Author Topic: OT: The religion thead...  (Read 330105 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline david77

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 934
  • Country: de
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #575 on: June 01, 2012, 03:42:57 pm »
@Mechatrommer:

I wouldn't waste too much time listening to what Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri have to say. Just google them if you don't know who these people are.
 

Offline PeteInTexas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 344
  • Country: us
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #576 on: June 01, 2012, 04:16:19 pm »
Oh, and those gaps in the fossil record? They're not a flaw - they're *expected*, completely contrary to what creationists like to claim. Transitions in evolution happen *fast*, but can be a very long time apart. We're talking periods of a few years, spread across *billions*. The odds of finding a fossil of a particular transitional species are very slim. Which isn't to say that either the species themselves, or their fossil record, does not exist. However I'm no paleontologist, you might want to find one if you're trying to find a flaw in the fossil record.

No question natural selection does occur but how you can know what should or did go in between fossil records?  That is guess work at a minimum and guess-timate at best.  Plenty of room for reasonable doubt as to what actually happened, thus weakening the importance of evolution as the main driver of life on Earth.
 

Offline PeteInTexas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 344
  • Country: us
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #577 on: June 01, 2012, 04:19:50 pm »
As for Darwin, he was indeed not as emphatic about the theory as we are today. There are several very good reasons for this. Firstly, it was new, and he had only his own evidence to go on. We've had a couple of hundred years to hammer on the theory and test it to destruction, so we now know that it's sound. Secondly, he was himself a deeply religious man. He actually set out looking to document the variety of life, and hoping to find evidence pointing to its creation. However he was also fortunately a scientist, and having observed many species came to the inescapable conclusion that evolution was responsible, and not a creator. It still took him a long time to publish "On the Origin of Species" while he wrestled with the questions this raised for him. But publish he did, because the evidence was too compelling not to, and others were also coming to the same conclusion.

The fact that Darwin himself wasn't complete sure does not matter, because his book is not a 'bible'. That part of evolution which is still based firmly on Darwin's theories stands only because the evidence continues to support it, and not because it is in any way 'sacred'. He was not a "founder" of anything, nor does he have "followers".

If any of the objections to evolution held any water, then the theory would have collapsed a long time ago, and Darwin would just be a footnote in history.

To be fair though, scientist today that actually do work in the field are equally unsure.  Its the agenda driven atheists seem to be so sure.
 

Offline PeteInTexas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 344
  • Country: us
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #578 on: June 01, 2012, 04:39:25 pm »
Shame about the evidence for it being zilch.

Yet no new knowledge or new research or new science shows the the slightest evidence the other way for the existence of god. None. Zilch.

Dave.

By what standard of proof did you base this zilch on?  For fairness, you have to say what threshold the evidence has to meet for your satisfaction.  Otherwise you leave the impression that your mind is already made up and not really interested in being persuaded or open to believing.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 04:41:11 pm by PeteInTexas »
 

Offline _Sin

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Country: gb
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #579 on: June 01, 2012, 04:42:22 pm »
Regarding the repeated claims of evolution *not* being established, proven theory, all I can say is:

[citation needed]
Programmer with a soldering iron - fear me.
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11713
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #580 on: June 01, 2012, 04:55:10 pm »
http://spencerwatch.com/about-robert-spencer/
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/do-muslims-want-to-reimpose-dhimmitude-or-live-as-equals/
a "jihad watch" director and anti-muslim personal. now i get it. please get rid of this kind of person/video. he's not eligible in "scientific talk" (i thought he is a historian, but reality is only a joker). i dont want to see this kind of "gossip" going around and "brainwashing pointlessly" with "money" and "hatred" as objective for life. i'd rather see a page with "sexy artist" with story fucking another man "gossip". not that i'm afraid the truth, but please present a more proper person. i'm just wasting 24hours++ try to complete the download. stopping right now. i know his background now, i'm not even sure if his M.A. is authentic :P
Nature: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness (Stephen L. Talbott): Its now indisputable that... organisms “expertise” contextualizes its genome, and its nonsense to say that these powers are under the control of the genome being contextualized - Barbara McClintock
 

Offline PeteInTexas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 344
  • Country: us
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #581 on: June 01, 2012, 05:18:17 pm »
Regarding the repeated claims of evolution *not* being established, proven theory, all I can say is:

[citation needed]

This does not matter.  It does not disprove God.  It may repudiate Genesis chapter one (the Creation story); but that just one chapter in a book of many books and chapters.
 

Offline A Hellene

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 602
  • Country: gr
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #582 on: June 01, 2012, 05:28:50 pm »
It gets tricky when you try to translate from an ancient language to a modern language.

I posted on the same passage a while back, where the translators chose different English words (#465):
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/ot-the-religion-thead/msg114394/#msg114394
[...]
Ian, I am sorry I missed that post of yours...

Yet, the people of faith will literally adapt their way of living and thinking to these ancient and equivocal pieces of social engineering directives...

What I was trying to provoke with my Rolling Stones' line of their song "Sympathy for the Devil" is a reaction to that powerful and dreaded dogmatic word, called the "Satan."


So, let's have yet another look at some historical facts, not so widely advertised...

"Satan" is not exactly the Devil, as Christianity has established. Satan, actually, is a Hebrew term meaning "opponent; adversary; the one who plots against another" and it comes from the Classical Greek adjective satanios or setanios that means the adverse; the contrary; the drawn away one. Before the Christian Church associated Satan to their fictional entity called The Devil, the term "satan" was initially used by the ancient Jewish priesthood to accuse those who gave shelter to the Jewish subjects that started fleeing from Judea in the second century BCE because they could not pay their monstrous taxes to their priesthood (= their bankers, who lost a major portion of taxation due to migration). Please, search for the silver half-shekel of the sanctuary, a special coin and the only form of money Judeans could use to pay their taxes to their priesthood because it did not have any pagan inscriptions on it, and how their priesthood controlled that coin's value through its manipulated scarcity. Rings any bells?

Another little known fact is the distinction between the Hellenes and the Greeks. Since the third century BCE, Alexander the Great had conquered all the eastern Mediterranean countries, and established the Greek language, customs and civilisation. By the next century, Hellenes were called all the people who were speaking the Greek language, either were they natives of Hellas or Hellenised natives of the conquered countries, since the Hellenic language, customs and civilisation were spreading rapidly all over the eastern Mediterranean world like a wildfire in dry grass. It was then that the Judeans begun adapting the foreign language and customs, like wearing clothing that leaved uncovered almost their entire body or their latest terrible habit to wash naked in public or private baths despite their horrible religious doctrines, as reported in the Old Testament... Of course, their priesthood was scared to death with the imminent extinction of their ruling. It was then, the third century BCE, that the Jewish priesthood conceived their monstrous plan to translate their sacred books, the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), into Greek by assigning this job to Jewish scholars, called, the 72 (or 70) Elders.

So, "Satans" were initially called the Ethnic Hellenes (not the Christianized ones but the native ones who were advocating free and rational thinking) who were giving shelter to the migrating Judeans, since what we call "Greeks" were the Christian converts of Hellenic descend, especially after the genocide of 19 million Hellenes (out of a total population of 21 millions) that took place right after the fourth century CE by the "loving, humane and forgiving" Judeo-Christianity, which was a Jewish sect that was initially created by the Pharisees, using their high ranking member called Saul of Tarsus (or Paul the Apostle), to distort the ideas of Rabbi Joshua ben Josef (aka, Excellent Joshua, son of Josef), that Essene who dared to stand against the Pharisees who finally got him crucified...

Of course, Christianity continued to use the term "Satans" for the Ethnic Hellenes, who were not able to be convinced to throw rationality out of the window, or to worship something so ugly and irrational, compared to their own spiritual heritage, or to mutilate their penises because they rightfully considered the Jewish legacy of circumcision, this indelible marking of religious ownership, as a form of bodily mutilation and, hence, "barbaric."

By the way, as the term "Satan" means the adversary, the term "Devil" comes from the Latin Diabolus, coming from Greek Diabolos, meaning "accuser; slanderer; calumniator" from the verb diaballen, meaning "to slander."

As for me, I was raised an Otrhodox Christian; but I got better. :)


-George
Hi! This is George; and I am three and a half years old!
(This was one of my latest realisations, now in my early fifties!...)
 

Offline 8086

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1085
  • Country: gb
    • Circuitology - Electronics Assembly
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #583 on: June 01, 2012, 05:30:03 pm »
This does not matter.  It does not disprove God.

So how does one prove God?
 

Offline PeteInTexas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 344
  • Country: us
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #584 on: June 01, 2012, 05:39:55 pm »
This does not matter.  It does not disprove God.

So how does one prove God?

Humans can't.  So, it seems faith in God is totally compatible with the science of evolution.  What a remarkable result!  :)
 

Offline free_electronTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8550
  • Country: us
    • SiliconValleyGarage
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #585 on: June 01, 2012, 05:40:48 pm »
if god created life .. and we can create life .. does that makes us gods too ?
Professional Electron Wrangler.
Any comments, or points of view expressed, are my own and not endorsed , induced or compensated by my employer(s).
 

Offline 8086

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1085
  • Country: gb
    • Circuitology - Electronics Assembly
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #586 on: June 01, 2012, 05:52:08 pm »
This does not matter.  It does not disprove God.

So how does one prove God?

Humans can't.  So, it seems faith in God is totally compatible with the science of evolution.  What a remarkable result!  :)

So we can't prove or disprove God.

Why then do people believe it?
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11713
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #587 on: June 01, 2012, 06:01:55 pm »
@a hellene: save yourself the story. that is only a "story", what we need is scientifical background or talk. not philosophical one, no matter how good.

now after looking at the comments from my own link. i think i get it now... i'm just wasting my time here... never a single one evidence condemning islam, ever come close to the so called... scientifical reasoning with concrete tangible or intangible evidence. they all just empty talk. if you look closely, there's footnotes in the link thats telling very long historical story with external references, thats how a scientifical/historical fact should be (its a story of turk and that young ottoman thing, go find if you are the truth, not bullshit talk like the "robert spencer" first he talked mohamad is blashemy dhimmitude etc and then later he claimed mohamad doenst exist, i dont have time for that hoot)

now hear this. if you want to believe a story then believe it. "it is easier to listen to soothing words from an illiterate rather than listening to things like "a threat from God", or "rule that must be obeyed". i will leave you people/friend with this... my uncle saying.... "get fooled by a fool"! (religious or not religious)

farewell. until i found more proper "up to the standard" scientifical and historical facts. or until i find another boring time to waste :P
Nature: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness (Stephen L. Talbott): Its now indisputable that... organisms “expertise” contextualizes its genome, and its nonsense to say that these powers are under the control of the genome being contextualized - Barbara McClintock
 

Offline 8086

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1085
  • Country: gb
    • Circuitology - Electronics Assembly
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #588 on: June 01, 2012, 07:12:01 pm »
You speak of humility, yet you continually have the arrogance to assert that the evidence of God (whom you claim is true for all) should be apparent to everyone.

Does that not seem hypocritical?
 

Offline Rufus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2095
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #589 on: June 01, 2012, 07:41:15 pm »
Truth convicts the heart.

Could you explain exactly what that is supposed to mean?

Your posts are full of such meaningless platitudes.
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11713
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #590 on: June 01, 2012, 07:59:16 pm »
Quote
in a thread which has attracted more than 10,500 views an 44 pages of discussion
duh why am i still here? i must have made the one biggest mistake in historical event by posting something in "flowcode" thread. i am sinful! slash me! to save me!
Nature: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness (Stephen L. Talbott): Its now indisputable that... organisms “expertise” contextualizes its genome, and its nonsense to say that these powers are under the control of the genome being contextualized - Barbara McClintock
 

Offline _Sin

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Country: gb
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #591 on: June 01, 2012, 08:04:47 pm »
I keep seeing references to atheists and/or scientists wanting to "prove" the non-existence of god.

And yet I haven't seen anyone here claim that they can or want to do any such thing.

I cannot prove the non-existence of god. It's not possible. I've never claimed otherwise, and I have no interest in trying. From my *personal* perspective, the total *lack* of positive evidence is enough for me *personally* to reject the supernatural. But that's just me.

Evolution says nothing of the existence of the supernatural. What it does tell us, is that no supernatural entity is required to give us the diversity of life on earth. That is only of concern to a religious person if their belief hinges on the requirement of a designer - such a person must choose between science and belief, because on that issue, the two are not compatible.

I don't care what you believe. But if you choose a belief *over* an established fact, do not expect me to *respect* that belief. It is entirely your right to believe that black is white or that up is down, but if you want to spout that view to me, expect to be asked to show your working, because I don't care for things that are not backed up by evidence.

So if you want to reconcile your beliefs with established science, knock yourself out. But you can't do it by *wishing* the science was different. Science does not care what you think, or what I think. It only cares what is provably true.

Programmer with a soldering iron - fear me.
 

Offline TriodeTiger

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 199
  • Country: ca
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #592 on: June 01, 2012, 08:28:09 pm »
Quote from: _Sin
So if you want to reconcile your beliefs with established science, knock yourself out. But you can't do it by *wishing* the science was different. Science does not care what you think, or what I think. It only cares what is provably true.

See? I can spot how an atheist writes about such things by the bitterness in their tone.

Your "established facts" are often wrong, change, and are built upon over time - are you saying everything currently is just as right as it was in the past? Nothing is wrong?

Try to explain why we are conscious with a bag of watery neurons, maybe God made us to be :)

I've seen many "scientists" whom are religious, if not Christian, then more sensible choices. They can't explain everything, they can only explain the little (very very little) things they are working on in the grand scheme of the universe.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 08:32:02 pm by Coffee »
"Yes, I have deliberately traded off robustness for the sake of having knobs." - Dave Jones.
 

Offline MikeK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1314
  • Country: us
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #593 on: June 01, 2012, 08:30:16 pm »
So we can't prove or disprove God.

Why then do people believe it?

Comfort.
 

Offline A Hellene

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 602
  • Country: gr
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #594 on: June 01, 2012, 08:53:27 pm »
@a hellene: save yourself the story. that is only a "story", what we need is scientifical background or talk. not philosophical one, no matter how good.
Couldn't we also call "only a story" all the Talmud/Torah/Bible/Qur'an/Dharma/Brahmanas/etc. dogmatic books?

The difference with my "story" is that it is 100% rational and backed by evidence (like The Dead Sea Scrolls), historical facts (like the Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean countries, the migration of the Judeans since the second century BCE and the translation of the Torah in Greek) and the merit of rational Academic researchers (like Lily Zographou's Homer and Antignosis with more than six pages of bibliography to support her research).

Not to mention that my "story" is not based on any magical entities or paranormal phenomena to justify the little unexplained details that might occur in the process...


-George
Hi! This is George; and I am three and a half years old!
(This was one of my latest realisations, now in my early fifties!...)
 

Offline _Sin

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Country: gb
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #595 on: June 01, 2012, 08:54:53 pm »
See? I can spot how an atheist writes about such things by the bitterness in their tone.

Your "established facts" are often wrong, change, and are built upon over time - are you saying everything currently is just as right as it was in the past? Nothing is wrong?

Bitterness? What *are* you on about?!

Anyway - *facts* do not change. Scientific theories change, as new facts are discovered. As they are refined, the result is almost certainly converging towards the truth, built on a sound foundation of evidence.

Programmer with a soldering iron - fear me.
 

Offline MikeK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1314
  • Country: us
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #596 on: June 01, 2012, 09:01:52 pm »
I've seen many "scientists" whom are religious, if not Christian, then more sensible choices. They can't explain everything, they can only explain the little (very very little) things they are working on in the grand scheme of the universe.

I knew a girl who thought Elvis was still alive.  Does that make it true?

It has been noted many times in the news that among scientists there is a high incidence of non-belief.  See attached.
 

Offline rolycat

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1103
  • Country: gb
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #597 on: June 01, 2012, 09:02:37 pm »
So many foolish comments have been attracted to this thread

It's astonishing how everyone who disagrees with you is automatically 'foolish'.

If you say God doesn't exist, your actions contradict your thoughts, as noone fights against someone or something that *truly* does not exist, SO SO aggressively, in a thread which has attracted more than 10,500 views an 44 pages of discussion.

Yet another statement presenting baseless supposition as truth.

God may or may not exist - probably not - but religious fervour certainly exists, and - despite sanctimonious protestations that 'God is love' - has demonstrably been the cause of so much hatred, bigotry, violence and enforced ignorance that those not still in its thrall have a moral duty to 'fight' it.

 

Offline MikeK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1314
  • Country: us
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #598 on: June 01, 2012, 09:21:35 pm »
There's also a correlation between poverty and religiosity.  And for good reason.  Because, when you're being shit on, you need to make some sense of it.
 

Offline azrimola

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 12
Re: OT: The religion thead...
« Reply #599 on: June 01, 2012, 09:28:22 pm »
It really sucks to see this thread take 5 consecutive entries in the RSS feed. Go solder something.


 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf