Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 30 of 35 1 2 28 29 30 31 32 34 35
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
Ah. Gimme that ol' time religion. But wait. It seems God has evolved.


Consistent with Dawkins' book, as people evolve, so too does God.

That's 'evolving' socially and psychologically, I suppose; and I must also mean our conception (or perception/experience) of God.

Is that consistent? I haven't read the book, but I saw a lecture he gave on the book.

~~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
.
samwik #20811 04/24/07 08:47 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Yes Samwik, that's pretty much it. Dawkins says he actually had a t-shirt with "atheists for Jesus" printed on it. I like the idea.

Unfortunately I can't seem to get anyone who believes there is a God intimately involved in human affairs to commit themselves as to when this God first decided to get involved. Was it when Australopithecus first made a tool and became Homo Habilis? Do you think we could push them for an answer? If we could sort that out I'm sure we will then be easily able to find any evidence for God.

By the way I think I've been putting a c in your name. Apologies.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
I guess it depends on how you define "intimately involved."
As transendent, God would be outside of time. It'd be easy to say all of life was just prepatory (by design) for our "arrival."

Sorry, much too late for me to know what I'm saying. Must sleep now. Have fun reading....

No problem....
~SA




Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
samwik #20817 04/24/07 12:04 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
TNZ wrote:
"Hang on. I thought most of the ones in Israel used that same God to justify their right to live in the region. Are you going to tell them they are mistaken?"

You got that one right. He's obviously in a self-induced hypnotic trance. And no one's around to snap their fingers.

It seems like the internet is many people's substitute for visiting a psychiatrist and asking for help with their depression or psychosis.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
Revlgking wrote:

"Atheists may think of conscious existence as depressing, as being meaningless and absurd, and that non-existence is to be preferred."

What on earth did you mean by that?
Can you name any athsists that think that way?
Notice: I said "may" not "do". Jean Paul Sartre, writer and philosopher, was an existentialist atheist. He wrote of life as being an absurd process.I have a question: Are there some atheists who believe, think, or hope that there is life after death? Certain non-theists, like Buddhists, do. Or do they think of it as a delusion?
===================================================
Redewenur wrote:

"because they aren't 'life enhancing principles'"

But surely what's life enhancing for the hawk is not so for the rabbit?

Or does God only worry about humans?

If the latter is so, when during our evolution did God begin to confine his interest to us?
===========================================================
Terry asks:In fact I'd like to hear Revlgking's answer to that one.
Terry, the questions you raise above should be directed to theists and/or deists, not to unitheists, or panentheists. GD for us is not a human-like person, male or female, who goes around doing people-like things, like worrying.

This is one of the reasons I am not comfortable with the old way of writing 'God' as the way of referring to "the ground of all being", or the ultimate reality, the ultimate meaning of all that IS. In my opinion, the only verb I can use in conjuction with GD is the verb is. GD simply is...What we do with this concept IS up to us.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
samwik #20821 04/24/07 03:17 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: samwik
[quote=terrytnewzealand]Ah. Gimme that ol' time religion. But wait. It seems God has evolved.

Years ago, when I was active in the pulpit, I preached a series of sermons: GIMME THE NEW TIME RELIGION. I actually wrote a song, using the same tune. If I can find it in my notes I will post them. The vast majority of my congregation responded positively to what I said.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Samwik wrote:
"Consistent with Dawkins' book, as people evolve, so too does God."

This is a very important consideration.

Within a single human lifetime there is the appearance that the belief system is constant and unchanging. That some eternal deity has always been viewed through the same lens and interpreted in the same manner but it is patently false.

All religions, except the most extreme conservative versions change their interpretations frequently so as to be relevant to those whose money and subservience they seek.

Does anyone really believe the Anglican Church of today is preaching what it preached 200 years ago? The Lutherans? The Catholics (when I was growing up it was a sin to eat meat on Friday ... now god apparently doesn't care)? Etc. It is a game of musical chairs played in a room with the lights out.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Good points people. Religion and God are defined by people and have to keep pace with society.

"It is a game of musical chairs played in a room with the lights out."

-another amusing Morganism to boot.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
"All religions?" The following comment by DA Morgan is not only unfair, it is untrue:

"All religions, except the most extreme conservative versions change their interpretations frequently so as to be relevant to those whose money and subservience they seek."

Absolute nonsense, hardly worth rebutting! I am glad to belong to a religion which seeks just enough money to pay modest expenses. Should it go bankrupt and not pay others for services rendered?

BTW,1, I belong to a religion which encourages all its members to think for themselves.

BTW,2, Agnostics and atheists, who respect the rights of others, are all welcome. We treat those, who refuse to do so, as being sick and needing our help, not judgement.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
It's always (almost) easy to disprove some absolutist statement such as All religions....

But in general, the bigger and more entrenched the religion is, the more corrupt it seems to get.

As with all things organized. --(almost)

~~SA

p.s. So not "Absolute" nonsense?

Last edited by samwik; 04/24/07 10:52 PM.

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
samwik #20839 04/24/07 11:34 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
DA wrote, "All religions, except the most extreme conservative versions change their interpretations frequently so as to be relevant to those whose money and subservience they seek."
As with Revlgking, my denomination does not seek the congregants money, I can assure you that. But tell me this: has science changed its views over the past two hundred years (just as the Anglican church)?
The answer is yes: evolution hasnt been embraced by the scientists for too long, and its discoveries and views are constantly changing. So is that such a valid argument, DA? To me it would seem not, but i cannot change your opinion about it. how i have not made one single contribution to science on this discussion, i do not know. am i really a troll by having my beliefs? well i guess i sort of am, since its meaning comes from a french word troller, "to wander," most likely with germanic routes. and my beleifs show me that i am just a sojourner in this tent, on a voyage to the Land. So DA, i would agree with you in that. Finally something we both agree on. (you do think im a troll right?)

Tim #20843 04/25/07 12:18 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
It appears the word "troll" has been misused here. It apparently has come to mean "anyone who disagrees with a certain person on this forum".

Let's all try to be a little more tolerant of divergent views. Just because someone disagrees with us doesn't automatically make them a troll. It makes them a person who disagrees with us. This forum is, or should be, open to all different views without malice or discrimination. As long as the forum rules are obeyed, especially the ones about being polite, there is no reason why anyone should be restrained from posting their opinions. It is those who disagree with us who make us think. Those who agree with us are merely mirrors, reflecting back our own ideas. Some narcissistic people like nothing better, but it is disagreement that makes us grow, challenges our thinking and expands our brains.

Vive la difference!


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Tim #20844 04/25/07 12:20 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Keep contributing, Tim, and you do not need to be "timid", pardon the pun.

I repeat and expand on my comment about what DA wrote. It is absolute nonsense, and hardly worth rebutting for anyone to suggest that all religions are power hungry and immoral, as DA suggested.

I am glad to belong to a religion which seeks just enough money to pay its modest expenses. Should it go bankrupt and not pay others for honest services rendered?

BTW, 1, I belong to a religion which encourages all its members to think for themselves.

BTW, 2, Agnostics and atheists, who respect the rights of others, are all welcome. We treat those who refuse to do so, as being sick. They need our help, not judgement.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Thank you, Amaranth Rose! BTW, what kind of rose are you? Are you, perhaps, an imaginary flower that never fades? Sounds theological, to me! smile


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
I'm a rose-colored Amaranth, an everlasting flower. The amaranth plant was used by the Aztecs for grain and edible leaves. The flowers can be preserved for long-lasting dried flower bouquets. Its common name is Love-Lies-Bleeding.

Amaranth Rose

(Yes, it's a pseudonym, we all gotta stay alive here.)


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Of course religions evolve, and with it the concept of the nature of a god, because the dogma they preach is founded on human faith and beliefs. This week there was a brilliant example of this with the Pope deciding that there was no such place as Limbo. Imagine how much heartache that dreadful idea must have created for faithful mothers who imagined their child locked out of Eternity and the love of their god forever because the child had not been baptised BY A HUMAN BEING into the church! It is a grotesque picture which in the dash of a pen is no longer a necessary belief for any member of that church.

Now that sanity has gone that far perhaps that church will allow the use of condoms between partners, one of whom is HIV positive.

Ellis #20869 04/25/07 07:17 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Ellis: "This week there was a brilliant example of this with the Pope deciding that there was no such place as Limbo."

Yes, interesting. I've read in several sources that science and religion appear to be on convergent courses. I think this is misleading. Whilst religious belief is updated by science (eventually), science doesn't appear to be influenced by religion (in terms of belief).

Religious belief needs to be rational. It needs to acknowledge the scientific 'truths'. As it does so, it will become more universally acceptable. Ultimately, the divide must be that science deals exclusively with objective evidence/proof, whereas religious experience is a subjective reality. So, never the twain shall meet - but that doesn't mean that science and religious belief are mutually exclusive. They are no more so than the ability to compute and the ability to feel compassion.

OK, that's not evidence for God, either. Never mind. smile



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
"Religious belief needs to be rational. It needs to acknowledge the scientific 'truths'."

I disagree with this statement, but everything else you say hits the nail on the head.

They are completely different (ways of viewing 'reality'), but that does not mean they are mutually exclusive. Just as we can think in terms of Newtonian or Einsteinian perspectives (neither of which is 'right'), our brains can also comprehend reality in different modes (sci. or relig.).

A GOOD example is this dilemma, "Evidence for God."

Evidence is a scientific concept (or tool) and is materialistic in nature.

God is not materialistic, but transendent in nature.

ooops, guess I shoulda said ...transends nature.

~~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
samwik #20872 04/25/07 08:07 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: samwik
"Religious belief needs to be rational. It needs to acknowledge the scientific 'truths'."

I disagree with this statement...

Do you disagree that it's important to acknowledge that the Earth is spheroid, not flat, and that it's rather older than the few thousand years claimed by some?



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
samwik #20873 04/25/07 08:23 AM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
red,
You are also very correct in saying that science doesn't get influenced by religion. (maybe w/ some exceptions)
...and science is replacing religion for many; there is competition. I wish more people would realize it can be both, and not just see it as either/or.

But science is materialistic (and I'm not talking economic materialism), only concerned with material, physical world.

The same argument applies to metaphysics.
I always laugh when someone says that controlled tests were done and showed no evidence of supernatural, metaphysical, or psychic effects.

Why should it, these things are not (if they exist) controlled by the material world; how can you run a controlled experiment on it. How can you speak of scientific evidence for something not of science.

So, I wandered a bit....

~SA



Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Page 30 of 35 1 2 28 29 30 31 32 34 35

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5