Creation / Evolution Debate and Spiritual Development

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

Usually it involves some other value: buy real estate with no money down or something. the value of mine was inherent in the writing.

Actually, I was thinking of textbooks...

Originally Posted by dor

I find it extraordinary that an American could go through high school and college and not learn that...but considering the state of higher education, maybe I shouldn't.

I'm not through college yet. But we don't take cross-country field trips, explaining where all the little sub-tribes of America are. And I'm undecided on whether or not we should.

Originally Posted by dor

but, you miss my point. You were trying to make a point, and in bringing up the Jains to your audience you may as well brought up the Bishnoi (a smaller but similar tribe-religion in that part of Inja).

Fair point. You're right, the example did not add very much. I wanted one example, to anticipate the counter that there was no such thing as a pacifist religion, but I suppose I should find a list next time and choose an American one. That makes me wonder, were most Conscientious Objectors Amish or Quaker? Because I know that their basis for refusing the draft was often a religious issue, but I've never heard a specific religion tied to it.

Originally Posted by dor

but ask yourself, do YOU think that most people reading knew who the jains are?

I expect people to look up things they don't know anything about, just as I do.

Originally Posted by dor

Now you're making me feel bad. Well, I am probably the last person you want to take advice from, but I would say go out and experience some of that abstract stuff.

It's been said to me enough times that I'm already doing it. The problem is that, while I do experience life, I am also very, very quick to discard the specifics from my mind. I am working on it.

Originally Posted by dor

You'll probably take this as insult, but I have found that people who say 'have an open mind' usually don't. If you're going to create this identity of yourself you're going to deceive yourself...a lot.

I didn't claim to have an open mind. I said that my perspective is uncommon. All evidence I have suggests that people generally do not think the way I do. This makes my viewpoint uncommon, if not unique. I can understand how someone who places an emphasis on tradition and wisdom handed down from a bygone era would take that as a bad thing, but I like having a different perspective with which to see things.

Originally Posted by dor

Sports are another example its a lot different to read about tennis than to play. Reading might help, watching might help but to understand you have to play...same goes with religion....You don't think so? I can't explain the color red to someone blind.

As someone who advocates the usage of video games as an educational tool to people with the worldview that video games are trivial and a waste of time, I understand and know what you're talking about.

Would it help, dor, if I told you that I was probably the most passionate Christian in my church during the four years I was a believer? I spent a large chunk of my spare time arguing why evolution was wrong and creation better. Most of my creative efforts had intentionally religious undertones, and I nearly converted a few of my friends. (Nearly, because they were smarter than I was. One friend said that she got enough motivation and inspiration from life without religion; it took me a long time to understand what she meant. I mention this because it's applicable here.) I stopped calling myself a Christian, as stated elsewhere, not because of any theological quibble, but because I felt other churchgoers did not sufficiently apply action to their pretty words.

I once tried to suggest, to the others in my fellowship, a way to understand the idea of infinity better. They looked at me, said, "Whoa... that's deep," and moved on. That was the last time, of perhaps a dozen tries, to push them to ask and search deeper. To make them ask why.

[Megan]

By dor, Today 12:53 PM

harris and dawkins help to keep alive the big lie that 'crazy islamo-facists want to take over the world' or that the conflicts in the middle east are caused by islam. And because many americans have been duped or deceived into that notion.

Have you visited your local Christian bookstore lately, dor?

Lots more people are buying those Christian books about "crazy islamo-facists" than are buying Harris' and Dawkins' books, I would imagine. I don't know that, but I would guess that's true.

Now, if the fundamentalist scientists get in cahoots with the fundamentalist Christians against the "crazy islamo-facists," then, I would say we could have ourselves a real hot Armageddon, indeed.

If you have to destroy the world to save it, well, you gotta do what you gotta do, if your worldview is black and white.

Would you consider owning that Dawkins and Haggard are perfect foils for each other in this video?

YouTube - Ted Haggard in "Root of All Evil?"

Dawkins didn't make this all up out of whole cloth--he's reacting against something! To make like he's not got something very real he's reacting to seems disingenuous to me, and agenda-driven, just like you want to make Dawkins out to be.

I'm not saying he's not agenda-driven, but c'mon, get real, Christianity is getting pretty scary itself, dor!

To expect every representative of science to be a model of reason but to give Christian extremists a free pass--tell me what to call that besides an agenda?

I challenge you to bend the considerable force of your intellect toward the aim of creating a balanced picture of how this polarized situation actually was created.

Projecting all the blame on the evil others, whether they are scientific or religious evil others, is not going to help.

And co-opting spiritual experience as only religious, and then painting people who are not religious as culturally deficient as you do on this thread is just painful to behold.

I have impulses to disavow Christianity in big red capital letters, if you want to know the truth, when I read that stuff you write to Michael, not to mention when I watch Ted Haggard in action. Aaargh!

I won't, of course, but I have to work with myself about it, which isn't a bad thing, of course.

Why would anyone want to read your musty old sages when you have that condescending attitude towards them? I certainly wouldn't.

And especially when there's no one stopping people from forging their own spiritual outlooks, since spirituality is innate.

OK, that said, I agree with you about the French Revolution and Brasilia, etc., etc. Organic is better. You can't pull a culture up by the roots and make another one, bingo-bango.

Culture is like topsoil--it takes a long, long time to make, but you can lose it very quickly if you're not careful and respectful. It's an evolutionary thing, and quixotic social experiments are usually disastrous.

But Christianity really has made itself a stench in the nostrils of many modern people, and rightly so. We have to own that, not blame them for it, if we hope that Christianity is to be more than a cracked and discarded old wineskin, useless in the modern world.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

Yes, you've believe that about me, but as far as I know, you haven't provided an example.

Perhaps you've been too busy advancing your agenda to pay attention to what I've said all throughout this thread. I've pointed out example after example, in this thread alone, of your:

-- third-hand quotes from highly biased persons
-- taking that sketchy info, and using it out of context to advance your agenda
-- using words like "ignorant" and "dangerous" to describe writers whose original work you have never read, and, in fact, have declared that you never intend to read
-- not bothering to take the time to even get a name right.
-- evading and misleading when the above is pointed out. This 'I'm a great writer and you could learn from me' stance (despite astonishingly ample and ever-mounting evidence to the contrary) is yet another example of your bobbing and weaving.

However accurate your portrait of Dawkins or Harris may or may not be, you yourself are a propagandist. You take no responsibility for it here, and seem to be dead-set against considering the possibility of taking a look at yourself and seeing that you're guilty of exactly what you accuse others. It's true that that is difficult and scary, but it's hard to take seriously someone who aggressively complains and accuses without having any self-awareness of mirroring the very things about which he complains and accuses.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Megan

Have you visited your local Christian bookstore lately, dor?

Lots more people are buying those Christian books about "crazy islamo-facists" than are buying Harris' and Dawkins' books, I would imagine.

.
Yes, I agree I have a problem with them too.

Originally Posted by Megan

I'm not saying he's not agenda-driven, but c'mon, get real, Christianity is getting pretty scary itself, dor!

To expect every representative of science to be a model of reason but to give Christian extremists a free pass--tell me what to call that besides an agenda?

I challenge you to bend the considerable force of your intellect toward the aim of creating a balanced picture of how this polarized situation actually was created.

Projecting all the blame on the evil others, whether they are scientific or religious evil others, is not going to help.

And co-opting spiritual experience as only religious, and then painting people who are not religious as culturally deficient as you do on this thread is just painful to behold.

I have impulses to disavow Christianity in big red capital letters, if you want to know the truth, when I read that stuff you write to Michael, not to mention when I watch Ted Haggard in action. Aaargh!

Well, maybe haggard needs a massage again ....well, democracy can produce some scary presidents and people..doe that mean you want to abandon it? People do lots of bad almost always in the name of good...what did CS Lewis say, communism and faciscism didn't appeal to people evil but their good?
Do you abandon the idea of love or equality because you dated a jerk or because of communism? What did CS Lewis also say, if you think I am bad now..if i wasn't christian i would be worse- or was it Waugh..i don't know.

I agree Christianity has become polarized the mainline churches stand for next to nothing...as a jewish friend of mine quipped, Episcopals are afraid the mention the name Jesus Christ...then on the other hand we have mega churches telling people the world's 4000 years old- but religion despite Dawkin's wishes is growing, not fading away - and its the fundementalists or heavily orthodox (in all religions -not just christianity) that are growing - literally by having more children - but as the dawkins clip you sent touched on, they are drawn to these churches for other reasons - and I think it has something to do with the post sixities break down of society and family....

Angela, you're angry and you don't like me, noted.

"using words like "ignorant" and "dangerous" to describe writers whose original work you have never read, and, in fact, have declared that you never intend to read"
I explained why and once again, you're twisting the truth. I have read articles by dawkins and harris, watched interviews, read stories and reviews about that quote the books at length. Considering it took you, two or three posts to even begrudgingly acknowledge that Dawkins was in fact talking about what I said he was talking about (the 'rainbow' wasteooftime/discussion), so we're just going in circles here. You keep making the same accusations, I explain my problem with him, you make the same accusations. As I noted further up on this post to Meghan, I have a problem with Christian authors/Ministers spreading that same lie about 'islamo facisim' . Are you saying that Harris and Dawkins don't blame religion for the problems in the middle east and northern ireland or are you saying you just don't like me saying it.
If it was easy to refute that I would have thought you would have by now.
have you read through all of the creationists arguements/books? No? how can you oppose them?.

"you yourself are a propagandist." For what?

"You take no responsibility for it here, and seem to be dead-set against considering the possibility of taking a look at yourself and seeing that you're guilty of exactly what you accuse others."
I accuse Dawkins of either a. lying b. deliberately ignoring the truth. c. self-deceit to advance an agenda. If you can find where i have deliberately distorted history, to advance an agenda please, point it out.

"'I'm a great writer and you could learn from me' stance (despite astonishingly ample and ever-mounting evidence to the contrary.."
Unless you're a. writer i admire b. have a check for $300,000.00 & and about 75 million in financing for my script....i really don't care what you think of my writing, and as i have noted, I don't put much effort into the posts here....do you watch a lot of Lifetime?

"that makes me wonder, were most Conscientious Objectors Amish or Quaker? "
Michae::: Perhaps beause I live in the east I am more familiar with them...but it was my impression their pacificism was common knowledge (Witness, Harrison Ford) and every once in awhile tragically, amish kids will be mowed down by a drunk driver, and the amish forgive him...
i don't know what they did in the civil war... WWI had a lot of socialists con. obj. viet nam, a lot of God-damn hippies I don't know about WWII. I believe Quackers usually served in the medical corp rather than go to jail...

[Megan]

H...Hit...Hitl....

Shoot, I can't do it. I've lost my nerve. Somebody put this thread out of its misery, pul-eeze.

[nara]

The problem I have with (some)religion is that it is supposedly the word of a god instructing people on how to live their life. The problem with these instructions coming from a "god" is that it makes it that much harder for people to reason against or change.

If my friend Joe tells me that eating cupcakes will turn me into a unicorn, I'll think he is crazy. However if Joe tells me that some god, whom I base my life around, said that eating cupcakes will turn me into a unicorn I'll be more likely to accept it. I'll begin to rationalize how this could be even though my common sense tells me that there is no truth to it. Maybe I haven't eaten enough cupcakes? Maybe they weren't the right kind? Wrong type of icing? Maybe there are bad and good kinds of cupcakes? Obviously something must be different about these cupcakes because I haven't turned into a unicorn yet.

The above example is extreme, yes, but less extreme examples happen all the time. Take the quote Angela provided earlier:

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Or take a look at this:
YouTube - The atheist's nightmare: the banana

Perfect examples of people forcing the world to conform to their view so that their religion carries more weight.

Of course science is also subject to the same weakness. When new evidence is found, immediately scientists try to rationalize it with the old beliefs. The beauty of science though is that it is the evolution of human understanding and thus it is a work in progress. Scientists rationalize with the old beliefs only until enough new evidence piles up to where they just have to admit that the old beliefs are flawed. It is much harder, if not impossible, for practitioners of religions to do the same.

The same can be seen in populations and societies. As history shows, it is possible for massive portions of the population to fall under control of an individual or government of influential people. However, when those in power do not claim to act under the authority of a god or religion, the length of their influence is shortened considerably. When it is just a man (or group) in charge, powerful and charismatic as they may be, future generations become less and less likely to follow their rule. People crave power of their own and are less likely to give their power away unless there is good reason. For many, a god and religion is good reason to give their power away. God is eternal and greater than his followers because he created them, thus people are less reluctant to give away their power and more prone to outright worship. If future generations can be made to believe in the god or religion then they are much more likely to give their power away to those who act under authority of said god or religion.

So given the choice of the evils of science vs. religion, I'll happily choose science because its "reign of terror" is likely to be shorter lived. This is why I ultimately agree with what Richard Dawkins and others are doing even though I may not agree with their methods. They have an agenda and that agenda is to take away power from religion... which I agree with. I have no problem with people practicing personal spirituality (which is a form of PD) but when people base their life off of what some god said then we have a problem because if allowed to gain considerable power, its "reign of terror" will be much longer lived.

[dor]

Originally Posted by nara

I ultimately agree with what Richard Dawkins .

Dawkins is another Hitler. It's like the Nazis all over again.

[nara]

Originally Posted by dor

Dawkins is another Hitler. It's like the Nazis all over again.

A perfect example of what I was conveying in my post above. dor disregards the meat of my post and focuses on the lonely scrap because it alone gives more strength to his convictions.

Edit: Sorry dor, I didn't see Megan's quip above on Goodwin's Law. I'll assume you were joking and not likening me to a Nazi.

[takkaria]

Whoops! I meant that as a reply to the last post on page 5, and hadn't read page 6 yet...

I quote Dawkins, in The Devil's Chaplain, a book I have but have not yet read (I found the quote online):

"My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all."

Here is an example of how he does not claim that Northern Ireland and the problems in Iraq are entirely caused by religion.

[dor]

nara yes it was meant to be a joke. No I don't think you or Dawkins are naizis..

Originally Posted by takkaria

Whoops! I meant that as a reply to the last post on page 5, and hadn't read page 6 yet...

I quote Dawkins, in The Devil's Chaplain, a book I have but have not yet read (I found the quote online):

"My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all."

Here is an example of how he does not claim that Northern Ireland and the problems in Iraq are entirely caused by religion.

is it from this article?

"I named belief in an afterlife as the key weapon that made the New York atrocity possible. Of prior significance is religion’s deep responsibility for the underlying hatreds that motivated people to use that weapon in the first place. To breathe such a suggestion, even with the most gentlemanly restraint, is to invite an onslaught of patronising abuse, as Douglas Adams noted. But the insane cruelty of the suicide attacks, and the equally vicious though numerically less catastrophic ‘revenge’ attacks on hapless Muslims living in America and Britain, push me beyond ordinary caution.

How can I say that religion is to blame? Do I really imagine that, when a terrorist kills, he is motivated by a theological disagreement with his victim? Do I really think the Northern Ireland pub bomber says to himself, “Take that, Tridentine Transubstantiationist bastards!” Of course I don’t think anything of the kind. Theology is the last thing on the minds of such people. They are not killing because of religion itself, but because of political grievances, often justified. They are killing because the other lot killed their fathers. Or because the other lot drove their great- grandfathers off their land. Or because the other lot oppressed our lot economically for centuries.

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a ‘they’ as opposed to a ‘we’ can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There’s also skin colour, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don’t apply and religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well. And please don’t trot out Hitler as a counter-example. Hitler’s sub-Wagnerian ravings constituted a religion of his own foundation, and his anti-Semitism owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism (see http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/murphy_19 _2.html).

It is not an exaggeration to say that religion is the most inflammatory enemy-labelling device in history. Who killed your father? Not the individuals you are about to kill in ‘revenge’. The culprits themselves have vanished over the border. The people who stole your great-grandfather’s land have died of old age. You aim your vendetta at those who belong to the same religion as the original perpetrators. It wasn’t Seamus who killed your brother, but it was Catholics, so Seamus deserves to die ‘in return’. Next, it was Protestants who killed Seamus so let’s go out and kill some Protestants ‘in revenge’. It was Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center so let’s set upon the turbaned driver of a London taxi and leave him paralysed from the neck down."

northern ireland: he fails to mention that the protestants are a different ethnic group who colonized there.
also notice how he completely ignores the fact atheistic communists killled hundreds of millions and when confronted with the hitler example, simply references himself and calls hitlers fascism a religion....He claims hitler's anti semitism came from roman catholicism...how does he explain the fact that the pope hid 7000 jews in the vatician during WWII...can he back this claim up? Highly doubtful


CNN.com - Suicide bombings as military strategy - Jun 30, 2005

Expert: Attacks motivated by logic, not religion
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005; ISBN 1-4000-6317-5) is Robert A. Pape's analysis of suicide terrorism from a strategic, social, and psychological point of view. It is based on a database he has compiled at the University of Chicago, where he directs the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism. The book's conclusions are based on data from 315 suicide terrorism campaigns around the world from 1980 through 2003 and 462 individual suicide terrorists. Published in May 2005, Pape's volume has been widely noticed by press, public, and policymakers alike, and has earned praise from Peter Bergen and Michael Scheuer.
But Pape, author of the provocative new book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," contends those reports fuel significant misperceptions about the bombers, their motivations and specifically the role religion plays in their actions.

"There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions," he says.


So can we expect a Dawkins crusade against logic now?

But if it had not been for religion, the very concept of a Jewish State would have had no meaning in the first place. Nor would the very concept of Islamic lands, as something to be invaded and desecrated. In a world without religion, there would have been no Crusades; no Inquisition; no anti-Semitic pogroms (the people of the diaspora would long ago have intermarried and become indistinguishable from their host populations); no Northern Ireland Troubles (no label by which to distinguish the two ‘communities’, and no sectarian schools to teach the children historic hatreds — they would simply be one community.)

Dawkins doesn't know much about the foundations of Zionism (Herzol and the early champions of it were secular and see jews as an ethinic group)...or Palestinian nationalism...he fails to mention the crusades were almost exclusively Norman and as anyone familiar with history knows...the Norman's pastime was conquering other peoples - England, Northern France, Siciliy......no anti semtic pogroms? Is he refering to the russian ones, or the expulsion of the jews by the irreligious Romans?
no label to distinquish between prods and catholics - so war like tough border clans from scotland moved there to clear up the english/scottish border would have just blended in? comical.
He also claims jews would have just intermarried...how does he explain other 'wandering peoples' who don't - like gypsies - who don't practice any particular religion?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

.Angela, you're angry and you don't like me, noted....

Still more presumption on your part, Dor. I'm wasn’t angry, and I don't know you enough to choose to like you or dislike you.

I sure don't like your tactics, though. And I won't hesitate to point out the unreliability of your arguments, especially when you're attempting to discredit an honorable and credible thinker, lest an unwary Pavliner buy into your propaganda.

On second thought, after reading your last couple of posts, I've realized that Pavliners (Smart People) aren't really too vulnerable to your machinations. Mostly because I don't think they're going to bother to slog through it.

Nara! I'm so glad someone read that "Intelligent Falling" article! I thought it was hilarious. By the way, it wasn't real; it was a satire piece in 'The Onion'.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

I sure don't like your tactics, though. And I won't hesitate to point out the unreliability of your arguments,

I just posted dawkins quotes. directly relating to northern ireland and "sept 11"

Do you agree or disagree?

he said:
a. he blamed religion, and that believe in the afterlife was the key compent to the terrorist attacks of 9/11
b. if prods and catholics weren't prods and catholics there'd be no conflict in northern ireland: In a world without religion, there would have been no Crusades; no Inquisition; no anti-Semitic pogroms (the people of the diaspora would long ago have intermarried and become indistinguishable from their host populations); no Northern Ireland Troubles

Do you agree, or disagree?

I then posted
a. the work of an expert on suicide terrorism, refuting dawkins' claims.
b. pointed out some historical facts about northern ireland (i can go into it a lot further (By the way its' not the only label, prods are also known as Ulster Scots)) and other conflicts where he is clearly over-simplifying them and pegging religion as the culprit. I am not the only one to point this out- its hardly original - its usually people who work in these fields- like Robert Pape (who did the study of sucicide terrorism) who brought this up - HOW DARE THEY CRITICIZE YOUR HERO OR ANYTHING HE SAYS.
c. pointed out he's self -referencing -

do you agree or disagree?

So what are my 'tactics'? Pointing out that Dawkins isn't backing up his statements with facts- just like creationists- he's no better - or the other side of the same coin. He's letting his ideology distort reality. Your only response is to call me names, criticize my tactics, and say smart people won't listen to them.....

You've repeatedly accused me of unreliable arguments. here's a chance- to respond. Please tell me, how is this unreliable?

oh here's Dawkins again:

But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there but religion? The same applies to Indo-Pakistan, Serbo-Croatia, and various regions of Indonesia and Africa. Religion is today's most divisive label of group identity and hostility.
Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/29/2006 | Is religion the root of all evil?

a. northern ireland: protestants are low land scottish
b. indo-pakistan - "In the early 16th century, Muslim armies consisting of Mongol, Turkic, Persian, and Afghan warriors invaded India under the leadership of the Timurid prince Zahir-ud-Din-Muhammad Babur.....this thread- or this board isn't enough space to go into India -but in short, he is wrong - Muslims ARE a different ethnic group just like Christians are largely of Portuguese and Syrian descent. How dare I point that out, eh Angela?
Do you agree or disagree with Dawkin's statement?


[/I]

"And I won't hesitate to point out the unreliability of your arguments, especially when you're attempting to discredit an honorable and credible thinker"

sounds more like blind hero worship to me...there are plenty of sensible atheists who disagree with Dawkins:


Michael Fitzpatrick
The Dawkins delusion
'Catholic atheist' Michael Fitzpatrick finds himself repelled by Richard Dawkins' crass and prejudiced polemic against religion.
When Dawkins reduces diverse political conflicts – in Northern Ireland, in Israel, in the former Yugoslavia – to religious causes, he reveals the vacuity of his ahistorical approac
spiked | The Dawkins delusion

the result, ironically, is that he ends up sounding as naive and unworldly as any happy clappy believer. 'Imagine with John Lennon a world with no religion,' he writes. 'Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as "Christ killers", no Northern Ireland "troubles", no "honour killings", no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money.'
Would that be so. Many of these clashes – over the Palestinian state, or in Northern Ireland, for instance – are originally secular struggles that have, with the degradation of politics, come to take on religious garb. Even suicide bombing is not necessarily a religious phenomenon – the tactic was pioneered by the secular Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.
Telegraph | Arts | I don't believe in Richard Dawkins

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

So what are my 'tactics'?

Here's one:

Originally Posted by dor

do you watch a lot of Lifetime?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

Here's one:

above, you have the opportunity to refute my statements about Dawkins. you have an opportunity to point out my errors. I invite you to.

a. please show me how i have distorted what dawkins is saying
b. please show me that the facts that i have posted in response to his statements are wrong.

He says that sucide terrorism and the troubles in northern ireland would not exist (and the indo-pakistan wars!) if there was no religion and in fact, claims that in northern ireland and indo-pakstian are only about religion. i will quote dawkins again:
Some tribes may divide along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there but religion? The same applies to Indo-Pakistan,

I invite you to refute Pape. I invite your to read through the brief articles - by atheists - refuting dawkins.
I still invite you to point out where i have distorted history to advance my agenda.

[Angela]

Dor da Cabeza, I've pointed out example after example of your shady tactics in this thread. As you are clearly not willing to take any responsibility for the effect you have on people (and now I'm wondering if you even read what I write!) and you demand responses to your rants without taking others' thoughts or feelings into consideration, I give you leave to spew into the void left by my absence. Adieu! (tr. "go with god!)
Angela

[Megan]

bylto and the mods have been remarkably patient with this thread, which has basically been hijacked to criticize Dawkins and denigrate Pavilina posters.

dor, why don't you start a thread to criticize Dawkins, as I suggested early on? There you can do your thing on Dawkins and the people who disagree with you to your heart's content, as long as anyone cares to tolerate it.

I suggest we get somewhere in the same galaxy of the thread topic and get off of the personality schtick.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

Dor da Cabeza, I've pointed out example after example of your shady tactics in this thread. As you are clearly not willing to take any responsibility for the effect you have on people (and now I'm wondering if you even read what I write!) and you demand responses to your rants without taking others' thoughts or feelings into consideration, I give you leave to spew into the void left by my absence. Adieu! (tr. "go with god!)
Angela

responses to my 'rants' ?? I quote Dawkins, I refuted Dawkins. This is ranting?

It was easy for me to point out that Dawkins was wrong about Northern Ireland, India/Pakistan and suicide terrorism. Like I said, it's not an original thought on my part -most anyone who knows anything about about those conflicts has said the same......You have post after post accusing me of ranting, but none refuting my statements.
If they were wrong, it should be easy.

I will also add, you complain about my tactics, yet you have said you admire Dawkins for doing the same-(like 'in your face gay groups' ) i think I recall you saying....

Megan: Dawkins is a central figure in the evolution debate - and i accused him of being just as blinded by his own ideology as he claims creationists are.

[Megan]

...and neither are the personality and cultural 'deficiencies' of the posters the topic of this thread.

bylto deserves to have the topic of his thread adhered to reasonably.

And other posters deserve to have their boundaries respected, and especially by a Christian, it seems to me.

[Megan]

bylto
Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 29


Creation / Evolution Debate and Spiritual Development

Hi. I have written an article at my site about the creation/evolution debate and my conclusion has definite spiritual implications. I would love to hear what others make of this issue and possibly give some feedback on my belief. Simply put I believe

THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS A LIVING, ONGOING PROCESS OF CREATION.

God expresses itself through evolution, and as time progresses we develop more and more of the Godlike attribute of CONSCIOUSNESS. Continue raising you Level of Consciousness, it benefits the whole world.

Mark

Build Your Life To Order ™ » Blog Archive » The Creation vs Evolution Debate - The Solution (Well, To My Satisfaction)
__________________
consciously create the life you want: (new site)

Build Your Life To Order ™

[Rocket Surgery]

Originally Posted by Megan

bylto
Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 29


Creation / Evolution Debate and Spiritual Development

Hi. I have written an article at my site about the creation/evolution debate and my conclusion has definite spiritual implications. I would love to hear what others make of this issue and possibly give some feedback on my belief. Simply put I believe

THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS A LIVING, ONGOING PROCESS OF CREATION.

God expresses itself through evolution, and as time progresses we develop more and more of the Godlike attribute of CONSCIOUSNESS. Continue raising you Level of Consciousness, it benefits the whole world.

Mark

Build Your Life To Order ™ » Blog Archive » The Creation vs Evolution Debate - The Solution (Well, To My Satisfaction)
__________________
consciously create the life you want: (new site)

Build Your Life To Order ™

After reading the first two pages, this thread morphed into some sort of intellectual flame war, so I skimmed quickly to the end to see if what I wanted to post would still have any meaning. Your reposting of the original post now gives it just that, so....

I just wanted to say that it seems to me that a case can be made for both creation AND evolution. I've come to the conclusion that God is not some sort of "ancient wizard in the sky," but rather The Ultimate Scientist. Every day, scientists learn more and more of how the Universe is put together, and cosmic string and unified field theories are now giving us PHYSICAL evidence that everything indeed IS connected to everything else.

But one of the more personal bits of evidence that helped bring God back into the debate was a nature show about EVOLUTION. One segment discussed the incredible variety of orchids; and one orchid in particular did it for me, which was a species who's appearance exactly mimicked a female bee in its center, allegedly to attract the male bee to the orchid and thereby trick the bee into landing on the orchid to "mate," and thereby pollenating the orchids inadvertently by landing on one after another of these false females.

As plants do not have visual sensors, I have a lot of difficulty accepting that the orchid would have any way of knowing what its main pollenating bee species looked like, and even if it did, how could a plant "think outside the box" in this manner? The ONLY explanation in my mind had to be that some conscious INTELLIGENCE was tinkering with nature.

So, I believe in evolution to the point that it was SET UP or PROGRAMMED by God or an OUC of some sort; but that the Universe is much too well-maintained a garden to simply be an accident of nature.

~ RS

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgery

So, I believe in evolution to the point that it was SET UP or PROGRAMMED by God or an OUC of some sort; but that the Universe is much too well-maintained a garden to simply be an accident of nature.

~ RS

Did you pick your name because it's a combination of Rocket Science and Brain Surgery? I like that!

Just want to point out that evolutionary scientists generally agree with you that it's not accidental at all how things have worked out. Rather, they present the likelihood of slow, incremental (not accidental) change from Universal Stew of Nothing transformed bit by slow bit to Us Here Now. So, who cooked the stew in the first place? I can see why people (including some evolutionary scientists!) say, well, the only possible explanation is a supernatural Overseer. But who created the Overseer? If the argument is, "the Overseer is transcendent of time, has always been and always will be" then why would it not possible for the answer to that be that "the Universal Stew is transcendent of time, has always been and always will be"?

[nara]

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgery

But one of the more personal bits of evidence that helped bring God back into the debate was a nature show about EVOLUTION. One segment discussed the incredible variety of orchids; and one orchid in particular did it for me, which was a species who's appearance exactly mimicked a female bee in its center, allegedly to attract the male bee to the orchid and thereby trick the bee into landing on the orchid to "mate," and thereby pollenating the orchids inadvertently by landing on one after another of these false females.

As plants do not have visual sensors, I have a lot of difficulty accepting that the orchid would have any way of knowing what its main pollenating bee species looked like, and even if it did, how could a plant "think outside the box" in this manner? The ONLY explanation in my mind had to be that some conscious INTELLIGENCE was tinkering with nature.

In regards to your quote above, watch this video by Carl Sagan on evolution. It provides an alternate view on how what you described above could happen even in the absence of an intelligent designer.

Carl Sagan: Evolution

The orchid of course doesn't know what the bees look like, but the bees can recognize what other bees look like. The likely occurence is that purely by chance, over the course of millions of years, a 'mutation' occured in the orchid to give it the slight appearance of a bee. Bees were attracted to it and thus helped it to spread and reproduce. The orchid most similar to a bee would have gotten the most attention and thus spread more rapidly. Over time, those that most resembled a bee would grow in number while those that looked less like a bee would decrease in population.

[Rocket Surgery]

Originally Posted by nara

In regards to your quote above, watch this video by Carl Sagan on evolution. It provides an alternate view on how what you described above could happen even in the absence of an intelligent designer.

Carl Sagan: Evolution

The orchid of course doesn't know what the bees look like, but the bees can recognize what other bees look like. The likely occurence is that purely by chance, over the course of millions of years, a 'mutation' occured in the orchid to give it the slight appearance of a bee. Bees were attracted to it and thus helped it to spread and reproduce. The orchid most similar to a bee would have gotten the most attention and thus spread more rapidly. Over time, those that most resembled a bee would grow in number while those that looked less like a bee would decrease in population.

Sounds plausible, but only if ALL orchids then looked like female bees. But as you know, there are hundreds of varieties of orchids, most of which do NOT look like female bees. Why do they thrive as well, then?

You also suggest that a plant has actually taken on genetic information from an insect. I'm no scientist, but am I correct in assuming that this is no more possible than a human impregnating a horse and producing a centaur?!!

The orchid, while organic, does not possess the complex brain necessary to analyze the female bees DNA and splice its genetic info into its own in order to alter the physical makeup of its species.

What is it that evolutionists have against the idea of a higher intelligence than human beings? I'm not preaching the biblical god here. So why are you so adamant that there can't be a creator or creating intelligence simply because an old man with a beard has yet to appear before all in the sky?

You can't accept Darwin's logic and just poopoo everything that follows. That's what the pure creationists did when he came along. Theories need to be updated constantly as new discoveries are made, using not just scientific facts and evidence, but also human logic and intuition. One does not come up with a theory and then try to fit square pegs into that theory's round holes. If an undeniable square peg turns up, one must then adjust the theory until some square holes logically appear to accept the pegs.

Always keep an open mind. You're only human.

~RS

[Rocket Surgery]

Originally Posted by Angela

Did you pick your name because it's a combination of Rocket Science and Brain Surgery? I like that!

Yes, in part. However, I coined the term in a line of dialogue I wrote
for a "dumb bimbo" character in a screenplay I wrote. She basically
gets her cliches mixed up while trying to appear smart, saying, "Hey, it ain't Rocket Surgery."

You know, kind of along the same sort of amusement one gets when Bush says things like, "Ya need a certain level of intelligency to handle the responsibleness of being the Decider of whether or not to deplore nuke-u-lar weppins."

~ RS

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgery

So why are you so adamant that there can't be a creator or creating intelligence...

Hey, RS -- I haven't seen too many evolutionary scientists adamantly deny the possibility of a creator of the universe (not even Dr....no, I won't go there!). But what they, and I, see as so unlikely as to be impossible is that that this creator is an entity that watches over us, answers prayers, cares what we do, and rewards and punishes us for our behavior.

And again, if the universe has a creator, who created it? I think that's what you'd call a square peg, too.

[Megan]

Rocket Surgery (love your name), I also see God as the Ultimate Scientist, and I love the orchid illustration.

As far as who the Overseer is that Angela speaks of, well, that is completely out of the realm of science, I believe. Science and religion share the problem of infinite regress, as I said at the beginning of the thread, but it bears repeating, I think:



Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By Angela, Today 03:05 PM

If the argument is, "the Overseer is transcendent of time, has always been and always will be" then why would it not possible for the answer to that be that "the Universal Stew is transcendent of time, has always been and always will be"?

It certainly is a possiblity, and there are Christian believers as well as atheists, pantheists and panentheists who believe that.

I, for example, am a Christian panentheist who considers that a possiblity.

Hannes Alvén was a Nobel Prize-winning atheist example. And let's not leave out Fred Hoyle.

Note that the Big Bang is a theory, and that it has its detractors, even now.

But it's not in the purview of science to make absolute pronouncements about cosmology just yet, it seems to me. Strong theories, yes. Absolute pronouncements, no.

I think that in addition to the problem of the fall of genetic determinism (one gene->one protein) at the turn of the last century, science is also being squeezed between the incredible complexity of the universe and the time available for this complexity to have arisen via natural selection and mutation.

This is not trivial matter, and becomes more problematic the more scientists learn about biology.

Some sort of fairly strong anthropic principle is going to have to be adopted, and sooner rather than later, I rather imagine.

Anthropic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stuart Kaufman is interesting in this respect--more later about him.

[Angela]

Hi there, Megan. I don't think that the question of an Overseer is completely outside the realm of science. A scientist or rational thinker, I believe would be willing to entertain convincing evidence of the existence of an Overseer. If it's an interventionist "god", then it seems to me that it's very possible and even likely that it could present me with some good scientific evidence for its existence, that is, evidence I could show as repeatable, predictable, or even simply visible to me and other rational thinkers. Maybe "god" will never choose to demonstrate such evidence, but it doesn't mean that scientists are not willing to be open to it if it shows up. Some more than others, of course!

I love the "turtles all the way down" story, but I don't think merely because the question hasn't been answered, that it's unanswerable. Problems people considered unsolvable two hundred years ago are now cleared up in grade school!

What is a "strong anthropic principle"?

(I see you've added a wiki for me on that; thanks.)

[Rocket Surgery]

Originally Posted by Angela

Hey, RS -- I haven't seen too many evolutionary scientists adamantly deny the possibility of a creator of the universe (not even Dr....no, I won't go there!). But what they, and I, see as so unlikely as to be impossible is that that this creator is an entity that watches over us, answers prayers, cares what we do, and rewards and punishes us for our behavior.

And again, if the universe has a creator, who created it? I think that's what you'd call a square peg, too.

Yes, that's the "ancient wizard in the sky" concept that fundamentalists can't let go of. No, I dropped belief in that many moons ago.

The answer that makes most sense is that the creator is US, and we reward and punish ourselves through karmic law, and/or our very own belief systems that trap us within hells of our own making.

As to your second question, a question is not a square peg. I used the analogy to describe hard facts and/or evidence that flies in the face of current accepted theory. "Who created it?" is a question open to debate, not any sort of fact that has been judged valid by society.

A square peg example is, well, 65 million-year-old T-Rex bones. Pure creationists have no square hole in their theory of a 6,000 year old universe to handle this fact. They attempt to create one by saying ridiculous things like, "Satan was allowed to plant dinosaur bones in order to trick us" or that "Dinosuars walked the Earth alongside man and carbon dating is horribly flawed."

They are so afraid of the fires of hell that they would rather look like idiots to the rest of us than simply adjust their beliefs to LOGICALLY allow for both theories to coexist.

If we are creations of God, then God created our advanced brains for a purpose. Surely that purupose is not to blindly accept the fables imagined in the uneducated minds of religious power mongers who lived thousands of years before indoor plumbing!

To say "We created it, for We are all POE's (Points of Experience) of the OUC, is a reasonable and logical adjustment to creation theory that allows for both belief in subjective reality AND scientific facts TO DATE to co-exist.

Being, however, stuck within my illusion that I am NOT the OUC, I humbly keep my mind open for future adjustment whenevery necessary due to unforseen facts not yet in evidence.

~ RS

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgery

The answer that makes most sense is that the creator is US, and we reward and punish ourselves through karmic law, and/or our very own belief systems that trap us within hells of our own making.

okeydoke. I'm not sure that makes the most sense, but some of it does make sense to me. For that statement to appeal to my creator side, I would add "....and frees us to live a joyful, loving life of presence."

I've always thought of the karmic system as one of guidance and potential learning, rather than reward/punishment, which smacks of religious training to me.

Are you going to tell us the secret behind your name?

[Rocket Surgery]

Originally Posted by Angela

okeydoke. I'm not sure that makes the most sense, but some of it does make sense to me. For that statement to appeal to my creator side, I would add "....and frees us to live a joyful, loving life of presence."

I've always thought of the karmic system as one of guidance and potential learning, rather than reward/punishment, which smacks of religious training to me.

Are you going to tell us the secret behind your name?

Well, "reward/punishment" were your words, not mine. It's all in the perception. Instead of reward, we can say "growth." Instead of punishment, we can say "lessons in empathy to erase bad karma."

However, as creators of our own reality, we truly get exactly what we believe we deserve. If some fundamentalist Christian believes Hell is a literal "lake of fire" and then dies, in his mind, an unforgiven sinner, then I believe that soul will wind up exactly where he believes "God" will send him. At least, that is, until he open his mind to the possibility that he has suffered enough and is deserving of forgiveness; at which point that "hell" will dissolve to be replaced by whatever environment he believes himself reprieved into. Could be "heaven"; could be "purgatory"; could be Amarillo.

I see karma as kind of an energy deposit that builds up around our souls over the course of many lives lived. There's two kinds: positive and negative. We create both by our actions in life, and each cancels out the other. An imbalance of negative behavior builds up more negative deposits of karma on us, which act like a sticky, gummy substance as we move through life experiences, and slows down our spiritual growth and progress. Positive behaviors not only help to dissolve the negative build-up, but once we are "in the black", spiritually speaking, act as a LUBRICANT to our souls, speeding our progress toward enlightenment even faster.

We can then choose to reincarnate back into physical life on Earth or not. If there is any karmic DEBT (negative karma), we MUST reincarnate. When the balance is neutral or positive, then we have the CHOICE to return, which is usually done by those souls with a desire to do great spiritual service to mankind from an enlightened perspective.

The origin of my name I just posted in the "Clones" thread of this forum, if you're curious, so I'll pass on repeating it here.

~ RS