View Full Version : What are your Beliefs?
After viewing a rather successful poll in the tavern in Atheist vs. Believer and following the comments in the thread, I felt inclined to take this a little further as a little experiment (on my part). Moreover, to reach as many people as possible I chose the Entrance Hall as the location… there will be a link from the Tavern…
I do not really want any comments in this poll and will do a little summary when I feel everybody have had the chance to vote…
Because of the limited space allowed in the poll-space, I have just posted numbers as options…
These are your choices:
Pick the one that “best” describes your belief…
1 I believe in the existence of one God viewed as the source of man and the world, who transcends yet is immanent in the world.
2 I believe in the existence of God as the creator but I deny that God has any continuing hand in worldly matters.
3 I believe that man, nature, and everything else for that matter, are elements or extensions of God.
4 I believe that God’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved.
5 I believe that the question of the existence of God is open, pending the arrival of more evidence. I am willing to change my belief if some solid evidence or logical proof is found in the future.
6 I do not have the time or inclination to think much about God at all.
7 I do not believe in God by conviction… I have read the Bible and studied religion and can give any religion a hard time.
8 I believe in God, but I do not think that salvation only pertains to a few elect or those that claim that their way is the only way under heaven to attain salvation. I do not believe in a favourable God.
9 I believe in God, but I am not sure whether he exists.
10 I believe that God has the same types of emotional, physical and mental characteristics as a human being and that he/she is creator of this world and answers our prayers. I will enjoy an afterlife in his/her kingdom…
Now scroll back up and Vote…
[edit]: small addition in options 10 and 4
SUMMARY
Introduction.
All this, the poll, the questions, started with some discussions in the Tavern regarding Agnosticism and the lack thereof in this forum. People were either strong Atheists or strong Theists.
I decided in a moment of frustration to test, in a little experiment, if this was so and maybe draw a little ammunition form it to strengthen my case.
To give you a little taste of the discussions that I am referring to, here is some links to two of my contributions to the discussions:
Who is God? (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=6;t=10522;st=25;#entry149897)
Atheist or Believer? (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=6;t=10552;st=100;#entry152142)
Selection
Experiments/Researches with the intent to create new knowledge of something based on the circumstances in the world, especially when it comes to; what do most people think of… what are the main beliefs of… encounter the problem that you can’t reach all of the 6 billion people. You have to make a selection that gives a good representation of the 6 million (universe). I believe that there are more agnostics in the western world than atheist and theist. How would I be able to test this?
Let us look at the selection…
This poll can only be reached by members of this forum.
The members of this forum mainly consists of computer owning peeps from western world societies.
TOTAL WAR game series is something they all like and play
There is 4691 (17.09.03:1649 Juliet) members in this forum, all of which are able to vote in the poll.
Based on “how old are you” polls, there are people in all age groups. How old are you? (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=15;t=5010;hl=old)
[/list]
There were 76 voters out of the 4691 that did vote ->; not a great selection and certainly not representative for the .org or the world… but hey, it was fun though.
Validity/reliability
Now a little criticism, the poll does favour agnosticism. Moreover, 4 out of 10 questions fall in that category.
The questions can also be divided into 4 atheism-based questions and 6 theist based questions.
The limitation of posts (10) made it impossible to cover all beliefs. This was however not the polls intention, the intention was to unearth agnostic beliefs and IMO it successfully did so.
Can new knowledge be established from this poll? No it cannot, there is far too many holes and inaccuracies in this poll to pull some valid and reliable knowledge from this.
Analysis
In the space of 10 days 76 people voted their beliefs and this is the results:
Q 1: 13 votes
Q 2: 1 vote
Q 3: 7 votes
Q 4: 9 votes
Q 5: 9 votes
Q 6: 9 votes
Q 7: 16 votes
Q 8: 4 votes
Q 9: 2 votes
Q10: 6 votes
-------------------
SUM: 76 votes
One can broadly divide them into the following two groups:
Q 1: Theism
Q 2: Theism
Q 3: Theism
Q 4: Atheism
Q 5: Atheism
Q 6: Atheism
Q 7: Atheism
Q 8: Theism
Q 9: Theism
Q10: Theism
One can Further divide them into the following:
Q 1: Theist (Gnostic)
Q 2: Deist
Q 3: Pantheist
Q 4: Agnostic
Q 5: Agnostic (Atheist)
Q 6: Atheist
Q 7: Atheist (Gnostic)
Q 8: Agnostic (Theist)
Q 9: Agnostic (Theist)
Q10: Theist (Gnostic)
[/list]
Lets take a closer look at the Questions:
1 I believe in the existence of one God viewed as the source of man and the world, who transcends yet is immanent in the world.
The traditional view of religious belief; the God(s) create the world, populate it, gives direction and guidance via scripture, prophets and angels. Believes that God is the same today as yesterday and will continue to be the same tomorrow, never changing…
2 I believe in the existence of God as the creator but I deny that God has any continuing hand in worldly matters.
This is a surprising result; I would have thought that this option would be a popular belief in these times. A (Traditional) Deist thinks the heavens are closed and that all religious knowledge can be extracted from the inerrancies in the canon of scripture (Bible, Koran, Thora etc). That we are left to govern ourselves.
Warning Strong personal opinion:
There are not many religions to-day that believes in revelation and continuos contact with heaven. For most religious sects and denominations, “God” has given us everything we need to govern ourselves and has as such effectively closed the heavens. You might argue that “God” has contact with us through his spirit (Holy Ghost for Christians) and I think this is the main reason why none has chosen this option. I am asking; if deity is eternal and his ways are the perfect way, why has things changed? Why has the need for divine guidance (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) suddenly changed? Why do we not have prophets, (apostles,) angels and spectacular miracles today… if “our” God(s) is unchanging, why has tings changed when we today are in deeply need for such things (in a religious sense)?
3 I believe that man, nature, and everything else for that matter, are elements or extensions of God.
this was an option to accommodate the believers that do not really believe in a particular being as god, and that believe the entire universe is one deity… a belief in some greater scheme.
I though in my ignorance that this would harbour Buddhism as well as certain aspects of Hinduism, and I realize that I know nearly nothing of this “way of living”. Other than, it involves searching for nirvana as Buddha did and that it involves some “Golden rules” like that of Christianity.
4 I believe that God’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved.
This is the standard dictionary definition for Agnosticism and usually the choice of them that think of themselves as agnostics.
5 I believe that the question of the existence of God is open, pending the arrival of more evidence. I am willing to change my belief if some solid evidence or logical proof is found in the future.
This is also a typical agnostic view…
Many that think of themselves as atheists tend to have this view, but by keeping things open, you allow yourselves to be uncertain… this is what many describe as Agnostic atheism.
6 I do not have the time or inclination to think much about God at all.
This is a rather low number for this category, especially since this choice should accommodate for 80 percent of all atheists.
7 I do not believe in God by conviction… I have read the Bible and studied religion and can give any religion a hard time.
This result does not portray what is normal for this category… according to other statistics this group should only consist of 10 percent of all Atheists… not 21 percent of all voters in all categories. All though I did not accommodate for all of the three types of atheists, question 7 should accommodate for two of them:
Ten percent of atheists are atheists because someone they admire is an atheist.
Ten percent of atheists are the atheists who really give this *.ism the name. These are the atheists by conviction, the ones who believe with all their hearts, minds and souls. They read the Bible so they have ammunition with which to attack Christians.
[/list]
8 I believe in God, but I do not think that salvation only pertains to a few elect or those that claim that their way is the only way under heaven to attain salvation. I do not believe in a favourable God.
This was a trick question, and was put in to capture those that do not believe in Gnosticism. By choosing this, you allowed yourself to be labelled a-gnostic as one that is not Gnostic.
9 I believe in God, but I am not sure whether he exists.
This is also an agnostic view, but it is based on people that do not belong to any denomination. They believe in something but do not really know what this is… also popularly called Agnostic theism…
10 I believe that God has the same types of emotional, physical and mental characteristics as a human being and that he/she is creator of this world and answers our prayers. I will enjoy an afterlife in his/her kingdom…
this was a question I threw in to see if there were any theist that believed in Anthropomorphism; the belief that we are literally created in God’s image, that God is humanoid and have feelings.
Conclusion
So what can be concluded from this little experiment?
I have already mentioned that this is not a very good research experiment and that there are too many scientific faults in it to establish any conclusive knowledge.
I think it proves one point though, and that is; there are Agnostics in the .org forum and if we paint with the narrow brush that I mentioned in my post in Who is God?, this would be the result:
Theists: 27
Agnostics: 24
Atheists: 25
Sum : 76
Two online books on this subject:
Agnosticism (http://www.searchitv.com/a.html)
Gnosticism (http://www.petersnet.net/browse/2979.htm)
[edit]: formatting
Sigurd Fafnesbane
Since I'm a Buddhist, I didn't vote as there wasn't an appropiate option. :/
EDIT - fixed grammar.
I am a very strong athiest and the belief of god is ridiculous according to the bible the world was created 1 million years before christ this is absurd because of fossil evidence dating back around 1 billion years ago.
secondly according to the bible the world was created in 7 days there is also fossil evidence showing the slow gradual random affect of evolution some cases of evolution during our time include the white cabbage moth during the industrial revolution the smog turned the trees black and the random change in the cabbage moths turning black made it so the white moth was picked to death by birds but the black moth lived on.
thanks dessa
Wellington
09-07-2003, 11:06
This elections rigged.
All 10 candidates believe in nothing.
Are you related to Dubya?
I demand a recount ...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif for the unbeliever, for you what you believe and for me what i believe... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
The Blind King of Bohemia
09-07-2003, 16:00
There is something there, but i don't believe that there is one God above all others.
Also does anyone think if God creates man, who is good and cares about life, does the Devil do the same? Surely God would not have created a person like Myra Hindly or Jeffrey Dahmer if he can see all and what they are capable of? Maybe i'm talking crap but its worth a thought http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Wellington
09-07-2003, 16:19
Quote[/b] (dessa14 @ Sep. 07 2003,03:44)]I am a very strong athiest and the belief of god is ridiculous
Belief in God is most certainly not ridiculous.
It serves a purpose for some people, which in itself, IMHO, makes it worthwhile.
We all believe in things we cannot prove. Some believe in UFO's, the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot, others in life on other planets, the Big Bang theory, time travel ...
Some even believe that Dubya is intelligent.
Does that make all of these beliefs ridiculous also? Of course not.
Religion does tend to be a special case however, because it is one means of fulfilling a need that many of us require fulfilling.
Having said that, however, I think Ambrose Bierce probably got it right when he define 'faith' as -
Belief without reason, in what is said by those who speak without knowledge, of things without parallel
However, that only defines faith ... not God.
Welly
Tachikaze
09-07-2003, 19:00
At first, I didn't find an answer that matched my feelings. But then I chose #6, because I don't think about God unless someone asks me about it. There doesn't seem to be any place for God. The world seems complete without one.
Quote[/b] ]Since I'm a Buddhist, I didn't vote as there wasn't an appropiate option. :/
You're a Buddhist and you're playing total war? What about Ahimsa...
Just kidding http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I'm Hindu so I voted number 3 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Knight_Yellow
09-07-2003, 20:10
i belive religion is for people who need some emotional blanket to make them feel safe.
when you die you die, nothing more nothing less.
Portuguese Rebel
09-07-2003, 22:26
Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Sep. 07 2003,14:10)]i belive religion is for people who need some emotional blanket to make them feel safe.
when you die you die, nothing more nothing less.
This is quite frightening for some, and they can't deal with this. The idea of the personal ego to disapear forever is mindbraking for many. They can deal with the disapearence of their body, but not their personality and knowlage.
I'm an atheist who have studied the bible to an extent that few christians ever do (funny stuff this). i find the phrase I believe that God’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved, based on current evidence to be very interesting in the philosophy of science field. It's the old discussion of were does the burden of proof fall? in the ones who say it exists or the ones who say it does not exist. People with scientific knowlage will relate to the idea that you cannot prove a negation in the form of it does not exists if the intellectual counter-part can come up with all the magic reasoning it desires.
To illustrate this im going to use something from Carl Sagan.
If there is guy that says that there is a dragon in his garage do you believe? Probably not, since it contradicts all that has been demonstrated so far (no evidence of dragons whatsoever, far less alive ones). So you ask him to show you the dragon in his garage. So you go there and stare for a couple minutes at what seems to be an empty garage. Finnally you have enough and say to the guy that the dragon doesn't seem to be there. The guys says it is there, and you say you cannot see it. Then the guy says the dragon is invisible to human eyes. You say, ok i'll get my IR glasses and try to see it. You try your IR glasses and still don't see nothing. Then your friend says you cannot see it with your glasses.
You see that there is need for more drastic experimenting, so you collect some gear (a few nets to sweep the garage, some dust to throw on the dragon...). You try to find any evidence of the dragon's existance and fail. Your friend says that the reason all those methods did not work was because the dragon was not corporeal... By this point you are starting to get a little suspicious and ask How do you know there is a dragon in this garage?. Your friend then says he can FEEL the dragon and is certain of his existance dispite your failure to find any evidence of it.
This is an open story, now you either:
1- join the cult of the dragon in garage because you can FEEL it too;
2- say that there is not enough evidence to say that the dragon exists or not (pretty similar to the phrase of the poll);
3- leave your friend with his dragon and declare that there is no dragon in that garage.
By this one can define three big classes of ways to face religion:
1- Believers
2- Agnostics
3- Atheists
I'm one of the last. I'm also open to any new evidence that comes up in this particular question. Until then i find the possibility of the existance of god/s to have the same probability of the existance of:
- Ghosts
- Vampires
- Santa
- Little green men from mars
- The Tooth Fairy
...
Although i do not believe in it i do not find ridiculous to believe (whatever makes you tic), to me, it is just funny.
the emotional blanket theory holds up to scrutiny as regards people who are terminaly ill or have lost loved ones it kind of gives them something to look forward to. i hope theres something after i very much doubt it? though.speaking through experince whos parents died young i hope to seem them again. as regards people who have lost children spouses the church gives them some comfort as regards emotional support to over come there grief at a very vunrable point in time.on the flip side millions have died in the name of religion either enforcing or opposing the faith depending on you religious view point.so it has its good points and bad. as regards evoloution thats were religon [catholic] really falls down every ones entilted to there view as long as you are given all the facts.
PS is RE still a compulisive lesson in schools? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif
Portugese Rebel - a nice post; it puts my position better than I ever could. I know agnosticism can be easily defended intellectually from a position of scepticism (of everything) but religion does seem to be about faith or belief. At some level, I suspect people either believe there is a God or not - it seems too important an issue to live with a maybe. I can find no reason to believe in one and many reasons to doubt the existence of the gods detailed in the various religions.
Quote[/b] (Sigurd Fafnesbane @ Sep. 07 2003,14:16)]
Quote[/b] ]3 I believe that man, nature, and everything else for that matter, are elements or extensions of God.
Quote[/b] ]b]8[/b] I believe in God, but I do not think that salvation only pertains to a few elect or those that claim that their way is the only way under heaven to attain salvation. I do not believe in a favourable God.
So I picked 8 but I couldve picked 3, I used to be a traditional roman catholic but I couldnt believe in the church, so now I believe GOD is the energy that pervades all things and is not the property of religion. GOD is everywhere for me, and we are all extensions of that energy like waves on the ocean that rise up and have some identity but eventually diminish back into the ocean. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Si GeeNa
09-08-2003, 02:58
Trust a Berserker Jarl to come up with such a profound topic... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif
Nevertheless, an interesting topic and reflects much about the Total War community.
*We are not just blood-thirsty, altar-worshipping, orgy-driven techno geeks only* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
me?...... i`m a very content atheist. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
no god, no devil..... no problem http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
could have gone for six, but with my emotions i picked seven.
Yes, there is an option missing: that you think the question of the existance of god is more parsimoniously dealt with without addressing god at all. This is a non-belief, but not out of positive conviction. I really hate the canard that atheists believe in their atheism in a manner qualitatively similar to the belief theists hold in god.
Nobody is an atheist in a foxhole, IIRC http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Come on people, VOTE...
There is a limit to how many choices you can put into a poll here and that is... 10…
I would have put more (at least 10 more) if I could … all polls should have a GAH option and a non of the above option… but I am doing a little experiment here and am limited to 10 options. So bear with me…
NB I did ask for no comments in this thread http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif (there are some good ones though), but that’s ok guys… as long as you keep those numbers up… 31 votes so far… keep them coming.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Judean Prince
09-08-2003, 17:44
I voted 1, because I am Jewish..(it is kind of obvious from my name and my avatar picture lol http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) though, I can absolutely understand all of the atheists and where they are coming from, and I have nothing against them, I have a system of beliefs, and they have a system of disbelieve so to speak...
Quote[/b] (dessa14 @ Sep. 07 2003,03:44)]secondly according to the bible the world was created in 7 days
Actually, it is very interesting, my Biology teacher is a very strict Jew, and she says she finds no contradiction between the bible and the reality, now the funny thing is, it's not like she tells us that the world was created in 7 days, no evolution etc. etc. she actually told us how millions of years ago single cells developed in the water into fish, and from fish to reptiles etc. etc., I will ask her how she finds no contradiction, and I'll tell you about it.
The_Emperor
09-08-2003, 18:01
I was raised as a Christian by my parents, but as I got older I rebelled against it all...
I agree with Woody Allen, If there is a God, the worst thing you can say about him is that he's basically an underachiever
Jacque Schtrapp
09-08-2003, 19:22
I believe and I pity those who have nothing to believe in.
Wellington
09-09-2003, 00:04
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Sep. 08 2003,13:22)]I believe and I pity those who have nothing to believe in.
Who says they have nothing to believe in?
That's just your opinion ...
... and it sounds typical of USA Bible belt opinion to me.
Did you vote for Dubya?
Portuguese Rebel
09-09-2003, 00:54
Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Sep. 08 2003,18:04)]
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Sep. 08 2003,13:22)]I believe and I pity those who have nothing to believe in.
Who says they have nothing to believe in?
That's just your opinion ...
... and it sounds typical of USA Bible belt opinion to me.
Did you vote for Dubya?
I think he did, unless he is a republican renegade, ain't that right Jacque?
Quote[/b] ]Actually, it is very interesting, my Biology teacher is a very strict Jew, and she says she finds no contradiction between the bible and the reality, now the funny thing is, it's not like she tells us that the world was created in 7 days, no evolution etc. etc. she actually told us how millions of years ago single cells developed in the water into fish, and from fish to reptiles etc. etc., I will ask her how she finds no contradiction, and I'll tell you about it.
This does not surprise me. I'm a biology/geology teacher too, and i have coleagues that are catholics. For them, the genesis part of the bible is not to be taken literally. In their opinion 7 bible days are not 24 hour days. Each day represents an age. Of course, that, in my opinion, they are just trying to fit the beliefs they had as children to the science they teach. I say this because if they really were to trouble themselves to read the bible they would see that, if days mean ages, then the trees had to survive without sun for at least some million years. But they don't really care about this since their interest is just to have something to grab on, not hard facts.
Quote[/b] ]NB I did ask for no comments in this thread (there are some good ones though),
No comments on this one Sigurd? Come on, this one is too good to pass on http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 09 2003,09:54)]I'm a biology/geology teacher too, and i have coleagues that are catholics. For them, the genesis part of the bible is not to be taken literally. In their opinion 7 bible days are not 24 hour days. Each day represents an age. Of course, that, in my opinion, they are just trying to fit the beliefs they had as children to the science they teach. I say this because if they really were to trouble themselves to read the bible they would see that, if days mean ages, then the trees had to survive without sun for at least some million years. But they don't really care about this since their interest is just to have something to grab on, not hard facts.
Quote[/b] ]NB I did ask for no comments in this thread (there are some good ones though),
No comments on this one Sigurd? Come on, this one is too good to pass on http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Yes I wanted a non-comment thread…
Comments made by strong opinionates like yourself does have IMO an effect on voters, especially when it comes to atheism… I will discuss this further in my conclusion…
I’ll give in (a little) because there is some interesting points here…
First of all the creation…
This is one church denomination’s (Christian) view on the creation:
You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, Doesn't the Bible say He created the world? And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos–chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.
(The Leader of the church 1 day for God (as one rotation of His “Planet”?) is 1000 years for man (as one rotation of earth, 24hrs).
I am trying to stay objective here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif and this is just a little response to try to balance things back to pre-posting in this thread…
Now continue and VOTE people… http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Quote[/b] ]Nobody is an atheist in a foxhole, IIRC
iv`e seen death up close and i`m still an atheist. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]I believe and I pity those who have nothing to believe in.
don`t pity, pity is an arrogant and destructive emotion.
you should just try to empathise with the rest of humanity. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Quote[/b] ]Yes, there is an option missing: that you think the question of the existance of god is more parsimoniously dealt with without addressing god at all. This is a non-belief, but not out of positive conviction. I really hate the canard that atheists believe in their atheism in a manner qualitatively similar to the belief theists hold in god.
i couldn`t agree more http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] (squippy @ Sep. 08 2003,18:10)]Yes, there is an option missing: that you think the question of the existance of god is more parsimoniously dealt with without addressing god at all. This is a non-belief, but not out of positive conviction. I really hate the canard that atheists believe in their atheism in a manner qualitatively similar to the belief theists hold in god.
If the sentences you have written is connected as supporting each other... -> I would think option 6 covers this non-belief… maybe the phrasing lacks…something… I think the keyword inclination in the option nails it though… http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Quote[/b] (Judean Prince @ Sep. 08 2003,11:44)]
Quote[/b] (dessa14 @ Sep. 07 2003,03:44)]secondly according to the bible the world was created in 7 days
Actually, it is very interesting, my Biology teacher is a very strict Jew, and she says she finds no contradiction between the bible and the reality, now the funny thing is, it's not like she tells us that the world was created in 7 days, no evolution etc. etc. she actually told us how millions of years ago single cells developed in the water into fish, and from fish to reptiles etc. etc., I will ask her how she finds no contradiction, and I'll tell you about it.
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] (dessa14 @ Sep. 07 2003,03:44)]secondly according to the bible the world was created in 7 days
Actually, it is very interesting, my Biology teacher is a very strict Jew, and she says she finds no contradiction between the bible and the reality, now the funny thing is, it's not like she tells us that the world was created in 7 days, no evolution etc. etc. she actually told us how millions of years ago single cells developed in the water into fish, and from fish to reptiles etc. etc., I will ask her how she finds no contradiction, and I'll tell you about it.
This is still a contridiction to religion most religions believe in the creationist theory that all creatures were created in their current state all that time ago. that is simply not true proved by fossil evidence the transition of humans from primitive chimps to homo erectus to homo sapien sapien has been proven by what we call in the palentogy community a transitional organism. the creature that brought life out of the water was surely a transitional organism from ground life to land life.
and also the big bang theory is very probable my brother is a astrophysist so i think i would know quite a bit on that affair
Quote[/b] ]You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, Doesn't the Bible say He created the world? And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing.
and according to most learned scientists they will say that the world was not created from nothing or that god made there is evidence of the world being created from leftover matter from the nebula that used to be here and matter also collected from a local supernovae.
thanks dessa
King James I
09-09-2003, 10:16
I have to say I hold to No. 1.
Christianity for me is an avenue for me to believe in and devote myself to something beyond myself. It also gives meaning and purpose to my life. Although I'd pride myself on having an open mind, I've not found anything better to fill that void in my being. Some people fill the void with alcohol, drugs, food, having fun, shopping, or any number of of other things, but I prefer to fill mine with God. That of course does not preclude me from having fun, mixing with friends, playings sports, or many of the other things normal people do, but many of the above would have a negative impact on my life so I do not have anything to do with them.
It also provides a positive moral framework which is a great guide for almost every facet of my life. The Commandments: Do unto others as you would have them do to you and love others as you love yourself are the key principles under which I live. The unfortunate thing is that these principles were/are not put in practice by many others who call or have called themselves Christians. The name Christian was merely a garnish to cover the stink of their rotten souls and some even thought that it was a badge that justifyed their despicable actions.
Although I'm no scientist and don't think myself capable of debating with the more knowledgable members of the forum (Portuguese Rebel for one!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif I don't think I have mere blind faith in what I believe in.
dessa14: You have brought forth the point concerning the transitional organisms such as the creature that brought life out of the water. I'd just like like to ask why there is no geological (fossils etc) of such creatures?
As for the homo erectus etc they could easily have come about as a result of mutations or genetic deformaties which could have been passed down to their descendants as a consequence of inbreeding.
As for someone elses point regarding the black and white moths. This as well as things like animal's seasonal pelts, species diversity, and even humans racial characteristics are a result of the omniscient Creator's foresight which allows a species to adapt and change to survive a changing environment. That does not include a dramatic and sudden change in the environment (such as the Great Flood and even the sudden climate change caused my mans impact on the earth with consequenses such as Global Warming) as we have seen with the dinosaurs and other species that were ill-equipped to cope with the rapid changes in their environment.
Anyway we'll find out in the end who is right and whether I am right or not I don't see I'm missing out on anything just by being a Christian so what does it matter?
Mount Suribachi
09-09-2003, 18:43
Yay Another Christian I am not alone on this board
*hugs King James I*
Hi brother http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
GAH Theres a lot of rubbish been posted in this thread. It seems there are a lot of people out there who believe religion in general and Christianity in particular is for weak willed people who need something to believe in to get through life AND/OR are uneducated thus able to carry on with their blind faith. I regularly find this coming from hardcore atheists who like to tell themselves this is so because it makes them feel better about their atheism. I've yet to meet a person who believes the weak willed theory that actually personally knows another Christian well.
Let me speak as a man with 25 years of devout atheism under his belt, before becoming a Christian because he believed it to be *the truth*. You cannot *prove* that God exists any more than you can *prove* He does not. What you can do is examine the arguments for and against and make an honest judgement. Examination of the arguments for and against the bible left me with the conclusion that the Bible truly is the word of God and Jesus Christ the saviour of the world (not the conclusion I wanted when I started my investigation let me tell you). I do not regard my faith as blind at all, but rational and defendable - if it were not, then I would not believe.
Mount Suribachi, BSc(hons), MRSC
Jacque Schtrapp
09-09-2003, 18:46
Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Sep. 08 2003,18:04)]
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Sep. 08 2003,13:22)]I believe and I pity those who have nothing to believe in.
Who says they have nothing to believe in?
That's just your opinion ...
... and it sounds typical of USA Bible belt opinion to me.
Did you vote for Dubya?
No I didn't vote for GWB. My voter registration transfer didn't get completed in time for me to vote at all. However, given the chance I would have gladly voted for GWB over Gore.
If you do not believe in a higher power of some sort (christianity, islam, hindu) what do you have left? You live to be 40 someone hits you with their car and..... nothing. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
Nice to see that some of the 1’ers do post their opinions… It can become a little one-sided in these threads… As you might tell, religion is one of my favourite topics… and yes, it is most fun discussing it with “believers…”
I hope people are reading the questions well, and think a little before voting… there are some pretty interesting things going on…
383 visits (half of them by me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ) and 46 votes so far… keep it coming…
AKA Sigurd BaIT(res) MIT(in 10 weeks):D
Quote[/b] ]You cannot *prove* that God exists any more than you can *prove* He does not. What you can do is examine the arguments for and against and make an honest judgement. Examination of the arguments for and against the bible left me with the conclusion that the Bible truly is the word of God and Jesus Christ the saviour of the world (not the conclusion I wanted when I started my investigation let me tell you). I do not regard my faith as blind at all, but rational and defendable - if it were not, then I would not believe.
i understand totally that felt the need to seek out answers for all of the questions you felt, and that what you found out about yourself came as a real surprise. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
i also had questions that needed to be answered and sought for them in the same book, i found nothing.... nothing at all.
no insult is intended, but for me, believing in a god is about as valid as believing in daffy duck.
i chose my path and i follow it with my eyes open and my heart at peace. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Judean Prince
09-09-2003, 20:29
Quote[/b] (Mount Suribachi @ Sep. 09 2003,12:43)]You cannot *prove* that God exists any more than you can *prove* He does not.
EXACTLY, that's the reason I don't like discussing/debating religious issues, the devoted Christian/Jewish/Muslims cannot prove the existance of god beyond any doubt, just like the atheists can't disprove god's existance beyond any doubt... that's the reason it's called belief and faith.
EDIT: btw - it's wierd to see the poll's results because in the movie Contact they mention that some 95% of the world's population believe in god, then again a couple dozen votes is not the whole world. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
You cannot explain the existance (or non-existance) of God with science. The languages of science and belief are, by definition, incompatible. The purpose of science is to understand our physical environment by hypothesis, experimentation, and analysis. On the other hand, belief resides entirely outside of the realm of our physical environment. It would be like trying to listen to music with an optical telescope.
However, even if we were to assume that at some point science and belief do, or should meet, attempts to disprove the existance of God using science is, in fact, bad science. It is based on the assumption that we somehow are in possession of every peace of physical evidence in the universe, which we obviously are not.
On the other hand arguments by theologists to support the existance of God using Science are just as ill founded, and ill advised. Even though science cannot prove there is no God, it also cannot prove there is, that is of course unless you use bad science to do so. For example, those that would argue that the Bible is a document of literal fact and cite such events as the Flood or the Shroud as proof of God's power or of Christ's existance leave themselves open for rebuke. Archaeologists and historians will cite at least as many events in the Bible that could not have happened, such as Joshua knocking down the walls of Jericho. Jericho was not occupied at the time of Joshua.
The point is, if you believe, it is dangerous to try to support that belief with science. Likewise, if you are a scientist, it is dangerous to believe.
One thing though. A few years back I read Steven Hawking's first book. I understood only about 20% of it. In spite of the fact that Hawking is seeking to unlock the physical laws of the universe, he stated in his book, that his theories do not preclude the existance of God. Likewise I once read that Einstein had declared that the more you understand about the workings of the universe, the more you come to believe that there is some all-encompassing force controlling the whole thing.
I'm a scientist. So, am I a believer too? Pfft. I dunno. What I do know is if two of the best minds this planet has ever seen consider God a possibility, who am I to argue.
Judean Prince
09-09-2003, 20:51
Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 09 2003,14:33)]such as Joshua knocking down the walls of Jericho. Jericho was not occupied at the time of Joshua.
Actually, I heard somewhere that archeologists found certain dust or ahses patterns in Jericho that say that the walls came down in the exact same way it is described in the bible.
Yeah, but not when Joshua was alive.
Portuguese Rebel
09-10-2003, 00:02
Quote[/b] ]EDIT: btw - it's wierd to see the poll's results because in the movie Contact they mention that some 95% of the world's population believe in god, then again a couple dozen votes is not the whole world.
Well this croud voting here is not, by all means representative of the world. We are all fairly educated people, some of the peeps are even highly educated i dare say. We all have internet connections and computers and we can write in english, and most of us are quite young. This is very restricted slice of the world population. I have read somewhere that, from the 6 billion humans on the planet, 1 billion does not believe in god/s (atheists) or have at least some serious doubts (agnostics). 2/3 of this billion lives in Russia and China.
Quote[/b] ]Actually, I heard somewhere that archeologists found certain dust or ahses patterns in Jericho that say that the walls came down in the exact same way it is described in the bible
Really? they calculated it with an hour of error? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Just teasing you...
Quote[/b] ]dessa14: You have brought forth the point concerning the transitional organisms such as the creature that brought life out of the water. I'd just like like to ask why there is no geological (fossils etc) of such creatures?
there isn't? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
there are... by the tons of the stuff. But you will not find a creature. You will find several, since the land animals have relatives still living in the water. Take the insects, for example. They are in one big group (a phylum) called Arthropoda (wich means, in english, articulated members). The Arthropoda include the insects, the spiders (spiders are not insects), and the Crustacea family (crabs, lobsters, shrimps...). So for the Arthropoda you will have the first colonizers, then, for the Vertebrata (in wich we are) you will have colonizers and so on for all the major land groups.
If you are intersted in learning more try to chek out this link:
Transitional Vertebrates (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)
Things are explained there in lay-man terms.
Quote[/b] ]As for the homo erectus etc they could easily have come about as a result of mutations or genetic deformaties which could have been passed down to their descendants as a consequence of inbreeding.
That could be the case if it not that Homo erectus specimens were found in several geographic locations, while there was no modern man anywere. Anyway, holding a model of an Homo eructus in your hand is quite an experience. I wouldn't mess with one of those guys http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Take a look:
Homo erectus skull (http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/geo/research/age/skull.htm)
Portuguese Rebel
09-10-2003, 00:06
Quote[/b] ]Yes I wanted a non-comment thread…
Comments made by strong opinionates like yourself does have IMO an effect on voters, especially when it comes to atheism… I will discuss this further in my conclusion…
Damn, sorry dude http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I guess we are lacking a few fundies in here to balance things out. Regular christians, muslims and jews won't do...
FUNDIE WANTED (ALIVE AND TALKING)
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
DemonArchangel
09-10-2003, 01:18
God is responsible for Sh*t, and we all know sh*t happens.
LordKarolinger
09-10-2003, 01:27
I didn't think there were so many athiest video gamers I mean not only hear but everywhere I go:eek: and on the subject of numbers of believers I had a book that had a record of people following certain beliefs. I think Christianity stood as the highest with 33 percent and then Islam with 20 something and then Judaism and either Hinduism or Buddhism (haven't seen it in like a year http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif but I what I thought was most interesting was that mid 40 percent of the record were in the other beliefs category. I did not vote simply because more than one of your numbers relate to Christianity which I believe in. For ecample 1 and 4 are both Christian beliefs. I am not here to say you Athiest people will burn in hell for what you believe(even though I might believe that). To me Other beliefs then Christianity seem absurd but this being a non-comment thread and I try to be a decent person and respect other ideas. I have been a Christian all my life and am soon to be confirmed in the Catholic Faith. I guess that could be a reason I have always stayed that way. I have generally been taught to see my beliefs as right coming from a Fully Christian Family. When I got older however I began to see Athiest and other things and evil in society. When I looked at those my faith has always stood as a moral guidelines.In church I feel like better usually even if it is a small bit. It has helped me avoid trouble many times and has always seemed there to aid me. I know some people here will consider me weak-minded or whatever but it has changed my life. It gives me a purpose and something to look forward to do. It gives me meaning to my life. It really has helped to establish law and order in society as well. I mean what be the point of killing someone if know one carred and you didn't have any punishment for it. I know these may have been said before but just hearing of a meaningless existence where we die and are used for hobbo food or underground decoration seems to make things seem a lot worse in my life and just knowing God and Jesus are watching me tends to make me feel like I can live another day regardless if I am considered feeble minded by other people.
Portuguese Rebel
09-10-2003, 02:33
Quote[/b] ]To me Other beliefs then Christianity seem absurd but this being a non-comment thread and I try to be a decent person and respect other ideas.
How nice of you... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Quote[/b] ]dessa14: You have brought forth the point concerning the transitional organisms such as the creature that brought life out of the water. I'd just like like to ask why there is no geological (fossils etc) of such creatures?
there is geological evidance and i would know being a student aiming to be a palentologist i have forgotton the name of the creature that transitioned from water to land but it was certainly a amphibious tetrapod which moved from the swamps of the late demonian era on to greater things such as lizards and eventually us. btw it was very much like a salamander.
thanks dessa
sorry dessa and dessa14 are the same person me i created my original account and it didn't work so i created dessa14
thanks dessa
Lord Rom
09-10-2003, 04:25
Interesting topic As I learn more about evolution I start seeing more and more holes in it. I think some put their faith in certain men of learning who claim they understand all. What I have most problem with is some low slimy worm developing complex systems say like eyesight. Lightwaves received and transfered to brain converted into visual image.(simplified I know) If u cant see how do u know u want to evolve eyesight? How do u evolve eyesight even if u wanted to? I cant evolve wings to avoid traffic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif Complex things require all the parts to work together at the same time to produce anything like eyesight. Slowly evolving one thing at a time wont work. Think of your pc. Each part had to be painstakingly planned out, thought out ahead of time to produce a desired result. There are alot of things all working together for you to see this post. I just dont buy evolution as i've been sold it at school. So I think there must be something that designed everything. Just what I think. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Mount Suribachi
09-10-2003, 05:35
Information Scientists call that irreducable complexity, a system that does not function without all its parts.
Regarding Jericho, it was excavated in the 50s I think it was and like someone said, it was *exactly* like described in the bible, but the woman who led the excavation (name escapes me) found no pottery from the correct period (style of pottery is how archeologists date sites) so the book of Joshua was declared false. Since then new expeditions have been to ancient Jericho and discovered pottery of the period described in the Bible.
Someone has also alluded to it - and frogbeastegg (a student archeologist) warned me about it in another thread, there is a distinct liberal bias in intellectual and academic circles. Anyone who thinks all scientists are neutral truth seekers is living in fantasy land.
evolution is not controlable http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif it is simply a random change caused by an outside affect such as a ray of uv hitting a cell when its splitting most of time this would cause cancerous cells but sometimes it causes change in that cell which is then passed on to its offspring where it changes again of course the first creature to walk on land would have been clumsy but the massive amount of unused food on land kept it there where it had more offspring and again it changed.
thanks dessa
Quote[/b] (Mount Suribachi @ Sep. 09 2003,23:35)]Information Scientists call that irreducable complexity, a system that does not function without all its parts.
Regarding Jericho, it was excavated in the 50s I think it was and like someone said, it was *exactly* like described in the bible, but the woman who led the excavation (name escapes me) found no pottery from the correct period (style of pottery is how archeologists date sites) so the book of Joshua was declared false. Since then new expeditions have been to ancient Jericho and discovered pottery of the period described in the Bible.
Someone has also alluded to it - and frogbeastegg (a student archeologist) warned me about it in another thread, there is a distinct liberal bias in intellectual and academic circles. Anyone who thinks all scientists are neutral truth seekers is living in fantasy land.
Quote[/b] ] When I looked at those my faith has always stood as a moral guidelines.In church I feel like better usually even if it is a small bit. It has helped me avoid trouble many times and has always seemed there to aid me. I know some people here will consider me weak-minded or whatever but it has changed my life. It gives me a purpose and something to look forward to do. It gives me meaning to my life. It really has helped to establish law and order in society as well. I mean what be the point of killing someone if know one carred and you didn't have any punishment for it.
I bitterly resent that. I will not be lectured on morality by theists whose religions have broght so much massacre and bloodshed to the world. I have seen religion used to justify racism and all forms of abuse - even knew someone who claimed he was only a racist becuase the bible told him to be. I regard the morality of most christians as pretty darn low, actually, substantially lower than atheists known to me. I do not need a big imaginary daddy figure threatening to beat me with sticks in the afterlife to know right from wrong - I can think for myself, unlike believers.
Quote[/b] ] Someone has also alluded to it - and frogbeastegg (a student archeologist) warned me about it in another thread, there is a distinct liberal bias in intellectual and academic circles. Anyone who thinks all scientists are neutral truth seekers is living in fantasy land.
OF course they are not - thats the great thing about science. Everyone wants their pet theory to be True, and recognised as such. And this is great because it means lots of people keep bringing in ideas, and only those that can be reliably demonstrated win. This is why it is so superior to faith as a mechanism for exploring and understanding the world - it does not depend on the personal opinions of one individual or a self-appointed clique of the righteous.
This liberal bias business, though, is just silly. There is a liberal TREND yes, - but that is becuase it is intellectually more sound and less internally contradictory than conservatism, which is just basically a bunch of prejudices masquerading as philosophy.
Lor Rom wrote:
Quote[/b] ] Interesting topic As I learn more about evolution I start seeing more and more holes in it. I think some put their faith in certain men of learning who claim they understand all. What I have most problem with is some low slimy worm developing complex systems say like eyesight. Lightwaves received and transfered to brain converted into visual image.(simplified I know) If u cant see how do u know u want to evolve eyesight? How do u evolve eyesight even if u wanted to?
Really? And how is religion anything other putting your faith in certain men who claim they understand all? Were YOU on the Mount when the sermon was delivered? Or do you just trust in a 2000 year old books report of a claim that Moses made, unsupported and without evidence? Who here is really putting undue faith in self-appointed experts?
Secondly, your questions about eyesight are not really serious challenges. In the first instance, this is one of the oldest obejctions to evolution, and its has been debunked for some 150 odd years now IIRC. Its a tired old objection raised by religious dogmatists and demonstrates only that they can't be bothered to learn science at all.
An organism in the broad sense will exploit anything in its environemnt. Ambeitn light is not hard to understand - after all, plants depend on it. Light-rsponsive tissues are quite widespread - otherwise no-one would tan. To organise this into a structure that processes information about the world in as complex a way as modern eyes do took an awful long time of trial and error - and some of those errors (such as the placement of the optic nerve) are still apparent (putting the kibosh on the intelligent design argument).
Lord Karolinger writes:
Quote[/b] ] Someone has also alluded to it - and frogbeastegg (a student archeologist) warned me about it in another thread, there is a distinct liberal bias in intellectual and academic circles. Anyone who thinks all scientists are neutral truth seekers is living in fantasy land.
OF course they are not - thats the great thing about science. Everyone wants their pet theory to be True, and recognised as such. And this is great because it means lots of people keep bringing in ideas, and only those that can be reliably demonstrated win. This is why it is so superior to faith as a mechanism for exploring and understanding the world - it does not depend on the personal opinions of one individual or a self-appointed clique of the righteous.
This liberal bias business, though, is just silly. There is a liberal TREND yes, - but that is becuase it is intellectually more sound and less internally contradictory than conservatism, which is just basically a bunch of prejudices masquerading as philosophy.
Lor Rom wrote:
Quote[/b] ] Interesting topic As I learn more about evolution I start seeing more and more holes in it. I think some put their faith in certain men of learning who claim they understand all. What I have most problem with is some low slimy worm developing complex systems say like eyesight. Lightwaves received and transfered to brain converted into visual image.(simplified I know) If u cant see how do u know u want to evolve eyesight? How do u evolve eyesight even if u wanted to?
Really? And how is religion anything other putting your faith in certain men who claim they understand all? Were YOU on the Mount when the sermon was delivered? Or do you just trust in a 2000 year old books report of a claim that Moses made, unsupported and without evidence? Who here is really putting undue faith in self-appointed experts?
Secondly, your questions about eyesight are not really serious challenges. In the first instance, this is one of the oldest obejctions to evolution, and its has been debunked for some 150 odd years now IIRC. Its a tired old objection raised by religious dogmatists and demonstrates only that they can't be bothered to learn science at all.
An organism in the broad sense will exploit anything in its environemnt. Ambeitn light is not hard to understand - after all, plants depend on it. Light-rsponsive tissues are quite widespread - otherwise no-one would tan. To organise this into a structure that processes information about the world in as complex a way as modern eyes do took an awful long time of trial and error - and some of those errors (such as the placement of the optic nerve) are still apparent (putting the kibosh on the intelligent design argument).
Lord Karolinger writes:
Quote[/b] ] When I looked at those my faith has always stood as a moral guidelines.In church I feel like better usually even if it is a small bit. It has helped me avoid trouble many times and has always seemed there to aid me. I know some people here will consider me weak-minded or whatever but it has changed my life. It gives me a purpose and something to look forward to do. It gives me meaning to my life. It really has helped to establish law and order in society as well. I mean what be the point of killing someone if know one carred and you didn't have any punishment for it.
I bitterly resent that. I will not be lectured on morality by theists whose religions have broght so much massacre and bloodshed to the world. I have seen religion used to justify racism and all forms of abuse - even knew someone who claimed he was only a racist becuase the bible told him to be. I regard the morality of most christians as pretty darn low, actually, substantially lower than atheists known to me. I do not need a big imaginary daddy figure threatening to beat me with sticks in the afterlife to know right from wrong - I can think for myself, unlike believers.
Quote[/b] (Sigurd Fafnesbane @ Sep. 09 2003,00:41)]If the sentences you have written is connected as supporting each other... -> I would think option 6 covers this non-belief… maybe the phrasing lacks…something… I think the keyword inclination in the option nails it though… http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
No, becuase I have thought about it at great length.
Teligion exists to extort money and make soldiers who die willingly.
i believe that god exists spiritually, not like hey god come down here and he communicates us through signs like earthquakes and random crosses and light...although they are pretty subtle signs...
i am not a creationist, but, God does have its place in life...though how subtle God maybe to our physical beings..
Have anyone tried to read The Qoran though ? Gi it a try. Not just the part about hellfires or holy war. Try the part about the creation of man. How the seeds starts in the womb.
Enjoy...
Just my opinion. Since english is not my mother tongue then i hope you guys wont mind bout grammar mistakes, spelling and all.
I totally disagree with this quotation -
I have seen religion used to justify racism and all forms of abuse - even knew someone who claimed he was only a racist becuase the bible told him to be. I regard the morality of most christians as pretty darn low, actually, substantially lower than atheists known to me. I do not need a big imaginary daddy figure threatening to beat me with sticks in the afterlife to know right from wrong
It's not the religion which is at fault. It is the people which uses the religion wrongly. To justify their needs. Crusades, Jihad to certain extend serves to fulfill the needs of those who commands them.
If you read about jihad for instances, the first thought that comes to mind is sword weilding arabs in medieval days or turban wearing middle easterners waving kalasnikovs firing to the air.
That is NOT what jihad means. JIhad means striving for change for the better. To change your ways, your ideas towards the better self and your comunity. It means like getting better education, getter a good job to support your family. That is jihad. Well, to a lesser extend to free yourself from oppression and tyranny.
There is a misconception that Islam is spread by sword. That not true at all. The early spread because of economic and political reason. A country must be strong to survive. The people conquered usually free to choose their belief. We acknowledge that jews and christion are free to worship as they like in Umayyad and Abasid caliphate.
There's once that the prophet had exterminated a whole tribe of jews in medina after the 'khandak' (moat) war but it's because they's jews but because they allied themselves with the enemy so it's considered traitors. (we do executed traitors don't we)??
Religion in the hands of the wrong person is bad, right ? Religion itself is one gift from God to mankind. It teaches respect, guides, love, understanding and freedom.
Just think of sex. Wonderfull gift to us mankind. But use wrongly ?? We see the spread of aids, of children born out of wedlock who have no securities and loves that they deserve. The breakout of marrige. Many more examples.
Well, that's a first thought. Any comment ????
I have voted in this poll already, in fact I was the first to vote http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif.
I have a comment:
The way to avoid comments in polls is to make them poll only.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
If you believe something implicitly, anything, then your brain stops thinking about it, it has no need.
If you believe in a religion that informs all your actions and your opinions then your brain has nothing left to think about, it has no need. You are, in effect, brain dead.
Stay curious, think don't believe
Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ Sep. 10 2003,22:46)]I have voted in this poll already, in fact I was the first to vote http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif.
I have a comment:
The way to avoid comments in polls is to make them poll only.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Ah, never knew there was such an option... oh well, too late now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
Speaking of learning:
squippy:
Quote[/b] ]
Teligion exists to extort money and make soldiers who die willingly.
I have tried to look up that word; teligion, but it does not exist in any encyclopedia, dictionary or religious book that I have access to… would you be so kind to explain what this is all about. The word is used on the web, but it assumes you already know what they are talking about…some of the sites seems to have pushed the wrong button typing though (R and T are somewhat close on the key board).
Is Buddhism such a teligion (if teligion means not-religion)?
Your definition is somewhat wage.
Also, what is happening to your posts m8… they are all-over-the-place and some are a little “recycled”. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Lancer6969
09-10-2003, 14:39
I believe in Reality, and God is not that.
Swamp Thing
09-10-2003, 15:15
Squippy wrote:
There is a liberal TREND yes, - but that is becuase it is intellectually more sound and less internally contradictory than conservatism, which is just basically a bunch of prejudices masquerading as philosophy.
Hmm, Pot-Kettle-Black?????
Lestat:
I'm reading the Koran right now, interesting book, especially the bits about beating your wife if she does not obey you:
From Chapter 4, AN-NISA
004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
I'm not attacking you, I'm just making a point that not everything is perfect.
I think many people are not making the distinction between knowledge and belief.
Do I believe God exists? I do not know. Do I know he exists? If I did, my first answer would be much different.
You can have Christians and Athiests who are Agnostics. An Athiest does not believe, the Christian does, but both admit they have no concrete way of knowing for sure since there is no evidence to prove otherwise, so all they have is faith. Belief is distinct since the key questions are: Do we know for certain God exists, and can we ever know?
For me personally, I belief in myself first and foremost. I have my own destiny, and that alone I control, nothing else.
Portuguese Rebel
09-10-2003, 18:04
Quote[/b] (Mount Suribachi @ Sep. 09 2003,23:35)]Information Scientists call that irreducable complexity, a system that does not function without all its parts.
Regarding Jericho, it was excavated in the 50s I think it was and like someone said, it was *exactly* like described in the bible, but the woman who led the excavation (name escapes me) found no pottery from the correct period (style of pottery is how archeologists date sites) so the book of Joshua was declared false. Since then new expeditions have been to ancient Jericho and discovered pottery of the period described in the Bible.
Someone has also alluded to it - and frogbeastegg (a student archeologist) warned me about it in another thread, there is a distinct liberal bias in intellectual and academic circles. Anyone who thinks all scientists are neutral truth seekers is living in fantasy land.
This is why information scientists aren't biologists.
But i'm being unfair to information scientists because i never saw anyone of them actually saying something about evolution. Someone pick up one book on information theory and quoted some out of context and hammered it until it was exactly what they wanted.
Basicly the information theory says that a complex system cannot function correctly without parts of it nor can the parts perform the function without the other parts.
The thing is, nobody is saying that a complex system arrived at the present state in its complete working form. I'll use an example since that is probably easier. I'll use wings and flight since it was mentioned.
Wings require fethers to perform correctly, and flight requires full functioning wings. So how did birds came by all this (fully functioning wings that allowed to fly)? First of all birds didn't. The ancestors of birds did. Reptilian ancestors that is (some even say the dinossaurs never went extinct, wich is formally true). So from night to day they got their wings? No.
Lets start with the fethers. Have someone in here ever seen reptilian scales on a microscope? If you did, or ever do, you will find structural similarities between them and fethers. That's right, the fethers are the equivalent to the reptilian scales. They are specialized, modified scales.
But why should a lizard suffer such a transformation of it's scales? What can fethers do better than scales, beyhond giving the remote possibility of flight?
Have you guys ever tried one of those feather raincoats? Have you noticed how warm they make you feel? The lizard used the feathers for termic regulation.
Remember that reptils are not capable of regulating it's own body temperature without outside help (that's why gators like the sun so much). Fethers were a first step towards temperature regulation without outside help, allowing the spiecies to colonize colder enviroments. You see, the bird feathers appeared with a different function. Too make a long story short, after feathers came gliding (possibly from tree to tree like some animals still do today) and then longer and longer glides until true flight (over several tens of millions of years).
This is just an example, i could have use something on the molecular level, but i want to keep you dudes awake http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
To put this on a simple schematic representation:
1.
Need A --> Slow genetic drift through selective reproduction (usually known as survival of the fittest)--> Funtion B --> Sideffect C (not detrimental or beneficial to the individual)
2. (change in the conditions or unadressed need answer)
Need B --> Sideffect C (gains importance) --> Improved C --> Sideffect D...
Continue as will, mix it with other evolving subsystems in the same creature...
See? that's what is being said, not that from minute to the other we tranform a worm into an human bible pusher.
Changing the subject, if archeologists did find out that, lets say, the walls of Jericho crumbled in the same week of the biblical date (im being openly generous about the week thing), what exactly would that prove? That there were walls and they crumbled, and so what?
About the intelectual liberal bias, all i have to say is:
If your intelectuals have a liberal bias then it would be wise to find out why is there such a bias.
If you are afraid that scientists are not coming up with the truth you can rest, because if you know people in that area you will that they have an hobby of destroying each others ideas. If something is wrong with the workings of a proposed hipothesys some will find it and destroy it. And then take due credit about it... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Unless you are one of those guys that believe there is an international conspiracy of atheist scientists to hide the fact that the ark has been found, that humans lived with the dinossaurs, the earth is flat (and has four corners). If you're one of these your beyhond my power to help.
To end this post i just want to say that it is unnavoidable that a god or no god discussion degenerates into i don't believe in evolution. This is because this idea that we came from eeerrr... lesser animals kinda insults some people. I think they feel less special because of it. I once talked to a muslim who said to me that he was a supporter of evolution of the lesser animals. When i asked what he meant by evolution of the lesser animals, he said that it was he was ok with evolution for all animals except man. Man, he said, was a special creation of god, and did not follow the same rules of the lesser animals.
Portuguese Rebel
09-10-2003, 18:08
Quote[/b] ]004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Got to phone my girlfriend and tell her i stopped being an atheist, found the one and only true god and i'm turning muslim now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Let's see how she reacts, if i stop posting you guys know what happend to me and call the police OK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Judean Prince
09-10-2003, 19:06
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 10 2003,12:04)]Changing the subject, if archeologists did find out that, lets say, the walls of Jericho crumbled in the same week of the biblical date (im being openly generous about the week thing), what exactly would that prove? That there were walls and they crumbled, and so what?
So what? so if the walls of Jericho crumbled exactly how the bible describes it, it means that the bible is not false, it means that if the bible is accurate here, then there is no reason for it not to be accurate about Eliyahu the prophet rising to heaven in firey chariots, or the sinking of the Egyptians in the Red Sea(I heard they found some proof for that as well), or the giving of the Torah to Moses on mount Sinai by god etc. etc.
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 10 2003,12:04)]the earth is flat (and has four corners).
I believe you are reffering here to the biblical expression: four corners/wings of the earth, well, let me remind you of some daily words we use to describe directions: North, South, East, West, we use it today, like the ancient people used it in their time, second, the expression four corners of the earth is still used by us today(at least in Hebrew), today we know the world is round but we are still looking at flat maps aren't we? IMHO, the early Christians took that expression and said that this is their proof that the world is flat, when it was nothing more than an a figure of speech, and when we found out that the earth is actually round, atheists began using that expression to debunk the entire bible.
Quote[/b] (Sigurd Fafnesbane @ Sep. 10 2003,09:34)]I have tried to look up that word; teligion, but it does not exist in any encyclopedia, dictionary or religious book that I have access to… would you be so kind to explain what this is all about. The word is used on the web, but it assumes you already know what they are talking about…some of the sites seems to have pushed the wrong button typing though
Sigurd Fafnesbane
My guess teligion is televised religion (take the t from televised and replace the r from religion with it)something that is probably another uniquely American thing. We have very very very energetic preachers who have hugely popular TV shows where they give church services that are also part sales pitch and part political platform. They tend to be very right-wing, pro-Bush. Some people see them as a form of right-wing propoganda, which may not be fair in every case, but it is in some. They have a very strong cultural effect in this country. They have, also, recently been very supportive of the war against terror, and some of them link it to a crusade which is understandably upsetting to people in the Middle East.
It is surprising how religious this country is without knowing it. I think that many people don't realize the extent to which religion has influenced american history and is currently influencing our national policy. We are possibly one of the most religious countries in the world, and yet we say we aren't because we have the 1st amendment.
Judean Prince
09-10-2003, 19:44
Quote[/b] (Dhepee @ Sep. 10 2003,13:25)]My guess teligion is televised religion (take the t from televised and replace the r from religion with it)something that is probably another uniquely American thing.
Or..... the T and the R on the keyboard are next to each other and he mistakenly pressed the T instead of the R http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Devastatin Dave
09-10-2003, 19:46
Thank you Jesus for saving me....
He loves all of you, you just have to open your heart to recieve the gift... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Portuguese Rebel
09-10-2003, 22:22
Quote[/b] ]So what? so if the walls of Jericho crumbled exactly how the bible describes it, it means that the bible is not false, it means that if the bible is accurate here, then there is no reason for it not to be accurate about Eliyahu the prophet rising to heaven in firey chariots, or the sinking of the Egyptians in the Red Sea(I heard they found some proof for that as well), or the giving of the Torah to Moses on mount Sinai by god etc. etc.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
So if the bible has the date of an event correct (and let's say, for the argument, that it does), that means the walls were destroyed by this god and more, it also implies that all the rest of the stuff is also correct?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
So if i write a book when i saay that in 11 of september of 2001 two towers of evil were fallen by the might of the god i worship and archeologists, in the future, find that my date is correct, does that mean what i wrote is accurate and all the rest of the stuff i just invented to go along with it is correct to? Please tell me this is not what you're saying... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]I believe you are reffering here to the biblical expression: four corners/wings of the earth, well, let me remind you of some daily words we use to describe directions: North, South, East, West, we use it today, like the ancient people used it in their time, second, the expression four corners of the earth is still used by us today(at least in Hebrew), today we know the world is round but we are still looking at flat maps aren't we? IMHO, the early Christians took that expression and said that this is their proof that the world is flat, when it was nothing more than an a figure of speech, and when we found out that the earth is actually round, atheists began using that expression to debunk the entire bible.
So, what exactly is a figure of speech in the bible? Is the Adam and Eve story a sort of lyrical narrative not to be taken literally or we should take this one as is. What about the immaculate conception? Is that a figure of speech? Maybe you can put up a site online explaining what exactly should be taken literally.
And i think you are getting confused about the four corners thing. It is a figure of speech we use now, in this day and age. It was not perceived as a figure of speech in ancient times. If you ever look at ancient maps you will find some with the abyss represented on them. This abyss was the end of the Earth. Colombo had troubles with his men because many believe they would fall into the abyss, and that was a fairly advanced era in sailling. The jews in time before christ had no idea that the Earth was round, they thought it was a flat square or rectangular in shape.
Portuguese Rebel
09-10-2003, 22:25
Quote[/b] (Judean Prince @ Sep. 10 2003,13:44)]
Quote[/b] (Dhepee @ Sep. 10 2003,13:25)]My guess teligion is televised religion (take the t from televised and replace the r from religion with it)something that is probably another uniquely American thing.
Or..... the T and the R on the keyboard are next to each other and he mistakenly pressed the T instead of the R http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
I thought so but this guys were so on in this new concept. Teligion is a good word, you should take credit for it Judean Prince. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
LordKarolinger
09-10-2003, 22:38
I am sorry of what I said I really did exagerate and say inapropriate things but after reading
I bitterly resent that. I will not be lectured on morality by theists whose religions have broght so much massacre and bloodshed to the world. I have seen religion used to justify racism and all forms of abuse - even knew someone who claimed he was only a racist becuase the bible told him to be. I regard the morality of most christians as pretty darn low, actually, substantially lower than atheists known to me. I do not need a big imaginary daddy figure threatening to beat me with sticks in the afterlife to know right from wrong - I can think for myself, unlike believers.
I must say to you sir, That is utter Bull Shit. Of course anyone who has read a history book knows religion has caused
many problems like the Spanish Inquistion, World War two and many others. People kill each other just over simple ideas. Yet don't judge the actions of these people against the whole of theists. There are thousands of good theists that tend to escape records except for in the Church preachings. Trust me as someone who has gone to church whenever possible (most weeks)I have heard the names of more saints and patrons then I would have thought existed. Those people who use their religions to follow out murder, racism, and other crimes are just using their religion to try and persuade people to their bidding these people are not religious at all they in most religions are sinners and assholes. Religion it self is not the source of these evils it is the people who mess things up.Your friend for example needs to listen for about 60 seconds in church to know that racism is evil. The low morality of Christians is the only thing most people tend to notice because of people trying to get the best story in the media.
Of course know one tends to read about the Kid who helped another kid from being picked on they would rather read about Priest Malesters(not sure of spelling). Your last comment about your saying you can think for yourself while theists can't is I guess ok seing some of my comments more closely know but is completly untrue. Regardless of whether you are a theist or an athiest most people follow a similar moral guideline and I can guess you have done something that is virtuous in your life Theist don't (shouldn't) use their religion to control their thoughts in the way you say, most people who do that tend to be the physchopathic maniacs who end up blowing themselfs up or shooting someone because God told them.
Portuguese Rebel
09-11-2003, 01:03
Lets try to avoid the I'm morally better than you kind of stuff shal we? That only agravates people and starts flame wars that go nowhere. Let's stick to civil conversation without low attacks on either side of the discussion.
*Just training to be a moderator when i grow up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif *
bhutavarna
09-11-2003, 01:52
interesting topic, but so sensitive. i'm very surprised that it's allowed for discussion here. yet again, it's probably inevitable considering the variety of people's background in this forum.
i am a taoist. i believe the universe is just is.
it has its way of balance that we are a small part of.
in my opinion god is a relative subject. ask two christians or muslims what god is and you get two different answers. god is what we perceive god is.
believe in religion is not believe in god. you can believe in god but not religious.
religion is man made. it's humanity's attempt to understand god. it's humanity's attempt to create a world order in manners that they perceive as god had intended.
religion has less to do with god than with law and order.
Portuguese Rebel
09-11-2003, 02:52
Quote[/b] ]interesting topic, but so sensitive. i'm very surprised that it's allowed for discussion here. yet again, it's probably inevitable considering the variety of people's background in this forum.
You should stop by the tavern and see what goes on there... We discuss anything that comes up, from wars to who is the best looking babe Drop by and see.
LittleGrizzly
09-11-2003, 03:16
Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Sep. 09 2003,19:46)]If you do not believe in a higher power of some sort (christianity, islam, hindu) what do you have left? You live to be 40 someone hits you with their car and..... nothing. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
id call myself antagonistic (sp?) so im fairly open minded on what happens after death but nothing is one i consider but it is not as depressing as you think because there is nothing there is no you to get upset (unless you imagine you as exactly the same cept all there is is blackness and nothing or no-one around which really is depressing!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif but i also consider going to some kindof heaven or hell a possibility or maybe you get re-born
Quote[/b] (LittleGrizzly @ Sep. 11 2003,12:16)]id call myself antagonistic (sp?)
LOL LG, this is the second time... you know what that means right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
1. One who opposes and contends against another; an adversary.
2. The principal character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama.
Back to the issue...
There will always be an argument against anything anyone says here…
Take for example Rebels statement that the Jews pre-Jesus did have “limited” knowledge concerning astronomy and the planets…
There is “facts” (disputable) supporting that ancient civilizations had extensive knowledge of our planet and the solar system.
Even Egypt had advanced knowledge of the stars and astronomy.
I’ll give a little example from the book of Abraham (non canonical) that has been dated (papyri remnants of the book) to around 2000BC
http://www.irr.org/mit/images/PJS1-11.jpg
This (clearly?) shows that Abraham knew somewhat of heavenly bodies and stars (as suns) and revolution of planets…
Extracts taken from chapter (part ) 3 of the “book”…
1 AND I, Abraham, had the Urim and Thummim, which the Lord my God had given unto me, in Ur of the Chaldees;
2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;
3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s dtime, according to the reckoning of Kolob.
He he, I know now where this is taken from…
5 And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of days, and of months, and of years.
6 And the Lord said unto me: Now, Abraham, these two facts exist, behold thine eyes see it; it is given unto thee to know the times of reckoning, and the set time, yea, the set time of the earth upon which thou standest, and the set time of the greater light which is set to rule the day, and the set time of the lesser light which is set to rule the night.
7 Now the set time of the lesser light is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time of the earth upon which thou standest.
8 And where these two facts exist, there shall be another fact above them, that is, there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still;
9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.
10 And it is given unto thee to know the set time of all the stars that are set to give light, until thou come near unto the throne of God.
11 Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made;
12 And he said unto me: My son, my son (and his hand was stretched out), behold I will show you all these. And he put his hand upon mine eyes, and I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof.
13 And he said unto me: This is Shinehah, which is the sun. And he said unto me: Kokob, which is star. And he said unto me: Olea, which is the moon. And he said unto me: Kokaubeam, which signifies stars, or all the great lights, which were in the firmament of heaven.
…
15 And the Lord said unto me: Abraham, I ashow these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt, that ye may declare all these words.
16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.
17 Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; and there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but what he will do it.
…
21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.
...
Quote[/b] (LestaT @ Sep. 10 2003,07:37)]It's not the religion which is at fault. It is the people which uses the religion wrongly. To justify their needs. Crusades, Jihad to certain extend serves to fulfill the needs of those who commands them.
And that is a classic No True Scotsman fallacy:
Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#scots
Quote[/b] (LittleGrizzly @ Sep. 10 2003,21:16)]
antagonistic might be:
Agnostic, i.e., without knowledge of god
or possibly, Apathetic, as in, not caring about the existance or non-existance of god
Quote[/b] (Swamp Thing @ Sep. 10 2003,09:15)]Squippy wrote:
There is a liberal TREND yes, - but that is becuase it is intellectually more sound and less internally contradictory than conservatism, which is just basically a bunch of prejudices masquerading as philosophy.
Hmm, Pot-Kettle-Black?????
Lestat:
I'm reading the Koran right now, interesting book, especially the bits about beating your wife if she does not obey you:
From Chapter 4, AN-NISA
004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
I'm not attacking you, I'm just making a point that not everything is perfect.
I think many people are not making the distinction between knowledge and belief.
Do I believe God exists? I do not know. Do I know he exists? If I did, my first answer would be much different.
You can have Christians and Athiests who are Agnostics. An Athiest does not believe, the Christian does, but both admit they have no concrete way of knowing for sure since there is no evidence to prove otherwise, so all they have is faith. Belief is distinct since the key questions are: Do we know for certain God exists, and can we ever know?
For me personally, I belief in myself first and foremost. I have my own destiny, and that alone I control, nothing else.
To swampthinG. nothing is perfect
Quote[/b] ]
well dude, you're almost perfect. nothing is perfect except God. what is not perfect is us human. how we interprete God's command wether you're a christian, muslim, jewish etc.
about that part about wife beating in the koran it doesn't mean beat her like bashing her til she's dead or what. it's just mean to teach her, to give her guidence. it's us some moslems who took that literally and beat their wife according to their whims and i sincerely tell you it's not islamic at all.
some people compalin that suffering and must not have come from God. well everything is wether good or bad. we must choose wether to be thankful for happiness that we recieved or be forgetful. what differes us homo sapiens from other beings either worldly or else is instead of only brains we were given mind and consience (is it the right spelling)?
actually mind and consience isn't the right word. the best word is 'aqal' from arabic. i'm not very sure the english translation.
it means that we we have choices. we were always given choices. wether bad or good, great or worse, it's up to us to decide. there's always action and consequences involved. if we choose to do wrong than we must accept the consequenses.
wel, i'm no mean to preach but since this game was about history involving religion then why not. at least it help to creates better understanding. life outside the totalwar- medieval wasn't always like what we wanted. there we can't
simply reload the last save game if we happened to do some shitty move.
until then. adios.
keep the minds open and you will see the truth[/QUOTE]
Al Shama'ar
09-11-2003, 14:21
- I've had a strict Catholic education
- I was born with a working brain
- I also went to school
- My eyes (and other senses) do send information to my brain
- At a certain time in my life I reached some conclusions:
Religion as an Institution is not to be trusted. It's
just another way some people use to influence others.
I stopped going to church and celebrate religious dates
(except for christmas, but that has to do with the next
point)
The way I got it after all those years is that some
things are worth learning, like the love thy neighbor
thing and the like, because by not following this, we
have the turmoil most regions in the world find
themselves in.
Concerning the existence of God/s: I think it's a question
of believe. Either you think there's someone / some form
of energy / whatever behind all that has happened /
happens / will happen or you don't.
There are not two matching explanations of God, even among
followers of one same religion. That brings us to those
that try to force their view of God upon others and we
have enough evidence where that leads to.
What I want to say is: draw your own conclusions. Use
your brain. Don't just believe what someone tells you
without seeing it for yourself. And when you reach a
different conclusion don't go 'round forcing others to
think alike. Respect their thoughts / conclusions /
beliefs. And try to stay in good terms with them. We do
not live alone.
Hope this is not too [insert word here].
Al
Gregoshi
09-11-2003, 14:59
First of all, I have to say I was a little concerned when I first saw this topic. I figured it would be closed within a day due to, ah, excessive heat generated by the posts. However, you folks have really impressed me with your intelligent, well-thought-out posts. A big attaboy to you all. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
I only wish to encourage you to continue in this manner. A couple of posts ventured in the direction of uncivility, but that is minor compared to what such a volitile topic could yield. Just remember, post to share your beliefs and to inform, not to convert others to your belief or belittle the beliefs of others.
Now that I've got that little public service announcement out of the way, please continue with discussion.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Sjakihata
09-11-2003, 15:34
Thanks uncle greg http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Swamp Thing
09-11-2003, 15:35
Lestat,
I believe all evil comes from the hand of man, nowhere else. That being said, one thing we don't need as a species are ideas to help us become MORE duplicitous
Generally I do not think God, if he exists, gave man anything else other than awareness and freedom.
Why?
Because God would, first and foremost, understand the true nature of his own creation. We can be selfish and manipulative, and we can twist things to suit our own agenda, regardless of those that may be hurt in the process.
This I regard as inevitable and unchangable.
In this context, why would any holy book or 'revelation' contain even a single element that could be twisted in such a fashion?
Hundreds may die because an individual may have 'misinterpreted' a small portion of ANY religious text, yet if God had forseen such an event occuring, does that mean that the overall message he gave was so important that it was worth a few hundred lives?
If the answer is yes, I do not wish to worship such a diety.
Al Shama'ar:
A very good comment m8. Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Portuguese Rebel
09-11-2003, 18:14
Quote[/b] (Sjakihata Akechi @ Sep. 11 2003,09:34)]Thanks uncle greg http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Hehehe uncle greg
Don't worry greg we more experienced guys are gonna keep an eye on this newer dudes so that they behave...
If they don't behave i'm calling uncle greg http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Al Shama'ar
09-11-2003, 18:26
Rebel
Quote[/b] ]Quote (Sjakihata Akechi @ Sep. 11 2003,09:34)
Thanks uncle greg
Hehehe uncle greg
Don't worry greg we more experienced guys are gonna keep an eye on this newer dudes so that they behave...
If they don't behave i'm calling uncle greg
Shameless shoe polishing. You know what I mean. LOL
Ganda engraxadela http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Al
Portuguese Rebel
09-11-2003, 19:14
Ainda tenho as mãos sujas da graxa*
*Portuguese private joke, not suitable for anyone else http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Judean Prince
09-11-2003, 22:00
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 10 2003,16:22)]So if the bible has the date of an event correct (and let's say, for the argument, that it does), that means the walls were destroyed by this god and more, it also implies that all the rest of the stuff is also correct?
NO I guess you misunderstood what I was trying to say, what I am saying is that most of the events that are described in the bible, happened one way or another, whether you believe it was god, is up to you, what I said was, that if the walls of Jericho collapsed as it is described, there is no reason for the other events to be false, you can explain most of the things in the bible as well, in the case of Jericho I can tell you that the city sits right on the Syrian-African crack(I'm not sure in English), it is a place with a lot of earthquakes, so we can say that it was an earthquake, but it was on the seventh round of the people(7 is holy in Judaism, i.e sabbath) around the walls, so you can say that god caused it, you choose whether you believe it or not, the writer believed it was.
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 10 2003,16:22)]So if i write a book when i saay that in 11 of september of 2001 two towers of evil were fallen by the might of the god i worship and archeologists, in the future, find that my date is correct, does that mean what i wrote is accurate and all the rest of the stuff i just invented to go along with it is correct to? Please tell me this is not what you're saying...
no, the example is wrong, because first of all, the bible was written over a long period of time, by several writers, second, the bible isn't something that was written thousends of years ago, was hidden and nobody knew where it was, and now suddenly is appeared and people believe it, the bible(OT that is) was written by Jews/Hebrews/Israelites, now these Israelites still exist today, those people witnessed the events that happened in the bible, and carry them on from father to son, according to you, an entire nation is either porpusely lying, or that at a certain point, an entire generation lied to their sons, in short what I am saying is, that we have several other sources to determine whether most of the events in the bible are true.
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 10 2003,16:22)]So, what exactly is a figure of speech in the bible? Is the Adam and Eve story a sort of lyrical narrative not to be taken literally or we should take this one as is. What about the immaculate conception? Is that a figure of speech? Maybe you can put up a site online explaining what exactly should be taken literally.
And i think you are getting confused about the four corners thing. It is a figure of speech we use now, in this day and age. It was not perceived as a figure of speech in ancient times. If you ever look at ancient maps you will find some with the abyss represented on them. This abyss was the end of the Earth. Colombo had troubles with his men because many believe they would fall into the abyss, and that was a fairly advanced era in sailling. The jews in time before christ had no idea that the Earth was round, they thought it was a flat square or rectangular in shape.
The bible was not written by god, it was written by men describing the works of god, these men also used a lot of literatury(?) speech(believe me, I learnt about how the bible was written), in most prophecies, there are many metaphores and expressions, what I am saying is, that just as it could have been a phrase describing the world as flat, it could have also been a figure of speech, and high language. Also, I reffered to the use of directions in the bible, let me give you an example:
Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, `Give them up' and to the south, `Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth…(Isaiah 43:5-6)
this is a prophecy of the book Isaiah, reffering to the fact that god will bring back the children of Israel from the exile(a prophecy that recently came true), from all the directions, that phrase four corners etc. could have ment that also.
I guess that the maps you have seen weren't written by Jews, if they were written by other people, it would have been understood. Maps with abyss were drawn up by christians, Colombo was also a christian, just like I mentioned in my last post, they took it literally.
btw - I don't think that it will be fruitfull or usefull for us to continue arguing, since we percieve the bible in two different ways.
Portuguese Rebel
09-11-2003, 22:38
Quote[/b] ]that if the walls of Jericho collapsed as it is described, there is no reason for the other events to be false,
Also no reason to for the other events to be true.
Quote[/b] ]the bible(OT that is) was written by Jews/Hebrews/Israelites, now these Israelites still exist today,
Yes they do, according to genetic testing they go by the name of palestinians.
Quote[/b] ]those people witnessed the events that happened in the bible, and carry them on from father to son, according to you, an entire nation is either porpusely lying, or that at a certain point, an entire generation lied to their sons, in short what I am saying is, that we have several other sources to determine whether most of the events in the bible are true.
Have you ever played a game (kinda traditional in my country for children to play this, and in other countrys to) in wich you wisper a sentence to a person who in turn wisper the sentence to another person and so on until the last person? The fun of this game is to see exactly how much is the original sentence twisted from the original. I?m not accusing anyone of lying, but when the father tells the story to his son he is going to add or forget something. And we can see this quite clearly when you look at the different versions of the same story in the bible. Take Genesis for example, the accounts of the genesis change according to the source and you now have mutually exclusive versions of the genesis in the bible.
It's like when rumors spread amongst the people, a youngster who like heavy metal is starting to get connected with satanic cults and all of the sudden he has victims everywhere, does human sacrifices and eats babys for breakfast (this has happend more than once). Just like when the jews in England were persucuted in the middle age for murdering christian children. Rumors are a tool and are used accordingly.
Quote[/b] ] guess that the maps you have seen weren't written by Jews, if they were written by other people, it would have been understood. Maps with abyss were drawn up by christians, Colombo was also a christian, just like I mentioned in my last post, they took it literally.
Christians were not the only ones to take it literally. Take Jesus, who was not accepted by the jews because they expected some sort of warlord (according to a literal interpretation of the OT). The jews at the time had no idea that the earth was round.
Quote[/b] ]btw - I don't think that it will be fruitfull or usefull for us to continue arguing, since we percieve the bible in two different ways.
Too bad, i like a good sincere discussion about an interesting topic. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
frogbeastegg
09-11-2003, 23:03
Quote[/b] (Mount Suribachi @ Sep. 10 2003,05:35)]Information Scientists call that irreducable complexity, a system that does not function without all its parts.
Regarding Jericho, it was excavated in the 50s I think it was and like someone said, it was *exactly* like described in the bible, but the woman who led the excavation (name escapes me) found no pottery from the correct period (style of pottery is how archeologists date sites) so the book of Joshua was declared false. Since then new expeditions have been to ancient Jericho and discovered pottery of the period described in the Bible.
Someone has also alluded to it - and frogbeastegg (a student archeologist) warned me about it in another thread, there is a distinct liberal bias in intellectual and academic circles. Anyone who thinks all scientists are neutral truth seekers is living in fantasy land.
I'm a little late to this party, on the whole I keep far away from religious discussions but since my name is in here I shall try to expand this point. I do have a couple of points I can put forward to answer some questions raised here. (I haven’t read through this entire thing in detail, it’s 10:39 PM and I would like some sleep I have skim read it though)
Regarding religion and archaeology - we are undergoing yet another change of opinion. The first archaeologist set out to prove that the bible was true (along with ancient myth) and they forced the evidence to fit this end. This has left us with a legacy of false chronologies, misread contexts, misinterpreted evidence and general (to put it bluntly) crap. It has given the discipline a bad name that it is only just getting over. The attitude which replaced this old approach was just as bad, all religion is rubbish, none of it is true therefore none of it could exist. Again this has screwed everything up royally
The new approach which is steadily gaining precedence is a more sensible approach - namely that you set out to discover facts and if by some happy chance your findings resemble a religious or mythical reference then good for you. However you never set out to find this match in the first place. This approach has lead to a whole new look at the history of the world, chronologies are being re-arranged and old evidence is being re-examined and surprisingly more of it fits the old stories that the evidence that the original archaeologists forced to match up. So by setting out to explore the original goals are being met. New spins are also being placed on old theories, for example it is now possible to state with a reasonable degree of certainty (that’s historian speak for a really good guess which is fine for now but don't blame me if it's wrong later) that Nero wasn't persecuting the Christians pointlessly - they probably did in fact set fire to Rome. See there was an early branch of militant Christians who believed Rome was the whore of Babylon and was therefore prophesised to burn to death so they set about doing it. That's a really basic summing up of a complex theory BTW; the full version is too long for inclusion here. Um anyway a merger of a chapter in the bible (or was it Dead Sea scrolls? I’m too tired) merged nicely with the archaeological evidence of the fire and the first hand classical accounts of the fire.
Of course this doesn't prove that the bible et al are completely real but it does prove that they have at least some basis in history. Even an atheist like me is pleased to see that some aspects of these religions are real (let’s face it – if all religions are totally made up in every detail then someone somewhere along the line ahs really been twisting things and making a mess for their own benefit It’s much better to see that some aspects like battles are based in fact). Sadly some archaeologist still want to prove that there is a God and others still want to disprove it – the whole debate has no place in archaeology and it is an aspect of the arrogance that pervades the discipline.
On what we can believe in if we have no God - this is quite simple and requires only one word. Ourselves. Alas it is hard to explain this without it sounding either arrogant or confusing but I will try. I am a good person, I know this to my very core and I will always work to benefit this civilisation. I will obey my morals, killing only in self defence when there is no other option, not stealing and all the other 'Victorian' morals that are so derided today. I do not need a religion to tell me what is right and wrong because I have been taught this by my parents all my life. I do not need a religion to inspire me to work hard as I want to improve the world and leave a mark on it. I do not need a God to pray to in dark times because I have been through the very flames of hell and come back much stronger than I was before - many other people who have been in my situation have given up in despair and committed suicide but I kept going and now I know I can survive anything. The few others who have survived are mostly damaged beyond recognition, they will never be 'alive' again they will always be a shattered wreck of their once selves. When things get tough all I need to do is look deep in my heart and I can see a flame that burns there surrounded by a wall of iron that nothing now can destroy. (Damn that sounds cheesy )
The topic of what happens when we die was raised earlier. If you don’t believe in a heaven that what is there? Simple – a mystery I know I will die, what happens after I will find out afterwards. I am not afraid to die but neither am I rushing towards death in search of a reward or paradise. Life should always have some mysteries left in it and leaving this as a mystery allows some comfort i.e. you don’t believe in nothingness, or hell or purgatory etc. so you have nothing to fear.
In the end I think that if there is a God and He is what the bible et al describe He cannot hold a grudge against a good person if they have done their best through out their life and worked to improve their world. If this God were to punish a good person solely because they didn't believe then He would not be a good God if you can follow that. In this case a good person who did believe should get a better reward but the good person who didn't believe should not be cast into hell or similar because then God would be acting for vengeance which would make Him evil.
The best attitude towards religion any person can have is tolerance. You believe what you want and as long as you do not try to force your beliefs onto me I don't care. I act likewise. If you try to force your beliefs on someone, or tell them that theirs are wrong, or use your religion as an excuse to commit terrible crimes then you are not acting as a good person and in the end that is what we should aspire to be.
If you take what is in the Bible literally, then you run up against oral, written, archaeological and geological history. Too many events in the Bible don't match up. Bible fundamentalists must discard all science as a smokescreen created by God (which it very well could be) in order to secure the Bible's legitimacy as an accurate history of humanity.
However, if you are willing to accept the Bible as metaphor, or at least parts of it as such, then you allow yourself some wiggle room. The Bible becomes more a framework around which varying degrees of faith can be constructed. Major events in the Bible that are today described as natural phenomenon by scientists, can be explained, simply by making the perfectly logical assumption that God does what he does through nature.
When Newton invented physics, it was declared that he had unlocked tha language of God. Why couldn't that be true?
Why do we natually assume that if God does something, it must appear as a cheap magic trick? Poof A big hand comes down out of the sky and parts the Red Sea. That, I don't believe. Was there some other phenomenon of nature that might have caused the Red Sea to go shallow enough for people to cross parts of it? That, I could buy. So what's the difference between these two events, except for the gigantic hand?
Personally, If there is a God, I am much more comfortable accepting that he does his work through the laws of nature which, I would have to conclude, he established for just that reason.
Further, I do not believe that God's creation of man, and the theory of evolution are exclusive. Rather, I think it is entirely possible that evolution, and on a grander scale nature overall, is God's workshop.
bhutavarna
09-12-2003, 00:49
sigh... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
if only the world can talk about god and religion with the same open mind and tolerance shown on this thread.
there would be less war, less suffering.
Judean Prince
09-12-2003, 11:12
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 11 2003,16:38)]
Quote[/b] ]the bible(OT that is) was written by Jews/Hebrews/Israelites, now these Israelites still exist today,
Yes they do, according to genetic testing they go by the name of palestinians.
I dont know if you were trying to hurt with this comment, but this is absolutly not true, in fact, let me give a genetic research that shows you how close the Jews of today to the Jews of the ancient time:
Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&title=jewish&searchid=1063360333857_1243&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance)
And as to the close relation of Jews to Arabs, it is because they are both semitic peoples, hence they have similar genes, this doesn't mean that Arabs are descendents of Israel(Jacob), it means they are both descendents of Abraham, whether you like to believe the story of Isaac and Ishamel, or not, the fact that they are close comes from the fact that both peoples have been living in the Middle East for thousends of years. Not because they are the same.
[/QUOTE] Because God would, first and foremost, understand the true nature of his own creation. We can be selfish and manipulative, and we can twist things to suit our own agenda, regardless of those that may be hurt in the process.
[QUOTE]
I believe that God understand it all. We are the one who doesn't understand the purpose of our creation. What is our purpose?
Swamp Thing
09-12-2003, 12:00
Simple, to live our individual lives as we would.
Its not that complicated really.
to what end ? after we die and nothing happen ?
Quote[/b] (Judean Prince @ Sep. 12 2003,05:12)]
Quote[/b] ]
I dont know if you were trying to hurt with this comment, but this is absolutly not true, in fact, let me give a genetic research that shows you how close the Jews of today to the Jews of the ancient time:
This thesis does not stand up to scrutiny and is deliberately employing politically loaded terms. see here:
Quote[/b] ]
A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different[b]. The results support the hypothesis that the [b]paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora[B]
Clearly, Jewish and other semitic peoples - akkadians, canaanites, pheoenecians - share the same determionanent characteristics. However, this article introduces an artificial distinction between Jewish peoples and Semitic peoples. Secondly, it makes a highly suspect decision to follow the Y chromosome and the PATERNAL descent, and this no doubt biases the results to accord with jewish patriarchal social structure. Thirdly, that common middle eastern ancestral population of course would include large numbers of non-Jewish semitic peoples, thus totally undermining the point of the claim.
A big chunk of Levantine Arabs are indiginous semites who have been in place since Ugarit and Tyre and built. Semitic Jewish. The Palestinians are in large part also Semites, and do have authentic and legimate territorial claim against the Israeli occupation.
Al Shama'ar
greetings
exactly the same start as myself, same conclusions as well. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
------------------------------------------------------
i`m not worried about religions, just their believers. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
Al Shama'ar
09-12-2003, 13:31
Whooooaaa katar
Now there's two of us thinking alike. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Maybe we should start a cult. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Al
Maybe we should start a cult.
the sad thing is; some religious people already believe we are. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
would a cult of atheists be classified as a oxymoron? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
(i`m just waiting for the cheap shot on that last word!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Portuguese Rebel
09-12-2003, 22:17
Quote[/b] (Judean Prince @ Sep. 12 2003,05:12)]
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 11 2003,16:38)]
Quote[/b] ]the bible(OT that is) was written by Jews/Hebrews/Israelites, now these Israelites still exist today,
Yes they do, according to genetic testing they go by the name of palestinians.
I dont know if you were trying to hurt with this comment, but this is absolutly not true, in fact, let me give a genetic research that shows you how close the Jews of today to the Jews of the ancient time:
Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&title=jewish&searchid=1063360333857_1243&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance)
And as to the close relation of Jews to Arabs, it is because they are both semitic peoples, hence they have similar genes, this doesn't mean that Arabs are descendents of Israel(Jacob), it means they are both descendents of Abraham, whether you like to believe the story of Isaac and Ishamel, or not, the fact that they are close comes from the fact that both peoples have been living in the Middle East for thousends of years. Not because they are the same.
I was not trying to hurt anyone since this is a side matter in wich i have no interest. But this seems to have struck something vunerable on you (in fact, in most jews).
The article you present is good to see that the different kinds of jews have a common origin (as expected). However, look at the numbers of people tested.
Quote[/b] ]We analyzed a total of 1,371 males from 29 populations
that is roughly 47 men for population (the number is not uniform and for some populations the number is smaller). Wich is quite short, but lets take it as it is.
Quote[/b] ]Clearly, Jewish and other semitic peoples - akkadians, canaanites, pheoenecians - share the same determionanent characteristics. However, this article introduces an artificial distinction between Jewish peoples and Semitic peoples.
Why is this?
The Diaspora was not by all means complete. Some jews remained in what was Israel. There were jews there before this new Israel was formed only some 50 years ago. And some of the jews became christian and some went muslim. What exactly does this article prove? That the Y cromossome (a particularly unstable one) of jew population in the middle east is more similar to jews all over the world than the palestinians and other semitic people?
Could it be that the emigration to other places happend after the christianization and posterior islamization of the people in that area? If the migration is posterior and the jews remained in closed populations that would explain the Y cromossome similarities. Unfortunately there is no way to know when a given blood line left the area of the middle east and we do not know what was the original matrix. In fact, some of the subjects can be very recent migrators.
Are you trying to say that the guys who stayed in the area suffered less genetic drift that guys rooted in completly foreign populations? The article does not say this, and it is good it doesn't since that would be very odd and remove its credibility. Since we don't have original jews to analyse we have to follow the probabilities and they are that the people who remained are closer to the original.
A population from a given place can take on an influx of genes if there is an invasion, for example, but a small number of people surronded by a bigger foreing population is a lot more likely to receive a gene intake.
This is just a side discussion on the subject, if you want to keep discussing this maybe you should go to the Tavern and post a topic on this, so that we don't clog this one with this.
Portuguese Rebel
09-12-2003, 22:22
Quote[/b] (LestaT @ Sep. 12 2003,05:42)] Because God would, first and foremost, understand the true nature of his own creation. We can be selfish and manipulative, and we can twist things to suit our own agenda, regardless of those that may be hurt in the process.
I believe that God understand it all. We are the one who doesn't understand the purpose of our creation. What is our purpose?
This is an easy one for a biologist:
To reproduce, leaving viable offspring to spread our genes among the population.
Why do we have to have a purpose? I don't feel there is need for one. If you do, tell me why is there such a need.
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 12 2003,16:22)]
Because God would, first and foremost, understand the true nature of his own creation. We can be selfish and manipulative, and we can twist things to suit our own agenda, regardless of those that may be hurt in the process.
Quote[/b] ]
I believe that God understand it all. We are the one who doesn't understand the purpose of our creation. What is our purpose?
This is an easy one for a biologist:
To reproduce, leaving viable offspring to spread our genes among the population.
Why do we have to have a purpose? I don't feel there is need for one. If you do, tell me why is there such a need.
Ahhh. Here it is the crux of the great debate. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Each side thinking that their own logic and method of thought can somehow explain the other's, which it can't. Science and belief are incompatible.
But it sure feels like you can. Doesn't it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
gaelic cowboy
09-13-2003, 03:36
This post has started a perfect example of the medieval total war we all love to play interesting how much everything changes and yet stays the same. Any time now the pope will call for a crusade against the Alomahads the HRE will get excommunicated and a crusader army will ransack Livonia on the way to Muscovy.
Portuguese Rebel
09-13-2003, 04:20
Quote[/b] ]Science and belief are incompatible.
They are not imcompatible as long as there are no toes being stepped on. When someone with a political/religious agenda trys to use science (pseudo-science more likely) to make something legit, then the trouble starts.
Religion cannot overlap science or it will lose. Humanity has used religion to explain the unexplainable. If something is scientificaly explained, religion must leave it to science or be rolled over (like it has been happening for the last 500 years). If someone reads the bible taking it as a set of moral stories, a set of metaphores he will remain at peace with science and have no conflicts with it. But if he comes out saying that the earth is 6000 years old and Man lived alongside with the dinossaurs he just cannot be taken seriously, no matter how much one desires to respect other peoples beliefs.
Judean Prince
09-13-2003, 05:43
I never said that the Palestinians aren't semitic, I know they are, I'm not trying to tell you that the Israelites have a set of different superior genes or anything because it is not true, they have the same semitic genes, BUT, in order to be an Israelite, one has to be a descendent of Israel, and that is what the Arabs are not. That was my point, they are semitic, sons of Abraham through Ishmael, not Isaac.
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 12 2003,16:17)]Why is this?
The Diaspora was not by all means complete. Some jews remained in what was Israel. There were jews there before this new Israel was formed only some 50 years ago.
True, though they were very small communities and kept their Judaism. An example of this is the Jewish community of Hebron, or Sumaritans(I know there is a different people by that name, but people who never left in the diaspora call themselves that.), they are still Jewish, there were conversions of Jews to Islam or Christianity, but they most certainly do not compose the majority of the Palestinian people, nor do the Palestinians claim that that is the situation, they claim to be Arabs, which they are.
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 12 2003,16:17)]What exactly does this article prove? That the Y cromossome (a particularly unstable one) of jew population in the middle east is more similar to jews all over the world than the palestinians and other semitic people?
No, this article proves that no matter how long the Jews have traveled or been seperated from one another, they still have the same genes, as oppose other theories who claim that today's Jews are converts of slavic nations.
Again, I'm not saying anyone is more semitic, everyone is semitic, what I'm saying is, there is a difference between being semitic, and being son of Jacob, they don't clash, you could be semitic without being an Israelite, though if you are an Israelite, you must be semitic, my claim is that the Palestinians aren't decsendents of Jacob, just like they themselves say.
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 12 2003,16:17)]I was not trying to hurt anyone since this is a side matter in wich i have no interest. But this seems to have struck something vunerable on you (in fact, in most jews).
Of course it strikes something vulnerable on me, that's telling me that my identity is not true, and is actually the identity of my enemy(hopefulley not for long).
gaelic cowboy
09-13-2003, 06:49
Jay's cool it lads methinks someone has posted this topic to get ye all at each others throats who cares if yer belief's dont match mine sure your all pagans anyway. As everyone knows the only true catholic is Irish the rest of ye are just wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif S now top of the morning to ya begorra and isn't it a grand soft day. Boys in the words of the immortal father jack drink, feck, arse, girls. What are ye doing going on about this religon and belief business we would be better of sorting this with a goo round of multiplayer don't ye think then we can really know' who's side god is on http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif come on ya know ya want ta
someone is stirring the s#$t here, time to take a step back before it all gets shut down. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]the immortal father jack drink, feck, arse, girls.
words to live by. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
ohh ... go on... go on... go on... go on... go on... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Portuguese Rebel
09-13-2003, 15:39
Quote[/b] ]Of course it strikes something vulnerable on me, that's telling me that my identity is not true, and is actually the identity of my enemy(hopefulley not for long).
Don't make your identity depend on your genes dude. For what you know (and me too!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif what we think that our genetic identity is probably not. I can have jew genes and not know about it the same way you can have hundreds of sets of genes from all over the world from hundred of different ethnic groups. The biblic idea that we are all brothers is not correct, but we certainly are all, at least, distant cousins.
Let's stop arguing about this, my cousin http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Judean Prince
09-13-2003, 17:12
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 13 2003,09:39)]Don't make your identity depend on your genes dude. For what you know (and me too!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif what we think that our genetic identity is probably not. I can have jew genes and not know about it the same way you can have hundreds of sets of genes from all over the world from hundred of different ethnic groups. The biblic idea that we are all brothers is not correct, but we certainly are all, at least, distant cousins.
Let's stop arguing about this, my cousin http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Well, I actually agree with you for a change, there really is a very good possibilty that I have non-Jewish genes (only partially of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ), it really is stupid to argue about this, and quiet annoying as well...
so I also think it would be a good idea to stop arguing, my cousin http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Portuguese Rebel
09-13-2003, 23:03
I'm kind of disappointed no real fundies have come around saying the earth is 6000 years old. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Guess real fundies don't play MTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Judean Prince
09-13-2003, 23:29
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 13 2003,17:03)]I'm kind of disappointed no real fundies have come around saying the earth is 6000 years old. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Guess real fundies don't play MTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
It's actually 5764 years old. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
The poll will end Tuesday 16th of September Australia time (16.09.03:2400 Juliet)
Be sure to VOTE before then… http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 12 2003,22:20)]
Quote[/b] ]Science and belief are incompatible.
They are not imcompatible as long as there are no toes being stepped on. When someone with a political/religious agenda trys to use science (pseudo-science more likely) to make something legit, then the trouble starts.
Religion cannot overlap science or it will lose. Humanity has used religion to explain the unexplainable. If something is scientificaly explained, religion must leave it to science or be rolled over (like it has been happening for the last 500 years). If someone reads the bible taking it as a set of moral stories, a set of metaphores he will remain at peace with science and have no conflicts with it. But if he comes out saying that the earth is 6000 years old and Man lived alongside with the dinossaurs he just cannot be taken seriously, no matter how much one desires to respect other peoples beliefs.
Isn't that incompatible? Sounds like it to me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
The dinosaurs died out; because there was no room in Noah’s Ark (they were just too big). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif
Gregoshi
09-15-2003, 03:49
The dinosaurs could have fit in the Ark. Noah just didn't want to clean out their stables. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
http://www.aas-ra.org/pictures/evdcdrom/B159.JPG
I haven't seen anyone mentioning Eric von Däniken...yet...
Mount Suribachi
09-15-2003, 15:34
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 13 2003,23:03)]I'm kind of disappointed no real fundies have come around saying the earth is 6000 years old. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Guess real fundies don't play MTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Or maybe they just choose to stay away from threads that contain patrons who are clearly spoiling for an argument?
Quote[/b] ]Or maybe they just choose to stay away from threads that contain patrons who are clearly spoiling for an argument?
i doubt that, for some, discussing theology helps them strengthen their faith (which isn`t a bad idea when you think about it).
noticed your sig, nice to know someone else has read Josephus. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]I haven't seen anyone mentioning Eric von Däniken...yet...
nice to know you have a sence of humour. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
haven`t heard anything from the Scientologists either.
Parmenio
09-15-2003, 17:34
I generally go with:
God is a information virus infecting significant numbers of human minds through out recorded history, due to the necessity of the species to evolve the ability for abstract thought and imagination in the harsh climate of Africa during the last global ice-age.
Factual proof or dis-proof of specific acts-of-god being irrelevant, since religion is not popular because it is factually true, but because it 'works' enabling the most devout believers to achieve the 'impossible'.
Mount Suribachi
09-15-2003, 18:44
Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 15 2003,16:36)]i doubt that, for some, discussing theology helps them strengthen their faith
This is true, but if I answered every post that I disagreed with or that was just plain wrong or( and there are a lot) I be here 24/7 writing huge long posts. I come here to talk about the TW games and I try and stay away from the Tavern and threads like these cos they just wind me up. Too many patrons are more interested in argument than discussion for my liking.
Dragon2003
09-15-2003, 18:48
I couldn't care if god exists or not.
Its the fact that i actually trust someone. To know that god wouldn't harm you, to know that he/she cares is a nice feeling and although i know that they may not be something up there, there is in my conscience. God helps people push to their limits. God helps get people through there lives. If i forgot to do some homework, i turn to god, even though he may not be there in real life, he comforts me. Its a hard thing to describe, but in summary:
I think that he doesn't exist in some places such as the world, but he does exist in other places, such as people minds and thoughts
hellenes
09-15-2003, 18:54
My personal interpretation of the matter of God is that no matter if he exist or not the fact that my religion (orthodox christian) is based on the humanism and the compation makes the belief in God (from my point of view) an important element that makes us more human... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more seriously reflection concentrates upon them: the starry heaven above me and the moral law within me
--Kant
The degree to which a system of knowledge or reality successfully excises the absolute, to that same degree, removes the ability to form the necessary theoretical bedrock to make definitive conclusions about the nature of things.
Modernity broke the chains of dogmatism only to bind itself anew to a base materialism and has yet to fully realize the depth of its deprivity.
Sigurd: Does the word Liahona mean anything to you? My guess is that it does.
Quote[/b] ]The degree to which a system of knowledge or reality successfully excises the absolute, to that same degree, removes the ability to form the necessary theoretical bedrock to make definitive conclusions about the nature of things.
Modernity broke the chains of dogmatism only to bind itself anew to a base materialism and has yet to fully realize the depth of its deprivity.
i have to say that, although english is my first language and this is definately written in english, i just don`t understand a damned word of it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]i have to say that, although english is my first language and this is definately written in english, i just don`t understand a damned word of it
Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse. Questions about the divine are theoretical by nature. It is regarding this conceptual basis, or any such system, that my comment was focused toward.
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Sep. 16 2003,07:50)]Sigurd: Does the word Liahona mean anything to you? My guess is that it does.
Yes it does, but probably not as you think…
Let’s say that I have had a few visits and received an ancient book. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]Yes it does, but probably not as you think…
Let’s say that I have had a few visits and received an ancient book.
I thought so. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
I have the same.
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Sep. 15 2003,16:50)]
Quote[/b] ]
The degree to which a system of knowledge or reality successfully excises the absolute, to that same degree, removes the ability to form the necessary theoretical bedrock to make definitive conclusions about the nature of things.
This is psychobabble, frankly. The excission of the absoluet - or let us be more clear, the ALLEGED absolute as imagined and articulated by people - has made our philosophy tremendously more powerful. Those abstract, ideals were tempting in their absolutism, but both imaginary constructs we ourselves imposed and inhumanly demanding. It is from the absolutism that fanatacism stems, and the more firmly it is eradicated the better.
Quote[/b] ]
Modernity broke the chains of dogmatism only to bind itself anew to a base materialism and has yet to fully realize the depth of its deprivity.
Nonsense. Materialism takes philosophicval enquiry out of ther realm of the idealogues and the obscurantists and forms of it a practical discipline. We have achioeved much through materialism, far more than we ever achieved, or dreamed of achieving, with Idealism.
Squippy,
Quote[/b] ]This is psychobabble, frankly. The excission of the absoluet - or let us be more clear, the ALLEGED absolute as imagined and articulated by people - has made our philosophy tremendously more powerful. Those abstract, ideals were tempting in their absolutism, but both imaginary constructs we ourselves imposed and inhumanly demanding. It is from the absolutism that fanatacism stems, and the more firmly it is eradicated the better.
Actually, I think you would want to say philobabble since psychology is a different discipline.
Which philosophical system are you suggesting was made tremendously more powerful (by powerful, I assume, you mean correct?) through the removal of an absolute? All of the attempts at a system within the Western Philosophical tradition I can think of, make reference to an absolute (the one exemption being Marx). Even the phenomenological movement, following the Kantian model, simply agrees with the distinction between the numenal and the phenomenal and attempts to focus on one side of reality.
Fanaticism is not the exclusive domain of absolutist systems: recall Maoist China.
Quote[/b] ]Nonsense. Materialism takes philosophicval enquiry out of ther realm of the idealogues and the obscurantists and forms of it a practical discipline. We have achioeved much through materialism, far more than we ever achieved, or dreamed of achieving, with Idealism.
How many died in the Twentieth Century by the hands of those who were only loyal to a materialistic approach?
You seem to be making an either/or arguement. This is fine, but it was not my position. I focused on the idea of a single dominant view to the exclusion of any other. This would include any dominant idealism.
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Sep. 16 2003,05:48)]
Quote[/b] ]
Which philosophical system are you suggesting was made tremendously more powerful (by powerful, I assume, you mean correct?) through the removal of an absolute?
Well, the absolute rule of god mediated by kings has been replaced by the non-absolute rule of man mediated through democracy.
The absolute legitimacy of biblical claims as to the nature of reality have been superceded by multivalent and complex theories of reality.
And in this short span, we conquered the planet and went to the moon. We have developed art can culture trmeendously rapidly. Materilaistic approches kick butt.
Quote[/b] ]
All of the attempts at a system within the Western Philosophical tradition I can think of, make reference to an absolute (the one exemption being Marx).
I think absolutes do unrely most Western philisophical systems,a nd that this poses a real problem. It is not surprising that Western socieites are so hypocricial as a result.
Quote[/b] ]Fanaticism is not the exclusive domain of absolutist systems: recall Maoist China.
Granted; but fanatacism fed by an absoplute authority is more likely to select a plan of action that brings misery to others.
Quote[/b] ]
how many died
In what way does that undermine the argument?
If thats true, then all the religiously motivated murders from the last 6000 years amount to a substantilly larger number, and materialism would still win out. I mean surely, all I have to say is Tenochtitlan to prove the point.
rory_20_uk
09-16-2003, 14:24
I find that I am an agnostic, as I think that to be say that there is no power that could be called god just as blinkered as to say that god definitely exists.
One person mentioned the bible as proof that god can not exist - a rather tenuous argument http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
And I think that the crux here is BELIEF. Arguing over points of logic / evidence on a subject that is defined by the lack of evidence (and indeed the lack of need for logic) is nonsensical.
Evidence of examples of holy scriptures proving all sorts of things is not useful - it is as though something that is written by man merely by being accurate causes there to be a higher power
In the end, I wish that I was religious. Often I get depressed by how pointless everything is, how acts of good are overshadowed by the mundane evil in this world. If I believed, I would KNOW BEYOND EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY MY SENSES that the world was a good place, and as long as I keep my nose clean, I am destined not to end as a rotting corpse, but transcend to haeven. Sadly, for me wishing something to be true and it being true are not linked. I wish I had the type of mind that can fool itself to that degree.
As an agnostic, I accept that there might be a god, but I don't see why he should really care about me - after all do I care about the souls / beliefs / lives of ants? Not really...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Ok Peeps, it is now Wednesday in Australia and I therefore declare this poll closed.
You will of course be able to still vote but it will not be included in the results…
These are the numbers (as of 24:00 GMT+10) that will be the base of my comments:
Q 1: 13 votes
Q 2: 1 vote
Q 3: 7 votes
Q 4: 9 votes
Q 5: 9 votes
Q 6: 9 votes
Q 7: 16 votes
Q 8: 4 votes
Q 9: 2 votes
Q10: 6 votes
-------------------
SUM: 76 votes
[/list]
ToranagaSama
09-16-2003, 20:44
I found it impossible to vote as some questions are contrary, in addition to the fact that one can believe in an amalgamation of questions 1, 2 and 3, though I appreciate the effort and the thread.
Portuegese Rebel, as one who has studied the Bible, in relation to your 7 days/7nights/TREES argument, can you highlight where in the Bible, and particularly in a near-original text, Time is defined?
More to the point, where does it state that Trees were made on any particular given Day?.
IMHO, to argue over the literality of the Bible is to miss the point.
The Question(s) to be asked is What is the Bible attempting to teach?
IMUHO, the Bible attempts to teach a philosphy of life, the proper, correct and best manner in which to conduct life. It provides an Order to life, in which all things fit.
An ultimate question, is: If ALL were to follow the tenents of the Bible would Life for all be better than it is presently? If all were to be Christ-like, then all would be Good, and this what the Bible teaches.
It doesn't teach you to hate, it doesn't teach you to burn Homosexuals, it teaches you to Love, to be Christ-like.
Anything to the contrary is a perversion of Man, and is the intent of the Devil. It is often called, Religion.
This one simple Tenent seems to say it all (paraphrasing and possibly amalgamating as well):
Love Thy Neighbor and Do Unto Others as you would have Others do Unto you.
If the world could/would adopt simply the above, instantly the world would be a better place.
I would suggest that the following line also be contemplated:
G_d is not the author of Confusion.
Which explicityly implies that at one point, in the world, ALL things were clear and un-confused. This thread is a testament to the CONFUSION that the Devil has wrought.
TS, gets unto his stomp, forgive me this will be rather short:
There is a war within the Universe between Good and Evil. G_d is the side of Good, and here on earth the Devil is Evil. We are living the battle on Earth between Good and Evil.
As in all wars, INFORMATION is the key to victory. As a result, and as in all wars, dis-information is a weapon that is used to Confuse.
G_d is the Word, and the Word is Truth. (Information)
The Devil is the Author of Confusion. (Dis-Information)
In any study of the Bible (and/or G_d), one MUST FIRST comprehend the above and view everything within such light; and know that the Truth is not easily revealed.
It is my hope that I have reached someone with just the simple truth regarding Information and Dis-Information.
~ ToranagaSama
---
TS, now removes himself from his Stomp.
BTW, I would appreciate all who claim to be Atheists or Agnostics to please review my upcoming post, euphemistically entitled, Judgment Day. Thank you.
[EDIT: It is often called, Religion.]
Hmmm, don't know if I should still be writing in here.
Squppy,
Quote[/b] ]the absolute rule of god mediated by kings has been replaced by the non-absolute rule of man mediated through democracy.
Ahh, I see where you are coming from. I would argue that the divine right of kings (or any approximate) is more a political/religious position than it is strictly philosophical. Or to be more precise; it is not a question dealing with ontology (which is where this discussion is actually focused).
I probably should have posted the following last night, but got tired.
Your position over the merits of materialism vs. absolutism seems to neglect a certain key element. If one were to put forward the view that all there is is matter: positing A and only A exists. There is the question of where does this A come from? To assume a thing without providing a proper causality is to beg the question.
One might say: matter is the product of the big bang. Where does the big bang derive from? A common approach these days would be to appeal to a version of string theory. However, string theory, as with all theoretical physics, is dependant on mathematics. Mathematics is not material but an idea. One is now forced to assume a duelistic system in order to explain a material universe. Where does mathematics come from? Are we going to adopt a platonic theory of forms? I think you can see the reductio problem.
It is because of the logical difficulties like the one I just pointed out that philosophical systems tend toward an absolutist groundwork. This may be an appeal to God, but does not have to be. Aristotle's unmoved mover would be an alternate example.
Now to bracket such questions and choose to focus strickly on say the material world is fine. This is the role science has assumed. However, that bracketing necessarily means one is no longer able to speak to the bedrock issues that allow the material world to be studied in all its minutia. Thus, my original point: systems that bracket areas of inquiry (for whatever reason) are by that braketing, and to the extent it exists, unable to address the underlying framwork that gave rise to self same system.
This is not really a controversal point. The need and desire to find a TOE (theory of everything) is an ongoing concern amoungst philosophers to theoretical physicists on down.
Regarding the more pratical point:
Quote[/b] ]If thats true, then all the religiously motivated murders from the last 6000 years amount to a substantilly larger number, and materialism would still win out. I mean surely, all I have to say is Tenochtitlan to prove the point.
Actually no, deaths due to religious devotion, while popular to discuss do not make up the bulk of atrocities commited. The sacrifices of the Aztec were certainly gruesome. If one allows for even 10,000 or 20,000 a year, and extends it over the period the Empire existed, one would come up with millions of deaths. We could also look at the Thirty Years War where a third of Central Europe is thought to have died: again several million. Even so, neither compares with say the over 100,000,000 Russians assumed to have died in the previous Century alone due to more Modern notions. Unfortuneately, there is time and to spare, for men to work ill will toward their fellow man.
Portuguese Rebel
09-16-2003, 22:48
Quote[/b] ]Portuegese Rebel, as one who has studied the Bible, in relation to your 7 days/7nights/TREES argument, can you highlight where in the Bible, and particularly in a near-original text, Time is defined?
More to the point, where does it state that Trees were made on any particular given Day?.
Time is not defined, that is why many christians belive in a non literal interpretation of the genesis account. However if the biblical days do have a temporal meaning, then the bible is still contraditory in itself:
In chapter one of Genesis, God is said to have created plants on the third day, with animals being created on the fifth and sixth day. Man was made after all these, on the sixth day. Given below are the relevant verses:
Genesis 1:11-13; 20-27; 31
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning-the third day.
...
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas and let the birds increase on the earth. And there was evening and there was morning-the fifth day.
And God said, “Let the land produce creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let us make man in our own image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
...
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning-the sixth day.
However, in the very next chapter, the Bible contradicts itself by explicitly noting that man was created before the plants and animals.
Genesis 2:4-9, 18-19 In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,-when no plant of the filed was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had sent no rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-the Lord god formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.
...
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them...
The difference between the above two accounts cannot be more explicit.
In Genesis 1:12 it was noted that the land had already produced vegetation on the third day, three days before the creation of man. Yet in Genesis 2:5, no shrub or plant had even grown when man was created.
Furthermore in Genesis 1:20-25, we are told that the animals were created on the fifth and sixth day of creation, all before man; yet in Genesis 2:18-19, they were created explicitly to find man a companion
Happy now ToranagaSama? I know english is not near the original, but it's the best i can do since i have not studied ancient greek. If you want i can give you more in itself contradiction in the bible. But it is beyhond the point, since, like you stated
Quote[/b] ]to argue over the literality of the Bible is to miss the point.
Is is not important to discuss the details of the bible since the message is a lot more important, even if sometimes contradictory.
Archlight
09-16-2003, 23:57
Quote[/b] (rory_20_uk @ Sep. 16 2003,06:24)]In the end, I wish that I was religious. Often I get depressed by how pointless everything is, how acts of good are overshadowed by the mundane evil in this world. If I believed, I would KNOW BEYOND EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY MY SENSES that the world was a good place, and as long as I keep my nose clean, I am destined not to end as a rotting corpse, but transcend to haeven. Sadly, for me wishing something to be true and it being true are not linked. I wish I had the type of mind that can fool itself to that degree.
As an agnostic, I accept that there might be a god, but I don't see why he should really care about me - after all do I care about the souls / beliefs / lives of ants? Not really...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
I myself have been battling with this same issue. What's the point? But then, Somewhere in this thread,(I forget exactly who, so many long posts) someone said Why does there have to be a point? I like that idea. So, I will just continue to live my life the best I can, not worrying about whether or not there's a God. I do believe in myself, and will continue to better myself regardless of the outcome. Also the idea of the end mystery appeals...
Thanks guys, I feel much better now for reading this thread.
i think too many people worry about the percieved destination of their lives instead of enjoying the journey through it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
and for some (like me) there is only the journey. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Gregoshi
09-17-2003, 06:17
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Hello Archlight. Welcome to the Org's Center for Theological Discourse and Datcourse. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif I'm glad you have taken some comfort from this topic. Nice discussion everyone. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
So Sigurd, did the Chariots of the Gods position win the poll? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Sep. 17 2003,15:17)]So Sigurd, did the Chariots of the Gods position win the poll? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
LOL,
Maybe I should have included the option:
11 I believe we are the result of an Ancient experiment performed by Aliens on the island of Atlantis. These same aliens experimented on apes, giving them intelligence, but somewhere down the track (around 10 500BC.), someone pulled the plug and the experiment was cancelled. The aliens attempted to destroy their experiment by crashing an asteroid into Atlantis, but Noah (leader) got away in the ark barely surviving the tidal wave that flooded the earth…
Archlight
09-17-2003, 07:48
Thanks for the welcome Gregoshi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
I definitely think I'm changing my vote to #11. The most far fetched solutions seem to end up being the correct ones
rory_20_uk
09-17-2003, 10:55
Oh, I realise that one's life does not have to be defined as good by others, but I think that if one believed that there was a point, it would stave off the feeling that I will spend most of my life working to live the rest of my life doing things that are only transiently enjoyable. It's the butterfly in a hurricaine feeling, that I am all alone in a great big uncaring universe, and life SUCKS feeling.
Too often I feel that I am neither working towards something, nor having a good time. (year 6 of a medical degree with up and coming exams tends to increase that feeling).
rory_20_uk
09-17-2003, 10:59
Many have thought that the island of Adlantis was at least partly a trading empire based on several islands of Greece and the surrounding coasts. It was believed to have ended when some rathr unruely barbarians turned up and made the question what is the meaning of live rather mute for many of them by doing what humans do best and slaughtering most of them. Since that time, the kingdom became no more than a legend (although the Empire did in some ways sink). There was little to find of this empire later, as most was subsumed by the later Greek states.
(And it is also for those people) Who brought Faith and were staying in habitation of Immigrants before them. They love those people, who have migrated to them and whatever is given to them they do not feel any need of that in their hearts and prefer others to themselves, even though they are needy themselves. The fact is that those people who are saved from the greed of their own hearts; they are the ones who are going to be successful. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Awating the official interpretation of the results. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (squippy @ Sep. 11 2003,03:48)]
Quote[/b] (LestaT @ Sep. 10 2003,07:37)]It's not the religion which is at fault. It is the people which uses the religion wrongly. To justify their needs. Crusades, Jihad to certain extend serves to fulfill the needs of those who commands them.
And that is a classic No True Scotsman fallacy:
Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#scots
Whoah... guess i have to dig up my vocabularies. Honestly most of the posts in here i do not understand. Well, i guess i just have to stop posting here. I was never mean to preach or to teach. Never wanted to argue. Just to state my belief. But my words might be misunderstood.
ps: for me what i believe, for you what you believe (aL Quran - surah aL Kafirun (infidels)
psssttt... what is fallacy ? to fall from something ?
All right peeps, the summary has been posted and can be found under the questions on page 1. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Here is a quick link: The results... (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=15;t=10706;#entry152221)
Quote[/b] (LestaT @ Sep. 17 2003,13:01)]psssttt... what is fallacy ? to fall from something ?
fallacy is something that is false, misconception etc..
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Quote[/b] (LestaT @ Sep. 17 2003,22:01)]psssttt... what is fallacy ? to fall from something ?
Fallacy: a false notion, a statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
inference: The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence.
[edit]: Seljuk beat me to it...
rory_20_uk:
LOL...
I was just making a joke based on Eric von Däniken's Chariot's of the Gods theories. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
[edit]#2:
Again, the results are out:RESULTS (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=15;t=10706;#entry152221)
What, no comments?, critics?
come on people, you must have thoughts, feelings or somekind of feedback...
Sigmund - I don't get what you mean by gnosticism. The dictionary and the online book you reference take it to mean some rather particular views of a religious sect - that matter is evil and salvation comes through esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth - considered heretical by mainstream Christianity. You seem to use it to mean something much general and broader.
On a related point, I don't understand why option 8 is agnostic or a trick as you describe. It seemed quite reasonable position for a theist - that a god would only save his favoured people or those who believed in his existence always seemed one of the strangest and most repugnant aspects of many religions.
As your poll was designed to measure the prevalence of agnosticism, I think it might have been weakened by the potential overlap between options 5 and 7. In particular, the second part of 5, being willing to change one's mind given evidence, does not seem inconsistent with having a strong conviction. Holding to a conviction whatever the evidence sounds like blind faith, which is not something that characterises most people I hear calling themselves aetheists.
Beyond that, my reaction to the poll results was what a godless bunch org members are, on average. Over half are not theists (they chose 4 to 7) and only half the theists seem sign up to a particular organised religion (options 1 and 10).
I start to understand now why some Christian groups attack violent computer games - they probably don't have much experience of them.
in the poll i picked 7 qhich you categorise as;
Quote[/b] ]Q 7: Atheist (Gnostic).
so can you tell me what the hell a gnostic atheist is, as apparently i am one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Finally some feedback.
Simon:
I have never been called Sigmund, but I take it as a compliment.
Thanks for pointing out things that are not clear.
Gnosticism: the syncretism of religious and philosophical ideas and concepts.
All religions IMO has this Gnosticism incorporated. Somewhere down the track, man’s ideas were intermingled with religion (that is, if you believe that there once was a pure religion). You can even read about it in the New Testament when Paul had to chastise the Greek Christians for incorporating philosophical ideas into the church. Same with the Pharisees and Sadducees in the Jewish church. Christ chastised them for bringing man’s ideas into the religion.
It continued with Rome… now baptism was only a sprinkling of water, even if the name baptism originates from Greek and means “to immerse”. The church split up and became a Roman and an Orthodox church, where the orthodox introduced many heresies like; celibacy because sex and women are evil etc… you can read all about it yourselves.
It seems many scholars are leaving the old definition and in fact it was Thomas Huxley with his new word; a-gnostic that started it all. At the assumption that all organized religion were Gnostic and “professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant”(Huxley). He gave the word gnostic (which means ‘knowing’) a prefix to give the word an opposite meaning (‘not-knowing’).
This is the meaning I put into the word…
About question number 8 I think I answered that above. If not, lets try again; all religion is Gnostic; they all profess to have some special knowledge that will “save” you.
Take Born-again-ism and Mormonism. They both believe in Christ as their savior. The born-agains(I do not know all the sect’s and the churches names) says belief is enough; Believe that he will save you and you’re saved, leaving baptism optional. Mormonism says this is not so. To be saved you have to believe, be baptized, work hard at being righteous, and marry in the temple etc. before you have a chance to be saved. The born-agains says Mormons are of the devil and will all be damned to hell. I find this silly since Mormons also believe that it is Christ who will save them just as the born-agains do (go figure?).
Question 5 is agnostic atheism as they initially do not believe in any god but cannot say that they have any knowledge to support this. Yes, you are right that this is a common belief amongst those who like to call themselves atheists. Read any publication on agnosticism and they will say the same.
katar:
To be a Gnostic Atheist you have some knowledge that you use to support your belief.
If you were to use the traditional meaning of the word Gnosticism, you mingle scientific and philosophical ideas and concepts and use them against religious ideas and concepts to “prove” that religion is false (see Rebel and other’s posts).
Sigurd,
I understand the approach you have taken. I don't think I would have gone with the terminology you decided on though.
Gnosticism: You point out correctly this is Greek for knowledge. During the Late Classical Period there were over 70 identified groups (sects) of Gnosticism. The key element that allows the group identification was the common belief that salvation required a certain knowledge. This knowledge was esoteric. The saved were the ones 'in the know'. Consequently knowing was the critical feature of salvation.
I think the crucial differance between the above and what became Orthodox Christian Teaching was the distinctive focus on being instead of an absolute priority of knowing. For example: an Evangelical Christian may argue that being saved means being redemned from a fallen carnal nature. The saved are a new creature.
Differances between a Catholic approach and one of the many strains of Protestantism would be on whether there is any recognition of meritorious acts on the part of the devotee and whether a guarantee of salvation can occur in a temporal state. Even so, both would, I think, aggree the saved is different, in order of being, having recieved the grace of God.
Your discussion of Huxley's introduction of agnosticism is correct. As are your discussion of strong vs. weak forms of atheism. However, I would have stayed with the terms strong or weak as opposed to things like agnositc atheist.
Quote[/b] ]To be a Gnostic Atheist you have some knowledge that you use to support your belief.
If you were to use the traditional meaning of the word Gnosticism, you mingle scientific and philosophical ideas and concepts and use them against religious ideas and concepts to “prove” that religion is false (see Rebel and other’s posts).
i`m slightly discomforted by the implication in the above quote that i`m on some sort of anti-religious crusade/witch hunt against people who worship gods. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
i`ll defend my stance as an atheist and explain why i am one, but that`s about it really, the rest of the time i think about God/s as often as i think about Daffy Duck(that doesn`t happen very often). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
i`ll just stick with atheist if you don`t mind.
Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 19 2003,07:13)]I`ll just stick with atheist if you don`t mind.
You can call yourself anything you want, m8. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
I knew the numbers on Q7 was too high… and I apologize for not being able to phrase the questions in such a way that they where not ambiguous.
The problem as I see it is that it is impossible to accommodate for all beliefs. Even my (which is not mine BTW) separation of belief and knowledge is still a very narrow definition.
Maybe using words as strong and weak will help, but then there is nothing to distinguish knowledge from belief.
This can be discussed at length, I know, but philosophy is not my cup of tea (too little knowledge about it).
I am merely a person interested in religion, and lean toward atheism. Nevertheless, I find myself uncomfortable with that label and the dictionary definition of agnosticism is not sufficient.
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Sep. 16 2003,14:59)]
Quote[/b] ] Ahh, I see where you are coming from. I would argue that the divine right of kings (or any approximate) is more a political/religious position than it is strictly philosophical.
I agree, but there is a reasons that the PPE (Politics, Philosophy, Economics) is the default course of study for a caree in the civil service. All theories of rulership have a philosophical underpinning as an appeal to legitimacy; none occurs in isolation.
Quote[/b] ] There is the question of where does this A come from? To assume a thing without providing a proper causality is to beg the question.
It is unclear how important this question is. Materialism does not address this question except inasmuch as implications are drawn from its observations of the material world.
Quote[/b] ] Mathematics is not material but an idea. One is now forced to assume a duelistic system in order to explain a material universe. Where does mathematics come from? Are we going to adopt a platonic theory of forms? I think you can see the reductio problem.
Not really. Over the last hudred years we have developed a science of qualified knowledge. We knus of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we suspect there are potentially other worlds parallel to ours, we know that matter is not a fixed object in a fixed form but evcen at its most mundane goes through pahses as temperature and pressue change. Information is itself a material property; a property of organised matter.
Quote[/b] ] Thus, my original point: systems that bracket areas of inquiry (for whatever reason) are by that braketing, and to the extent it exists, unable to address the underlying framwork that gave rise to self same system.
At which point I have to say: who cares? IMO, the object of inquiry is to extend the boundaries of the knowable, not to cogitate on the unknowable. The bracketing is IMO required to rpevent us from treating every njotiion as eually valid and equally priviliged; they are not. the independant relaibility of science makes its knowledge superior to other forms of knowledge. Where other knowledge contradicts science, that other knowledge is almost always wrong. Furthermore, the allegation that there IS an underlying framework to be concerned about, or that it has certain propertiesa, is all too often found to be dependant on other aspects of human society such as the theories of rulership discussed above.
Quote[/b] ]The sacrifices of the Aztec were certainly gruesome. If one allows for even 10,000 or 20,000 a year, and extends it over the period the Empire existed, one would come up with millions of deaths.
I think you underestimate the scale. Tezozomoc, Ixtlilxochitl, and Duran provided estimates ranging from 20,000 to 80,000 annually. Borah estimated 250,000 per annum in 1977.
Quote[/b] ] Even so, neither compares with say the over 100,000,000 Russians assumed to have died in the previous Century alone due to more Modern notions.
In the first place, these numbers are contested, arising as they do from outright ideological opponents of the USSR and thus from sources prone to extreme partisan bias. In the second instance, I'm not sure that famine, which accounts for the bulk of these deaths, can be considered a modern notion. Thirdly, the deaths due to violence and the oppression of the state have plenty of precedent in the behaviour of earlier, non-modern states. Its the kind og analysis that depends in large part on ignorance of what was actuially going on in Russia.
I find it telling that this particular example is used so frequently as an attack on modernism, whicle the genocide of the plains indians, a much more direct clash between modern and pre-modern societies, is cavalierly ignored.
So I consider your claim wholly uinproven and positively dangerous, and actual argunment that we should give up modernism and materialism and resort once again to superstition. Not only do I think this to be morally wrong, but I am entirely confident it will never happen.
Squippy,
Quote[/b] ]To assume a thing without providing a proper causality is to beg the question.
It is unclear how important this question is. Materialism does not address this question except inasmuch as implications are drawn from its observations of the material world.
This is vitally important if one is going to establish a unifed theory of knowledge.
Quote[/b] ]Not really. Over the last hudred years we have developed a science of qualified knowledge. We knus of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we suspect there are potentially other worlds parallel to ours, we know that matter is not a fixed object in a fixed form but evcen at its most mundane goes through pahses as temperature and pressue change. Information is itself a material property; a property of organised matter.
This doesn't answer to the immateriality of mathematics and many hard sciences reliance upon it. Further, qualified knowledge is just that, qualified meaning: it is not taken as complete. This makes my point.
Heisenberg was not unaware of the constraints of base empirical approaches. Much of his work was influenced by his close association with Heidegger. The uncertainty principle is part of a larger theoretical construct as are parallel universes, dark matter and muti-dimensions. In each case, they represent attempts at explaing the phenomenal world while not being at part of the it. These only make my case.
Quote[/b] ]Thus, my original point: systems that bracket areas of inquiry (for whatever reason) are by that braketing, and to the extent it exists, unable to address the underlying framwork that gave rise to self same system.
At which point I have to say: who cares? IMO, the object of inquiry is to extend the boundaries of the knowable, not to cogitate on the unknowable.
I take it you concede the point. As to who cares? Those who are interested in a proper understanding of the limits of inquirty and the development of a unifed theroy of knowledge.
I don't think Borah's numbers are considered standard.
Quote[/b] ]In the first place, these numbers are contested, arising as they do from outright ideological opponents of the USSR and thus from sources prone to extreme partisan bias. In the second instance, I'm not sure that famine, which accounts for the bulk of these deaths, can be considered a modern notion.
You should check some of the data from Russian sources. The Ukraine famine is estimated at causing some 3-5 million deaths. This is not the bulk of deaths Russian suffered in the Twentieth Century. Even so, famine is a legitimate catergory if it is purposely induced by the state.
Quote[/b] ]I find it telling that this particular example is used so frequently as an attack on modernism, whicle the genocide of the plains indians, a much more direct clash between modern and pre-modern societies, is cavalierly ignored.
This is unrelated to my point, but genocide? When? The vast bulk of Native deaths were due to disease. The notion that there was some grand plan of forced extinction is a cannard. Now Australia is a different story.
Quote[/b] ]So I consider your claim wholly uinproven and positively dangerous, and actual argunment that we should give up modernism and materialism and resort once again to superstition.
The light shineth in the dark, and the dark comprehendeth it not. I have not argued giving up Modernism, nor have I attacked Modernism. I have put forward a critigue of secularism. You are confused.
4 I believe that God’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved.
This is the standard dictionary definition for Agnosticism and usually the choice of them that think of themselves as agnostics.
Sig-
I think that for the most part this has been a very interesting, thoughtful, and fun thread.
However, some of your questions and categorizations are less than scientific. For example, your question #4 makes an assumption that is entirely incorrect. To believe that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven is not analogous to Agnosticism. It only defines the nature of faith and belief itself.
Believing in and not being able to prove the existance of god are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would guess that many if not most Christians and Jews fall snugly into this category. The believe, but fully understand that the existance of God cannot be proven or disproven.
So, lumping those that selected this category into the agnostic group is not only questionable, it is likely incorrect.
Nevertheless, your choices did generate a lot of inciteful discourse, and your results provide an interesting summary, but I don't think I'd use this poll as a basis for a thesis or dissertation. It's a little too subjective.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Portuguese Rebel
09-20-2003, 23:00
Quote[/b] ]Quote
In the first place, these numbers are contested, arising as they do from outright ideological opponents of the USSR and thus from sources prone to extreme partisan bias. In the second instance, I'm not sure that famine, which accounts for the bulk of these deaths, can be considered a modern notion.
You should check some of the data from Russian sources. The Ukraine famine is estimated at causing some 3-5 million deaths. This is not the bulk of deaths Russian suffered in the Twentieth Century. Even so, famine is a legitimate catergory if it is purposely induced by the state.
States of all ideologic backrounds have resulted in economic crisis of some sort. By this line of thought, we should have to drop democracy altogether since it has induced hunger in some instances. Situation is not worse for democracy because in modern days humanitary aid and countries external debt make it possible to keep feeding the population (South America is a good example right now). If this is aimed at how materialistic forms of goverment can cause bad things to happen you gotta look into the ones who rely in non-materialism and make calculations of the total number of casualties.
mandt:
Question 4 was probably edited wrongly as I intended to “hide” my true intention of the poll. Question 4 used to be:
I believe that God’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence.
This question is quoted (rephrased) directly from religious encyclopaedias (such as religioustolerance.org) that state:
An agnostic is a person who feels that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence. With the addition of, I believe...
In fact, if you type; “God’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved” in any search-engine on the web, you will find a host of agnostic websites.
Other than that, I agree to your statement.
I also am a firmly believer that there are no such thing as objectivity when it comes to humans (no human being is objective), and I did state that my ‘experiment’ is far from being valid or reliable as a research project.
Yes, it was fun though. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Sig-
Don't mind me. I'm one of those people who can't help but to pull at that tiny loose thread, and obsessively keep at it until the whole sweater is nothing more than a tangled pile of yarn. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
It really is a clever and provocative survey. Good job.
mandt
Pindar:
Quote[/b] ] This is vitally important if one is going to establish a unifed theory of knowledge.p
That presupposes knowledge of non-material existance. If you claim the existance of a non-material reality, then it is incumbent on you to demonstrate that such is the case. Until then, there is no reason to explore ALLEGED non-material reality.*
Quote[/b] ]
This doesn't answer to the immateriality of mathematics and many hard sciences reliance upon it. Further, qualified knowledge is just that, qualified meaning: it is not taken as complete. This makes my point.
No, it undermines your point. Because your point depends on starting from the evidence-less assumption that non-material existence is possible and extant. My point is that contradictory or incomplete knowledge does not imply complete knowledge in a mystical space.
Quote[/b] ] I take it you concede the point. As to who cares? Those who are interested in a proper understanding of the limits of inquirty and the development of a unifed theroy of knowledge.
Its uinclear to me how I have conceded the point. For who cares, I would say the only people who care to investigate alleged immaterial existance do NOT in fact seek a unified theory of knowledge. Those who do seek a method for truth and the limits of have established the materialist methodolgy as the most reliable of available means - a claim technologically verified. The limits to enquiry are the boundaries of material existance.
Quote[/b] ] Even so, famine is a legitimate catergory if it is purposely induced by the state.
Yes. And was it? What is the basis for that claim?
Quote[/b] ] This is unrelated to my point, but genocide? When? The vast bulk of Native deaths were due to disease. The notion that there was some grand plan of forced extinction is a cannard. Now Australia is a different story.
Not at all. There are many documents indicating the overt intent of Westerners to destroy the indians at least culturally. They were often considered sub-human, and of course money was paid for Indian scalps. If that is not deliberate genocide, then no genocidist in history has been guilty.
Quote[/b] ] I have put forward a critigue of secularism. You are confused.
Ah I see. My objection stands - no return to the age of superstition.
* At which point, it would become a form of material relaity, subject to methodological inquiry.
Squippy,
Quote[/b] ]That presupposes knowledge of non-material existance. If you claim the existance of a non-material reality, then it is incumbent on you to demonstrate that such is the case. Until then, there is no reason to explore ALLEGED non-material reality.*
Actually, I did not presuppose the existance of a non-material reality. Though there are those who do. Often, they are called mathematicians. An example of their belief would be the number four.
I argued that science is a method for measuring the phenominal world. As such, it cannot speak to issues that lie beyond the phenominal realm, i.e. science cannot prove the number four. If one accepts four as a real object (which mathematics does), that acceptance is the recognition of a non-material reality.
Even so, arguing that science must remain within its appointed limits does not mean that aspects of reality beyond the present's ability to measure are forever cut off from such inquiry. Nor does it mean reality is the sum of present measurement alone. There may be a materiality yet to be discovered that is nonetheless afforded theoretical space (and therefore a reality) in order to account for various aspects of the world i.e. dark matter.
Quote[/b] ]No, it undermines your point. Because your point depends on starting from the evidence-less assumption that non-material existence is possible and extant.
See above comment on number.
Quote[/b] ]My point is that contradictory or incomplete knowledge does not imply complete knowledge in a mystical space.
I agree. A pronouncement of faith is not a knowledge claim. Mystical claims are a separate catergory.
Quote[/b] ]Its uinclear to me how I have conceded the point. For who cares, I would say the only people who care to investigate alleged immaterial existance do NOT in fact seek a unified theory of knowledge.
I recommend you reconsider theoretical physics.
Quote[/b] ]Yes. And was it? What is the basis for that claim?
Are you challenging that Stalin induced a famine on Ukraine in order to break resistance to Soviet annexation?
Quote[/b] ]There are many documents indicating the overt intent of Westerners to destroy the indians at least culturally. They were often considered sub-human, and of course money was paid for Indian scalps. If that is not deliberate genocide, then no genocidist in history has been guilty.
Genocide and culutral erradication are not the same. Though both may be condemned. The Dutch practice of paying Huron (amoung others) for Iroquois scalps as proof they were protecting trade routes was not a planned genocide.
Um what if you have more then one god in your religion? I dont but that is pretty harsh to not include that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Sep. 23 2003,18:23)]
Quote[/b] ] Actually, I did not presuppose the existance of a non-material reality. Though there are those who do. Often, they are called mathematicians. An example of their belief would be the number four.
LOL. The number four is an articulation, a language. None the less, the quantity we label as four is a materially existing quantity.
Quote[/b] ] I argued that science is a method for measuring the phenominal world. As such, it cannot speak to issues that lie beyond the phenominal realm, i.e. science cannot prove the number four. If one accepts four as a real object (which mathematics does), that acceptance is the recognition of a non-material reality.
No, mathematics accepts the number 4 as a representation of a material reality, not as a material phenomenon in its own right.
Quote[/b] ] Even so, arguing that science must remain within its appointed limits does not mean that aspects of reality beyond the present's ability to measure are forever cut off from such inquiry.
They may be approached throigh a non-scientific inquiry. They cannot be approached through scientific inquiry.
Quote[/b] ] There may be a materiality yet to be discovered that is nonetheless afforded theoretical space (and therefore a reality) in order to account for various aspects of the world i.e. dark matter.
Sure. But its precisely because these are only speculativeguesses, deductions drawn form the available evidence, that its unlikely that anyone will defend them to the death. I find dark matter unsatisfying, personally, and expect this hypothesis to be rejected in the fullness of time.
Quote[/b] ] I recommend you reconsider theoretical physics.
I'm very fmailiar with theoretical physics. I note the oft-observed feature that the theoretical physicists seek to explain the phenomenon identified by the practical physicists. They don't just cogitate and suck things out of their thumbs.
Quote[/b] ] Are you challenging that Stalin induced a famine on Ukraine in order to break resistance to Soviet annexation?
Ah, that bit. No - but this scenario is often painted differently, that the use of obviously broiken economics of the USSr as a whole was mishcevous and thus deliberate. But that argument presupposes its concluision.
Quote[/b] ] Genocide and culutral erradication are not the same. Though both may be condemned. The Dutch practice of paying Huron (amoung others) for Iroquois scalps as proof they were protecting trade routes was not a planned genocide.
I cannot see that is relevant. The dead are just as dead. And I was ont talking about the Duth, I was talking about the American state in the plains.
Squippy,
Our discussion, seems to be moving farther apart than the reverse. alas.
Quote[/b] ]The number four is an articulation, a language. None the less, the quantity we label as four is a materially existing quantity.
Actually no, Four is a concept, a noun, (as is zero or one sixteenth or an equals) not a language. When used as an adjective it can represent a quantity of an object(s), but it has no materiality in and of itself.
Quote[/b] ]No, mathematics accepts the number 4 as a representation of a material reality, not as a material phenomenon in its own right.
Again incorrect, No mathematicians argue number is dependant on physicality. Try and find a source for a counter example, you will not. The platonic assumptions that guide mathematics have been recognized from the Classical period to the Present day.
Quote[/b] ]They may be approached throigh a non-scientific inquiry. They cannot be approached through scientific inquiry.
Quite right, there are fields of knowledge beyond science. You may wish to argue only science can make knowledge claims as oppossed to theoretical postulates, but that is to fail to recognize that science is itself a theoretical enterprise. The very root of phenominal inquiry you tout is couched with theory. It is this theory that allows meaning and conclusions about data to occur. This applies whether one is reclassifying glass as a liquid due to conceptual schema or introducing a new concept .i.e. black holes, to fill in a larger theoretical matrix.
Quote[/b] ]I'm very fmailiar with theoretical physics. I note the oft-observed feature that the theoretical physicists seek to explain the phenomenon identified by the practical physicists. They don't just cogitate and suck things out of their thumbs.
It goes both ways. In fact, most of the major developments in scientific inquiry began as purely theoretical projects. It is these prior conceptual models that allow a practical element to even develope by showing 'what to look for' and 'how to see it':
sensations without concepts are blind - Kant
You may want to read Thomas Kuhn to better understand the philosophy of science.. He has fallen out of favor in some circles, but his work could still enlighten this discussion.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.