Religion anyone?
-
Does the atheism necessarily reject existence of spiritual world?
Does it alway come together? Can an atheist say: 'I do not believe in any god, but I think we are spiritual beings'? I am simply curious..Is it not very 'empty' and sad there?
-
@unknownuser said:
Certainly not...it is a very colorful spirituality. No Gods are necessary. Gods only place man made parameters on spirituality.
Interesting statement.
-
@unknownuser said:
it is a very colorful spirituality. No Gods are necessary.
It is good. It leaves space for a dialog.
So exploring a soul within us by a meditation is not a complete nonsense for an atheist?!
Interesting.
Going further.. All gods are man-made? They are made up? Am I right? -
@alan fraser said:
You misunderstand me, Rick, regarding personal faith driving scientists and artist alike. I have no problem with that. Michelangelo produced all his works quite literally "For the greater glory of God." and we might never have had them if not for that imperative. But that is personal faith driving personal achievement.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
@alan fraser said:
What I object to...very strongly...is someone else's PERSONAL faith being delivered in schools as PUBLIC science.
And yet, evolution is some people's personal faith. I, for one, find the lack of evidence for macroevolution to be extremely serious (and yes, I've researched a lot of the arguments on both sides, including endogenous retroviruses, etc., so no need for anyone to start that argument either, since neither of us will convince the other). The available evidence fits a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory as well as it fits a macroevolution theory.
So, to me, macroevolution is as much person's personal faith as Creationism is to you. Thus, in a strange, rather backwards sort of way, we agree on disliking personal faith presented as public science.
With that said, I'm content to acknowledge we have differing beliefs. I'm all for letting people examine the evidence for both arguments and decide for themselves. That is why I would support ID alongside evolution in the classroom - provided each is presented honestly (and yes, I'm sure someone will want to say ID can't be presented honestly, but it can - just as much as evolution can be presented dishonestly: Piltdown Man, anyone?).
A toast to differences...
Kind regards,
-
@unknownuser said:
The available evidence fits a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory as well as it fits a macroevolution theory.
No, it doesn't. Not even close. Evidently your claim to have studied is not very serious.
-
@rickw said:
And yet, evolution is some people's personal faith. I, for one, find the lack of evidence for macroevolution to be extremely serious (and yes, I've researched a lot of the arguments on both sides, including endogenous retroviruses, etc., so no need for anyone to start that argument either, since neither of us will convince the other). The available evidence fits a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory as well as it fits a macroevolution theory.
Evolution may be some peoples personal faith, but it shouldn't be taught as that. As fr the lack of evidence, that doesnt mean the theory is wrong, its just the best we can do at the moment with the current evidence. Give it a few hundred years and a mountain of new evidence is likely to have been uncovered and a new theory will be in place that hopefully better suits the evidence.
The basic point im trying to get across is a lack of evidence isnt evidence for god.
@unknownuser said:
A toast to differences...
Cheers
-
@tim said:
@unknownuser said:
The available evidence fits a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory as well as it fits a macroevolution theory.
No, it doesn't. Not even close. Evidently your claim to have studied is not very serious.
So what evidence falls outside a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory?
-
Ahh well....seems Im sucked into this one
Leaving evolution etc aside for a moment, can somebody answer this basic question....Why did God do it?!! [and sorry if this has been broached before, I couldnt be bothered re-reading the whole ten pages.]
OK...so early days...pre-creation...there's God....now was he having a bad day or what!! He comes up with the idea of creating the world, and mankind..and these are the rules.....man's got to be good..right!?...cos he's got free will built in as one of the game parameters....and he gets the rules from Moses..[direct from the G-man]....so the good guys go straight to a cool place.....and the baddies...now wait for it!....burn FOREVER in hell!! [nice!]....but hang on...things go bad [he didnt see this coming!!!??]...so he has to send his son [JC] down to save mankind!! [can't really be his son though as he was born through immaculate conception....but sorry this is an aside].....but tings dont really improve.....eg the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, Pol Pot etc etc.....but don't worry things will finally be cleaned up with the second coming!!!
SO...is this what it's all about???....and my question again....Why Did he Do IT?....This is a guy who all the superlatives were written for....perfect, infinite, all-loving, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, all-seeing, all powerful [a sparrow doesnt fall off his perch without the G-man knowing].....and yet he creates this vale of tears we call home and where it seems, if they dont play by his rules, a sizable proportion of mankind will suffer, like all hell, for eternity [protesting no doubt that they didnt agree to the rules in the first place...and if they had know, they wouldnt have joined in at all!!]
Why couldnt he have just left things alone.....done nothing....contemplated his navel or whatever...and saved us all a lot of trouble?
-
@unknownuser said:
...close at hand. All living things have a powerful radiance that can be sampled if...
Bruce, this is great! Thanks...
-
So, I'm sitting here drinking my first espresso and it occurs to me that God must use some kind of theological 'SketchUp-like' modelling program for all this creating he does. Hey, six days is a pretty tight deadline, (there are guys on this forum who have been struggling with a bathroom for weeks). Then, there's Adam and Eve, unless he just downloaded them from some devine version of 'Poser', a snake, dinosaurs, a really big garden...
Whew...I wonder what they talk about on that forum? -
modelhead, I am really interested in a more detailed description of your personal faith. what you wrote so far seems to be close to what I myself came up with to evade the necessity to believe in a god as proposed in christian religion. I am not brave enough to not believe in anything, you know. I need to explain something, otherwise I am too afraid of death and that my life was utterly useless.
I will give you a short outline of what I believe in. and I would very much like you all to tear it apart. its still a "work in progress"...
according to my theory every being has a spirit, an energy field, that is shaped and influenced in it's quality by emotions, thoughts, feelings. everyone and everything has such a spirit, an aura - humans, animals, plants; even a stone emits a certain energy, although not nearly as vivid and defined, as a human's.
the sum of all these energy fields on earth is what many religions would describe as "God".
so the spirits are not completely separated from each other, like golf balls in a big box, but affect each other, permeate one another, a bit like a sponge soaked with paint, flowing in water. paint within the sponge can mingle with the surrounding water and influence it, but most of it will still be kept within the sponge.
when a person dies, it is as if the sponge dissolves. for some time there will still be a concentration of the release colour. but soon currents in the water will drive it apart until it is spread evenly throughout a huge area, having changed the overall colour of the ocean a bit but not being distinguishable from it's surroundings - it now is a part of it's surroundings.this idea explains why even small children can be so different in character. when the embryo grows, it soaks in all influences around it, the emotions of the mother, feelings of other people, flora and fauna; even the whole tinge of a people. our spirits are constantly refined throughout our whole life and we ourselves influence other spirits. when we die, our energy is released and all our emotions, positive and negative, will dye the world around us. that means, if our live was defined by love, care, and friendly feelings, even after our death we will spread these emotions rather than anger, hate, despair.
sometimes someone may not be ready at all to die, because there is a very important matter that has to be resolved, it may happen, that a spirit or only one very strong emotion of it stays rather concentrated. this energy field may be bound to a certain place (a cruel murder for example may leave such an emotion behind). sensitive people may feel the influence of it and describe in the need to explain it, describe it as a "Ghost", haunting the place.
sometimes there are such concentrations, but of positive energy, that are (like a magnet) drawn towards areas, where dark feelings are dominant. like electricity it is their "desire" to balance the charge. these positive energy fields may be felt by humans that are in great despair, giving them hope. often these people explain it to others as having seen an "Angel"we influence our surroundings and are being influenced in return. that means, spreading an emotion, may cause a reaction within the sum of all spirits. that is, why praying does make sense. if I pray for someone who suffers from a disease for example (it is not important, if I pray to God, Allah, Buddah or just send positive thoughts) this energy will influence the person, give him or her hope and strength to find the energy to recover.
well, I could go on for hours. many ideas occurring in other religions can be explained with this model. therefore it is quite comfortable, because it evades conflict - it is close to physical laws like electricity, but still gives you the opportunity to "believe". and above all it does what every religion is for - it makes you feel secure!
-
paris, theyre probably still talking about SU7
-
Plot,
I couldn't resist responding here
@unknownuser said:
according to my theory every being has a spirit, an energy field, that is shaped and influenced in it's quality by emotions, thoughts, feelings.
I think most spiritual teachers / traditions--here I am talking about mystics, not religionists--to make a big generalization... would see it differently. The spirit or soul is usually considered not to be shaped by the emotions, but the individual as a physical being is. On the extreme mechanistic view, we are seeing that simple chemicals can cause radical differences in our emotions. The spirit is considered more abiding.
The Hindus have an interesting analogy. The Soul is the passenger in the chariot of the Body (some might say "Mind"). It is certainly along for the ride. Some say it is "the observer". Intelligence drives the chariot and the Senses are the horses. As you might know from your own senses, it can be a wild ride--they're hard to handle. But does the essential nature of the Soul change so easily?
Buddhist too speak of a state that is beyond this illusion. While they are generally very clear on "be here now", they don't teach that this experience of the emotions is your original being.
Just a caveat, in case you haven't looked into these sort of teachings for yourself yet.
-
From some of the comments here... you might enjoy the podcast "Mr. Diety". Others will hate it.
@paris said:
So, I'm sitting here drinking my first espresso and it occurs to me that God must use some kind of theological 'SketchUp-like' modelling program for all this creating he does. Hey, six days is a pretty tight deadline, (there are guys on this forum who have been struggling with a bathroom for weeks). Then, there's Adam and Eve, unless he just downloaded them from some devine version of 'Poser', a snake, dinosaurs, a really big garden...
Whew...I wonder what they talk about on that forum? -
@paris said:
So, I'm sitting here drinking my first espresso and it occurs to me that God must use some kind of theological 'SketchUp-like' modelling program for all this creating he does. Hey, six days is a pretty tight deadline, (there are guys on this forum who have been struggling with a bathroom for weeks). Then, there's Adam and Eve, unless he just downloaded them from some devine version of 'Poser', a snake, dinosaurs, a really big garden...
Whew...I wonder what they talk about on that forum?Probably something like this:
'Well, first up, welcome to the forum, god.
Not a bad effort for a newbie but as your probably aware by now, creating a universe isnt as easy as it looks! For one thing, I dont thinks you have the light and darkness balance right, but some of the renders are very nice indeed and show lots of promise!!
So keep up the good work and were looking forward to seeing something a bit better thought out in the future!!' -
@pbacot said:
From some of the comments here... you might enjoy the podcast "Mr. Diety". Others will hate it.
I just watched every podcast of Mr. Deity. Thanks for the tip, pbacot; I had never heard of this before. Very very funny. For those who don't know, go to crackle.com and do a search. There are 19 total episodes (each about 4 minutes) spanning 2 seasons.
-
@rickw said:
@tim said:
@unknownuser said:
The available evidence fits a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory as well as it fits a macroevolution theory.
No, it doesn't. Not even close. Evidently your claim to have studied is not very serious.
So what evidence falls outside a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory?
Just about all of it. Read some actual biology texts - and I don't mean the 'answers in genesis' crap. Learn some actual physics, so you don't fall prey to the moronic claims about "ooh the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics means evolution is impossible".
As an attempt to explain in a simple manner that relies on as little a priori knowledge as possible -
a) if entities reproduce in a manner that occasionally makes mistakes
b) if living entities compete for resources in order to survive and reproduce, then
c) if the results of those mistakes that are either neutral or even slightly beneficial are carried through in the reproduction process (see a)
then evolution is inevitable, inescapable and will result in compounding changes over reproductive generations. -
@tim said:
@rickw said:
So what evidence falls outside a "God created basic types with the ability to adapt and change within set parameters" theory?
Just about all of it. Read some actual biology texts - and I don't mean the 'answers in genesis' crap. Learn some actual physics, so you don't fall prey to the moronic claims about "ooh the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics means evolution is impossible".
As an attempt to explain in a simple manner that relies on as little a priori knowledge as possible -
a) if entities reproduce in a manner that occasionally makes mistakes
b) if living entities compete for resources in order to survive and reproduce, then
c) if the results of those mistakes that are either neutral or even slightly beneficial are carried through in the reproduction process (see a)
then evolution is inevitable, inescapable and will result in compounding changes over reproductive generations.I've read many articles on both sides of the issue, including some so-called "real" biology texts. I've even studied physics (gasp!), though not, admittedly, as my major field of study, just as part of it. So, if you don't mind, please dispense with the irrelevant personal remarks - I understand your disdain for my point of view just fine without them.
The first problem with that thought is the assumption that the mistakes can even be neutral or beneficial. Mistakes big enough to cause a significant change usually result in sterility, eliminating the possibility of inheriting the change. The second problem is that, assuming there was such a beneficial change that did not result in sterility, unless the same mistake happened twice (or became a dominant genetic trait), and the two recipients reproduced together, the trait would be watered down or recessive, waiting for a second recessive gene in the reproduction cycle for the change to reappear. Meanwhile, advantage lost. Third, even where observable changes have resulted among distinct populations, the groups are still identifiable as a variant of the original type - changes happen within the bounds for that type. Finally, there's still no solid evidence that this has actually resulted in other kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, or families. In fact, Christopher Schwabe wrote in 1986: "Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many, in fact, that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message."
He believed that polyphyletic evolution (many origin-of-life events) was more likely, based on the evidence, than was monophyletic evolution (universal common ancestry).
An evolutionist who doubts universal common ancestry. Interesting...
-
Selfish Gene is good place to start. It outlines a 'gene-centric' mode of Natural Selection driven evolution that appears to be wholely rational and without the need of 'intelligent - creator/creators'. People confuse evolution and Natural Selection quite often. Evolution as understood by things changing (adapt) overtime is one thing. Evolutionary theory of Natural Selection is a specific theory regarding how evolution may take place on its own (I.e. without the need of devine interference). Evolution meaning change is easily grasped by most, Natural Selection unfortunately isn't.
Whenever I talk to relgious people about evolution. I get the feeling they just didn't pay enough attention to grasp the finer points of Natural Selection.
-
How does polyphyletic evolution undermine that there is no need for intelligent creator/creators?
Advertisement