one were to venture far into the wilds of places like Papua New Guinea you would (at least until recently) find tribes who didn't share your ideas on what is acceptable (large scale cannibalism for example).

2. These are the same 'civilisations' that have been responsible for some of the most organised and widespread horrors: The Holocaust, the murders of Jews during the Crusades, the Inquisition, Mai Lai, etc.

3. That there were somehow some kind of conscience that separated us from the animals but other animals that live in groups (chimps, gorillas, elephants, dolphins, etc.) all tend to moderate any kind of desire to run wild and kill without provocation. I would argue that things like conscience and alturism are more easily explained by some kind of 'selfish gene' arguement. Its probably a reflection of our primate heritage.

4. You mention 'civilisations' but there is probably a need for more restraint in our behaviour in increasingly urban environments as tribal conflicts within cities would quickly lead to anarchy.

So what I am saying is that civilisations may not be as civilised as you give them credit for (in fact they allow brutality on a much larger scale), that what is 'right' is actually more dependent on one's society and most certainly cannot be defined as a Law, that there are more likely evolutionary/biological reasons why we display behaviour that has been interpretted to prove the presence of a conscience and that having to live in urban environments has forced us to further moderate our behaviour.

I'll throw any other ideas in when they occur to me.

Thoughts?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Hehe. Why does that sound familiar?

I'm back... been away for a bit... I've got a lot of catching up to do I can see. Wow, some good stuff going on here. It's amazing how much stuff can transpire when you're away for just a few days.

. . : slicePuzzle

Hmm...I'm really getting concerned here! You see, I thought that this debate would of been finished by Wendsday, because I'm leaving on a bike trip which will take about 25 days to complete, and will have no access to a computer during that time. So basically, I have about 1 and a half days untill I leave, and will most likely not be able to finish the debate unless it speeds up very quickly, which I'm sure would put a lot of undo stress onto people. So, my question is, if a question is not posted for me, would somebody be willing to take my spot in the debate if my question is not posted by Tuesday (PST)?

I'm not sure. But as far as I'm concerned I don't think time is really that important. This is the sort of topic that comes up a lot and so if this formal debate takes a while to actually complete, I think that's fine because "it's one for the archives" so to speak. But that's just my take on it.

Correct. There is no hurry or time limit involved here. Just come on back when you are able and your question will be waiting on you. Have fun on the bike trip!

Cell Number: 494

Thanks BeeKay and Bugs, actually, I'm leaving tommorow, since theirs nothing better to do. Maybe I can get to an Internet Cafe and answer the question. Oh well...Cya!

Interesting point Emps...but I think Master Suho covered it, as well...however, I also must disagree with our six-legged friend when he says

quote:

---

This Law of Human Nature, this sense of right and wrong, this conscience the vast majority of us experience is REAL.

---

According to the Aboriginals, this 'reality' is just a dream...and not real at all...so in regards to a 'conscienceness of right and wrong' that we 'experience' is real...no, I don't think so...it is just a figment of our imaginations, an attempt to 'imprint' the laws of nature with our own...

Bugs is half-way correct in saying that all Humans (unless insane) do have a sense of Right and Wrong...it's just that this sense is not a global conscienceness...rather, it is individual...

And it doesn't matter what I believe, or under which society (if any) I live...I still have a sense of Right and Wrong...we often useterms such as Negative and Positive, Good and Evil, etc, to express this. At the basic level, all it really means is: That which I want is good, that which I am prevented from getting, is bad (unless I don't want it). That which hurts me, is bad. That which feels nice, is good. This are basic feelings, and even animals have them, to an extent.

To live together in groups though, one starts to need rules...first to survive against outside threats, then to survive (and co-exist) within...

In very large groups, one needs laws, and ways of punishing those who violate them (in the public eye). Otherwise, one soon has anarchy and chaos, and the group disintegrates into individuals...

WS & Suho1004: Unless I've missed something I don't think I've just repeated Suho1004's arguements have I? Its definetely one aspect of Bug's arguement I wanted to examine further (no rush though Bugs )and there were points that hadn't been made (although Suho1004 had mentioned some things I thought it worth putting in my take on it).

All very interesting and congratulations to Beekay for getting this moving

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned before ( ) but I'm wondering what the pro camp make of religions that differ hugely from one with a belief in a God or Gods - what about Buddhism? I believe that they don't have a God as such but what about Atheism? It is a belief system with about as much valid evidence going for it as any other religion.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emps: I wasn't implying that you repeated my points. I was just saying that parts of your argument sounded, well, familiar--as in similar, but not necessarily the same. You brought up points that I didn't discuss (for example, calling into question the whole concept of a "civilization"). I focused more on the dangers of ethnocentrism, etc. I just think we had different takes on a similar subject, that's all. I hope my comment didn't come across in a negative way...

Wow! Go away for a few days, and all kinds of stuff just goes on without you! Dang! There is so much reading here!

Let's see, we have the question of souls, the question of evolution, and I think someone just brought up the question of reality... All of this sort of blends into a theory I've read a little on concerning multiple realities, and the belief that the world as we know it exists because we agree that it exists. I.E.: Consensual Reality. The idea is that everyone's reality is separate, but that there are certain things that we agree exist, like, cars and roadways, and computers and PhotoShop, and the Asylum, etc. So the previous quesitons of the soul and evolution could fit into that whole little theory right there. That one person's reality, creationism, may not be another person's reality, atheism, but that we still agree that we're here anyway. Right? Anyone care to comment on that one? I'm interested to see where this goes...

And Bugs, how goes the answer to that question? No rush, just curious...

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 07-09-2002).]

Suho1004: Sorry I was just having a 'comedy moan' as I hadn't properly read all your posts

Your point about attitudes to copyright is a good one (and well worth bringing up again ) and as well as more extreme examples like cannibalism there are many others: cruelty to animals, genital mutilation, execution of criminals, women's rights, slavery, etc. I suspect we would struggle to find many things that every culture agrees upon.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

back

Emps: Hehe, that's OK. I must admit I've been having a very rough time keeping up with everything here, and I've probably not been doing nearly as good a job as you have.

If we can backtrack for a moment, though, I'd like to ask you a question about something you posted a few days ago. Maybe I'm just an idiot (most likely), but could you elaborate on your comments about the Drake equation and the Anthropic Principle. I looked them up through Google, but I'm not too familiar with them, and I'm having some difficulty connecting the dots, so to speak. Sorry to be so dense.

Suho1004: I know how you feel - take your eye of things and it is tricky catching up!!

Be warned that it is late so I'm not firing on all cylinders but:

Drake's equation: If I've got it right is the equation about the possibility of intelligent life in the rest of the universe. It relies on so many assumptions that it may be unusuable but it does seem to show that life is unlikely but not impossible.

Anthropic Principle: This seems to be used to support some funny ideas out there on the Internet but my understanding of it is that an arguement for the existence of God is that the conditions for intelligent life to emerge are so unlikely (see above) that there must have been a God to make sure everything works just right. But AP says that if all the conditions weren't right then we wouldn't be sitting around discussing the point. I always felt that it was the kind of thing that Douglas Adams should have come up with (he probably did).

Hope that helps explain some of what I said.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well, Drakes Equation and the Anthropic Principle have all been blasted into the past by the late findings of those German scientists...that's why I didn't even bother attempting to dis-credit them...

OK, I think I get that... but I'm not 100% sure. The AP definitely sounds like something that Douglas Adams would have come up with.

WS: a tad vague there, don't you think? How about enlightening the ignorant masses? Maybe just a link to the work of those German scientists?

Sorry to be such a pest, guys, but I haven't really studied this stuff before (although I think I have heard of the Drake principle). I feel like Frankenstein.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an English version of it yet...maybe it is too new...but here is a German text version...that led to the research...still looking for the link for the actual research...I'll post it when I find it (I read the article in a German Science Mag) http://www.goog le.de/search?q=cache:yZQmz5sUbm0C:www.esotericpark.de/download/Funke%2520d.Sch%C3%B6pfung.doc+Baustein+des+Lebens+Neue+Entdeckung&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

Here is a link to the discovery of Building Blocks of Life in Space...albeit in German (sorry!) http://mitglied.lycos.de/WolfgangKlier/index.html#Bausteine

Ahhh...finally found something on this (in English) http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0101/30spacelife/

And the hammer...this link (you just gotta love the source...hehe..) http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0328/p11s01-stss.html

I think that the evidence is seemingly overwhelming...this is very interesting http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1492000/1492411.stm

Finally found the link I was looking for...this one http://www.cosmiverse.com/space03280201.html . As one can see, there are two different findings, one by NASA, the other by those German Scientists...very interesting, because though done in different ways, they both result in amino acids...i.e. Building Blocks of Life...read and weep, you Creationists...

And here is why...you Creationsits are pretty quick...but not quick enough...(hehe...) http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0418space_amino_acid.asp ...here we see a 'rebuttal' (though if anyone actually goes into the biology that he is talking about, one can blow all his arguments away quite easily)...one sees he forgot to rebut the German findings...probably because

a) He doesn't understand German (though the findings are also in English...whatever)
b) He can't (because he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about)

Also, he doesn't take into account of new findings from Astronomy (strange that this would be his downfall...hehe)...that many of the 'necessary' enzymes (and amino acids) have already been fround in Space...a couple of the above links show this...isn't it strange that he doesn't take that into conclusion? But of course it is not strange...it's what all Creationists do with information that they can't refute...it is either not mentioned, or 'conveniently' forgotten...

Either that, or he isn't 'up to date' on the issue...maybe we will 'hear' from him soon on this...I'm sure there are Creationists working feverently on their 'rebuttals' right now...the poor sops...

Now, don't get me wrong...if the Creationists had better, more competent answers, then I would be in their camp...but they don't. Often, what they use as 'proof' of a rebuttal, is pure 'hogwash'...such as 'There are no documentated examples of Evolution'...oh no? Well, they 'explain away' current mutations (that we can observe) and genetic differences as anything but evidence...however, this work here http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/neogenesis_scitues_010501-1.html really just blows the lid off of such rebuttals...because it proves that living things can be altered to have an entirely different 'building block' structure (as we know it) and still live, reproduce, and thrive...a 'man-induced' evolution...

And for those interested in the 'Panspermia Theory', here is the latest (and interesting) evidence http://www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/headlines/2001/cometlife.html and here http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1142000/1142840.stm

Whew! That turned out to be more of aqn answer as I originally wanted to give...

Sorry about that, Master Suho...enjoy!



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 07-10-2002).]

WS: I'm not sure why you wanted to discredit either the Drake equation or the Anthropic Principle?

These findings (vitally important in themselves) have little effect on AP (as this relates to intelligent life - these amino acids are only part of the various things that need to be in place for intelligent life to emerge - others include the laws of physics, our occupying a habitable zone in the Solar System and having something like Jupiter to sweep up a lot of the comets, etc.) and it just affects some of the assumptions underlying the DE giving a result which obviously suggests that life is much more likely out there.

Good stuff - thanks for the evidence - it really invalidates another basic Creationist arguement

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well Emps...the reason(s) are simple...because we (officially) don't know what the 'optimal' conditions for Life are...we assume that Life as we know it, is normal (i.e. the standard), so the conditions leading up to it must then be 'optimal' (or normal, standard, whatever) for it to occur...

But research shows that this may not be true. That Life can form under much different circumstances...that maybe Life is much more flexible then we have been led to believe. That it could (and probably does) form under other circumstances, and conditions.

One must consider that we are at the beginning of such explorations (when it comes to evidence, that is...)

Therefore, theories based on previous evidence? are probably not correct...and need to be revised...

And the theory on the evolution to higher intelligence...well, at this time we have very little evidence (officially) to 'prove' this theory...until, of course, we meet other intelligent beings not of this Earth...

Then we will probably have to revise the theory, anyway.

Now, one could attempt to use the software area (i.e. artificial intelligence) to provide evidence for higher intelligence...that is something that is up-and-coming...well, we will just have to wait and see, won't we?

You see, the current evidence seems to suggest that Life is a natural result of the conditions of the Universe...just like matter, gravity, energy, etc. Thus, it is not 'special', or 'unique'...rather, it is a common, rational process as to be expected from an 'ordered' environment...and as such, pretty much takes the guesswork out of the 'Creator' issue...because the creator, if you will, is a natural process i.e. like a law of nature.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 07-10-2002).]

WS: I may be missing something but I'm not sure why this discredits the Drake Equation - it just changes some of the numbers that get put into it (as does the discovery of more and more planets suggesting that they too may be commonplace).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

It's not that it 'discredits' it...it superceeds it. And that is what I was aiming at explaining...that's why the 'effects' of these new 'pieces' of evidence are so powerful...it alters much of the 'landscape' if you will...

Of course, one could 'revise' the Drake Equation, to fit...however, the Drake equation wasn't really meant to deal with this...that Life could be a common, natural result of nature...and may exist everywhere...or at least potientially...like I said, we are just at the beginning of understanding how this stuff functions...it may (or may not) require a 'standard' (or optimal) condition(s) to come into being...we just don't know...

The evidence suggests that the potiental is everywhere...all the building blocks are at hand, and so are the means...what we don't yet understand are what conditions (if any) are necessary for the potential to turn to actual Life forms? Until we better understand that, most theories are going to 'go astray', and will end up having to be revised (or dropped).

BTW - this really puts a 'damper' on the soul thing, doesn't it? For either

a) all things have souls

or

b) nothing does

mm, ok. so what's to say that an omnipotent creator didn't simply create who-knows-what out there and then simply put the pieces into motion to create life where He saw fit? that's what i really don't get, random facts are introduced and people are like "ooh, this shatters the idea of creationism". why? the creation of the entire universe is covered in like 31 verses in genesis yet we "know" exactly how God would've done things? i think that's about as arrogant as it gets...

chris



KAIROSinteractive

New article on CNN: Ancient skull challenges human origins
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/10/ancient.skull/index.html

Cell Number: 494

Fig: The God you describe there would be a tricky one to address (and disprove) - it is the God who set the first domino falling, the God that the 'torch of science' has consigned to the shadows that we can't quite explain yet. However, that isn't the interventionist Christian God (who sent his son to Earth to save us all) or just about any other God that has been argued for here.

Its an unfalsifiable God and the reason I'm an agnostic not an atheist. Its a God of moving goalposts.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Whoa. Um, thanks, WS. I think.

That was a whole truckload of information, there. Very interesting stuff. I've got to be honest with you, though--I think Fig has a valid point. While this may counter some of the arguments that creationists (who are human) use, if God is really omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent etc., why do we finite humans think that we can explain Him, make Him fit into our theories?

As Emps alluded to, though, some may see that as taking the easy way out. They would say, "If that's how we're going to perceive God, then how are we supposed to argue whether or not God exists?" And to that I would reply, "Now you know why I elected not to join the formal debate." This is why I just hang around the peanut gallery--I still find it to be a very interesting discussion, and I'm always interested in learning about what other people think (and why).

I can't pretend to keep up with what's going on here, but please carry on. It's quite a show!

*leans back, munching on some peanuts*

Ok, after dealing with the 'Christian God' thing...on the the general 'God' thing...

First of all. if we then decide to go with the 'Ultimate Creator' thing, there are a few problems...

a) It must have existed before the creation of the universe...which would then beg the question, what came before?
b) Because it existed before, in something else (we'll call it notUniverse for now), then how did it come to exist?
c) If one goes with the 'creator' thing, then one is stuck in an endless loop...who created the creator?
d) It is quite possible that this 'creator' from the notUniverse was a 'group' that decided to create something...which doesn't make it 'God'...at least, not in the philosophical sense...(sort of like the Wellworld series...isn't it?)
e) If we consider for a moment that maybe there are many Universes, then this 'Ultimate Creator' must have created them all...or created the conditions that led to their creation...hmmm....which brings one back to a)

But the absolute bottom line of the thing is, then we could never answer this question...for despite all our advancements, irregardless of how powerful, knowledgable, etc., Mankind becomes, one could always juxtapose such a question...because in this case, the 'Ultimate Creator' is only responsible (if you will) for the creation part...and nothing else (in this, the meaning must be clarified...the 'creation' part means 'beginning'...where it all started from...).

So let's go further...and suppose that Mankind does make the jump to a real innerstellar race...thus greatly improving his chances of survival. However (after who knows how long...), eventually the Universe may end...i.e. change to an unihabitable environment (at least for Mankind). What then? So this senario begs the question of 'There must be more than just this...' otherwise, despite everything that Mankind accomplishes, it is doomed to extinction...so a way would have to be found either to 'stabilize' the Universe...or to create/move to another...or to move through time (and thus, locking Mankind into an eternal loop). Now that would be freaky, wouldn't it? We meet a much older race of Mankind in Space somewhere, somewhen...that has 'lived' all of our future history...

Personally, I believe there is a purpose behind why Life strives, to reproduce and evolve...and that is, just that. Therefore, I don't believe that the Universe is the 'end station' of everything...or a prison, or a 'container'. I believe that more, it is an environment, and that it must be possible to either leave it, or to re-create it. Or at least to change it...as is possible with all environments. And that is what Mankind is really good at...changing things...we seem to be a sort of 'catalyst' for change...at least we fulfill this role very well. But then, maybe that really is the purpose of Life...who knows?

So when one suggests the 'Ultimate Being' thing, it moves the debate from the 'factual' into the 'Philosophical' realm...

But...

Considering the Physical 'aspect' of the Universe for a moment...our current theories lead to the conclusion, that if one gathers enough matter in one 'place', it begins to 'draw' energy to it (this is the case of a black hole)...which, in turn, suggests that with enough energy/matter, the 'physic laws' can be changed...or suspended (or at least some rules are changed, affected by this). We also know that observing alone can change things...which leads to some interesting conclusions.

Because of these 'interesting pecularities', I believe that it is indeed possible to 'escape' this reality...but then, this is just conjecture on my part...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 07-11-2002).]

Emp, i think you're making some things mutually exclusive that doesn't necessarily have to be. let's get really simple for a second, i have in my hand a quarter. i'm going to drop it and i'm assuming its going to hit the ground. do i think God is going to step in at that moment and make sure the quarter hits the ground? no, that'd be silly. God has created a world with rules and laws that maintain themselves, He has the freedom to step in wherever He likes but our universe as a whole is rather autonomous.

why is it so hard to believe that the creation of the universe was any different? that God didn't simply set things into motion like He wanted? let's take a chunk of genesis 1:

3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." Together these made up one day.

6 And God said, "Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water." 7 And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below. 8 And God called the space "sky." This happened on the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the waters beneath the sky be gathered into one place so dry ground may appear." And so it was. 10 God named the dry ground "land" and the water "seas." And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the land burst forth with every sort of grass and seed-bearing plant. And let there be trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. The seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came." And so it was.

NOTHING in the passage gives much detail at all about how things happened, processes, steps, etc. it simply says they happened. the preconceptions of man and the church have limited God to how He did certain things, scripture didn't.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

quote:

---

the preconceptions of man and the church have limited God to how He did certain things, scripture didn't.

---

Because that was also written by Man...therefore limiting Him, as well...

Because a 'real' Supreme Being would be so far from being comprehensible, or describable, that words would not do the subject justice. This being would also (in such an autonomous universe) not in the least bit be interested in us specifically...but as a component from that which was created...if at all.

For if the above case is not true...then it is by no means a Supreme Being, now, is it...

Interesting is the case that nobody is really considering that the Creator of the Universe may not be a Supreme Being...but rather just a being...like any other...albeit an advanced one.

Fig:

quote:

---

why is it so hard to believe that the creation of the universe was any different? that God didn't simply set things into motion like He wanted?

---

But why should we believe this? Because it says so in your Holy Book? Well there are other Holy Books (and oral traditions) which suggest different things - why is yours right?

WS has touched on a point I was thinking of just before - why God it could just as easily be the Great World Turtle laying an egg, or Santa or the Easter Bunny or some Ascended Master working outside of the laws of time and space or some transdimensional entity operarting outside of our laws of Physics (we could just be in some childs snowstorm globe)? As WS touched on what if we evolved so we did know everything and we relsied that not only was there no God but no natural process that would start the Big Bang and we have to actually go back and start it. Or perhaps there is no beginning and no end - at the start and end of the Universe the laws of Time and Space are very different what if the collapsing universe spawns itself again in a huge loop.

There are a huge number of scenarios (some of those above are admittedly silly but to all intents and purposes have the same likelihood as a scenario involving a God) some of them invovle a 'God' some of them are purely natural process and I'm sure there are plenty of (more realistic) theories on this.

The big question is why do you think a God did it - Occam's Razor would suggest that this is a unneccesarily complicated answer and in fact, as WS has said, involves further questions and assumptions?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I just feel the need to share this.

While away at a condo for a week, I met a girl, she was my age and she was a wicken. For those of you who don't know wicken is witchcraft practiced under white magic, as a spiritual enlightment.

Well I got into a 5 1/2 hour conversation of all kinds of things. She told me how all religions came from peganism, which I didn't believe, but when she told me she was wicken I started to ask questions. I asked her if she could do something magical or sureal. She told me she didn't have the shit to do it there but there was 1 thing she could do mentally to me that might light my fire. She held my hand and asked for an adress, State, City, Street, House number, and Zip code. So I told her my house back in kentucky. While still holding my palm we sat at a table for about 5-10 minutes of silence. And then she told me all about my house, she told me my hosue was white, paint chips falling off due to vitorian aging, she told me how my house was an office on the bottom and the living space on the top, she told me the colors of my room, which are midnight blue and sky blue, she told me about my guitar, she even mentioned my 6 cats. And I was speechless for about 30 seconds because all she had told me was true.

And needless to say I was scared to fucking death.


_____________________
I'd sell, my soul, my self
esteem, a dollar at a time.

Emps, you make it sound as if all holy books are of equal credibility. Is that your position?

InSiDeR, you spoke to this girl for 5 1/2 hours before she told you these things, right? Don't you think it's possible she was able to piece a few things together from that info? There is an actual technique for doing that sort of thing. I'm not completely dismissing the possibility she has some supernatural abilities but what you described happens all the time on the psychic network.

No bugs, you totally missed the point. It wasn't 5 1/2 hours and then the palm reading, it was more like in between the 5 1/2 hours, and within all 5 1/2 hours I didn't even mention to her I lived in kentucky, we just basically talked about music, concerts, and religions/beliefs, nothing real personal except she showed me some pictures of her friends thats it.

By the way this thread is getting way to big.

Bugs: Of course not - my Imperial Bible isn't worth the human skin I'm writng it on but beyond such extreme examples who is to judge these things in an unbiased way and what criteria would you use to assess them?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

InSiDeR, you should tell her she can make a million bucks if she can really do that. There's an organization that will do that assuming she can do what you said under scientifically controlled circumstances.

Emps, what do you mean who is to judge? Everyone has to decide that for themselves. How does anybody decide to believe anything whether it be that Napoleon was a real person to whether we all evolved from lesser life forms? We can only look at the data we wish to and make that decision individually.

But this means that some holy books should have more or less evidence to back them up. As an example, why don't we take the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament and compare how archaeology supports each of them. There is a huge difference there. The OT has quite a bit of verification (as far as city locations, geography and such) whereas there has yet to be found even one piece of archaeological support for the Joseph Smith's claims.

So you ask "why is yours right?" but I should have thought the answer was clear. The only way someone should claim that their holy book is right or at least "more right" than another must be based on supporting evidence. And let me be clear that the evidence should be wide ranging and not just limited to one field or another.

[edit]Umm... I'm probably just being really dense but when you say Imperial Bible is that just a slam or is there really such a thing?

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 07-12-2002).]

But archaeological evidence can't support the exitence of God - it can prove that there were those historical places and probably those people wandering around in the desert but how far can that take us?

What about Scientology vs Christianity?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I totally agree that archaeology only addresses certain things. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we *cannot* prove His existence. We can only cite evidence that can lead to that being the best conclusion. Very few things are proven absolutely and God is certainly no exception there. For instance, did O.J. Simpson kill those two people? We will never be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he did but is it not extremely likely that is what really happened given the evidence?

Scientology vs. Christianity? Interesting. I just recently started looking closer into Scientology to understand that better. Actually doing the comparison between the two could be quite a job. I simply don't know enough about Scientology yet to do that. Do you have a good understanding of it?

Ok, I don't know much on the Scientology thing either, and I have read the Book!

I would also like to know how they 'Match up'. And what about the Koran vs the Bible? Or the Book of the Hindu vs the Bible? Or Confusius vs the Bible?

Now, those comparisons I would really like to see...from an 'evidence' standpoint...

I thought this page was interesting and a decent overview but it was really just a surface look at the church: http://www.scientology.org/world/worldeng/corp/index.htm

. . : slicePuzzle

Thanks Bugs! BTW...you do know we are awaiting your answer to the question in the Formal Debate...

Does anyone even know if the other 'Holy Books' have been compared with Archeology/biology/geology...i.e. with scientific findings?

I take it that perhaps the Bible is the forerunner on the list, and therefore, has the most 'research' done on it...or so it seems. Does anyone know? Any links?

I mean, I know that Archeaology is just getting started with the Australian Aboriginals...just wondering if anyone is really exploring the other 'Belief' systems in that manner...

Oh yes, I know it's my turn in the formal. I've been way busy the last several days and really haven't been here as much as normal. I've got a rough draft of my response and I should have it up real soon now

. . : slicePuzzle

hehe...don't forget to save it! *winks at InSiDeR*

Otherwise you'll end up posting....garbage!

And we wouldn't want that...

Oh, I can hardly wait...*rubs hands together in anticipation*

Whoa. With the amount of time that elapses between visits to the Asylum, I don't think there's any way I can keep up with this thread. I make a comment, come back a while later, and you guys are already way past it. So, um, if it's OK with you guys I'll just be stopping in occasionally to throw peanut shells at people.

InSiDeR: it's "wiccan"--and when she finds out you spelled it wrong she's probably going to place a hex on you. I would stock up on holy water if I were you.

*throws peanut shells at InSiDeR and runs like mad*

Actually, I just finished reading a book of my Dads called Occult ABC. It really scared me, especially the real life testimonies of people that were involved in Witchcraft and Satanic Worsphip. I seriously doubt that she peiced together the information, in fact, their are real psychics. But in the real world, the psychichs power isn't some innate spiritual ability, it is the work of Satanic forces. Bugs knows it, don't you Bugs? It's pretty scary...

...Another guy, the author of "The Satan Seller" was a former high priest in the Satanic Church. He was able to use demons to do his work.

sorry, stupid lightning storm here yesterday fried my dsl modem...

anyways, where to start...well, WS, i'm not quite sure why you feel that if God exists He would have to fit certain characteristics that you think He must have. i mean, we can all have our own opinion there but that doesn't mean any of us are right.

as far as why the bible is right as opposed to other books emp, i suppose that's open to individual interpretation. for me it requires no more faith than evolution would why do i think its right? well, because aside from any kind of physical evidence that bugs mentioned i've found it to be true in every respect with regards to my relationship with God. i don't see why the way it describes creation should be any different. the funny thing is that while many in here are blasting it for being grossly inaccurate, um, its not. things in genesis describing the creation as per the big bang are actually pretty dead on if one bothered to really sit back and look at them objectively. check out "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Scroeder, a physicist with a doctorate from MIT, if you're curious.

counterfeit, true for the most part. there's lots of stuff out there you really don't want to mess with. you want some good stories, talk to missionaries who have served in areas in other countries with high levels of occult activity...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Something personal came up, I may have to drop from the debate, and it also may dramatically decrease my average post rate. I will get back to you on this.

InSiDeR: I hope it's nothing serious...

Fig, I think I answered that...because then it wouldn't be a Supreme Being...

Or are you suggesting that God isn't perfect?

If you haven't already, read some of these strips. They're funny as hell and, if you look really really deep, some of them contain a lot of what you guys are talking about here.

sorry WS, i'm not exactly following your reasoning of why God has to follow your logic to be a supreme being. its also early, i have a headache and i haven't had coffee yet

insider, hope everything's ok, hang in there man.

also, an i guess silly question, umm...where exactly can i find the formal debate to read?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Who opened this back up?

Why do you think that anyone did? Why must you people always be looking for some fanciful explanation to what is clearly just the result of an objective natural process... sheesh!