Atheist sees image of Big Bang in piece of toast

[Bobblehead]

I am a proud owner of The Complete Calvin and Hobbes I'm a pretty big fan (if the avatar didn't give it away).

[Cheese]

Do you know what an agnostic dyslexic insomniac does? He stays up all night wondering if there really is a dog!

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Don't institutes usually research? Perhaps there's an institute for research on the big bang? I'm sure if there isn't a whole institute on it, there's a lot of scientists who research it anyway...





You can redefine science so why can't you redefine religion?

Has the heaviness of your old fashioned church got you weighted down? Try us! We are the New and Improved Lite Church of the Valley. Studies have shown we have 24% fewer commitments than other churches. We guarantee to trim off guilt, because we are Low-Cal. Low Calvin, that is. We are the home of the 7.5% tithe. We promise 40-minute worship services, with 10-minute sermons. Next Sunday’s exciting text is the story of the Feeding of the 3,000. We have only 8 Commandments -- You choose which ones apply each week. We use just 3 gospels in our contemporary New Testament “Good Sound Bites for Modern Human Beings”. We take the offering every other week, all major credit cards accepted of course or use our easy payment plan. We are closed the first week of hunting season. Yes, the New and Improved Lite Church of the Valley could be just what you are looking for. We are everything you want in a church... and less!

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Has the heaviness of your old fashioned church got you weighted down? Try us! We are the New and Improved Lite Church of the Valley. Studies have shown we have 24% fewer commitments than other churches. We guarantee to trim off guilt, because we are Low-Cal. Low Calvin, that is. We are the home of the 7.5% tithe. We promise 40-minute worship services, with 10-minute sermons. Next Sunday’s exciting text is the story of the Feeding of the 3,000. We have only 8 Commandments -- You choose which ones apply each week. We use just 3 gospels in our contemporary New Testament “Good Sound Bites for Modern Human Beings”. We take the offering every other week, all major credit cards accepted of course or use our easy payment plan. We are closed the first week of hunting season. Yes, the New and Improved Lite Church of the Valley could be just what you are looking for. We are everything you want in a church... and less!

The real question is: does it interfere with NFL? If so, I'm still not going.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I disagree, if God created everything than who created God? I dont see how this all knowing all seeing being just appeared and started creating stuff.. Creationists refuse to believe the universe just appeared, but they have no problem believe that God did..

This question is the same for both sides... something just appeared at some point. Time and matter started at some point. If not, something was always there. If there was no beginning, if something was there all along, call it something--God is as good a name as anything else.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Then stop giving them press. The louder you yell against these things, the longer they stay in view. Most people know how ridiculous it is, (I don't care to pay attention to their ######ed beliefs at all,) so all you're doing is drawing more attention to it by talking about it.

You are all over the place on this subject matter. First you support these clowns by saying they are an "institution", then when I attempt to educate you on the facts surrounding this entity, you accuse me of giving them press. I don't get it. You either accept what they say, because they have the term "institute" in their name, or you ignore them completey and let them get away with their disinformation campaign. It makes no sense.

Sure, it's possible. But I'm also open to that possibility. As far as my personal beliefs go, I don't think a person could pinpoint the beginning of creation, let a lone call the beginning of the universe the "moment of creation" when rather, I think God's been creating this whole time... You on the other hand, are not very open to the possibility that there was actually any hand in creation.

You're right, I am not. It has been proven to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that the universe was not created in six days and that the earth is older that 6000 years. I have exposed myself to all of the major religions in a hope to expand my worldview, and I have learned that religion is nothing more than a control mechanism. Do I believe there is something bigger than us out there? Oh yes, I do. Do I believe that it created the universe? Not a chance.

You know what your problem is here, Firefly? You're mistaking religiosity for spirituality. I am a spiritual person, but I am not a religious person. In fact, North America has become more religious in the past 40 years and less spiritual, which is probably my biggest disappointment with our culture. We have been indoctrinated into belief systems rather than being allowed to find our own way and settle on our own meaning. Its a quasi-constructionist approach versus a post-modernist. One where the ontological argument is constructed for us, and we must just be accepting of the epistemology regardless of whether it makes sense, versus the other where we have a much greater say in the definition of epistemology and ontology of the belief system. One is just more inherently more open to spirituality than the other.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You know what your problem is here, Firefly? You're mistaking religiosity for spirituality. I am a spiritual person, but I am not a religious person. In fact, North America has become more religious in the past 40 years and less spiritual, which is probably my biggest disappointment with our culture. We have been indoctrinated into belief systems rather than being allowed to find our own way and settle on our own meaning. Its a quasi-constructionist approach versus a post-modernist. One where the ontological argument is constructed for us, and we must just be accepting of the epistemology regardless of whether it makes sense, versus the other where we have a much greater say in the definition of epistemology and ontology of the belief system. One is just more inherently more open to spirituality than the other.

I would tweak your terms a little (just 'cause I'm a nerd ) and say that religion has become an arena in which many people mistake piety for religion. Piety implies submission to an eternal truth or eternal authority. Religion doesn't necessarily require that. And it's a disturbing cultural development, in part because as you point out it undoes the de-centering of authority that was perhaps the only good thing to come out of postmodernism.

(Now we're at a kind of intellectual crisis point--what comes after postmodernism? That's a whole other debate though, so maybe we'll save it for another thread)

But to me, any religion is inherently an ontological assertion--or to adapt a term from Kant, a disposition away from the phenomenal and toward a region beyond materialism and toward a spiritual or transcendent truth. It's hard to be spiritual if your only truth is material, IMO.

Which brings me back to the problem with "science vs. religion" arguments. Science is by definition materialist. Religion is by definition not. They speak to different kinds of truth, and ask completely different questions. To stage a debate between them is therefore kind of absurd. Science doesn't know whether there's a God. It doesn't even ask that question. Religion doesn't know how the Earth was created, or how old it it--even if some of its proponents think they do.

The fact is, "God created the earth and the heavens" is not a debatable statement. It's either true or not, and debate over it is pointless. Science will never prove it wrong--religion will never prove it right.

I guess this is all my way of saying "can't we all just get along?!?"

[Slava]

For a thread with so much potential, things have just gone horribly wrong! Why couldn't god stop this atrocity!

[photon]

Originally Posted by icarus

This question is the same for both sides... something just appeared at some point. Time and matter started at some point. If not, something was always there. If there was no beginning, if something was there all along, call it something--God is as good a name as anything else.

We don't know that something just appeared at some point; several speculations as to how the universe came about don't need a something out of nothing. It's all speculation though, very little evidence in any direction.

But one thing you say "time and matter started at some point", doesn't really apply, because time is part of this universe, so the notion of "before" the universe doesn't make any sense because time may not apply. How can one ask what the cause of something was when the whole premise of cause and effect is linked to our universe?

And really there's nothing "wrong" with something just appearing out of nothing at some point either, that happens in our universe all the time, they're called vacuum fluctuations. Particles and their anti-particles will spontaneously appear, interact and annihilate. As long as no energy is created or destroyed then it's perfectly acceptable, and there's research to show that the net energy of the universe is exactly zero

[Claeren]

^ Exactly!

(In simple terms) Is time a fundamental law or is it merely our preception of all of the actual fundamental laws of the universe as they interact?

A lot of research out there points more to the seocnd then the first. As uncomfortable as it may seem/feel.

So maybe there is no beginning and end, because time is a human concept not a natural concept.



More critically though, knowing what is a 'wrong theory' (focusing on creationism here, not 'belief' itself) does not mean you know what is the 'correct theory'.

Science is merely the on going search for the 'correct theory'.

Relgion consists of a bunch of 'wrong theories' that people long ago made up because they lacked the ability and know how to look for the 'correct theory'.

One can disprove religion(s) as a wrong theory without knowing the perfect theory just as one can know that the LA Kings (Or NY Knicks or Manchester United for that matter) WILL NOT win the Stanley Cup while not knowing who will win it. A scientific based examination though could narrow it down to both the 'mathmatically possible' and 'most likely', etc.

A die hard LA Kings fan could argue until he blue in the face that LA will win the Stanley Cup, and while cute, we all know he would be just as wrong now as he will be in 8 months.










Claeren.

[Dion]

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I would tweak your terms a little (just 'cause I'm a nerd ) and say that religion has become an arena in which many people mistake piety for religion. Piety implies submission to an eternal truth or eternal authority. Religion doesn't necessarily require that. And it's a disturbing cultural development, in part because as you point out it undoes the de-centering of authority that was perhaps the only good thing to come out of postmodernism.

(Now we're at a kind of intellectual crisis point--what comes after postmodernism? That's a whole other debate though, so maybe we'll save it for another thread)...

We could. But why? I am both haunted and excited by what post-modernity could mean for the future, and it bears MUCH discussion. should we start another thread, or can I just say what I need to say here and now?

Post-modernism will NOT bring an end to modernity. There. I said it. Post-modernity is a necessary critique that has come out of modernity, but I believe what will result will be some form of neo-modernity: material, progressive, humanistic, but with some heavily tempered edges that recognize the allusive nature of certainty, cause and effect, the spiritual and the divine.

Talking from a saturated religious perspective this could mean some very positive developments that I would welcome: most noteably, the continuous blur that should occur between sociological/anthropological categories of religion/culture. "Getting along" could come to dominate the next stage in our societal evolution, and this will likely mean a whole reshaping of what religion is and how it ought to function.

...Has this become another thread yet?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Claeren

...More critically though, knowing what is a 'wrong theory' does not mean you know what is the 'correct theory'.

Science is merely the on going search for the 'correct theory'.

Relgion consists of a bunch of 'wrong theories' that people long ago made up because they lacked the ability and know how to look for the 'correct theory'.

One can disprove religion(s) as a wrong theory without knowing the perfect theory...

This completely misses the point that IFF was making: Religion does not consist of "a bunch of 'wrong theories'". Religion is a progressive animal that has proven over millenia to be self-correcting. Either religion adapts or it disappears. Because it is still a dominant social and cultural force, it will not simply disappear because of what science has discovered. I fully expect that it will change—probably quite dramatically—over the next century, but billions of people will not simply forsake this absolutely fundamental venue for their own spiritual expression because their theological models have become outdated.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You are all over the place on this subject matter. First you support these clowns by saying they are an "institution", then when I attempt to educate you on the facts surrounding this entity, you accuse me of giving them press. I don't get it. You either accept what they say, because they have the term "institute" in their name, or you ignore them completey and let them get away with their disinformation campaign. It makes no sense.

How can I support something I know nothing about? I was ignoring them until you brought them up.... I assumed, (caught by that one again,) that if they were an institute, they would actually research. If that's not what they're doing, how can I support it? So, you see, you're the only reason I know anything about them at all.

You're right, I am not. It has been proven to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that the universe was not created in six days and that the earth is older that 6000 years. I have exposed myself to all of the major religions in a hope to expand my worldview, and I have learned that religion is nothing more than a control mechanism. Do I believe there is something bigger than us out there? Oh yes, I do. Do I believe that it created the universe? Not a chance.

I know that without a shadow of a doubt either. It's not rocket science to understand that the earth is not 6000 years old, nor was it created in 6 days. Does that mean there wasn't help? The problem is your definition of creation is too narrow. I also have taken many courses on every major religion and it has only strengthened my belief.

You know what your problem is here, Firefly? You're mistaking religiosity for spirituality. I am a spiritual person, but I am not a religious person. In fact, North America has become more religious in the past 40 years and less spiritual, which is probably my biggest disappointment with our culture. We have been indoctrinated into belief systems rather than being allowed to find our own way and settle on our own meaning. Its a quasi-constructionist approach versus a post-modernist. One where the ontological argument is constructed for us, and we must just be accepting of the epistemology regardless of whether it makes sense, versus the other where we have a much greater say in the definition of epistemology and ontology of the belief system. One is just more inherently more open to spirituality than the other.

Absolutely not. Now you're just deflecting. I'm well aware of the difference between spirituality and religiousity. Why can't I use all of it in my explaination? It IS my own meaning. And it involves everything. You think that the ONLY way there can be creation is if it was done in 6 days, totally ignoring the fact that there are other explainations possible that could have God giving a helping hand. Sure, go ahead and rely on science and science alone to give you an answer they only have theories on themselves...

Why can't my spirituality point me towards Christianity? Why can't I be both spiritual and religious at the same time. Cause it's a far fetched story? Perhaps for you the meanings of the two words have grown too far apart... To say that one is INHERERENTLY more open than the other is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Level of openness depends on the person, not their beliefs. Perhaps I should tell you that science has made you too closed-minded about your spirituality.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Post-modernism will NOT bring an end to modernity. There. I said it. Post-modernity is a necessary critique that has come out of modernity, but I believe what will result will be some form of neo-modernity: material, progressive, humanistic, but with some heavily tempered edges that recognize the allusive nature of certainty, cause and effect, the spiritual and the divine.

Talking from a saturated religious perspective this could mean some very positive developments that I would welcome: most noteably, the continuous blur that should occur between sociological/anthropological categories of religion/culture. "Getting along" could come to dominate the next stage in our societal evolution, and this will likely mean a whole reshaping of what religion is and how it ought to function.

...Has this become another thread yet?

OK. We can do it here!

If by "modernity" you mean that de-centering of exterior authority and blurring of boundaries that you refer to, then I guess I agree. You can't put the genie back into the bottle, at least not in Philosophy.

But in spite of a lot of activity on the intellectual front, isn't it true that the era of modernity hasn't really changed much in terms of the total, abject real--that is, authority may be partial and contingent, but it still works, still dominates, and still has the force of tradition behind it even if that tradition has been undermined and questioned by hippies in elbow patches since the 1950s? There's a reason that the period we refer to as "postmodernism" is referred to by post-Frankfurt marxists as "late capitalism"--because the same era that has brought us pluralism, relativism, uncertainties about identity, also brought with it a disturbing political nihilism and apathy along with a newly ubiquitous mass culture which is more or less the vehicle for a conformist ideology that rebuilds the authority that postmodernism sought to erase.

Given that, what hope is there for a future of blurred boundaries and a more socially responsible religion/critique? I guess I'm not as optimistic.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This completely misses the point that IFF was making: Religion does not consist of "a bunch of 'wrong theories'". Religion is a progressive animal that has proven over millenia to be self-correcting. Either religion adapts or it disappears. Because it is still a dominant social and cultural force, it will not simply disappear because of what science has discovered. I fully expect that it will change—probably quite dramatically—over the next century, but billions of people will not simply forsake this absolutely fundamental venue for their own spiritual expression because their theological models have become outdated.

That sounds more like 'Spirituality' then 'Religion'. (Or just poorly executed religious belief?)

Religion by its very nature is dogmatic and codified, and to simply adapt and change those rules as the generations change is to invalidate the entire exercise. How can one have conviction in something today that will change tomorrow?

To allow oneself to dismiss the truth behind some religious customs that become inconvienent and/or out-dated while embracing others, when they all come from the same source, is ignorant at best. Either the source is enlightened and you believe all of it or it was not enlightened and you are doing it simply for the sake of doing it. How is someone half enlightened?

IF Religion can evolve (and i am not saying it cannot - in fact it most certainly does) it would seem to me to prove its connection to the changing HUMAN condition on this plain of existence NOT the validity of its connection to a higher plain of existence.

A sense of spirituality, where there is a belief in some basic generalized unknowable truth behind all of that religion - which itself can evolve over time, is fine. But that is spirituality, not religion.

In my opinion anyways...



Claeren.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by FireFly

How can I support something I know nothing about? I was ignoring them until you brought them up.... I assumed, (caught by that one again,) that if they were an institute, they would actually research. If that's not what they're doing, how can I support it? So, you see, you're the only reason I know anything about them at all.

You defended the "institute" or do you already forget that? Here' let me refresh your memory.

"Don't institutes usually research? Perhaps there's an institute for research on the big bang? I'm sure if there isn't a whole institute on it, there's a lot of scientists who research it anyway..."

I also did NOT bring this group up, CalgaryBornAgain did when he injected this link into the dscussion.

http://www.icr.org/article/343/

All I did was provide some context for the article and its source. You can't apply critical thought without understanding the source of the information.

I know that without a shadow of a doubt either. It's not rocket science to understand that the earth is not 6000 years old, nor was it created in 6 days. Does that mean there wasn't help? The problem is your definition of creation is too narrow. I also have taken many courses on every major religion and it has only strengthened my belief.

You say my definition of creation too narrow? Using the proper terminology prevents confusion. Using the term "creation", a well known term in religious doctrine, to identify the moment when "our" universe began would cause confusion. It would also not be correct, as we do not know if this was indeed the moment of the "creation" of "our" universe, or but just another cycle in the natural flow of this entity. In fact, Creation Science, a term coined by the by creationists to make their "research" sound more respectable, was created (pardon the pun) with the intention of obfuscating science in general. Creation is just incorrect terminology, and using it is not different than using it makes no sense in the context of the discussion.

Absolutely not. Now you're just deflecting. I'm well aware of the difference between spirituality and religiousity. Why can't I use all of it in my explaination? It IS my own meaning. And it involves everything. You think that the ONLY way there can be creation is if it was done in 6 days, totally ignoring the fact that there are other explainations possible that could have God giving a helping hand. Sure, go ahead and rely on science and science alone to give you an answer they only have theories on themselves...

Deflecting what perchance? That I am spiritual, but not religious? No deflection of that at all. I have admitted it. Seems you're the one with the deflection issue. First you incorrectly identified me as the one who injected the ICR document into the fray. Then you've changed your position on the ICR in general, pulling a Hillary, saying you were for the ICR, then against, then trying to not associate yourself with it at all. Now, to your terminology and how you decide to frame issues, if you're going to try and engage in an intellectual debate on a given topic you must use the proper lexicon. You can make your point by using the correct language, so as not to inject confusion into the discourse.

Why can't my spirituality point me towards Christianity? Why can't I be both spiritual and religious at the same time. Cause it's a far fetched story? Perhaps for you the meanings of the two words have grown too far apart... To say that one is INHERERENTLY more open than the other is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Level of openness depends on the person, not their beliefs. Perhaps I should tell you that science has made you too closed-minded about your spirituality.

You can be what ever you want to be. It's really no concern of mine. I was just making a very salient point about religiosity and spirituality, and the divergent paths the two concepts have begin to travel in our culture. You may disagree that religiosity and spirituality are moving away from each other, but all you need to do to prove this ideal is examine Christianity in the United States and the many contradictions that exist in the "Christian" beliefs. As to your comments about "openness" not being related to an individual's beliefs, where do you think the ability to be openness resides? It is based on an individual's beliefs and whether the concepts challenge the individual's ideal of truth. In the Platonic sense, knowledge is a direct intersection of truth and belief, which is what makes us open to greater understanding. Your failure to understand this doesn't make you dumb, as you suggest my position is, it just means you lack exposure or education in this regard.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You conveniently missed the point: Because of Cheese's consistent and tiresome attacks on Christianity you can't take his attempt at humor to lack malice. His history betrays his heart. Look at his thread/post history.

Likewise if a member of the KKK made fun of a black man you wouldn't believe his attempt at humor lacked malice. His association with that group betrays his heart.

Cheese hates Christianity and takes every opportunity to attack and belittle it. If your honest you can't deny that. I as a Christian don't enjoy the attack or being belittled and have no intention of being silenced by it. I hate bullies of any strip.

By the way you can't chose what you believe is the truth. You can change what you express the truth to be(lying) and you certainly can come to a different conclusion on a matter given more data and thereby change what you believe is truth. But what you believe is true is what you believe is true. It's not a choice but, rather a conclusion.

[Dion]

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

...the same era that has brought us pluralism, relativism, uncertainties about identity, also brought with it a disturbing political nihilism and apathy along with a newly ubiquitous mass culture which is more or less the vehicle for a conformist ideology that rebuilds the authority that postmodernism sought to erase.

So I understand you correctly: Are you suggesting that pluralism / relativism / uncertainties of the postmodern age will become external "authorities"? It sounds to me like your "ubiquitous mass culture" and "conformist ideology" serve as replacements for everything postmodernism hopes to retain: Do we become so pervasively integrated in our knowledge, political structures, and ideals that any sort of social or cultural diversity is wiped out? I suppose that if the "global village" that has resulted from increased technology progresses to its natural end, this would seem to be the case. Or am I misreading you?