PDA

View Full Version : Political Science



don
11-28-12, 08:05 AM
By NICHOLAS WADE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/nicholas_wade/index.html)

It was the standard political interview, about ambition and the right size for government. Then came the curveball question to Senator Marco Rubio (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/r/marco_rubio/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Florida from Michael Hainey of GQ magazine: “How old do you think the earth is?”

Senator Rubio, a possible contender in the 2016 Republican presidential race, gave the following answer (http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201212/marco-rubio-interview-gq-december-2012?currentPage=2): “I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians.”

He went on: “At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created, and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says.

“Whether the earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.”

It may have been a mystery back in the 17th century, when Archbishop James Ussher calculated from the age of the patriarchs and other sources that Earth (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/earth_planet/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) was created on Oct. 22, 4004 B.C. Today’s best estimate for the age of Earth, based on the radiometric dating of meteorites, is 4.54 billion years. The real mystery is how a highly intelligent politician got himself into the position of suggesting that the two estimates are of equal value, or that theologians are still the best interpreters of the physical world.

Catholics and Jews have always emphasized their priests’ interpretations of the Bible, not the text itself; Protestants, starting with Martin Luther, insisted the Bible was the literal truth and the sole dependable source of divine knowledge, a belief the Puritans implanted firmly in American soil. Then, in the 19th century, German textual critics like Julius Wellhausen showed that the Bible was not the inerrant product of divine inspiration but had been cobbled together by many hands whose editing was all too evident.

At that point most Protestants decided to join Catholics in interpreting the Bible metaphorically and avoiding embarrassing public spats with science. But after discussions in the early 20th century, the conservative wing of the Protestant movement elected to double down their bet and insist that every word in the Bible was true.

The inevitable clash with science, particularly in the teaching of evolution, has continued to this day. Militant atheists like the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins beat the believers about the head, accomplishing nothing; fundamentalist Christians naturally defend their religion and values to the hilt, whatever science may say.

A scientific statesman, if there were such a person, would try to defuse the situation by professing respect for all religions and making a grand yet also trivial concession about the status of evolution.

Like those electrons that can be waves or particles, evolution is both a theory and a fact. In historical terms, evolution has certainly occurred and no fact is better attested. But in terms of the intellectual structure of science, evolution is a theory; no one talks about Darwin’s “fact of evolution.”

Unlike a fact, a theory cannot be absolutely true. All scientific theories are subject to change and replacement, just as Newton’s theory of gravitation was replaced by Einstein’s. The theory of evolution, though it has no present rivals, is still under substantial construction.

Evolutionary biologists are furiously debating whether or not natural selection can operate on groups of individuals, as Darwin thought was likely but most modern evolutionists doubt. So which version of evolution is the true one?

By allowing that evolution is a theory, scientists would hand fundamentalists the fig leaf they need to insist, at least among themselves, that the majestic words of the first chapter of Genesis are literal, not metaphorical, truths. They in return should make no objection to the teaching of evolution in science classes as a theory, which indeed it is.

And rudderless politicians like Senator Rubio wouldn’t have to throw 15 back flips and a hissy fit when asked a simple question like how old is the earth.

Nicholas Wade, a longtime science writer for The New York Times, is the author of “The Faith Instinct,” about the evolutionary basis of religion.

Raz
11-28-12, 01:09 PM
The Canon of Sacred Scripture came into being over a period of almost three-hundred years and the first complete Orthodox list was given by St. Athanasius the Great in his Easter Address of 367 A.D.

The Eastern Church has never regarded the Canon as a scientific document; yet it recognizes the truths that wise men everywhere should see:

nothing we know of that even approaches the intricacy and irreducible complexity of life has ever occured by mere chance.

It requires quite a bit of faith to insist that such order emerged from chaos without any external force brought to bear by a designer/creator/ sustainer.

The odds of evolution being completely random are not good. (And I don't believe Antony Flew lost his mind six years before his death.)

lektrode
11-28-12, 03:11 PM
and the campaign to take down rubio (http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/10/did-the-washington-post-embellish-marco-rubios-embellishments.html) continues to pick up the pace (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/marco-rubio-geological-cliff_b_2168150.html).

one begins to wonder if only a log cabin republican will be acceptable to the lamestream media...

Munger
11-28-12, 06:08 PM
T
nothing we know of that even approaches the intricacy and irreducible complexity of life has ever occured by mere chance.


False. There are literally thousands of well-documented examples of complex structures evolving. See, e.g., the evolution of the eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye). Scientists have even witnessed the evolution of complex metabolic pathways in the lab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment)over the course of a few decades.

To the extent you argue that these examples fail because they are not as "intricate" or "complex" as "life," then your argument is really that we have not witnessed life evolve. To which I would point to the fossil record. To the extent you deem this unsatisfactory, I would ask what exactly would satisfy you.

don
11-28-12, 07:52 PM
False. There are literally thousands of well-documented examples of complex structures evolving. See, e.g., the evolution of the eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye). Scientists have even witnessed the evolution of complex metabolic pathways in the lab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment)over the course of a few decades.

To the extent you argue that these examples fail because they are not as "intricate" or "complex" as "life," then your argument is really that we have not witnessed life evolve. To which I would point to the fossil record. To the extent you deem this unsatisfactory, I would ask what exactly would satisfy you.

+1

Faith based, baby, needs nothing more . . .

You can never disprove a belief based on faith . . . .

shiny!
11-28-12, 09:12 PM
When did the world begin? People have been arguing about this forever.

Excerpt from the 21st Pauri of Japji, the morning prayer of the Sikhs, composed in the late 1400's:


"What was that time, and what was that moment? What was that day, and what was that date?

What was that season, and what was that month, when the Universe was created?

The Pandits, the religious scholars, cannot find that time, even if it is written in the Puraanas.

That time is not known to the Qazis, who study the Koran.

The day and the date are not known to the Yogis, nor is the month or the season.

The Creator who creates this world, alone knows this time."

Raz
11-28-12, 10:51 PM
False. There are literally thousands of well-documented examples of complex structures evolving. See, e.g., the evolution of the eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye). Scientists have even witnessed the evolution of complex metabolic pathways in the lab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment)over the course of a few decades.

To the extent you argue that these examples fail because they are not as "intricate" or "complex" as "life," then your argument is really that we have not witnessed life evolve. To which I would point to the fossil record. To the extent you deem this unsatisfactory, I would ask what exactly would satisfy you.

I did not state that evolution was totally false. Nor did I say there was no truth to the theory of evolution.

I only stated that I do not believe that such a complex perfection of order appeared randomly out of utter chaos.
Just because someone "observed" evolution in a laboratory doesn't preclude the unseen force of a designer/creator.

"In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers, Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory, Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Criticism_of_creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Criticism_of_creationism)


Perhaps I didn't understand the point you were making - or you didn't understand mine.

Raz
11-28-12, 11:23 PM
..., I would ask what exactly would satisfy you.

Present archeological, scientific proof that the Resurrection never happened.

vinoveri
11-29-12, 12:50 AM
+1

Faith based, baby, needs nothing more . . .

You can never disprove a belief based on faith . . . .


You're right, you know; likely not to disprove atheism to one of the materialist faith.

The faith of orthodox Christianity is not "blind faith" as is the scientistic atheistic view of types like Dawkins who assume/hypothesize the non-existence of God and then cobble together half-baked conjecture and speculation of "social" genes among other ideas to explain human virtue/vice unpresent in the animal kingdom for instance. Even though a new idea may be plausible (because empirical data does not directly contradict the idea) it is still nothing more than a hypothesis.

dcarrigg
11-29-12, 01:54 AM
Growing up Catholic, we were never taught to see an inherent incompatibility between evolution and intelligent design. Since Pope Pius in 1950 it has been broadly accepted that a Creator certainly could set events into motion such that the rules of evolution play out. The Catholic church has had a lot of issues in the past with being anti-science. But the insistance that evolution is impossible theologically does not seem to be a necessary pilar of Christian faith. At least it doesn't seem to be so for a billion or so Catholics. I'm not quite sure why it's such a sticking point in some denominations. I'm fairly certain that doing the cosmological equivalent of writing a software program is not above an Omnipotent being. I don't believe that one has to argue about the existence of God in discourses of Evolution. Evolution no more disproves God than it disproves General Relativity, and visa-versa. Ditto for the age of the Earth. I think it's ultimately counterproductive to dig in one's heals and become indignant about such things. It simply politicizes both religion and science unnecessarily. There are real issues of morality and ethics and philosophy and theology that arise from time to time, and which must be resolved politically. But these issues are not among them. Best to let sleeping dogs lie.

And yet there are those who seek to politicize the issue. And they have made it so toxic as to divide folk. And so you get statements like Mr. Rubio's. This is not surprising. But it is somewhat sad. If 50% of the effort spent by atheists laughing at the 4,000 B.C. earth-origin theory and 50% of the effort spent by Evangelicals at punishing politicians for disagreeing with the 4,000 B.C. earth-origin theory were spent on something productive and friendly, the world be a much better place. Prosthelytizing should never take preference over cordiality. At least that's how I see it.

vinoveri
11-29-12, 10:13 AM
Growing up Catholic, we were never taught to see an inherent incompatibility between evolution and intelligent design. Since Pope Pius in 1950 it has been broadly accepted that a Creator certainly could set events into motion such that the rules of evolution play out. The Catholic church has had a lot of issues in the past with being anti-science. But the insistance that evolution is impossible theologically does not seem to be a necessary pilar of Christian faith. At least it doesn't seem to be so for a billion or so Catholics. I'm not quite sure why it's such a sticking point in some denominations. I'm fairly certain that doing the cosmological equivalent of writing a software program is not above an Omnipotent being. I don't believe that one has to argue about the existence of God in discourses of Evolution. Evolution no more disproves God than it disproves General Relativity, and visa-versa. Ditto for the age of the Earth. I think it's ultimately counterproductive to dig in one's heals and become indignant about such things. It simply politicizes both religion and science unnecessarily. There are real issues of morality and ethics and philosophy and theology that arise from time to time, and which must be resolved politically. But these issues are not among them. Best to let sleeping dogs lie.

And yet there are those who seek to politicize the issue. And they have made it so toxic as to divide folk. And so you get statements like Mr. Rubio's. This is not surprising. But it is somewhat sad. If 50% of the effort spent by atheists laughing at the 4,000 B.C. earth-origin theory and 50% of the effort spent by Evangelicals at punishing politicians for disagreeing with the 4,000 B.C. earth-origin theory were spent on something productive and friendly, the world be a much better place. Prosthelytizing should never take preference over cordiality. At least that's how I see it.

+1. Great Summary.

One of the attractions of the Catholic faith is its emphasis that faith and reason are not at all imcompatible ... something which if one thinks about it is evident with respect to Orthodoxy. The Catholic church appears comfortable with the general theory of evolution (and it does not in the least contradict or conflict with the Faith). It is the jump to materialism, atheism, etc, which the church takes issue with (and I don't know why this is so difficult for folks to see, and what logic allows a thinking person to make this jump).

The problem though is that the fad of the atheism is becoming more popular because it is being promulgated in academia and under this bait and switch cognitive/logical fallacy: evolution is true so ..... we can in principle explain away God; we don't need a first cause and we can show man's conception of God and religions were just social adaptations that resulted in increased survival fitness and gene propogation. If these folks would stick to the hard science and refrain from weaving in their own dogmatic views into the mix, we'd be better off. We reap what we sow after all.

Munger
11-29-12, 12:41 PM
I did not state that evolution was totally false. Nor did I say there was no truth to the theory of evolution.

I only stated that I do not believe that such a complex perfection of order appeared randomly out of utter chaos.
Just because someone "observed" evolution in a laboratory doesn't preclude the unseen force of a designer/creator.

"In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers, Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory, Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Criticism_of_creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Criticism_of_creationism)


Perhaps I didn't understand the point you were making - or you didn't understand mine.






I think I understand. Essentially you do not dispute evolution, or the evolution of life. You simply posit that there is a divine hand that set it in motion.

If so, that's fine. But it certainly doesn't disprove that life evolved. It is simply a belief that cannot be proved or disproved, and that has no bearing on reality.

we_are_toast
11-29-12, 02:18 PM
Present archeological, scientific proof that the Resurrection never happened.



Present archaeological, scientific proof that I didn't go to the moon last night and hold a big party with my friends.


Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy). It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy) in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#cite_note-1) In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If I claim I went to the moon, and you claim you were resurrected, the burden of proof is on us to prove our claims, not up to everyone else to disprove our claims.


dcarrigg
And yet there are those who seek to politicize the issue. And they have made it so toxic as to divide folk. And so you get statements like Mr. Rubio's. This is not surprising. But it is somewhat sad. If 50% of the effort spent by atheists laughing at the 4,000 B.C. earth-origin theory and 50% of the effort spent by Evangelicals at punishing politicians for disagreeing with the 4,000 B.C. earth-origin theory were spent on something productive and friendly, the world be a much better place. Prosthelytizing should never take preference over cordiality. At least that's how I see it.

I believe you have incorrectly phrased the situation. This is not about Atheists VS Evangelicals, this is about Science VS anti-science. Science is about gaining knowledge and understanding of the world and universe around us. It uses the scientific method to gather and build on previous knowledge to achieve this goal. I have yet to see another method that can remotely come close to building an accurate knowledge base of the universe around us.

Without the benefits that science has given us, the civilization that we now live in would not be possible. The science denialists have offered no reasonable alternatives to accumulate accurate knowledge, and have at times reverted to claims that are factually wrong and have been debunked decades ago. While there is no movement by scientists to force theologians, priests, ministers... to teach science in churches, synagogues etc, there has been a large movement from the anti-science people to teach false, anti-science information in science classes in our schools. Trying to build a future nation and civilization from a base of non-knowledge that was gathered through irrationality and has infiltrated the schools to be passed on to future generations, will be impossible.

dcarrigg
11-29-12, 03:48 PM
I believe you have incorrectly phrased the situation. This is not about Atheists VS Evangelicals, this is about Science VS anti-science. Science is about gaining knowledge and understanding of the world and universe around us. It uses the scientific method to gather and build on previous knowledge to achieve this goal. I have yet to see another method that can remotely come close to building an accurate knowledge base of the universe around us.

Without the benefits that science has given us, the civilization that we now live in would not be possible. The science denialists have offered no reasonable alternatives to accumulate accurate knowledge, and have at times reverted to claims that are factually wrong and have been debunked decades ago. While there is no movement by scientists to force theologians, priests, ministers... to teach science in churches, synagogues etc, there has been a large movement from the anti-science people to teach false, anti-science information in science classes in our schools. Trying to build a future nation and civilization from a base of non-knowledge that was gathered through irrationality and has infiltrated the schools to be passed on to future generations, will be impossible.

Perhaps I have incorrectly phrased the situation.

But often I wonder what the acolytes of Richard Dawkins think they're accomplishing, other than generating anger and animosity among those they despise.

The knowledge of evolution is still out there. Every single biologist is aware of the theory. No respected university biological sciences program denies it.

So, I see the "future civilization from a base of non-knowledge" argument to be mostly moot. Human knowledge doesn't require every single individual be well versed in every theory. If it did, we'd have so much work to do on our education system to move forward that the problem would likely be insurmountable.

Evangelicals can no more change facts on the ground in the academy than the academy can change the beliefs of evangelicals.

A sharp mind interested in biological science from an evangelical upbringing should come to natural truth about the world just like a sharp mind from anywhere else. So long as information is freely available (and it still is), this is an issue of manufactured contention. If a student is so dim as to never question her teachers, the student is likely not meant to amount to much anyhow. I had teachers that taught factually incorrect information consistently. I think if we all think back on it, many of us did. I went to Catholic High School. They taught me that using condoms was a sin. I thought about that one for about five seconds and decided to violate it on my own volition. Free will. Thought.

You illustrate a dire issue. Indeed, it may be from the vantage point of separation of church and state. But from the vantage point of a nation of automatons arising from being taught BS in schools, I don't buy it. A nation of children dumb enough to take everything they're told at face value, is a nation of children to whom it does not matter what you teach.

For in that scenario, we are already doomed.

don
11-29-12, 04:04 PM
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If I claim I went to the moon, and you claim you were resurrected, the burden of proof is on us to prove our claims, not up to everyone else to disprove our claims.

Pure Essence of Faith Based, where nothing needs to be proven.


While there is no movement by scientists to force theologians, priests, ministers... to teach science in churches, synagogues etc, there has been a large movement from the anti-science people to teach false, anti-science information in science classes in our schools.

As well as supporting in a myriad of ways attempts to legislate their agenda on the rest of us.

Raz
11-29-12, 04:26 PM
I think I understand. Essentially you do not dispute evolution, or the evolution of life. You simply posit that there is a divine hand that set it in motion.

If so, that's fine. But it certainly doesn't disprove that life evolved. It is simply a belief that cannot be proved or disproved, and that has no bearing on reality.

We agree - and disagree. A theistic creation is very different from an atheistic "creation". The difference is not so much of evolution as of origin.

If life is nothing more than a cosmic accident I fail to see how it has any meaning. And I'm at a loss to explain the origin of thought - especially of those creatures of higher sentience, not to mention man - apart from the existence and impartation of a Creator. Synapses and neural pathways aren't enough.
There is no doubt that Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man but the idea of memetics seems a bit much for me, and possibly even Dawkins himself.

It is one thing to observe life and the evidence for evolution, powerful though it may be, and yet believe that it originated, i.e., came into existence completely by accident through unplanned, undesigned, unasisted abiogenesis. I'm not aware that any scientific endeavor has yet produced life from inorganic molecules.

As to "bearing on reality": you and I have very different views of reality. In my view the existence of God has every bearing on reality as Dostoyevsky's maxim implies.

Raz
11-29-12, 05:53 PM
Present archaeological, scientific proof that I didn't go to the moon last night and hold a big party with my friends.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If I claim I went to the moon, and you claim you were resurrected, the burden of proof is on us to prove our claims, not up to everyone else to disprove our claims.

I make no claim that I was resurrected. I do indeed, however, make a claim that Jesus of Nazareth was Resurrected. It is a claim that has been passed down through two milleniums from those who were eyewitnesses of His Resurrection.

This claim is not at all scientific; it is faith based. But it is based upon a reasonable faith - not blind faith. It is similar to twelve of your peers judging your guilt of a crime through accumulated evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lets do an analogy to your "moon party" last night.

Give me absolute power of life and death as that possesed by an ancient autocrat and I'll issue a bench warrant for your partygoing friends.
I'll ask each one of them if your story is true - that you held a party with them on the moon last night.

If they agree and back up your story I'll then ask them if they were willing to bet their lives on it because I don't accept it or believe it.
After I have the first one stripped naked and thrown to be eaten by lions I'll bet everything I own that the rest of your friends will rat you out.

That's what the apostles faced - yet not one of them ever denied the Resurrection, even facing death - sometimes a horrible, torturous death.



I believe you have incorrectly phrased the situation. This is not about Atheists VS Evangelicals, this is about Science VS anti-science. Science is about gaining knowledge and understanding of the world and universe around us. It uses the scientific method to gather and build on previous knowledge to achieve this goal. I have yet to see another method that can remotely come close to building an accurate knowledge base of the universe around us.

Without the benefits that science has given us, the civilization that we now live in would not be possible. The science denialists have offered no reasonable alternatives to accumulate accurate knowledge, and have at times reverted to claims that are factually wrong and have been debunked decades ago. While there is no movement by scientists to force theologians, priests, ministers... to teach science in churches, synagogues etc, there has been a large movement from the anti-science people to teach false, anti-science information in science classes in our schools. Trying to build a future nation and civilization from a base of non-knowledge that was gathered through irrationality and has infiltrated the schools to be passed on to future generations, will be impossible.

I'm not in any way anti-science so I find little or nothing you wrote here to disagree with. And being Orthodox I'm not at all sure I want Christianity or Creationism offered even as an elective. I'm certain that neither should be a required course in any public school.

But there is another side to this issue.

If you can get a majority of the voters in my state to condone procured abortion and homosexualist marriage then I can live within such laws or move to another place. The problem for me becomes acute when you seek to force me to be a participant through either (a) paying one of the bottom-feeders of the medical profession to kill a preborn child, or (b) jail me or sue me for violating the "civil rights" of a homosexualist couple when I refuse to rent an apartment to them because I cannot recognize their "marriage".

Most of these "rights" have been obtained through an activist judiciary that has circumvented and usurped the legislative power of our republic, or rather, what's left of it.

shiny!
11-29-12, 06:29 PM
If life is nothing more than a cosmic accident I fail to see how it has any meaning.


Life without meaning can still be meaningful:


<dl><dd>"In the greater scheme, in the big picture, nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no big win....

</dd><dd>... If there's no great glorious end to all this, if ... nothing we do matters ... then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today...

... All I want to do is help. I want to help because I don't think people should suffer as they do, because if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world."

(from Angel, episode "Epiphany", written by Tim Minear)
</dd></dl>

Shakespear
11-30-12, 04:45 AM
The real mystery is how a highly intelligent politician got himself into the position of suggesting that the two estimates are of equal value, or that theologians are still the best interpreters of the physical world.

No mystery to me. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It was the gradual process of reshaping the American 99% to look the other way and focus on none issues as though they were a matter of life and death issues. End result is politicians like him. Now that the 99% are fleeced the issue he is commenting on is as mute as if one were to ask why do we need water to exist.

If there was even an ounce of attention and energy spent on why it is that this country is being dragged into the debt hell decade after decade, one could argue that the American experiment succeeded. Listening to this politician I realize that far too many of the politicians (at least publicly) don't have the brains or the will to cut through the bull because they know that the crowd will simply run them over if they try. This reminds me of the crowd gathering at Victoria's Secret on Black Friday to buy what "They must have." The politician would be the one trying to tell them that they don't need half the junk they are about to buy. The experiment succeeded, for the 1%.

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnu6yZKo7u8"

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-molecule/200811/how-run-con

The grifter class is the 1% and they are damn good at it despite all the info to expose them. I suspect it is exactly BECAUSE so much information is available that they get away with it.

flintlock
11-30-12, 12:00 PM
Yeah, it just seems to me that politicians like Rubio try to play both sides of the fence and not offend anyone. "I don't know" would have been a better answer. Not many blunt and fully honest politicians out there for a reason. It doesn't work.

don
11-30-12, 12:56 PM
Historically ruling elites have used Race, Religion and Gender as trump cards in slicing and dicing the sheeple for a very long time.

Woodsman
11-30-12, 02:29 PM
Is there such proof that it did?

Woodsman
12-01-12, 11:50 AM
"Evangelicals can no more change facts on the ground in the academy than the academy can change the beliefs of evangelicals."

I used to think so, but I'm not as convinced. Consider the following from the Liberty University web site:

http://www.liberty.edu/academics/arts-sciences/biology-chemistry/index.cfm?PID=6627

----------------------

<tbody>
David DeWitt, Ph.D.

Director, Center for Creation Studies
Chair, Department of Biology & Chemistry
Professor of Biology

http://www.liberty.edu/media/1117/David-DeWitt-04.jpg


Office: Science Hall 111
Phone: (434) 582-2228
dadewitt@liberty.edu http://www.liberty.edu/wwwadmin/images/LINK_email.gif (dadewitt@liberty.edu)

Education
B.S. Michigan State University
Ph.D. Case Western Reserve University

Courses taught
CRST 290 Creation Studies
CRST 390 Creation Studies
BIOL 400 Biology Seminar
BIOL 415 Cell Biology

Professional Memberships
Creation Research Society (http://www.creationresearch.org/)
Society for Neuroscience (http://web.sfn.org/)
Virginia Academy of Sciences (http://www.vacadsci.org/)

Biography
Dr. DeWitt is a biochemist and neuroscientist whose passion is to defend creation using The Word of God. When not pointing out the flaws in Darwin's theory, Dr. DeWitt is investigating the inner workings of the brain. He recently received a large NIH grant to support his research on the causes of Alzheimer's disease. He and his wife Marci have three children.

----------------------------------------------------

</tbody>

And from the Big Paleontologist on Campus - a "young Earth creationist - there's this gem:

"Because numerous boundary-crossing taxa would have to migrate from their North American pre-Flood habitats to board the Ark and return to their same continent of origin in the post-Flood world, it is unlikely that the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary reflects the Flood/post-Flood boundary."

http://works.bepress.com/marcus_ross/11/

don
12-01-12, 02:46 PM
The banner logo of the Creation Research Society, found on the top of each page at their website, is:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...

Apparently there are scientists that can reconcile this worldview with real-world discoveries.

Raz
12-01-12, 05:00 PM
The banner logo of the Creation Research Society, found on the top of each page at their website, is:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...

Apparently there are scientists that can reconcile this worldview with real-world discoveries.

"One day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day". (2 Peter 3:8)

There are two creation narratives in the book of Genesis. A careful reading clearly shows that the sun wasn't created until the Fourth Day.
So how then can anyone claim dogmatically that a "day" as referenced in the book of Genesis is a twenty-four hour rotation of the Earth on its axis (around the sun)?

This is the foolishness of fundamentalsm: first decide what you wish to believe, and then force various texts to support it - while carefully ignoring others.

Raz
12-01-12, 11:41 PM
Is there such proof that it did?

Even if there were clear, scientific proof of the Resurrection it would still be rejected by the overwhelming majority of atheists and unbelievers living today. (St. Luke: 16:27-31)

As some will never believe a certain jury verdict some will never believe the witness of the Church no matter what. We all have a natural desire to be accountable to no one but ourselves, and the overwhelming majority of men will always prefer to be their own god, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

cmalbatros
12-02-12, 10:02 AM
Spontaneous , random creation of life is possible - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?pagewanted=all
Given the size and age of the universe and delving into quantum physics multi-universe theories anything and everything is possible.

BadJuju
12-02-12, 10:17 AM
in spite of all evidence to the contrary.



The Bible isn't evidence of a single thing except that humanity likes to create its own jailer.

Raz
12-02-12, 10:20 AM
The Bible isn't evidence of a single thing except that humanity likes to create its own jailer.

Thank you. That's clear confirmation of what I said, that most people wish to be accountable to no one, or even any ethical code but one of their own making.

Raz
12-02-12, 10:26 AM
Spontaneous , random creation of life is possible - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?pagewanted=all
Given the size and age of the universe and delving into quantum physics multi-universe theories anything and everything is possible.

From the article:

"Dr. Sutherland’s proposal has not convinced everyone. Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/new_york_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org), said the recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.” He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.” Dr. Sutherland replied that the chemical is consumed fastest in the reaction he proposes, and that since it has been detected on Titan there is no reason it should not have been present on the early earth.

If Dr. Sutherland’s proposal is correct it will set conditions that should help solve the many other problems in reconstructing the origin of life. Darwin, in a famous letter of 1871 to the botanist Joseph Hooker, surmised that life began “in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts.” But the warm little pond has given way in recent years to the belief that life began in some exotic environment like the fissures of a volcano or in the deep sea vents that line the ocean floor."

Interesting, since Genesis states that life was first created in the oceans.

Anything is "possible". But going from an ameba to Einstein purely by accident is a bit much for me.

Master Shake
12-02-12, 10:53 AM
I'm not sure why it matters what Rubio or any politician believes about the age of the earth. How does it affect his ability to address the issues of the day and do his job? When I go to a doctor, all I care about is whether he is properly trained and competent in his specialty. Whether he believes the earth is 6000 years old, or if human life begins at conception for that matter, is really not relevent.

Do I think the earth is 6000 years old? Fuck no!

Do I think all life's mysteries can be answered by application of the scientific method? Fuck no, again, because Kurt Godel proved that in his Incompleteness Theorem 80 years ago.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

LazyBoy
12-03-12, 01:23 PM
Lets do an analogy to your "moon party" last night.

Give me absolute power of life and death as that possesed by an ancient autocrat and I'll issue a bench warrant for your partygoing friends.
I'll ask each one of them if your story is true - that you held a party with them on the moon last night.

If they agree and back up your story I'll then ask them if they were willing to bet their lives on it because I don't accept it or believe it.
After I have the first one stripped naked and thrown to be eaten by lions I'll bet everything I own that the rest of your friends will rat you out.

That's what the apostles faced - yet not one of them ever denied the Resurrection, even facing death - sometimes a horrible, torturous death.

Even if I witnessed the moon party, I would lie and deny it to avoid being eaten by lions -- it's just not that important. So I don't think that's a good way to disprove something.

thriftyandboringinohio
12-03-12, 02:30 PM
I'm not sure why it matters what Rubio or any politician believes about the age of the earth. How does it affect his ability to address the issues of the day and do his job? When I go to a doctor, all I care about is whether he is properly trained and competent in his specialty. Whether he believes the earth is 6000 years old, or if human life begins at conception for that matter, is really not relevent...

I'm changing physicians right now because the last one was too devout for me.
The problem for me is an over-reliance upon magical thinking when hard work in the data might solve a problem.
I prefer my primary care physician think first and most about the medical sciences.

Same with my senior politicians - I prefer solutions rooted in provable facts more than those rooted in ancient religious texts.

don
12-03-12, 02:38 PM
I'm changing physicians right now because the last one was too devout for me.
The problem for me is an over-reliance upon magical thinking when hard work in the data might solve a problem.
I prefer my primary care physician think first and most about the medical sciences.

Same with my senior politicians - I prefer solutions rooted in provable facts more than those rooted in ancient religious texts.

+1

Master Shake
12-03-12, 03:01 PM
I'm changing physicians right now because the last one was too devout for me.
The problem for me is an over-reliance upon magical thinking when hard work in the data might solve a problem.
I prefer my primary care physician think first and most about the medical sciences.

Same with my senior politicians - I prefer solutions rooted in provable facts more than those rooted in ancient religious texts.

Too devout? Magical thinking? Oy!

If you have a chance, read Gifted Hands, the autobiography of neurosurgeon Dr. Benjamin Carson and get back to me about the disconnect between faith and medical science.

Raz
12-03-12, 04:19 PM
Even if I witnessed the moon party, I would lie and deny it to avoid being eaten by lions -- it's just not that important. So I don't think that's a good way to disprove something.


The Apostles witnessed a man being put to death. They knew he was dead. Stone, graveyard dead.
In less than forty-eight hours they were told by the women in their company that this dead man was risen. They didn't believe it.
Two of them - probably the oldest and the youngest - ran to the burial place and saw that the tomb was empty. The youngest of the two immediately believed.

Soon after the dead Man suddenly appears in their midst. He has a corporeal body, but it doesn't seem to be limited the way as is theirs. He can move through solid walls
or just disappear and reappear at will. He allows them to touch Him. They actually watch him eat fish and bread. Even Honey. He speaks to them for a period of forty days, telling them that he counts them as friends, and that He loves them.

If I witnessed this I'm confident that any fear I once had of dying would be gone. And hopefully combined with a fidelity that would prevent me from disowning this Man - and the truth of what I witnessed. Or at the very least a fear of displeasing Him by lying and betraying Him.

But that's just me.

thriftyandboringinohio
12-03-12, 04:46 PM
Too devout? Magical thinking? Oy!

If you have a chance, read Gifted Hands, the autobiography of neurosurgeon Dr. Benjamin Carson and get back to me about the disconnect between faith and medical science.

It does not surprise me you can find a good example or ten.
None the less, for technical professional services I do not expect the pairing of deep religious devotion with strong technical excellence.
Proselytizing will normally send me right out the door to a competitor.

I will read he book, though, on your recommendation.

Cheers.

Raz
12-03-12, 05:14 PM
It does not surprise me you can find a good example or ten.
None the less, for technical professional services I do not expect the pairing of deep religious devotion with strong technical excellence.
Proselytizing will normally send me right out the door to a competitor.

I will read he book, though, on your recommendation.



Cheers.

FWIW, "proselytizing" from any physician would send me out the door also.

shiny!
12-03-12, 06:04 PM
FWIW, "proselytizing" from any physician would send me out the door also.


I once went to my old family dentist for a cleaning. He waited until I had a mouth full of sharp metal implements, then he and his assistant started up with "Are you willing to accept Jesus as your Savior?"

I left and never went back. Nothing against Jesus, but I was hopping mad.

aaron
12-03-12, 06:24 PM
Dawkins teaches hate and intolerance. He likes being a starm and the Pope of Atheism. I think "scientist" is a very generous label for him at this point. He is a religious leader.

However, I do agree with many of his less-radical positions. I just do not think telling people they are idiots is productive. (Thanks to those on this board for pointing out my bad attitude) . For me, it is extremely important that we follow the U.S. Constitution. Religion should stay out of all government functions, else you end up with the Taliban. There should absolutely be NO religion in schools, including any discussions creationism, etc. That IS how the founding father's wanted it, and rightly so.

We would like the religious people to stay out of our lives. It is pretty simple. We do NOT want you guys pushing your fantasies in the national political and science discussions. I do not want to hear anything about God from any politician. It should be horrifying that anybody would even asks such an irrelevant questions of an elected representative; the idea should never have to come up.

Nobody likes to be told (or see) that their religion has no basis at all. It is tough to swallow the reality that one has been brainwashed all of their lives. If more people could see the silliness of religion and dare speak up, then perhaps we will get somewhere. However, it appears that America is going more and more towards a theocracy. While some Christians might like this now, just wait until their version of Christianity is deemed to be a terrorist organization.

My rant can be summed up as followed: Feel free to be insanely religious. Just keep it out of my life and bedroom. I do not want the government telling me what to do, nor do I want these types of nutbags running the country.

charliebrown
12-03-12, 07:17 PM
We can mock Rubio as ignorant, flat earther, anti-science yadda, yadda, yadda, but heaven help us if we ever question a politician as saying we can borrow 10% of our GDP year in and year out with no effects. That would mock the almighty Keysian god. I think Rubio is a chicken here, but why is this such a big point when there are much more important beliefs on the table.

Actually upon reflection ... Keynes believed in paying back the good money when times are good. I suppose I have besmirched his name.

lektrode
12-03-12, 08:18 PM
Dawkins teaches hate and intolerance. He likes being a starm and the Pope of Atheism. I think "scientist" is a very generous label for him at this point. He is a religious leader.

However, I do agree with many of his less-radical positions. I just do not think telling people they are idiots is productive. (Thanks to those on this board for pointing out my bad attitude) .

hang on there, mr a - i thot 'having a bad attitude' was my job....
that, and thread-killin.

;)



For me, it is extremely important that we follow the U.S. Constitution. Religion should stay out of all government functions, else you end up with the Taliban. There should absolutely be NO religion in schools, including any discussions creationism, etc.

PUBLIC schools anyway - the privates can do anything their customers want to pay for.
(adding: and vouchers ought to be the rule for those that DONT want what passes for 'education' by the publics)




That IS how the founding father's wanted it, and rightly so.

We would like the religious people to stay out of our lives. It is pretty simple. We do NOT want you guys pushing your fantasies in the national political and science discussions.


and while i wouldnt want to judge anybody based upon their faith, i dont begrudge them for it, either.
same as 'gender/preference-identity' - esp the politix of all that - it gets VERY TIRING, to hear/read about it - 24/7, from every media outlet - on a daily/continuous basis.

IMHO - this is the root of the problem - the creation, if you will - that resulted in the ascendence of the religious right (beginning in the 60's, with 'free luv' sex/drugs/rocknroll - and dont fergit diversity-worship (at any/all costs) - not that i have anything against all that, mind you - its just that as a political movement, it really does sabotage our society in the longer run - one only has to watch primetime television, or MTV - for the proof)

and the lamestream media just pounces on every opportunity to slam/bait those of religious faith, while highlighting the now-fashionable 'lifestyle evolution' being thrust upon us daily by hollywierd.inc

and they - hollywierd.inc - blames the internet for the fall-off in record/album sales, TV audience etc?
as if lack of talent/creativity (http://www.realitytvworld.com/) - wouldnt have anything to do with it.



I do not want to hear anything about God from any politician. It should be horrifying that anybody would even asks such an irrelevant questions of an elected representative; the idea should never have to come up.

+1
and a minus-1 for rubio to have even bit the bait on that one, in particular - in my mind it shows just how desparate the repubs have become, for 'relevance' (when it used to be easy, just being The Party of NO: you cant give away the treasury to get re-elected - which has all but disappeared, just having been bought off by a different set of special interests - just like The Party of Special Interests (http://www.democrats.org/), aka The Give It Away, Give It Away, Give It Away now crowd on the other side of the aisle)



.......
My rant can be summed up as followed: Feel free to be insanely religious. Just keep it out of my life and bedroom. I do not want the government telling me what to do, nor do I want these types of nutbags running the country.

+1
but we also dont want/need the other nutbag/anti-everything/luddite-brigade calling all the shots either.

lektrode
12-03-12, 08:35 PM
We can mock Rubio as ignorant, flat earther, anti-science yadda, yadda, yadda, but heaven help us if we ever question a politician as saying we can borrow 10% of our GDP year in and year out with no effects. That would mock the almighty Keysian god. I think Rubio is a chicken here,

but why is this such a big point when there are much more important beliefs on the table.

+100
because its simple cb - its called distraction from The REAL issues.
and neither religion, gender preferences nor gov-paid birth control has a GD thing to do with it!
but this tactic did just put the distractors guy back in office, so theyz winnin... (and The Rest of US are looozin, big time)

Master Shake
12-03-12, 09:39 PM
I once went to my old family dentist for a cleaning. He waited until I had a mouth full of sharp metal implements, then he and his assistant started up with "Are you willing to accept Jesus as your Savior?"

I left and never went back. Nothing against Jesus, but I was hopping mad.

I'm not talking about physicians proselytizing; who the hell would want to sit through that?! But if you found out that your otherwise excellent dentist believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible (and didn't expound upon his beliefs when you had a mouth full of metal), would you really care?

Master Shake
12-03-12, 09:43 PM
It does not surprise me you can find a good example or ten.
None the less, for technical professional services I do not expect the pairing of deep religious devotion with strong technical excellence.
Proselytizing will normally send me right out the door to a competitor.

I will read he book, though, on your recommendation.

Cheers.

As I wrote to Shiny, I'm not talking about proselytizing physicians -- who in their right mind would want to be a captive audience in that situtation? -- but a physician who had strong, "traditional" religious beliefs. Why would would that affect your decision (unless, of course the physician was a fundamentalist Muslim and you were an infidel: then all bets are off)?

lektrode
12-03-12, 10:12 PM
O&BTW - lest anyone get the wrong idea - i'm just as disgusted by the Republican Party's antics - as evidenced by mr rubio's kowtowing to the perception that all GOP voters are somehow motivated by religious concerns.

speaking as someone who calls himself a 'small-r type (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/small-r_republican)'
who still finds it amusing how this position/philosophy can be made a point of derision, by some (http://wichitaliberty.org/role-of-government/a-return-to-republican-small-r-government/)

allow me to offer an example of why, IMHO, the recent election proves my theory that The US gov is being held hostage by the beneficiaries of The Party of Special Interests - here's a book/review that i stumbled upon earlier, that makes my point far more effectively that i can and its called Spoiled Rotten (http://www.amazon.com/Spoiled-Rotten-Patronage-Democratic-ebook/dp/B005Z0JHUE)

and in only what can be described as 'damned by faint praise' - the bottom line on the description reads:

"Hard-hitting and uncompromising, Spoiled Rotten is a timely, powerful polemic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic) from a rising intellectual star."
(the hyperlink to the term above by me, to prove that point)

with the rest of the description reading why i'm of my particular POV - but the reviews/comments (http://www.amazon.com/Spoiled-Rotten-Patronage-Democratic-ebook/product-reviews/B005Z0JHUE/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1) say it all, or much better than i can...

sez the former resident of - what some of us anyway - still like to refer to as The Live Free or Die State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Free_or_Die)
and why - depsite the best efforts of some of its recent inhabitants/voters -still shows US an exampleof
The Gold Standard of how The US Gov _should_ function.


Book Description


The Democratic Party has long presented itself as the party of the poor, the working class, the little guy. As Jay Cost's sweeping revisionist history reveals, nothing could be further from the truth.


Why have the Democrats gone from being the people's party of reform to the party of special-interest carve-outs? In Spoiled Rotten, political analyst Jay Cost tells the story of the modern Democratic party from the end of the Civil War to the present, tracing the sad decline of a once noble political coalition that is no longer capable of living up to its lofty ideals.

When Andrew Jackson formed the Democratic party in 1828, he promised to stand up for the little guy against the rule of privileged elites. What has become of this promise? According to Cost, recent history has shown the Democrats to be anything but the party of and for the people. Instead, they have become a collection of special-interest groups feeding off the federal government, exchanging votes for subsidies and benefits.

With the creation of a partisan spoils system in the nineteenth century, both parties practiced the politics of patronage. But, starting with the New Deal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the power of big government to transform whole classes of society into clients of the Democratic party. Urban machines, southern segregationists, and organized labor all benefited from this approach. FDR's successors—Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter—followed suit, turning African Americans, environmentalists, feminists, government workers, teachers, and a number of other groups into loyal Democratic factions. As a result, the Democratic party has become a kind of national Tammany Hall whose real purpose is to colonize the federal government on behalf of its clients.


No longer able to govern for the vast majority of the country, the Democratic party simply taxes Middle America to pay off its clients while hiding its true nature behind a smoke screen of idealistic rhetoric. Thus, the Obama health care, stimulus, and auto bailout health care bill were created not to help all Americans but to secure contributions and votes. Average Americans need to see that whatever the Democratic party claims it is doing for the country, it is in fact governing simply for its base.

Hard-hitting and uncompromising, Spoiled Rotten is a timely, powerful polemic from a rising intellectual star.

aaron
12-03-12, 11:09 PM
You could replace everything on the amazon page, including the comments by simply replacing Republican with Democratic. And, Democratic with Republican. It would be exactly the same.

Raz
12-03-12, 11:23 PM
As I wrote to Shiny, I'm not talking about proselytizing physicians -- who in their right mind would want to be a captive audience in that situtation? -- but a physician who had strong, "traditional" religious beliefs. Why would would that affect your decision (unless, of course the physician was a fundamentalist Muslim and you were an infidel: then all bets are off)?

+1.

shiny!
12-04-12, 12:02 PM
I'm not talking about physicians proselytizing; who the hell would want to sit through that?! But if you found out that your otherwise excellent dentist believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible (and didn't expound upon his beliefs when you had a mouth full of metal), would you really care?

Not only would I not care, but as a Sikh I'm sworn to defend his freedom to worship according to his conscience. Which kinda bites when he believes I'm a godless heathen who's going to hell by not believing what he believes, and I have to defend him against religious persecution if it comes up.

Would he put his life on the line to do the same for me? Probably not.

Master Shake
12-04-12, 01:34 PM
Not only would I not care, but as a Sikh I'm sworn to defend his freedom to worship according to his conscience. Which kinda bites when he believes I'm a godless heathen who's going to hell by not believing what he believes, and I have to defend him against religious persecution if it comes up.

Would he put his life on the line to do the same for me? Probably not.

You're probably right. I think those who are most vocal about expressing their religious beliefs often come up short when it comes to living up to them. Multiple famous teevee evangelists come to mind.

lektrode
12-04-12, 02:02 PM
altho i genl'y wont disagree with that, mr a - and dont consider myself a partisan type (voted 4 johnson) my experience/observations/comparisons/contrasts with a number of states i've lived in would suggest otherwise.

Raz
12-04-12, 09:34 PM
You're probably right. I think those who are most vocal about expressing their religious beliefs often come up short when it comes to living up to them. Multiple famous teevee evangelists come to mind.

You mean, like these selfless, "devout" people?

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/tele-evangelist_lifestyles.html

WARNING: Have antacid ready - along with a barf bag.

dcarrigg
12-04-12, 11:05 PM
You mean, like these selfless, "devout" people?

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/tele-evangelist_lifestyles.html

WARNING: Have antacid ready - along with a barf bag.



This reminds me of a post you made (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/20630-CHARTS-Here-s-What-The-Wall-Street-Protesters-Are-So-Angry-About?p=212645#post212645) responding to me from about a year ago. It was one which I really appreciated, and so I've pasted the relevant part below:


As for Richard Scrushy: this is the "christianity" of Televangelism. It's really just show business, being too ridiculous and contemptable to even qualify as heresy. I've never known a true convert who didn't see himself for the mass of corruption and self-centeredness that each and every one of us truly is - to varying degrees.

Here's a theological proposition: Dickey is an embezzeler who yesterday stole a million dollars from the company he works for.
He attends a "Prayer Luncheon" where a presentation of the Gospel is made and Dickey realizes his need and "converts" by saying a Sinner's Prayer. He returns to work at 1:00 PM enraptured with his love of Christ to begin a new life, but since he's completely and totally forgiven, he sees no need to make any restitution to those he has robbed, and decides that he can keep the $1,000,000.

This is what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called "Cheap Grace". It is condemned by the Apostle in his letter to the Romans.

“Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks' wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap?...

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of His Son: "ye were bought at a price," and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered Him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/29333.Dietrich_Bonhoeffer), The Cost of Discipleship (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2723088)

charliebrown
12-05-12, 02:03 PM
In Jewish writings, forgiveness begins when the three R's are achieved.

R1=Remorse; I feel sorry for what I did.
R2=Repair; I will do my best to right the wrongs I have done (give back the 1M, also note that property crimes are easier to repair than say slander.)
R3=Repent; (means to turn, not repeat the sin again).

Slimprofits
12-05-12, 02:44 PM
altho i genl'y wont disagree with that, mr a - and dont consider myself a partisan type (voted 4 johnson) my experience/observations/comparisons/contrasts with a number of states i've lived in would suggest otherwise.

Right, you're not a partisan, because you don't always vote R, but you generalize the entire the Corporate Media Bullhorn Complex as being biased against the Republican party...

Great stuff, my man, great stuff.

lektrode
12-05-12, 05:05 PM
Right, you're not a partisan, because you don't always vote R, but you generalize the entire the Corporate Media Bullhorn Complex as being biased against the Republican party...

Great stuff, my man, great stuff.

well... thanks - i hope - but, with all due respect, sp - now i dont know if i'm being baited or made the point of derision - i just call em as eye've been seeing them for the past 35years - most of that time self-employed - and the 1/2doz states i've spent enuf time in to see how things function (or dont, as the case may be) - and if anyone thinks there's no diff?

they either havent got around very much, are fooling themselves, have been guzzlin the koolaide for too long or are a beneficiary of the Give it Away, Give it Away, Give it Away, Now party/politix.

reggie
12-05-12, 06:44 PM
OMG, fascinated to see that they employed GQ magazine and a Florida(?) politician to rekindle this dialectical "debate". Guess the public needs a little shove in the back-side in order to move us further into Scientific-subserviance (ie "Scientism").


.....A consequence of scientism is that any
critique of science can be dismissed as anti-science and such a response tends to be a
recurrent anxiety for would-be Continental philosophy of science - to the extent that
one collection, Continental Philosophy ofScience, promotes itself as refuting the view
that twentieth-century Continental thought is anti-scientific (Gutting 2005).

Nevertheless, scientism is entrenched within Western culture as a whole, as Tzvetan
Todorov has analysed it, starting:

from the hypothesis that the real world is an entirely coherent structure.... [and]
... can be known ent~rely and without residue by the human mind. The task of
acquiring such knowledge is delegated to the requisite praxis, called science. No
fragment of the material or spiritual world ... can ultimately resist the grasp of
science. (Todorov 2003: 19-20)

From the scientistic point of view, there will be 'no room for more than one version of
scientific truth; errors are many, but the truth is one, and so pluralism becomes
irrelevant.' (Todorov 2003: 21) Presupposing the distinction between scientism and
science as he does, Todorov is no more anti-science than Husserl (or Heidegger or
Nietzsche). Todorov thus echoes Nietzsche's original insight into the parallels between
science and religion, and, like Nietzsche, he valorizes the still-unfulfilled promise of
the ideal of science: '[W]hereas the general rule in scientific activity is to be as open as
possible to criticism, totalitarian societies require blind submission and the silencing of
all and any objections - just as religions do' (Todorov 2003: 20)

Philosophy of Science
Babette E. Babich


May I suggest, to those interested, revisiting the Ontological Argument started by Anselm of Canterbury n 1078, and furthered by Descartes, Leibniz and Goedel. (links follow)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof


On Edit: Found following article that provides historical overview of arguments and thinkers who have crafted them...

History of the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
http://www.ontology.co/ontological-proof.htm

lektrode
12-05-12, 08:32 PM
This reminds me of a post you made (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/20630-CHARTS-Here-s-What-The-Wall-Street-Protesters-Are-So-Angry-About?p=212645#post212645) responding to me from about a year ago. It was one which I really appreciated, and so I've pasted the relevant part below:

boy dc, i just had to say how much eye appreciate watching y'all hash this stuff out - cant even begin to keep up with it all, but i do like watching/learning from the voluminous/verbose comments.

and i still say you missed your calling sir... the art of the debate is whats really missing from modern politix and you are one of the best.

photon555
12-06-12, 02:02 AM
Spontaneous , random creation of life is possible - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?pagewanted=all
Given the size and age of the universe and delving into quantum physics multi-universe theories anything and everything is possible.

Including a Creator God named Yahweh who created the earth in six days? Did you read the article? The experiment doesn't prove random creation of life is possible. There is still the problem of one-handedness as well as the creation of the other three base pairs. After that there is the real roadblock which would be coding all the information into the RNA and then surrounding it with all the various other chemical compounds which all need to be exactly constituted. Really, I am a Christian but I don't have that much faith to buy into this idea called evolution, that is macro evolution. Micro evolution, or natural selection is a given, but it is almost always a one way street for the individual organisms involved. That is they are adapting according to their inherent coding to a subset of the overall environment but they lose fitness for any different subset of the environment.
Then there is the problem of mutations. Almost all mutations are nearly neutral, but in the aggregate they are harmful to the organism. But since they are individually nearly neutral there is no meaningful fitness penalty attributable to any specific mutation. Which means these mutations will accumulate and over time degrade the performance of the species. Evolution happens, but it happens in reverse. We are all mutants, with an accumulating burden of mutations increasing with each generation. Even if a mutation is fatal it can be passed on if the organism survives long enough to reproduce. But this is expected as a result of the implications of information theory, a very well founded branch of science and engineering. All modern (and ancient) communication systems are subject to information degradation. Information degrades over time and the process cannot be prevented. Whether the information is being stored, copied, or transmitted it degrades. The term for this is the bit error rate or BER for short. By using various schemes the BER can be reduced to an arbitrarily small number, but it can never be zero. There is no reason to suppose that organic molecules that form the basis of life are immune to this law. The implications of this are very damaging to the theory of macro evolution.
The idea of science as a monolithic structure could not be more wrong. Science is the story throughout history of individuals making contributions to human knowledge, and often as not the true pioneers have been regarded as fools. Later they are hailed as genuises. A little over a hundered years ago it was thought by many physicists that everything had been discovered, until the ultraviolent catastrophe collapsed the magnificent structure they had constructed. Out of that destruction of the then current scientific consensus came modern physics including quantum mechanics which has made possible electronics and all its applications. So today we have an elaborate structure of scientific truth, but there is data that just doesn't fit anywhere in that structure. What does it mean that comets are not dirty snowballs as so long thought. What then produces the comet's tail? What about the appearance of electric machining on the surface of comets? This data is ignored by most because it doesn't fit the current theory. Google SuperNova 1987, or SN1987. This periodic structure is supposedly caused by random collisions. Perhaps there is another explanation but it would require another revolution in cosmology, and few are willing to jeopardize their tenure or access to grants. Yes science has been politicized into a largely monolithic structure that dare not allow truly revolutionary thinking and research. Cosmology and Evolution are the two most powerful third-rails in the modern monolithic structure of science today. To even question the current reigning theories is to commit professional suicide. BTW, multi universe "theories" are pure speculation. Any cosmologist will tell you that no information can survive passing through the Big Bang or even a black hole.
Special Relativity is well established, but exactly which one of the many theories of special relativity is most congruent to reality is another matter. Anyway, the speed of light is a constant according to SR, instead of time. Now c = 1 / sqrt (epsilon 0 * mu 0 ), where epsilon 0 is the permittivity (think capacitance) of free space and mu 0 is the permeability (think inductance) of free space. The zeroes actually stand for nought, or without any coefficient. But is the speed of light a constant over time as well as space? Has the speed of light changed in the past thousand years for example? Today we measure c by relating it to the number of vibrations of a particular atom. However, I was taught in physics that atomic vibrations as well as rates of radioactive decay are dependent on c itself. The current cosmological theory states that the Big Bang happened about 15 billion years ago and that the universe has been expanding ever since. This does not mean that galaxies etc. are speeding away from each other as is the common perception; rather space itself is expanding or stretching out carrying everthing with it. So if mu and epsilon are properties of space itself or the space time continuum, do they change with the expanding/stretching out of space? If so, then c may be changing over time also. Are you interested in exploring/learning, or is the latest pronouncement from "Science" good enough for you?

Woodsman
12-06-12, 11:24 AM
I am the onetime classmate of the grandson of a world-renown televangelist (one of the first, I believe) who seems to be on the calling list of every presidential candidate since Eisenhower.

In our discussions over the years, it's clear to me that he sees no inconsistency between the lavish salaries and lifestyles afforded to his grandfather, uncle and other family members and the teachings of Christ (by way of Luther and Calvin). He is convinced that his family's wealth is evidence of his unconditional election arising out of God's irresistable grace.

When I pointed out numerous passages from the Gospels such as Matthew 19:16-30 where Jesus counsels the rich man to sell his possessions and give to the poor, he countered that Jesus also said that "What is impossible with men is possible with God" and it was only through God's grace that his family were able to amass such wealth. He added that since the largest share of that wealth goes to evangelism, it is yet more evidence of God working his will through his family and that so long as the family continues on this righteous path, then God will continue to provide them the wealth necessary for them to carry on.

don
12-06-12, 12:30 PM
I am the ontime classmate of the grandson of a world-renown televangelist (one of the first, I believe) who seems to be on the calling list of every presidential candidate since Eisenhower.

In our discussions over the years, it's clear to me that he sees no inconsistency between the lavish salaries and lifestyles afforded to his grandfather, uncle and other family members and the teachings of Christ (by way of Luther and Calvin). He is convinced that his family's wealth is evidence of his unconditional election arising out of God's irresistable grace.

When I pointed out numerous passages from the Gospels such as Matthew 19:16-30 where Jesus counsels the rich man to sell his possessions and give to the poor, he countered that Jesus also said that "What is impossible with men is possible with God" and it was only through God's grace that his family were able to amass such wealth. He added that since the largest share of that wealth goes to evangelism, it is yet more evidence of God's working his will through his family and that so long as the family continues on this righteous path, then God will continue to provide them the wealth necessary for them to carry on.

worked for them . . .


<iframe src="http://www.hulu.com/embed.html?eid=vpezyjqmevn3p54falqwba&partner=blinkx&uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ask.blinkx.com%2fwatch-video%2fcleopatra-enters%2fbxgzjb_aoy21dt8zomn9va" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="288" scrolling="no" width="512"></iframe>

shiny!
12-06-12, 12:33 PM
I am the ontime classmate of the grandson of a world-renown televangelist (one of the first, I believe) who seems to be on the calling list of every presidential candidate since Eisenhower.

In our discussions over the years, it's clear to me that he sees no inconsistency between the lavish salaries and lifestyles afforded to his grandfather, uncle and other family members and the teachings of Christ (by way of Luther and Calvin). He is convinced that his family's wealth is evidence of his unconditional election arising out of God's irresistable grace.

When I pointed out numerous passages from the Gospels such as Matthew 19:16-30 where Jesus counsels the rich man to sell his possessions and give to the poor, he countered that Jesus also said that "What is impossible with men is possible with God" and it was only through God's grace that his family were able to amass such wealth. He added that since the largest share of that wealth goes to evangelism, it is yet more evidence of God's working his will through his family and that so long as the family continues on this righteous path, then God will continue to provide them the wealth necessary for them to carry on.

Oy vey! As ridiculous and disturbing as it is, this kind of rationalizing isn't exclusive to Christianity.

I used to belong to a New Age religious/yoga cult that believed and behaved much the same as your televangelist family (in my defense I was very young when I joined, thinking it was a legitimate group). Over the years the charismatic leader focused more and more on making money. The money flowed to him at the top, of course, which he amassed for himself and bestowed upon his inner circle. We peons were told to earn and contribute as much as possible so the group could "spread the teachings (keep the money flowing upward) for humanity". Boiler rooms, telemarketing scams, gemstone investment fraud, money laundering, drug running and worse...

Most of the people far from the center worked honestly and didn't know that stuff was going on. Those near the hub actively supported the fraud (sociopaths) or rationalized and minimized it (enablers).

Even though the leader has died the cult is still around, trying to present a public image of holiness and legitimacy. But their numbers are dwindling and they're wracked with internal lawsuits, like jackals fighting over a rotting corpse.

May the realm of justice come.

reggie
12-07-12, 11:03 PM
Oy vey! As ridiculous and disturbing as it is, this kind of rationalizing isn't exclusive to Christianity.

I used to belong to a New Age religious/yoga cult that believed and behaved much the same as your televangelist family (in my defense I was very young when I joined, thinking it was a legitimate group). Over the years the charismatic leader focused more and more on making money. The money flowed to him at the top, of course, which he amassed for himself and bestowed upon his inner circle. We peons were told to earn and contribute as much as possible so the group could "spread the teachings (keep the money flowing upward) for humanity". Boiler rooms, telemarketing scams, gemstone investment fraud, money laundering, drug running and worse...

Most of the people far from the center worked honestly and didn't know that stuff was going on. Those near the hub actively supported the fraud (sociopaths) or rationalized and minimized it (enablers).

Even though the leader has died the cult is still around, trying to present a public image of holiness and legitimacy. But their numbers are dwindling and they're wracked with internal lawsuits, like jackals fighting over a rotting corpse.

May the realm of justice come.
Ever investigate who was protecting the leader of this cult?

reggie
12-08-12, 12:01 AM
And here is relevant input from Herman Weyl, a German mathematical physicist...
http://www.weylmann.com/



<tbody>
Weyl on God -- Posted on Friday, January 14 2011


http://www.weylmann.com/mindandnature.pngHermann Weyl spent much of his life examining the interconnections between mathematics, science, religion and philosophy, and many of his thoughts are summarized in three lectures he prepared in 1931-32. These lectures were subsequently incorporated into his The Open World (reprinted in Mind and Nature: Selected Writings on Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics (http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Nature-Selected-Philosophy-Mathematics/dp/0691135452/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1295064485&sr=8-2)). He begins with
A mathematician steps before you, speaks about metaphysics, and does not hesitate to use the name of God. That is an unusual practice nowadays. The mathematician, according to the ideas of the modern public, is occupied with very dry and special problems, he carries out increasingly complicated calculations and more and more intricate geometrical constructions, but he has nothing to do with those decisions in spiritual matters which are really essential for man. In other times this was different.Weyl goes on to talk about how natural philosophy (what we today call science) in the times of Aristotle, Plato, Bruno and Kepler was shaped if not controlled by religious thought and beliefs; science, then, was not to tally rational, but heavily (though not exclusively) mythological.

Weyl then speaks about the Copernican revolution, which removed the Earth from the center of the universe and set the stage for the Age of Enlightenment some centuries later, though
[through] the act of redemption by the Son of God, crucifixion and resurrection are no longer the unique cardinal point in the history of the world, but a hasty performance in a little corner of the universe repeating itself from star to star: this blasphemy displays perhaps in the most pregnant manner the precarious aspect which a theory removing the Earth from the center of the world bears for religion.Battles between science and religion were fought constantly, with many scientists (notably Giordano Bruno) coming up on the short end. But inevitably, rational science began its ascent, though initially it was still couched in religion (Kepler: ?The science of space is unique and eternal and is reflected out of the spirit of God. The fact that man may partake of it is one of the reasons why man is called the image of God?).

Weyl ultimately brings us to the era of Einstein's relativity theory, which Weyl sees akin to the "finger of God in Nature" to "those of us who are Christians and not heathens," writing that The world is not a chaos, but a cosmos harmoniously ordered by inviolable mathematical laws. Weyl goes on to say
Thus the mere postulation of the external world does not really explain what it was supposed to explain, namely, the fact that I, as a perceiving and acting being, find myself placed in such a world; the question of its reality is inseparably connected with the question of the reason for its lawful mathematical harmony. But this ultimate foundation for the ratio governing the world, we can find only in God; it is one side of the Divine Being. Thus the ultimate answer lies beyond all knowledge, in God alone; flowing down from him, consciousness, ignorant of its own origin, seizes upon itself in analytic self-penetration, suspended between subject and object, between meaning and being.Many scientists today unabashedly describe themselves as atheists. In The Open World, Weyl makes it clear that he was not one of them. To me personally, it provides hope that one day science and religion will be spoken of as one.

Finally, Weyl finishes his book with this:
Many people think that modern science is far removed from God. I find, on the contrary, that it is much more difficult today for the knowing person to approach God from history, from the spiritual side of the world, and from morals; for there we encounter the suffering and evil in the world which it is difficult to bring into harmony with an all-merciful and all-mighty God. In this domain we have evidently not yet succeeded in raising the veil with which our human nature covers the essence of things. But in our knowledge of physical nature we have penetrated so far that we can obtain a vision of the flawless harmony which is in conformity with sublime reason. Here is neither suffering nor evil nor deficiency, but perfection only.In this week of horror in Tucson and countless other heartless places on this planet, Weyl's words provide hope that God-given reason may still guide us witless humans.

</tbody>

shiny!
12-08-12, 12:28 AM
Ever investigate who was protecting the leader of this cult?

Oh, yeah. It was run like a little mafia. They had and still have a lot of politicians in bed with them: governors, senators, judges, state police and attorney general offices, state Democratic machines, even Republicans if it made a good photo opportunity. All were wined, dined and infiltrated. There are other forums that exist to expose their crimes. PM me if you want a link.

reggie
12-10-12, 04:00 PM
Oh, yeah. It was run like a little mafia. They had and still have a lot of politicians in bed with them: governors, senators, judges, state police and attorney general offices, state Democratic machines, even Republicans if it made a good photo opportunity. All were wined, dined and infiltrated. There are other forums that exist to expose their crimes. PM me if you want a link. I'm going to bet that the leader of this cult was/is a relative of a high ranking military official or intelligence operative. I'll PM you for more, but I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know (here) if I'd win this bet.

charliebrown
12-10-12, 04:27 PM
When science finally asecnds the mountain of truth it will find religion patiently waiting for it. - Jastrow.

All of this arguing about how old the earth is and did a supernatural being have a hand in it. How does it help us? What does it matter?
So much of the arguing seems to be those who want no god so they have no one to ultimately answer to, or those leaders trying to build their power base. We have a duty to help those in need. That will lead to a fulfilling life regardless of how old the earth is.

As a scientist I am curious though, how it all came to be.

reggie
12-10-12, 05:04 PM
When science finally descends the mountain of truth it will find religion patiently waiting for it. - Jastrow.

All of this arguing about how old the earth is and did a supernatural being have a hand in it. How does it help us? What does it matter?
So much of the arguing seems to be those who want no god so they have no one to ultimately answer to, or those leaders trying to build their power base. We have a duty to help those in need. That will lead to a fulfilling life regardless of how old the earth is.

As a scientist I am curious though, how it all came to be.
I think Thomas Kuhn got it right, showing how science, as a social endeavor, follows a path marked not by an even continuity of small steps, but by great leaps forward interspersed with plateaus. Now, these great leaps have given us the sciences such as Quantum Mechanics and Cybernetics, where the big questions aren't asked and outcomes are based upon probabilistic theory and statistics.

I think Greg Chaitim (IBM) has got it right in this video, we're largely failing to ask the big questions anymore, or ignoring the failability of our own systems, instead pursuing that which supports the development and societal deployment of "technological toys" (my words)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4jSXg-0ES8

And by the way, Ian Hutchinson (MIT Physicist) has got an excellent book (as well as some blog articles and video presentations) out on the matter of Science's attempt to "Monopolize Knowledge". You can start at:
http://biologos.org/blog/monopolizing-knowledge-part-1-science-and-scientism

shiny!
12-10-12, 06:15 PM
I'm going to bet that the leader of this cult was/is a relative of a high ranking military official or intelligence operative. I'll PM you for more, but I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know (here) if I'd win this bet.

What a smart bunny!

Yogi Bhajan was an Indian Customs official who immigrated to the US and formed a cult called 3HO (Happy Healthy Holy Organization). I can't say with certainty that he was an intelligence operative, but James Jesus Angleton's wife and two daughters were among his earliest followers. Make of it what you will.

reggie
12-13-12, 09:38 PM
What a smart bunny!

Yogi Bhajan was an Indian Customs official who immigrated to the US and formed a cult called 3HO (Happy Healthy Holy Organization). I can't say with certainty that he was an intelligence operative, but James Jesus Angleton's wife and two daughters were among his earliest followers. Make of it what you will.
Yup, same drill as Jim Jones and a host of other creeps intel agencies deploy as deep cover to ponerize society through a host of obnoxious and illegal activities...

James Jesus Angleton (December 9, 1917 – May 12, 1987) was chief of the CIA's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) counterintelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterintelligence) (CI) staff from 1954 to 1975. His official position within the organization was "Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counterintelligence (ADDOCI)".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jesus_Angleton

Woodsman
12-14-12, 08:55 AM
Ponerize? Sorry, what's that?

DSpencer
12-14-12, 12:57 PM
Present archeological, scientific proof that the Resurrection never happened.



But why do you choose to believe this particular faith? Why not Buddhism or Hinduism or Judaism, etc? Would I be going out on a limb to guess that you were raised in a Christian environment? That your parents were Christian?

I have talked to devout followers of several religions and they all believe that their faith in particular has some unique feature that makes it the only plausible religion. That somehow their religious texts are more compelling or that something in their life is proof of their correct faith. Yet by "coincidence" in the vast majority of cases, it happens to be the same religion they were taught as a child by their parents. Many of the rest adopt the religion of their significant other.

I consider myself agnostic and find it hard to accept the beliefs of hardcore religious people as well as hardcore atheists. There simply isn't a compelling answer available for the most fundamental of questions about how the universe started and why we exist. Contrary to what some in this thread suggest, I have no desire to reject a God so that I can live by my own rules. On the contrary it would be quite comforting to believe in the possibility of everlasting peace and joy. Who wouldn't like to believe that? I simply and quite desperately want to know the truth because it seems rather important. Unfortunately, I expect to never know.

BadJuju
12-14-12, 01:02 PM
Present archeological, scientific proof that the Resurrection never happened.



Since the Bible is the one making the argument that it happened, then the burden of proof is on it. And there isn't any. It is a book of lies and fairy tales.

Raz
12-14-12, 02:52 PM
Since the Bible is the one making the argument that it happened, then the burden of proof is on it. And there isn't any. It is a book of lies and fairy tales.

Upon what facts do you make such an assertion?

charliebrown
12-14-12, 03:00 PM
Ouch Juju ...

There are extra biblical records of Jesus. Some people consider these fake, others do not. These people were not kind to Jesus but do confirm that he existed,
and some of the biblical narrative is true. Josephus is one, Tacitus is another and there are a few others.

The philosophy of history in the anceint world is different than today. Today the main thrust of history is accuracy, who, what, when, recording like a camera would. Ancient history focuses more on the why. It was 'OK' to distort the facts if it explains why and why this event is significant. I believe Josephus described the same event for different audiences and changed some of the historical facts, but that was considered acceptable in the ancient world, the message was what was important.

I am a believer in Jesus being the physical manifestation of God. I have a thesistic mind set. So when something wonderful happens to me I try to explain it with God's providence. I suppose if I had an agnostic or atesistic mind set, I would say it was chance etc. The writers of the biblical text where also of a thesitic bent. If something happened to them they attributed to God's providence, and not random chance etc.

Take the miracle of turning the Nile to blood. Today skeptics say that a volcano erupted and filled the river with ash. That may be true and I will not deny that, but the fact that it happened when it was needed, ... was that the finger of God or the finger of chance?

I have had something wonderful happen in my life that was extreemely low probability occur within a day of a strange angel seeing lady who told me "As proof of an angel watching over you, something unexplainable will happen to you tomorrow". Yes it could be chance albiet very low, but why the day after a chance encounter with an angel seeing lady? The finger of chance or the finger of God ???

I do not besmirch you Juju. I believed as a child, lost my faith for many years after I was re-edjucated by science at the university, then refound my faith on 9/11/2001. Out of evil, God can make good ... Please be careful when you insult people's holy book. I am sorry if any members of my faith have treated you
poorly.

reggie
12-14-12, 06:48 PM
Upon what facts do you make such an assertion? Tell me, do you think "science" is any more fact based? Ultimately, ALL of it is based in faith.... science, mathemetics, God.

reggie
12-14-12, 06:57 PM
Ponerize? Sorry, what's that? When something or someone has become "Ponerized" in its strictest sense, it means that the person or group can no longer make the distinction between healthy and pathological thought processes and logic. One is no longer able to draw a line between correct thinking and deviate thinking. So, when you ponerize society you make it deviant, and therefore less likely to operate in accordance with established rules, hence, making it easier manipulate. Love your avatar, by the way :)

aaron
12-15-12, 03:16 AM
Since the Bible is the one making the argument that it happened, then the burden of proof is on it. And there isn't any. It is a book of lies and fairy tales.

There are definitely fairy tales in there. They are the as means of educating people. Most could not read. These stories had to be read aloud or by memory. And, they had to be interesting, no? We teach morals with Hollywood movies these days. They did it with stories.

Jesus did exist. This is historical fact.

And, if our "Christian" country actually followed his teachings, we would be in a lot better place. Which makes me hate religion even more since it is all hypocritical nonsense.

aaron
12-15-12, 03:20 AM
Tell me, do you think "science" is any more fact based? Ultimately, ALL of it is based in faith.... science, mathemetics, God.

Science explains things,not everything of course, but many things. You can see it. You can feel it. You can experiment with it.
I am not sure what your point is. You have mentioned science before without explanation. It can and should have nothing to do with religion. Are you just calling it another religion?

BadJuju
12-15-12, 10:04 AM
Ouch Juju ...


I am sorry, charlie, but Raz just brings out a bad side in me. I am usually much more restrained, but sometimes he just really gets under my skin with his comments and if it comes at the wrong time, I just get angry. So I apologize.

shiny!
12-15-12, 01:15 PM
I am sorry, charlie, but Raz just brings out a bad side in me. I am usually much more restrained, but sometimes he just really gets under my skin with his comments and if it comes at the wrong time, I just get angry. So I apologize.

If I may (gingerly) step in this minefield, I'd like to tell you a story. I am not a Christian, I'm a Sikh. That's neither here nor there, except I've experienced more than my share of condescension and rudeness from Christians who felt it was their place to tell me I was going to hell if I didn't believe as they did. Not all Christians are like that, but the ones that are sort of make me gunshy of the others. I've also known a few Christians who really walk their talk, and do a lot more walking than talking. Truly loving people. But overall I avoided the card-carrying, hardcore Christians for many years. I mistrusted them.

Then I got cancer. It was an enlightening experience. Many of my non-Christian friends were not there for me. They judged me, blamed me for being sick. Told me in various ways that I must have brought it on myself through either lifestyle choices or mental attitiude. The nearest I could figure out, they were scared to death of getting cancer themselves. They thought if they could pin the blame on me rather than think it was out of my control, then they might be able to live "better" and control their own outcome- not get cancer. Magical thinking. Not kind at all.

At that time I belonged to a local rose society- a gardening club. Most of those people were Christians, a lot of them what we would call rednecks. Good, countrified dirt gardeners with hick accents. Churchgoing folk. Without fail, they were there for me. Offering me help, offering me food, offering to pray... It forever changed my opinion of conservative Christians.

Raz and I don't see eye to eye on religion, but I know him to be kind and respect him for being principle-centered. I would feel safe having him for a neighbor, and I think that if TSHTF he would have my back as I would have his. I can't say the same for many people who may seem to be nicer but are actually driven by fear and anger.

reggie
12-15-12, 05:52 PM
Science explains things,not everything of course, but many things. You can see it. You can feel it. You can experiment with it. I am not sure what your point is. You have mentioned science before without explanation. It can and should have nothing to do with religion. Are you just calling it another religion? Do me a favor, DEFINE "science" for all of us. And, also tell me this, does "science", whatever that is, actually move humanity closer to "TRUTH"? (ie. the Karl Popper view)

Raz
12-15-12, 07:08 PM
I am sorry, charlie, but Raz just brings out a bad side in me. I am usually much more restrained, but sometimes he just really gets under my skin with his comments and if it comes at the wrong time, I just get angry. So I apologize.

I'm sorry if I've offended you. It was certainly not my intention.

You have made statements concerning homosexuality that were not fact-based. I put forth facts that you probably didn't like.
Same with other issues of a moral character such as abortion. You were completely and totally wrong concerning the physiology of the unborn.
I'm sorry if that offended you but I could not allow such misinformation to go unchallenged.

I've been wrong before about some things and will almost certainly be wrong again. I had to learn to cope with that without taking it personaly.

Once again I apologize if in any way I personaly hurt your feelings. That was never my intention.

BadJuju
12-15-12, 07:24 PM
I'm sorry if I've offended you. It was certainly not my intention.



No, I was not wrong. I have not once been wrong in our arguments. And no amount of apologizing or whatever you say about being inoffensive will not change the fact that you are offensive to me. Your intention is to live in the stone age and to keep people in their 'proper place' as defined by your insane religion.

aaron
12-15-12, 07:38 PM
I think you are equating science to a religion. In my mind, one deals with the material world and one does not.

And look, the real definition agrees:

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

And, yes, I think it does move you closer to the "truth". It helps to eliminate the impossible and unlikely. It allows you to focus more on the real spiritual questions. Entire societies have been built around such silly ideas as sacrificing people to the sun god. They collapsed and died. Science can show us these mistakes. It frees us to follow better spiritual endeavors, no? It also allows millions of people more time to follow spiritual pursuits as well.

there is something about humans... something empty that drives us to fill this spiritual void. It can be filled with virtually anything, it seems. I think science helps keep those voids from being filled with damaging beliefs.

Raz
12-15-12, 08:37 PM
No, I was not wrong. I have not once been wrong in our arguments. And no amount of apologizing or whatever you say about being inoffensive will not change the fact that you are offensive to me. Your intention is to live in the stone age and to keep people in their 'proper place' as defined by your insane religion.

When I was twenty-something I felt much the same as you. Hopefully you will learn that insulting someone doesn't prove them wrong.
And yes, you were indeed clearly proven wrong in your assertions of a fetus being "part of a woman's body". Period.
You were also shown to be clearly wrong that "science has proven homosexuality is genetically determined".

You are offended by the truth and there isn't anything I can do about that. You will just have to be offended.

BadJuju
12-15-12, 08:41 PM
When I was twenty-something I felt much the same as you. Hopefully you will learn that insulting someone doesn't prove them wrong.
And yes, you were indeed clearly proven wrong in your assertions of a fetus being "part of a woman's body". Period.

You are offended by the truth and there isn't anything I can do about that. You will just have to be offended.


Inasmuch being proven wrong involves you citing your fictional book and other non-scientific babble.

Raz
12-15-12, 08:47 PM
Inasmuch being proven wrong involves you citing your fictional book and other non-scientific babble.

I never once used any biblical text in the aforementioned points concerning abortion or homosexuality.

Your memory needs refreshing - go back and re-read my posts.

BadJuju
12-15-12, 08:48 PM
I never once used any biblical text in the aforementioned points concerning abortion or homosexuality.

Your memory needs refreshing - go back and re-read my posts.


Which is why I also mentioned 'other non-scientific babble.' I already went over this in that other thread. Also, all of your views are entirely influenced by that stupid bible of yours. Your sub-human views of homosexuality and your non-scientific views of the fetus and its relation to a woman.

Raz
12-15-12, 08:55 PM
Which is why I also mentioned 'other non-scientific babble.' I already went over this in that other thread. Also, all of your views are entirely influenced by that stupid bible of yours. Your sub-human views of homosexuality and your non-scientific views of the fetus and its relation to a woman.

Please explain to me how a male fetus (Y chromasomes) with a different blood type is part of a woman's body. The mixing of those two blood types would cause death.
You are the one putting forth "non-scientific babble" - not me. Go ahead: put forth your argument based only upon human anatomy and physiology.

Facts, please.

aaron
12-16-12, 03:36 AM
I would like to jump in:
Raz, you use these forums to preach. Many of us do not like it. There are many times I wanted to tell you to go f' yourself. If you want to bring up your religion all the damn time, then please pick the rant and rave forum. Every damn time you contribute to a thread with your personal nonsensical beliefs, they should, per itulip, be sent to the abyss. I have held back many times because of this. You are always derailing threads. It is uncool.

I find your preaching and personal fantasies to be extremely offensive as well. Stop the proselytizing. They have other forums for that.

shiny!
12-16-12, 12:32 PM
Possible genetic link found for homosexuality:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/being-born-gay-isnt-your-genes-its-them

================

A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1887219

Science. 1991 Aug 30;253(5023):1034-7.
A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men.
LeVay S.
Source

Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, CA 92186.
Abstract

The anterior hypothalamus of the brain participates in the regulation of male-typical sexual behavior. The volumes of four cell groups in this region [interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH) 1, 2, 3, and 4] were measured in postmortem tissue from three subject groups: women, men who were presumed to be heterosexual, and homosexual men. No differences were found between the groups in the volumes of INAH 1, 2, or 4. As has been reported previously, INAH 3 was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women. It was also, however, more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men. This finding indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.

vinoveri
12-16-12, 02:16 PM
I would like to jump in:
Raz, you use these forums to preach. Many of us do not like it. There are many times I wanted to tell you to go f' yourself. If you want to bring up your religion all the damn time, then please pick the rant and rave forum. Every damn time you contribute to a thread with your personal nonsensical beliefs, they should, per itulip, be sent to the abyss. I have held back many times because of this. You are always derailing threads. It is uncool.

I find your preaching and personal fantasies to be extremely offensive as well. Stop the proselytizing. They have other forums for that.

You guys could really do well to chillax. Those are pretty mean words, dude.
Grow a thicker skin if it bothers you and stop being a bunch of cry baby whiners. If you don't like someone's views then ignore them, but don't bother the rest of us trying to engage in civil discussion with your childish temper tantrums b/c you don't agree with someone. With all do respect, it is your intolerance that is the problem here and in the general world of those who think themselves "open minded", but just revert to name calling and anger when they can't get someone to agree with them.

Geez iTulip, where's the bouncer?

radon
12-16-12, 03:41 PM
Present archeological, scientific proof that the Resurrection never happened.



Even if you could prove a negative of this sort, science doesn't deal with proof. While it is convenient from a rhetorical standpoint to set someone an impossible task, in this case it represents a profound misunderstanding of the nature of science and its methods.

radon
12-16-12, 03:52 PM
Tell me, do you think "science" is any more fact based? Ultimately, ALL of it is based in faith.... science, mathemetics, God.

Science requires no faith whatsoever. One of the points of scientific method it to remove human predispositions from the process of observation. Mathematicians in particular loath to accept anything without the rigors of proof. Faith indeed.

lektrode
12-16-12, 03:56 PM
If I may (gingerly) step in this minefield, I'd like to tell you a story. ...
...
Then I got cancer. It was an enlightening experience. Many of my non-Christian friends were not there for me. They judged me, blamed me for being sick. Told me in various ways that I must have brought it on myself through either lifestyle choices or mental attitiude. The nearest I could figure out, they were scared to death of getting cancer themselves. They thought if they could pin the blame on me rather than think it was out of my control, then they might be able to live "better" and control their own outcome- not get cancer. Magical thinking. Not kind at all.

At that time I belonged to a local rose society- a gardening club. Most of those people were Christians, a lot of them what we would call rednecks. Good, countrified dirt gardeners with hick accents. Churchgoing folk. Without fail, they were there for me. Offering me help, offering me food, offering to pray... It forever changed my opinion of conservative Christians.

Raz and I don't see eye to eye on religion, but I know him to be kind and respect him for being principle-centered. I would feel safe having him for a neighbor, and I think that if TSHTF he would have my back as I would have his. I can't say the same for many people who may seem to be nicer but are actually driven by fear and anger.

+1
altho not a religious sort - but was 'raised catholic' (as mom tried to be a good irish-catholic wife), i'm more of a 'pagan' myself (believe in 'the gods' and the natural world's 'power', vs the 'supreme being' - not that i'm a dis-believer, but lets just say i havent seen much proof of 'the existence') - that said, i'd much rather put my trust in those that have faith and believe in PRINCIPALS like moral/ethical behavior - in my mind, those that practice religious faith are generally more trustworty (not all mind you - the mega-church hucksters should be regulated IMHO, to protect their sheep-like followers from getting sucked into their money grubbing activities)

my anecdotal toe-tip into the minefield goes something like this...

when riding the chairlifts in the rockies, one meets quite a range of people - from all over the world, to all over the religious/non spectrum - and this is what i have observed: the 'bible thumpers' (as my pals in CO call em) who show up from mostly the midwest/texas etc at certain resorts (where skiing is The Thing, vs the 'retail therapy' shopping mall syndrome-themed resorts) are the nicest, most-open/least-guarded, talkative/cheerful and FRIENDLY people i meet - contrast this with the typical chairlift rider from the shoppingmall-themed resort$ (like say, oh i dunno - Vail (http://www.vail.com/lodging-and-dining/lodging-and-dining-home.aspx), for instance) - where one will typically be exposed to 'big city' types from back east - who are more rude, less inclined or simply dont want to chitchat or worse, while riding a 4 or 6pack chair, get all huffy/bent outa shape if one should interject into their converstation - sorry, but in my little mind, if one wants to have a _private_ chat one shouldnt expect the rest of the passengers to butt out - esp within the 'intimate confines' of a 6pack detachable - its the height of arrogance, IMHO and seems to come esp from the new york crowd that shows up at this sort of resort - dont notice it so much west of the rockies tho

my .02: it takes all kinds to make a civil society, but give me country folk - religious or otherwise - any time:


<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iwKht1_SyXU" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

radon
12-16-12, 04:06 PM
Do me a favor, DEFINE "science" for all of us. And, also tell me this, does "science", whatever that is, actually move humanity closer to "TRUTH"? (ie. the Karl Popper view)

If you think the purpose of science is to bring truth as put forth by your deity of choice to humanity you are mistaken. Maybe you could try wikipedia for a primer on science and why it works.

radon
12-16-12, 04:14 PM
Please explain to me how a male fetus (Y chromasomes) with a different blood type is part of a woman's body. The mixing of those two blood types would cause death.
You are the one putting forth "non-scientific babble" - not me. Go ahead: put forth your argument based only upon human anatomy and physiology.

Facts, please.

That a zygote is somehow objectively better than any of the other millions of cells I shed every day is the height of human conceit.

lektrode
12-16-12, 04:16 PM
There are definitely fairy tales in there. They are the as means of educating people. Most could not read. These stories had to be read aloud or by memory. And, they had to be interesting, no? We teach morals with Hollywood movies these days. ....

now thats a stretch, mr a.
seems to me whats being 'learned' from (most) of hollywierd is anything BUT 'moral'
would go so fars to say that its the primary reason/focus of why the true stone-age types (over there in the middle east)
are trying to take us out

just sayin.

vinoveri
12-16-12, 04:22 PM
Science requires no faith whatsoever. One of the points of scientific method it to remove human predispositions from the process of observation. Mathematicians in particular loath to accept anything without the rigors of proof. Faith indeed.

Regarding mathematics, all mathematical systems and constructs are based on a set of "axioms" which are assumptions/postulates/first principles that are taken "on faith" in order to derive and get value from the mathematical system. There is of course nothing wrong with this; in fact it is a requirement to move forward with the math system. Are you familiar with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems ?

Regarding physics/science, "there is order to the universe" and "rigorous application of the scientific method will lead to discovery and understanding of nature and its rules" are 2 examples, both of which are true of course, of the "taking it as self-evident truths" or faith. The mind would not even embark on the hypothesis/experiment/conclusion unless it believed in the order of the universe and reproducibility of results to begin with.

radon
12-16-12, 05:51 PM
Regarding mathematics, all mathematical systems and constructs are based on a set of "axioms" which are assumptions/postulates/first principles that are taken "on faith" in order to derive and get value from the mathematical system. There is of course nothing wrong with this; in fact it is a requirement to move forward with the math system. Are you familiar with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems ?


This is precisely why I used the word loath. Definitions, certain degenerate cases, decidability in large systems can all be used as examples where proof is not possible. But equating the acceptance of a set of sometimes arbitrary definitions with an act of faith in the religious sense is a bit of a stretch. We might as well call coming to a consensus on spelling an act of faith. Besides if mathematicians enjoyed relying on faith they wouldn't waste lifetimes reducing the number of axioms or proving the obvious.



Regarding physics/science, "there is order to the universe" and "rigorous application of the scientific method will lead to discovery and understanding of nature and its rules" are 2 examples, both of which are true of course, of the "taking it as self-evident truths" or faith. The mind would not even embark on the hypothesis/experiment/conclusion unless it believed in the order of the universe and reproducibility of results to begin with.

I'm not sure I understand your point. It would be perfectly reasonable to reject these things if the observable universe proved otherwise.

Raz
12-16-12, 06:22 PM
I would like to jump in:
Raz, you use these forums to preach. Many of us do not like it. There are many times I wanted to tell you to go f' yourself. If you want to bring up your religion all the damn time, then please pick the rant and rave forum. Every damn time you contribute to a thread with your personal nonsensical beliefs, they should, per itulip, be sent to the abyss. I have held back many times because of this. You are always derailing threads. It is uncool.

I find your preaching and personal fantasies to be extremely offensive as well. Stop the proselytizing. They have other forums for that.

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words. I didn't re-animate the discussion. I was perfectly willing to let it die.

If you will go back and read the posts you won't find me citing scripture or any theologians concerning preborn humans or homosexuality.
My arguments were based entirely upon human embriology.


I'll take your criticisms to heart, though and accept that my opinions are not valid in the politically correct world of compassionate, tolerant atheism.

I'll try to read only EJ, bart and Finster and keep my ignorant, uninformed, stupid "bible-thumping" opinions to myself.

reggie
12-16-12, 08:15 PM
Science requires no faith whatsoever. One of the points of scientific method it to remove human predispositions from the process of observation. Mathematicians in particular loath to accept anything without the rigors of proof. Faith indeed.
Oi vey! You have been successfully brainwashed. Which "Institution" did this to you? I'm especially dismayed with your characterization of mathematics and mathemeticians, especially given incompletenes proven in 1925.

If Scientism-bots are going to populate this thread with such mindless programming, fine. But don't expect to be treated kindly when you demonstrate such limited knowledge of history, especially when it comes to the discussion of science and faith. Robert Boyle's a great place to start, you know, the Boyles Law guy. He wrote a book on the subject and developed at least 8-dfferent definitions of science in his process to deal with this question.

I'll post a video presentation by MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson if I can find it, as he just published a book also dealing with this subject matter, "Monopolizing Knowledge", and discusses how "Scientism" was considered a religion and evolved out of religious doctrine.

On Edit: As just one bizarre example, Science can not tell us what Time is or whether it even exists as humans perceive it. If you buy into Einstein's Theory of Relativity, then Time does NOT exist, and is merely a human perception of frequency, which certainly does NOT "remove it from Human predispositions." So, if Time doesn't exist, how does one even start to explain Theories of Evolution?

Like I said earlier in the thread, I'm with Thomas Kunh.... science makes leaps that may or not be based upon previous findings, and certainly does not necessarily bring humanity any closer to Truth. It does, however, facilitate the development of kewel little toys in the form of technology, too bad most of this is deployed for the purpose of social control which is undectable by just about everyone.

Woodsman
12-16-12, 11:12 PM
Thanks for the clarification. I haven't encountered this term before. As for the avatar, it is "The Woodsman" by Ivan Kramskoi. He was an artist of the Peredvizhniki or "Wanderers" movement in late 19th Century Russia. I'm mad about Russian art.

Woodsman
12-19-12, 01:05 AM
Read this again today and immediately thought of you, Raz. I must say, I admit to sometimes being put off by your POV too, but I've never been more put off than I was by how you were treated. It seems like a decidedly uncharacteristic moment here behind the iTulip paywall and I didn't like it at all. I don't recall seeing any rule or warning that the theistic viewpoint is not welcome here. FWIW, I think there's room enough here for theistic, atheistic, and pantheistic viewpoints informing our conversations. The way I see it, iTulip is "about" earning and keeping wealth and how to navigate the uncertain times ahead and it would be a poorer place if we have to tiptoe around some of the more contentious areas of debate. But I'm just a newbie 99%er, so what do I know?

Still, it makes me wonder when I will set off the tripwire and go BOOM. Me, I'm a wobbly agnostic that leans more towards the "perennial theology" so I doubt it will be god-talk that gets me tossed. But it's never been clearer to me that every community has its orthodoxy and woe to us who run afoul of it. And damn if I don't always do.

Between Heaven & Hell (http://books.google.com/books?id=AVsioWi57BoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0877843899&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DjTRUO31FJDg8ASh44HoCw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Raz
12-19-12, 01:11 AM
I would like to jump in:
Raz, you use these forums to preach. Many of us do not like it. There are many times I wanted to tell you to go f' yourself. If you want to bring up your religion all the damn time, then please pick the rant and rave forum. Every damn time you contribute to a thread with your personal nonsensical beliefs, they should, per itulip, be sent to the abyss. I have held back many times because of this. You are always derailing threads. It is uncool.

I find your preaching and personal fantasies to be extremely offensive as well. Stop the proselytizing. They have other forums for that.

Aaron, I'd like to jump back in, specifically to your assertion that I "highjacked" this thread. Please take this hyperlink back to the original post; read it; denote the topic; then tell me just precisely how I took the thread completely off topic. http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/showthread.php?p=244002#poststop

You have every right to disagree with my views. You do not have the right to curse me, insult me and LIE about me.

"Stop the proselytizing". Why don't you stop the lying? I did not tell you or anyone else that "you need Jesus". I did not try to convince you or your friends to become Orthodox Christians. "Stop the proselytizing" to people like you apparently means that I have no right to my opinions on archaelogy, evolution, human embriology, abortion or anything other than the price of gold because you disagree with them or find them offensive. Well I find some of the opinions on this forum to be grossly, sickeningly offensive, but I don't demand that they be removed or insult and curse those who hold them.

Try the ignore setting if you don't want to read my posts. You're NOT the iTulip censor.

Raz
12-19-12, 01:25 AM
Read this again today and immediately thought of you, Raz. I must say, I admit to sometimes being put off by your POV too, but I've never been more put off than I was by how you were treated. It seems like a decidedly uncharacteristic moment here behind the iTulip paywall and I didn't like it at all. I don't recall seeing any rule or warning that the theistic viewpoint is not welcome here. FWIW, I think there's room enough here for theistic, atheistic, and pantheistic viewpoints informing our conversations. The way I see it, iTulip is "about" earning and keeping wealth and how to navigate the uncertain times ahead and it would be a poorer place if we have to tiptoe around some of the more contentious areas of debate. But I'm just a newbie 99%er, so what do I know?

Still, it makes me wonder when I will set off the tripwire and go BOOM. Me, I'm a wobbly agnostic that leans more towards the "perennial theology" so I doubt it will be god-talk that gets me tossed. But it's never been clearer to me that every community has its orthodoxy and woe to us who run afoul of it. And damn if I don't always do.

Between Heaven & Hell (http://books.google.com/books?id=AVsioWi57BoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0877843899&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DjTRUO31FJDg8ASh44HoCw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Thank you, Woodsman. If I've ever offended you it wasn't my intention. And it isn't a requirement for my friendship that you or anyone else agree with me.
I have great respect for almost everyone on iTulip and have learned more from the members here - some of them agnostic/atheist - than I've ever been able to contribute.

My wife once told me that she didn't take too seriously the opinions of anyone under the age of thirty. I'm now in complete agreement with her.
It was for a very good reason that the Founders insisted that no one could be a Senator before attaining the age of thirty years - and thirty-five for the President.

Prazak
12-19-12, 01:10 PM
Thank you, Woodsman. If I've ever offended you it wasn't my intention. And it isn't a requirement for my friendship that you or anyone else agree with me.
I have great respect for almost everyone on iTulip and have learned more from the members here - some of them agnostic/atheist - than I've ever been able to contribute.

My wife once told me that she didn't take too seriously the opinions of anyone under the age of thirty. I'm now in complete agreement with her.
It was for a very good reason that the Founders insisted that no one could be a Senator before attaining the age of thirty years - and thirty-five for the President.


Right your wife is, Mr. Raz.

And echoing Woodman here. I may view the cosmos differently than you and come out in a different place on various human struggles. But I respect your point of view, and always take the time to read what you write. And I appreciate the charts you post here -- which is the heart of what this site about.

One of the best things about iTulip is that it provides a kind of DMZ where people of many different opinions can exchange viewpoints on subjects from soup to nuts. How many such places exist in this polarized culture, where we wall ourselves off into self-ratifying communities of opinion and values (and increasingly, facts)? Let's not let it devolve into yet another forum of intolerant people banging past each other at their respective dogma, or to become another bubble in which only one point of view is recognized as legitimate.

DSpencer
12-19-12, 03:37 PM
That a zygote is somehow objectively better than any of the other millions of cells I shed every day is the height of human conceit.

I agree with most of your comments in this thread, but this is a pretty nihilistic viewpoint. Surely if you value human life in general then there is a higher value in the cells that naturally turn into humans as opposed to those that fall onto the ground and turn to dust? Is there ever a point where the cells making up a living human are objectively better than those sloughed onto the ground?

Do you value you all the cells in your body equally? Would you be indifferent to losing the 2.5 million red blood cells in a half pint of blood vs 2.5 million cells in your optic nerves (which is roughly all of them)?

reggie
12-26-12, 04:37 PM
High level, but I think this is worth a view given the discussion in this thread....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeyJvXU68k

Raz
04-14-14, 07:43 PM
Possible genetic link found for homosexuality:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/being-born-gay-isnt-your-genes-its-them

================

A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1887219

Science. 1991 Aug 30;253(5023):1034-7.
A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men.
LeVay S.
Source

Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, CA 92186.
Abstract

The anterior hypothalamus of the brain participates in the regulation of male-typical sexual behavior. The volumes of four cell groups in this region [interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH) 1, 2, 3, and 4] were measured in postmortem tissue from three subject groups: women, men who were presumed to be heterosexual, and homosexual men. No differences were found between the groups in the volumes of INAH 1, 2, or 4. As has been reported previously, INAH 3 was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women. It was also, however, more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men. This finding indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.

I wouldn't believe anything Dr. LeVay "discovered" about biological evidence for Homosexuality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_LeVay

ALSO: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/bulletin_of_the_history_of_medicine/summary/v072/72.1br_rosario.html