Yeah-
The Z's, Q's, B's and M's didn't work on Mr. Gutenberg's press, either-I read that somewhere. ;)
Printable View
Yeah-
The Z's, Q's, B's and M's didn't work on Mr. Gutenberg's press, either-I read that somewhere. ;)
Oh, come on, Cinderella and Snow White are more credible than some of the bible stories.[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by lynx+20 August 2003 - 02:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 20 August 2003 - 02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-imnotanaddict@19 August 2003 - 22:16
The books of the bible were written by men. But fiction? without any outside(God)
guidiance? Just does'nt seem possible.
A compromise is necessary here; much of what is readable in the bible was inspired by the belief in God. (That coming from a would be boedhhist, oops sorry j2k4, I mean budhhist)
In 1990 the Dalai lama was visiting Belgium, being curious I went to see him. I was amongst the 500 or more people who were gathered together in a huge tent in the picturesque town of Hooy, on the Maas.
Someone asked the Dalai Lama if the world was created by God. His answer, as far as I can remember was, "If the world had been created by Ishvara (God), who is perfect, then the world would be perfect. Clearly the world is not perfect, therefore the world could not possibly have been created by Ishvara. Titey said something similar yesterday.
A problem arose for me with this answer; I had always thought budhhists were atheists! As this is definitely not within the scope of this thread, I will leave that for now.
:huh: Hmmmm...Has a nice ring to it... don'cha think. :)
- "Titey Lama"
Don't bring bestiality into this, or the mods will be having another round of musical threads. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by titey@20 August 2003 - 08:18
:huh: Hmmmm...Has a nice ring to it... don'cha think. :)
- "Titey Lama"
Nigel
Is Ishvara a God in the classical definition or something other?
And the Dalai Lama stated that if Ishvara created the world then it would be perfect and the world is not.
If Buddhists are athiests as you imply (I know little of their beliefs) then this seems to me a very diplomatic way of implying that God doesn't exist without stating it directly and therefore invoking the wrath of the followers of other religions.
Neil
Another general question.
Are there many gods, one for each religion, or are different religions giving different attributes to the same God
Oh, come on, Cinderella and Snow White are more credible than some of the bible stories. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by lynx+20 August 2003 - 01:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 20 August 2003 - 01:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-imnotanaddict@19 August 2003 - 22:16
The books of the bible were written by men. But fiction? without any outside(God)
guidiance? Just does'nt seem possible.
C’mon Lynx give a little slack, imnotanaddict did say that it doesn't seem possible
Not that it was impossible; you don't give any scope for personal belief and true faith.
If the Bible is true as imnotanaddict obviously believes then it cannot be explained without Gods intervention in the biblical world.
I did not hear any statement that God wrote the bible just that the bible couldn't have been written as a work of fact without a God being evident.
And remember these scriptures are the word of God as interpreted by a 2000 year old culture (For Christianity) also a lot of the teachings are by parable and works of example. Most Christians have enough sense not to take everything in the Bible literally.
Neil
.
titey
Posted: 19 August 2003 - 21:45
QUOTE (imnotanaddict @ 19 August 2003 - 16:16)
My point is if we were perfect:
What would be our purpose?
But isn't your god perfect?
Does he have no purpose then?[QUOTE]
If we were perfect, would there be the question of "free will"?
How could there be. We would incapable of making wrong choices.
I surely don't have the answers. I can only ask questions and use what
little deductive reasoning I have. I make no claims as to whether I'm right
or wrong.
If God is the creator of all things, how could he not be perfect on what can
we base imperfect?
As far as purpose?
I did find this :
God's Plan for mankind covers ALL aspects of human history, good and evil, as well as providing for "free choice" in order to achieve His greatest creation of all. . . a family of beings that are God's very offspring, with the very nature of God Himself!
John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."
His purpose, to offer a home in heaven?
I wasn't knocking imnotanaddict's beliefs, I was merely pointing out that any half decent author (and that certainly doesn't include me) could come up with stories which are far more believable, without any sort of divine intervention.
So to say that the bible needs divine assistance to have been written just doesn't make sense. I vivid imagination is all that is required, and if what we read on another thread is true they weren't unaware of the properties of certain mind altering plants.
He's the same fellah in Islam, Christianity and Judaism that's for sure.Quote:
Originally posted by Neil__@20 August 2003 - 11:52
Another general question.
Are there many gods, one for each religion, or are different religions giving different attributes to the same God
Makes you wonder why everyone's arguing doesn't it?
He's the same fellah in Islam, Christianity and Judaism that's for sure.Quote:
Originally posted by barbarossa+20 August 2003 - 13:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (barbarossa @ 20 August 2003 - 13:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Neil__@20 August 2003 - 11:52
Another general question.
Are there many gods, one for each religion, or are different religions giving different attributes to the same God
Makes you wonder why everyone's arguing doesn't it? [/b][/quote]
I never will understand that.
It's like witches arguing over whose got the blackest cat.
Neil
Yes Neil, Ishvara is God.Quote:
Originally posted by Neil__@20 August 2003 - 13:52
Nigel
Is Ishvara a God in the classical definition or something other?
And the Dalai Lama stated that if Ishvara created the world then it would be perfect and the world is not.
If Buddhists are athiests as you imply (I know little of their beliefs) then this seems to me a very diplomatic way of implying that God doesn't exist without stating it directly and therefore invoking the wrath of the followers of other religions.
Neil
Another general question.
Are there many gods, one for each religion, or are different religions giving different attributes to the same God
I certainly did not mean to imply that budhhists are atheists.
The importance of there being a God of not, is not really important for a buddhist.
In the budhhist view, life consists of a series of successive states of consciousness. The first state is the Birth-Consciousnes; the last is the consciousness existing at the moment of death (that's where most of us are now), or the Death-Consciousness. The interval between the two states of consciousness, during which the transformation from the 'old' to a 'new' being is effected, is called the intermediate state. Rebirth follows. This intermediate state is called the Bardo.
The goal is to become enlightenend. That which is impeding this goal is duality. As I pointed out in a different thread, that seems now to have found it's way to the lounge. It is the illusion of ego which is the very source of the twelve links of interdependence, of which the first is ignorance in the sense of not seeing, not knowing the as-it-isness. In their ignorance mankind created God in their own image.
Sorry to quote you out of context nigel, but I think that sums things up nicely.Quote:
Originally posted by nigel123@20 August 2003 - 09:27
In their ignorance mankind created God...
The Lords Prayer says it all...
"Thy shall be done."
Why do people who don't believe in God always come across as being more evangelistic than those who do.
Im not an atheist, in case that was aimed my way JPaul...
However I dont believe The Bible (or any other "Holy Book"), was guided by "God" either.
I am not sure that they do. I do think that most people tend to defend what they believe it. Some actively force their beliefs on others.Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@20 August 2003 - 20:58
Why do people who don't believe in God always come across as being more evangelistic than those who do.
RF - it was just a general comment. Not aimed at you.Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@19 August 2003 - 18:34
As someone, or possibly more than one person, has said in other threads. There is a big difference between belief and knowledge.
My belief in God requires no external validation. Enough things have happened in my life to convince me that "there are more thing in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy". I have had too many experiences that I cannot accept within my understanding of the physical world.
I am absolutely convinced that when man dies he, or at least his essential being (soul if you will) does not cease to exist. It merely moves to a different type of existence. I am absolutely convinced that the universe did not just pop into existence and that there has to be something which created it. Something which belongs outside of the rules of space, time, science etc.
I chose to understand this, based on my own experiences and studies, as their being a God. I also believe that there is some sort of "after-life". People often use emotive terms in an attempt to demean this. For example the big invisible man in the sky, or the comparisons to the tooth fairy Having heard it all before it no longer angers me.
I have no idea what God is. I have little understanding of the internal combustion engine, so to assume I would be able to understand and explain the Creator of the Universe is a bit optimistic. Neither do I understand what this after-life will consist of. But I very much look forward to the adventure.
I fully support everyone's right to view the Universe as they see fit and expect them to afford me the same courtesy. Like the chap said as long as the beliefs of others do not adversely affect my right to live that's ok. Believe in the Giant Turtle Great A'Tuin if you wish.
I believe in God however that does not mean I take the Bible as being Gospel.
My beliefs are a wee bit more nebulous, as you can probably see.
I think of a lot of the holy books as parables and stories, to help folk understand.
And nothing wrong with that JPaul....all for it. ;)
Even most Vicars/Priests will tell you that the Bible isnt the literal word of "God".
Its the claiming that its something else that gets up my nose. :P
Cocaine - for the masses ?Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@20 August 2003 - 20:50
Its the claiming that its something else that gets up my nose. :P
Cocaine - for the masses ? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul+20 August 2003 - 20:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 20 August 2003 - 20:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@20 August 2003 - 20:50
Its the claiming that its something else that gets up my nose. :P
or like mass production cars and stuff like the Foc..
Oh dear, I do believe that was almost ugly, fugley.Quote:
Originally posted by fugley@20 August 2003 - 22:20
or like mass production cars and stuff like the Foc..
Edit: this is probably enough for another round of musical posts.
this is totally/almost unrelated,
has anyone read a book called the bible code?
its a book about the bible, infact they added all the letters from the pages of the bible together ommitted all spaces and done a sort of magical word search on it.
the results showed important passages in time crosing over each other. i.e that israeli dude who was assassinated(the prime minister) searching for his name there was a joining link saying assassinated and shot for example. the only problem being that the event had to happen in time for them to search for it, in a way the bible could predict the past but not the future. it would however be interesting to search for your own name and cross reference with lots of words like death/murder/when/kazaa. and just see if its true or shite.
anyway here is a link to a review
bible code review - interesting really.
Indeed, it's much like playing Jumbles. And there is always more than one answer when you play that. ;)
:ninja:
Im bored, So I thought i'd write some stuff
Ive always looked at evoloution as an adatability to an environment, over a period of time, rather than the creation of everything. If you think about it, it would be kind of stupid to create an animal or being which couldnt adapt to its conditions, as I doubt it would last very long. Therefore, its creator, whoever you beleive it to be, would enable it to adapt to climate change, terrain growth over time, etc. etc.
just a thought
(btw, these arn't supposed to stand up in arguments im just posting my thoughts on the whole God thing)
People often ask for proof that god exists. I often ask back "prove to me Jamaica exists" (I chose jamaica because not many people have been there). We hear about it, we read about it ,we see pictures of it on tv, but how do we know it exists? How do we know the location where Jamaica is supposed to be isnt a military base? Random iknow, but it brings me to the conclusion that we cant really prove much at all. (I take proof as un-deniable physical evidence). I cant prove to you I truly exist. For all you know your in a coma, in a dream world of your own.
This also makes me think about proof of God. In my opinion, the fact that I am sitting here is a sort of proof there is a higher power. The fact that there are millions of people out there living complex lives, out of supposedly knowhere, suggests thaere is a creator, a being or entity which started the process of life. For the universe to appeaar randomly, and advance to his level, with no outside interference, is, to my mind at least, very improbable
Will post more later, tired and bored, but those are just my views, and I have no problem with other peoples.
Em..what would you consider undeniable proof that Jamacia exists then? Would you have to sail there yourself? Obviously you cannot trust someone else to do the transporting for you; they might be in on the conspiracy.
:ninja:
my point is,that nothing is really provable....not truly anyway, forgive me for sounding paranoid, but its true, can I even trust my senses?
As I said, these were just thoughts in my head I needed to air, they arnt fully thought through, although I stand by them as my viewpoint
This would appear to be getting philosophical. Does that tree falling make a sound if there is no one there to hear it? Or, a version my daughter passed on to me, if a man is in a forest by himself is he still wrong?
Religion is faith - faith is believing in that which you cannot see or discern. Allowing someone to attach you to a bungee rope is a form of faith. You believe the rope is ok, you believe the person is trustworthy and you believe in the mathematics (even if the very mention of quadratic equations gives you a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach).
Not believing can be based on a number of things. The guy who ended up embeded two feet into the ground last week, the fact that the organiser appears deranged, the fact that last guy on looked 300 pounds if he was an ounce.
Likewise, people aproach religion. Life experiences result in emotional reactions which may or may not have a grounding in objective logic. Consequently, some will hold onto a belief whilst others will reject it. It is interesting that post war Europe has an extremely low adherence to religious beliefs - something like 14% rate it as important to them whereas the US and Australia have figures nearer 50%. I would suggest that the horrors of two world wars and the enormous number of atrocities played out in that arena have created a degree of scepticism yet to permeate elsewhere. Perhaps the trends will reverse - who knows?
Ultimately faith is your choice - you cannot force someone to believe (you can only force them to look as though they believe). Religious tolerance should therefore accept that people will have different faiths or none because ultimately (I believe) no creed can contain an emotional commitment to a belief.
If a person has a faith then his walk is with his God not with a rule book. In my view the latter is simply a deep seated love of traffic wardens expressed as a religion to make it sound more acceptable. :rolleyes:
Fine post sir.
Excellent points well presented.
One thing tho', the tree falling in the wood thing - it definitely makes a noise.
I believe I have proven this elsewhere, using a series of audio visual aids.
[quote]Originally posted by imnotanaddict@20 August 2003 - 13:41
titey
Posted: 19 August 2003 - 21:45
QUOTE (imnotanaddict @ 19 August 2003 - 16:16)
My point is if we were perfect:
What would be our purpose?
But isn't your god perfect?
Does he have no purpose then?I think there's something we have to agree on, religion asks more questions than it answers and these questions definately need thought.Quote:
If we were perfect, would there be the question of "free will"?
How could there be. We would incapable of making wrong choices.
I surely don't have the answers. I can only ask questions and use what
little deductive reasoning I have. I make no claims as to whether I'm right
or wrong.
If God is the creator of all things, how could he not be perfect on what can
we base imperfect?
As far as purpose?
I did find this :
God's Plan for mankind covers ALL aspects of human history, good and evil, as well as providing for "free choice" in order to achieve His greatest creation of all. . . a family of beings that are God's very offspring, with the very nature of God Himself!
John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."
His purpose, to offer a home in heaven?
Neil
How do u decide which religion to follow? For many people it seems to be solely based on the religion they were exposed to as a child? This seems to me to be a strange way of choosing the philosophy by which u live your life and as far as i can see, apart from indoctrination, there doesn't seem to be any logical way of choosing a religion, a brief glance at history will show that no religion or monotheistic country seems to have been overtly favoured by the almighty and the claims and promises of each are fairly comparable.
Quote:
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts
Also if u accept the premise that parts of a religion's holy book are just stories meant to educate, then how can u choose which parts are 'gospel' and which are fictional, or is it that u do not find it important to know which parts are true?Quote:
"We find now that the prosperity of nations has depended, not upon their religion, not upon the goodness or providence of some god, but on soil and climate and commerce, upon the ingenuity, industry, and courage of the people, upon the development of the mind, on the spread of education, on the liberty of thought and action; and that in this mighty panorama of national life, reason has built and superstition has destroyed."
Robert ingersoll
I'm personally agnostic (i have no faith either way) and regard the big bang and evolution as the best 2 creation theories around. To anyone who expressed disbelief that evolution could create life, I would recommend Richard Dawkin's books he's the writer of 'The selfish gene' and 'The blind watchmaker'. I was surprised by the amount I learned about evolution. My big bang knowledge is a lot more shaky, but in regard to lynx's discrepancies i'll add my vague understanding that the nuclear strong and weak forces probably had a much greater effect in the early universe creation than gravity (as gravity is only inverse square), also I was under the impression that at the sort of energies and distances that existed in the early microseconds of the universe, physical laws and constants were grossly mutated.
Nice to see you back ilw.... it's been a while! http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/thmbup.gif
Thanks, nice to be back :D . Had a nice holiday travelling around germany, italy and croatia. 3 weeks of blazing sunchine, beautiful beaches and tanned godesses. B)
Hi, ilw, now you've made me jealous.
Do you know what the equation is for strong and weak nuclear forces ? I never really got into those.
This doesn't really have much to do with religion or atheism, so I think I should start another thread about this, when I've had time to gather my thoughts.
source http://www.angelfire.com/realm/shades/horo...es/abigbang.htmQuote:
The big bang theory seeks to explain what happened at or soon after the beginning of the universe. Scientists can now model the universe back to 10-43 seconds after the big bang. For the time before that moment, the classical theory of gravity is no longer adequate. Scientists are searching for a theory that merges quantum mechanics and gravity, but have not found one yet. Many scientists have hope that string theory will tie together gravity and quantum mechanics and help scientists explore further back in time.
Because scientists cannot look back in time beyond that early epoch, the actual big bang is hidden from them. There is no way at present to detect the origin of the universe. Further, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang. It may be that time itself began at the big bang, so that it makes no sense to discuss what happened "before" the big bang.
According to the big bang theory, the universe expanded rapidly in its first microseconds. A single force existed at the beginning of the universe, and as the universe expanded and cooled, this force separated into those we know today: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. A theory called the electroweak theory now provides a unified explanation of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force theory. Physicists are now searching for a grand unification theory to also incorporate the strong nuclear force. String theory seeks to incorporate the force of gravity with the other three forces.
One widely accepted version of big bang theory includes the idea of inflation. In this model, the universe expanded much more rapidly at first, to about 1050 times its original size in the first 10-32 second, then slowed its expansion. The theory was advanced in the 1980s by American cosmologist Alan Guth and elaborated upon by American astronomer Paul Steinhardt, Russian American scientist Andrei Linde, and British astronomer Andreas Albrecht.
The inflationary universe theory solves a number of problems of cosmology. For example, it shows that the universe now appears close to the type of flat space described by the laws of Euclid's geometry: We see only a tiny region of the original universe, similar to the way we do not notice the curvature of the earth because we see only a small part of it. The inflationary universe also shows why the universe appears so homogeneous. If the universe we observe was inflated from some small, original region, it is not surprising that it appears uniform.
Once the expansion of the initial inflationary era ended, the universe continued to expand more slowly. The inflationary model predicts that the universe is on the boundary between being open and closed. If the universe is open, it will keep expanding forever, even though the rate of expansion will gradually slow. If the universe is closed, the expansion of the universe will eventually stop and the universe will begin contracting until it collapses. Whether the universe is open or closed depends on the density, or concentration of mass, in the universe. If the universe is dense enough, it is closed.
As for equations about the nuclear weak and strong forces, i know that weak is related 10^-5 for distance and theres a bit of info at the top of this page about the strong force (less info on the weak force further down)
:blink: Um..... yeah..... I was just about to say that very thing m'self. :blink:
:unsure: Errr..... well..... yeah..... nice to have you back ilw!
Could you give us a synopsis or insight into how he uses evolution to explain creation.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@22 August 2003 - 19:37
Quote:
To anyone who expressed disbelief that evolution could create life, I would recommend Richard Dawkin's books he's the writer of 'The selfish gene' and 'The blind watchmaker'. I was surprised by the amount I learned about evolution.
I read reviews about the "selfish gene" and "watchmaker" and they really dealt more in the mechanism of evolution and it's pointlessness (the fallacy of the watchmaker), rather than on the initial creation of life.
I really don't feel like reading 2 books which may not actually relate to creation at all. Can you give us enough of a teaser from these books which might give us a reason to examine them further.
Thanks.
:(
As u say both books concentrate on evolution as a whole more than any specific in depth probing of evolution as a method of creation. However, if i remember well 'the blind watchmaker' does contain some interesting information on the subject because the book is constructed partially as an argument against religion. If memory serves, the subject matter discussed included:
why life is carbon based, information regarding why silicon would also work,
precursors to dna (RNA and i think other simpler forms of protein coding/blueprint transmission) also why a precursor(s) to dna would have been necessary and why dna succeeded it(them)
Some discussion of the primordial soup and info regarding how the small steps evolution requires could have culminated in producing the first organism
I think that list is accurate, but woefully incomplete, i'm sure theres more in there but i don't have the book anymore so i can't easily check.
If all your trying to get out of it is info regarding evolutionary creation then there are probably better books out there, but if evolution as a whole interests u I would recommend reading at least the blind watchmaker.
Evolution is real enough. I'll let some beaker boy worry about hammering out the details.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@22 August 2003 - 23:18
As u say both books concentrate on evolution as a whole more than any specific in depth probing of evolution as a method of creation. However, if i remember well 'the blind watchmaker' does contain some interesting information on the subject because the book is constructed partially as an argument against religion. If memory serves, the subject matter discussed included:
why life is carbon based, information regarding why silicon would also work,
precursors to dna (RNA and i think other simpler forms of protein coding/blueprint transmission) also why a precursor(s) to dna would have been necessary and why dna succeeded it(them)
Some discussion of the primordial soup and info regarding how the small steps evolution requires could have culminated in producing the first organism
I think that list is accurate, but woefully incomplete, i'm sure theres more in there but i don't have the book anymore so i can't easily check.
If all your trying to get out of it is info regarding evolutionary creation then there are probably better books out there, but if evolution as a whole interests u I would recommend reading at least the blind watchmaker.
As I said in another thread, evolution is not limited to biology and sometimes this can be helpful in explaining how unique entities can arise from a common precursor.
My example was Latin. From this parent language, there have been many new languages formed. They came about from time and geographic separation. A speaker of the parent language is unable to understand the offspring and vice-versa.
I'm more interested in creation.
I thought believing in god or whatever, is only for the semi-literate, now i KNOW
billyfridge. (unbeleiver) <_<