G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
I didn’t know Elton John is an atheist … theoretical and practical, it seems.
drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
- Status
B
blackrobe
Guest
Furthermore, the first followers of the Way [aka Christians] were executed [martyred] for the crime of . . . wait for it . . . *atheism!
- Their refusal to worship the gods was a treasonous offense in the Empire which was incapable of taking seriously their belief that the object of their worship was a criminal who had been cruicfied.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
blackrobe
*Their refusal to worship the gods was a treasonous offense in the Empire which was incapable of taking seriously their belief that the object of their worship was a criminal who had been cruicfied.
*
Precisely, thank you!
*Their refusal to worship the gods was a treasonous offense in the Empire which was incapable of taking seriously their belief that the object of their worship was a criminal who had been cruicfied.
*
Precisely, thank you!
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
The same way way someone diagnosed with cancer can deny they have cancer.
Denial is a basic mechanism for coping with stressful themes, common in both healthy and sick individuals-- and is actually the first stage of grief in most people.
As you may know, the negative effects of denial are that it may:
interfere with getting treatment (e.g., delay in going to the doctor, not showing up for follow-ups, noncompliance),
may disrupt the process of assimilating the stressful event,
may affect adversely interpersonal relations,
and constitutes a cumulative stressor depressing even immunocompetence.
The use of denial varies with the severity of the situation, the patient’s personality, and his or her familial and cultural background.
Many people have tried to explain what grief is; some have even identified certain stages of grief. Probably the most well-known of these might be from Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’ book, “On Death and Dying.” In it, she identified five stages that a dying patient experiences when informed of their terminal prognosis.
The stages Kubler-Ross identified are:
Denial (this isn’t happening to me!)
Anger (why is this happening to me?)
Bargaining (I promise I’ll be a better person if…)
Depression (I don’t care anymore)
Acceptance (I’m ready for whatever comes)
Many people believe that these stages of grief are also experienced by others when they have lost a loved one.
I also tend to believe that in religious experiences, people are actually ‘dying to themselves’ and often go through these very same stages when coming to terms with their faith in God. Actually, having gone through similar experiences myself (and reading about others who went through difficult conversions) I’m positve that some people do very much go through these exact same stages on their journey towards faith.
L
Loginus
Guest
The same arguement could be put forth that you are ignoring the gods or even atheism.
Couldnt it also be said that you are merely denying the possibility that he doesn’t exist because you are afraid?
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Good point.
I’ve had similar debates before with others and noted that the theory of evolution remains a theory to describe an observation whereas other theories are more akin to measurements of events that are currently going on.
In Philip E Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial, he claimed that because “evolution” means so many different things, almost any example will do. The trick was always to prove one of the modest meanings of the term, and treat it as a proof of the complete evolutionary system.
When Johnson stated this, he wasn’t suggesting that there is some vast “conspiracy theory” to suppress creationism. He seems to be indicating that evolution itself (the logical explantion for relationships) remains a “fact”, by which it implied that it is an “inescapable deduction” from the fact of relationship.
Johnson noted Gould’s article Evolution as Fact and Theory, which explained the distinction by citing the fact and theory of gravity:
Stephen Jay Gould:
In Johnson’s opinion, this analogy is spurious. And to some extant I agree with him.
- We observe directly that apples fall when dropped, but we do not observe a common ancestor for modern apes and humans.
- What we do observe is that apes and humans are physcially and biochemically more like each other than they are like rabbits, snakes or trees for example.
The theory is certainly more than plausible, and (unlike Johnson) I’m much more willing to listen than most “creationists”. In many ways, I’d probably be more like Behe than Johnson – and Behe’s adherence is only minimal to the point that most would consider him more of a theistic evolutionist than strict creationist.
However, as Johnson correctly notes, it still remains possible that this hypothesis within the theory may nonetheless be false. The true explanation for natural relationships may be something much more mysterious.
continued…
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Darwin’s method is not generally experimental, for singular and complex events are not so explained by any historical science. Therefore, as Gould himself noted, the theory of evolution relies heavily upon inference and “not on steel balls rolling down inclined planes in a laboratory.”
Nonetheless, because Gould appears to draw the line between fact and theory in the wrong place, his distinction is, to some extent virtually meaningless.
In trying to demonstrate this idea further, I advance the predictive values of the theory of gravitation and compare them to the theory of evolution within the context of “steel balls rolling down inclined planes in a laboratory” kind of predictions.
If I were to look at the astronomical applications of gravity I would see that:
Gravity results in weight
Gravity causes precession of the Earth’s axis
Gravity causes tides
Gravity explains orbits
We can determine the mass of an object if it has an orbiting body
Gravity leads to our detection of other planetary systems
All these things can be expressed in mathematical formulae, tested thousands of times, and result in very accurate predictions as to where the planets, comets and other objects in the solar system will be in the past or in the future.
Can I do the same thing with the theory of evolution so as to express random mutations and natural selections in mathematical formulae, test them thousands of times, and result in very accurate predictions as to where the species, alleles and other objects in the evolutionary heirachy will be in the past or in the future?
continued…
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
For example, a satellite heads toward Jupiter – in the process, it accelerates because it is “falling toward” Jupiter. Then, it passes fairly close to the planet and starts speeding away from it. However, at that point, the satellite starts slowing down because gravity is pulling it back toward the planet. From that description, it would seem like the net effect of gravity assist is zero – the satellite gains speed as it falls toward the planet but then loses it as it heads away.
Note analogy: Is there any indication in the fossil record that as a species is falling toward some kind of energy equilibrium within its respective biosphere, that it’s evolution then takes on added energy? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
The thing that makes gravity assist work is the fact that the planet is in motion in its orbit. Jupiter, for example, is about 500,000,000 miles (806,000,000 kilometers) away from the sun, which means that the circumference of its orbit is 3,140,000,000 miles (5,060,000,000 kilometers).
Note analogy: Is there any indication in the fossil record that as a species respective bioshpere is itself evolving the species also evolves in accordance within its respective biosphere? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
Jupiter travels that distance in about 12 years, so it is moving through space at about 30,000 mph (48,000 kph). If the satellite is moving in the same direction as Jupiter in its orbit, it can actually increase its speed by 30,000 mph! That is a huge speed increase, and it’s completely free.
Note analogy: Looking thorugh the fossil record, is there a consistant pattern of various species matching the pace of their biosphere’s evolution? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
The problem with gravity assist is that you have to wait for the planets to line up correctly for it to work. That is why missions have to fly within certain time windows.
Note analogy: Looking through the fossil record, is there a consistant pattern where specific biospheres are lined up correctly for evoltution to work? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
Admittedly the evidence of the earth’s geological history has been seriously eroded over time – something which some would claim undermines the theory of evolution’s overall predictive value in the first place.
However, going past this observation, can at least some mathimatical formulae be “glimpsed” in the eroded fossil record, a formula which could at least partially lead to predictive statements which could then be validated with new discoveries?
Or is the theory an entirely descriptive process which yeilds minimal predictive value under closer scrutiny?
I may not agree with Johnson on all points. But I think these are extremely valid questions that need to be asked.
L
Loginus
Guest
Mr. Ex Nihilo.
Your first point is really argueing semantics. Evolution is generally accepted even to a degree by creationists. What is desputed and is still in theory status is Darwin’s theory of Evolution through Natural selection.
As per your other pts., Im too lazy to address all individually, but natural selection isn’t chaotic. It can be in the short-term as migration of species, environmental factors/disasters, Climate, competition, or an ‘act of God’ (ie a meteor) can seriously disrupt an eco-system and the course of evolution almost instanteanously.
In the long run however, if everything in an environment stays the same, eventually specization will occur and you are left with species that are well adapted to an environment.
You can view evolution. Micro-evolution occurs all the time in R-type (or K been awhile hehe) creatures such as bacteria, rodents, insects etc.
Macro-level evolution is a bit toucher to watch as it takes a very very long time for a certain group to become a different species.
This does not mean it cannot be proven however. Just pat just above your bum and feel for the remnants of a tailbone. Tell me, what purpose does it serve? Why would God place it there? If a mistake, what does it say about God?
Another good indicator is looking at DNA and RNA. All animals on Earth have the same 4 nucleotides for DNA and for RNA despite the fact that there is no law of biology saying life isnt possible with more than 4 (5 when dealing with RNA) for life.
Your first point is really argueing semantics. Evolution is generally accepted even to a degree by creationists. What is desputed and is still in theory status is Darwin’s theory of Evolution through Natural selection.
As per your other pts., Im too lazy to address all individually, but natural selection isn’t chaotic. It can be in the short-term as migration of species, environmental factors/disasters, Climate, competition, or an ‘act of God’ (ie a meteor) can seriously disrupt an eco-system and the course of evolution almost instanteanously.
In the long run however, if everything in an environment stays the same, eventually specization will occur and you are left with species that are well adapted to an environment.
You can view evolution. Micro-evolution occurs all the time in R-type (or K been awhile hehe) creatures such as bacteria, rodents, insects etc.
Macro-level evolution is a bit toucher to watch as it takes a very very long time for a certain group to become a different species.
This does not mean it cannot be proven however. Just pat just above your bum and feel for the remnants of a tailbone. Tell me, what purpose does it serve? Why would God place it there? If a mistake, what does it say about God?
Another good indicator is looking at DNA and RNA. All animals on Earth have the same 4 nucleotides for DNA and for RNA despite the fact that there is no law of biology saying life isnt possible with more than 4 (5 when dealing with RNA) for life.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Yes. But at least we’re no longer wondering “How does one rebel against something one doesn’t believe to be real?” like R McGeddon had orginally asked.
It most certainly could. But, in my opinion, the evidence doesn’t support the claim.Couldnt it also be said that you are merely denying the possibility that he doesn’t exist because you are afraid?
I tend to see the current body of evidence for God in the same light as how Faraday viewed his own theories regarding the moving lines of magnetic force.
It should be noted that the idea of force is almost taken for granted, but in Faraday’s time it was so radical that few even understood it, let alone agreed with it. People of this time could see the idea of areas of magnetic influence, but the idea of “electro-magnetic” fields was completely beyond them. Mathematicians of this time actually dismissed Faraday’s ideas specifcally for their lack of mathematics.
In 1855, Faraday wrote…
Michael Faraday:
And he was right.
L
Loginus
Guest
Nihilo
Again, the same quote can apply to Natural Selection as there was a time ppl were agaisnt it despite proofs
I think all our dialogue has accomplished is to confirm that ultimately, everything is judged and acknowledge to each’s own individual perspective
Again, the same quote can apply to Natural Selection as there was a time ppl were agaisnt it despite proofs
I think all our dialogue has accomplished is to confirm that ultimately, everything is judged and acknowledge to each’s own individual perspective
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Not really.
Rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved.
There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology.
I suspect you’ve probably already read this above linked article before. But if you haven’t read this article before, I would ask that you consider what Pope John Paul II had to say regarding this theory.
Yes. I know. That’s what I’m getting at.
Don’t get me wrong. Like Behe, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing. But this is from a reductionist view of biology. Unlike Behe, however, I do have some particular reasons to doubt its greater claims.
Nonetheless, I too greatly respect the work of those who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework. And, like Behe, I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Certainly, the evolutionary synthesis has contributed greatly to medical fields. There’s no doubt about this.
Then why do some claim it’s purely random?
No doubt.
How does one define ‘well adapted to an environment’?
More often than not, these definitions of ‘well adapted to an environment’ appear spurious to me to be honest.
Convergent evolution to some extent reputes the very basis of what evolutionary theories claim these diversities of life actually prove. And symbiotic evolution implies that species evolved with a higher degree of precision than most would be willing to admit.
continued…
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I know.
I know. That’s what I was getting at with my gravitational analogy above.
Yes. Actually, it does mean that.
What it means is that the greater claims of evolution, like God, requires both faith and reason to believe it.
Loginu:
The coccyx (tailbone) actually serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus.
Consequently, many things which have been labelled as vestigal organs have later been confirmed as having some function that the people at the time did not actually fully understand.
As far back as 1895 the German anatomist Wiedersheim compiled a list of eighty-six “vestigial” organs, plus about a hundred he considered “retrogressive”. The list included organs now known to have important functions, such as the pineal gland and the pituitary gland.
Bearing the history of claims for vestigal organs being later proven to have significant functions, I suspect that the claim for something being vesitgal may in fact be nothing more than an appeal to ignorance in trying to verify a theory that itself cannot be verified because it requires faith.
Loginu:
And yet there does seem to be a universal structure by which knowledge is divided and attained (and even predicted) – and it seems to be expressed in informational patterns very similar to the structure of language itself.
For example, one popular approach to discussing DNA is to use the analogy of language itself. Viewed as the foundation of a communication system, DNA may be thought of as the repository of all information needed to make an organism. (In some viruses, this information is stored in the ribonucleic acid, or RNA.)
As an article from the National Health Museum notes, the structure of the DNA molecule itself is identical among all living things, from an amoeba to a 150-ton whale, from a blade of grass to a redwood tree. It consists of sugar, phosphate, and four nitrogen bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C). A sugar, phosphate, and base together constitute a nucleotide. The four bases are paired on the DNA molecule, and in a very specific way: A always with T and G always with C. Connecting the base pairs are alternating sugar and phosphate units, forming a structure that resembles a ladder. The ladder is actually three-dimensional, though; it takes the form of two strands twisted into a long spiral - the famous “double helix.”
As far as I understand, Chomsky suggested that preexistent ideas exist in the mind. Knowledge of innate ideas, in this sense anyway, does not depend on any particular experience – they cannot be “learned” but may be hidden, waiting to be discovered.
Based on what I’ve read, I disagree with Chomsky’s assertion that nothing is learned per se. Obviously things are learned. However, in stating this, he seems to be implying that the human mind nonetheless posseses a “hard-wired” generative faculty. Chomsky’s linguistic theories seems to be predicated on the brain’s possession of a set of algorithms for the production of languages.
Perhaps the language we speak is somewhat a greater manifestation of the very DNA we are made of.
R
R_McGeddon
Guest
Wanting to see my mother tongue used properly isn’t a bad thing.
It’s a good job, you’d lose.
Who was it calling atheists dumb???
You should look closer to home before calling others rude.
R
R_McGeddon
Guest
Don’t be flippant, you quoted half of psalm 14:1. That is taking it out of context in anybody’s book.
You mean I’m right and you haven’t got a rebuttal.
I don’t believe it to be the case.
A handful of bad atheists does not make all atheists bad, that is a very narrow minded view.
Big deal, prisons are populated by all kinds of people, faithful and otherwise.
You can mention them for eternity, it doesn’t make the slightest difference to me. Their megalomania was their driving force.
You think it a matter of fact the there is a God, I remain to be convinced.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
Loginus
Couldnt it also be said that you are merely denying the possibility that he doesn’t exist because you are afraid?
Fear is a motivating factor for believing many good things, don’t forget. The fear of subjugation in slavery to the Egyptians helped to forge the Exodus. The fear of political chaos helped to forge the Magna Carta. The fear of economic chaos helped to forge the United States Constitution. The fear of massive poverty, illness, and war helped to forge the United Nations.
Fear of the Lord, an expression often found and confirmed in the Bible as something good, has helped to give people courage to live a good life and die a good death.
But there’s no way to prove that except by trying it.
Couldnt it also be said that you are merely denying the possibility that he doesn’t exist because you are afraid?
Fear is a motivating factor for believing many good things, don’t forget. The fear of subjugation in slavery to the Egyptians helped to forge the Exodus. The fear of political chaos helped to forge the Magna Carta. The fear of economic chaos helped to forge the United States Constitution. The fear of massive poverty, illness, and war helped to forge the United Nations.
Fear of the Lord, an expression often found and confirmed in the Bible as something good, has helped to give people courage to live a good life and die a good death.
But there’s no way to prove that except by trying it.
R
R_McGeddon
Guest
That’s a bit of a stretch, cancer can be visibly seen. Can anybody show me God?
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
Originally Posted by Gilbert Keith forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
And what is an abominable work if it is not the vain attempt to kill one’s own God?
You answered:
You think it a matter of fact the there is a God, I remain to be convinced.
Now you really are getting silly. First you complain that I leave off half the quote from Psalms. Then when I try to accomodate you by explaining what the other half of the Psalm might be referring to … abominable works, such as trying in vain to kill one’s own God … you complain that I have not proven there is a God to kill.
You wanted me to explain something in its own context. I did.
Then you start up the old atheist rant about it being no “fact” that God exists. That is not an acceptable rebuttal. What you must now concede is that I have cited the whole verse … and it still comes down to the same thing … “The fool in his heart says there is no God.”
The fool, by the way, is not necessarily a dumb person. Some fools are very clever indeed. But the fool is someone who lies to himself … such as a person who persuades himself there can be no God because he can’t stand the thought of any Ego bigger than his own.
And what is an abominable work if it is not the vain attempt to kill one’s own God?
You answered:
You think it a matter of fact the there is a God, I remain to be convinced.
Now you really are getting silly. First you complain that I leave off half the quote from Psalms. Then when I try to accomodate you by explaining what the other half of the Psalm might be referring to … abominable works, such as trying in vain to kill one’s own God … you complain that I have not proven there is a God to kill.
You wanted me to explain something in its own context. I did.
Then you start up the old atheist rant about it being no “fact” that God exists. That is not an acceptable rebuttal. What you must now concede is that I have cited the whole verse … and it still comes down to the same thing … “The fool in his heart says there is no God.”
The fool, by the way, is not necessarily a dumb person. Some fools are very clever indeed. But the fool is someone who lies to himself … such as a person who persuades himself there can be no God because he can’t stand the thought of any Ego bigger than his own.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
R McGeddon
That’s a bit of a stretch, cancer can be visibly seen. Can anybody show me God?
No, He’s invisible, like the atom. That doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist.
That’s a bit of a stretch, cancer can be visibly seen. Can anybody show me God?
No, He’s invisible, like the atom. That doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist.
V
Valke2
Guest
properly used.
- Status