|
Post by Denithar on Nov 26, 2006 11:49:10 GMT -5
Totally open topic, requested by Spinner.
|
|
|
Post by Emily on Nov 26, 2006 11:52:06 GMT -5
This is kind of tricky for me. I'm supposed to be following the path of Wicca, or at least believing some of its teachings, but at the moment I haven't been active in it for at least half a year.... Anyway - I look forward to the debate kicking off, although I won't participate fully until later
|
|
|
Post by Denithar on Nov 26, 2006 15:01:58 GMT -5
What do you mean you're "supposed" to be following the path of Wicca? Obviously you don't believe in it if you haven't been active in your faith.
|
|
Spinner
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Posts: 223
|
Post by Spinner on Nov 26, 2006 17:54:04 GMT -5
Thanks denithar.... lol... I'm not so sure bout all those terms, but I'm just goong for other...
|
|
|
Post by Emily on Nov 26, 2006 18:27:53 GMT -5
What do you mean you're "supposed" to be following the path of Wicca? Obviously you don't believe in it if you haven't been active in your faith. Precisely my point. Although it was rather hazy. I'm not active in anything at the moment, but who knows what the future holds for me. I will post more later - or at least start to challenge some views.
|
|
|
Post by Denithar on Nov 26, 2006 18:46:54 GMT -5
Alright, well I'll get my views out so John can commence the barrage of his intellect (which whether he knows it or not, I appreciate him challenging me because I want to know the TRUTH and if I am wrong, then I need to discover it).
I believe in intelligent design, and a personal god, unlike spinner/agnosticism. I believe earth's purpose is to glorify its creator. I believe that after death we are judged on the decisions we made and that there are eternal consequences. And I believe ethical standards are universal, involving rights and responsibilities.
To counter that with your perhaps common opinion of Christians: I have not been to church for a long time, I think religions is often used to gain power over the public, and I have homosexual friends.
|
|
Spinner
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Posts: 223
|
Post by Spinner on Nov 26, 2006 19:43:59 GMT -5
Can anyone quote the argument john and I had in the about the authors page? would be appreciated....
Den, I am not saying that god is a non-anthropomorphic one, but rather... when I try to analyze the concept of God, I like to assume that he is not. In doing so, it makes thing more black and white and more objective....
My mum's a PHd in philospophy and from her I learned there is something called the categorical imperative....
"Act according to a maxim such that it can be universalized"
so I do believe that ethical standards are not fabricated by religion. they are merely enforced by it. So yes. I believe they are universal. Not all mind you.
|
|
|
Post by Donald Duck on Nov 26, 2006 19:46:28 GMT -5
Can anyone quote the argument john and I had in the about the authors page? would be appreciated.... I'll do it. Just hold on a sec.
|
|
Spinner
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Posts: 223
|
Post by Spinner on Nov 26, 2006 20:21:12 GMT -5
thanks.. t'would be much aprreciated... So since this a religion debate thread, is a discussion theism included??
|
|
Spinner
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Posts: 223
|
Post by Spinner on Nov 26, 2006 20:29:33 GMT -5
Sorry for double posting but I want to make one thing clear when I say
God- anthropomorphic. God as religon sees it god- Philosopical god(assuming that if there is a god, he has certain attributes) being-means anything that is eternal from which we came from. Which could also mean John's eternal in itself universe. But could also mean philosophical god minus the attributes.
I sometimes conufse trhe usage of these terms, I'm sorry
|
|
|
Post by Denithar on Nov 26, 2006 20:33:38 GMT -5
Please use spell check... you're confusing me further.
|
|
|
Post by Donald Duck on Nov 26, 2006 21:10:54 GMT -5
Okay I think I got everything. If not tell me what I missed.
John: To Most Everyone: I only criticize beliefs that have been PROVEN to be incompatible with science. It is unlikely that a God created the universe, but it is impossible to prove or disprove, so I will only say that I would like to believe there is not a God, that I disagree with those that insist our very existence necessitates one, but I will ONLY insult things (the age of our world for instance, or Den’s continuous shouts that the earth is the center of the universe ) that clash with science. I hope I make myself clear.
Spinner: now...now... because the big bang has become so popular, people seem to forget it's still a theory just like every other. (I'm finding the riptide theory to be quite intriguing)... science may provide all answers, human reasoning will tell us that some entity/entities exist that are not bound by our science(some people just like to call that entity God). You may not believe in the biblical god but you cannot possibly deny that there is a greater force from where we came from, and that entity is it even if science cannot explain it..........
John: I think we really ought to revisit the denotation of 'theory'. Some insist that it means 'hypothesis', but those people have not taken the time to actually look the word 'theory' up in a dictionary to find that it means that, plus something further. The OED, the definitive english resource, defines it as the following:
A hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
"you cannot possibly deny that there is a greater force from where we came from, and that entity is it even if science cannot explain it"
I sure as hell can. There is absolutely no record of any 'greater force', and projecting images of ourselves in the best of lights into the sky and worshiping them is something that I will certainly deny myself the pleasure of partaking in.
Den, I was making a joke about your fundamentalist christianity. It is something that you would believe, given either Galileo's proof or the Church's might as options in the 17th century. Spinner: the keyword in your definition of theory is "accepted". A theory is man's best answer at the moment. A theory is like a toy boat tested on water(stephen hawkings, theory of everything. A commentary, but a good read nonetheless), if it is a well built boat, it will not sink; and yet we must realize that just because it doesn't sink doesn't necessarily mean it is unsinkable.
John, you are an intellectual. So indulge me me for a moment. Do you know why science can never win out against religion despite its many answers?
John: Several reasons:
1) Religion has become so much a part of our world culture that it would take hundreds of years to remove it, even if we had the desire to, which we don't.
2) Religion can answer anything with a quick "because God did it". Events that science isn't yet capable of answering automatically become "miracles" or "testiments of the apocalypse" depending on whether they are good or bad.
Spinner: Number 2 is the answer I'm lookng for.
That is true. And do you think there is no logic in this?
John: I think that 'Middle America' or, as I sometimes call it 'The Den Region', looks for the most simple and easy-to-understand answer for a given problem. If the question is "where did we come from?", it's much easier to project an great God into the sky than reason "well, if matter can be neither created or destroyed, it seems reasonable to suggest that it has always existed and always will exist, contracting, exploding (Big Bang), expanding (as we are now), shifting (google Blue Shift), and then contracting again".
Some *cough* Den *cough* simply cannot imagine the concept of forever, or, indeed, 4.6 billion years!
Spinner: as you are an advocate of science, I am an advocate of logic/correct human reasoning
true... it is much easier to project an anthropomorphic god... but... it is only logical to suppose the existence of "being(the impersonal god, who is not necessarily intelligent but from where we all came from)"...
have you ever heard the old dictum, most of the time the simplest solution is usually the correct one...
John: A few problems with your argument:
"It is only logical to suppose the existence of being the impersonal god, who is not necessarily intelligent but from where we all came from"
If the above convinces you, Spinner, then you're welcome. But all that I see is what one might call deism:
Deism n. The distinctive doctrine or belief of a deist; usually, belief in the existence of a Supreme Being as the source of finite existence, with rejection of revelation and the supernatural doctrines of Christianity; ‘natural religion’. (OED)
To this, I say that all must have a beginning. And while the physicist’s explanation may seem inadequate (that matter simply came into existence) we see that it is a whole lot more reasonable than the theologian's argument (that a complex being, capable of designing a universe, simply popped into existence), and that however inadequate it is, religion is a whole lot worse.
And if, Spinner/Den/Ed, you say "Oho! But God exists outside of space and time and is eternal!” I shall say, "If God can be eternal, what stops the universe from obeying circular time, and being eternal in and of itself?” See above post for details.
Spinner: You rely too much on your dictionary... things aren't as simple as you put it.. Everything in reality is contingent, as long as it follows our system of logic, it will always have a place from where it stemmed from. I don't think the universe can possibly be it because it exists within our reality, follows our physics, and as well as this system of contingency(the last part was mostly opinion). Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it is impossible for the universe too be eternal in itself, but this is where thomas aquinas' intelligent design comes in. I know you might come back with "the big bang is a repetetive process argument", but keep in mind that although it makes god(small g) uneccessary, it does not necessarily eliminate him from the picture. It's a matter of biases when choosing one over the other.
Again, I must make known that I'm an agnostic, I jsut somewhere in between in all this. The reason I argue with you is because, although I am not pro-god, I have to make known both sides. You have to keep an open mind. Your faith in your science is comparable to the blind faith of catholics you so openly criticize.
|
|
Spinner
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Posts: 223
|
Post by Spinner on Nov 27, 2006 2:45:20 GMT -5
lol.. okay... I was writing that in a hurry... my apologies
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Nov 27, 2006 19:06:21 GMT -5
Another thing, Den, to your "but the earth lasted 6,000 years" rubbish. Dating methods have been acknowledged to be, while not accurate down to the year, fairly reliable in giving us an approximate date. We have dated such things as dinosaurs with dating techniques that measure ENTIRELY different things in the material (e.g. one test might measure argon, one might measure potassium, one might measure carbon, etc.), and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has led us to the conclusion that dinosaursare at the earliest, 65 million years old (which kinda blows your world view out of the water). I have never read a single book/article/encyclopedia on dinosaurs that suggests they lived at any more recent time than that.
|
|
|
Post by Donald Duck on Nov 27, 2006 19:12:05 GMT -5
Just how many books have you read about Dinosaurs?
|
|