Religion and Dinosaurs

[auntiegrav]

..The problem with your logic here is that you think we aren't already energy based beings; We are not humans occassionally having a spiritual experience, but rather spirits in the midst of a human experience. Occasionally our true nature slips through the bonds of this limited physical reality, and that leads us to places like these boards.

-Mike <8]

This isn't a problem with logic. It's just semantics. What I call "physical" is still matter-based, and matter is energy-based. Not right or wrong in that sense. As for "spriitual", I have yet to see my former lives, so I'll leave that alone until I do. I don't know anyone who has come back after kissing Hank's ass yet. Maybe I will in the future. I don't deny it will happen, and I don't deny the existence of Hank, but I did have a dream were Hank told me to leave him alone. Does that count?
If I'm a spirit having a human experience, I pity the universe when I'm done with it.
I'm afraid that "Life's a bitch, then I die, then Heaven's a bitch forever."

 

[MADMANMIKE]

to stop lying to themselves about how deeply entwined we are with every plant, animal, fungus, and molecule of oxygen on this planet.

..Best definition of God's exsistance I've seen online.

Christianity is always about Competition.

..No, ORGANIZED Christianity, and religion in general is about Competition. There are very few true Christians in the world, simply because so few have any concept of spirituality beyond what they are told by a church.

..Most Athiests in my experience are so because of what they've been told by a church and/or what they've been able to misinterpret about religeon.

..So far you haven't said anything to suggest to me that you aren't a true Christian yourself...

-Mike <8]

 

[auntiegrav]

to stop lying to themselves about how deeply entwined we are with every plant, animal, fungus, and molecule of oxygen on this planet.

..Best definition of God's exsistance I've seen online.

Christianity is always about Competition.

..No, ORGANIZED Christianity, and religion in general is about Competition. There are very few true Christians in the world, simply because so few have any concept of spirituality beyond what they are told by a church.

..Most Athiests in my experience are so because of what they've been told by a church and/or what they've been able to misinterpret about religeon.

..So far you haven't said anything to suggest to me that you aren't a true Christian yourself...

-Mike <8]

Thank you for the compliment.
Remember, though; Christ wasn't a Christian. He was an Essene. Even the Jews thought they were kinda loopy. But then, great change always comes from the fringe, not from the mainstream. The mainstream needs to maintain the status quo.
We all use labels to try and fit people into the pigeon holes we create for them, and I understand how difficult it is to avoid doing this. The true breakthrough is when we at least manage to create our own holes to categorize the people we meet, rather than using someone else's holes. Your hole for "Christian" is very brightly lit and magnanimous. Others' hole for Christian is a dark place, with limited space, purchased from the "Dark Hole Supply Store" with money earned doing things that we just don't look too deeply at as long as we can put some of it into the holes labeled "charity" and "environmental causes" and "taxes" and still have some left for "freedom" fries and OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation).

 

[Verum]

I am a committed Catholic. We're raising our daughter as a Catholic. We believe in the tenets of catholicism.

I have very good friends who have asked me more than once "How can you believe in that crap?" They assume that an intelligent, educated person must be either an atheist or agnostic. My answer has always been, "It's what I believe and I won't try and convert you if you don't try and convert me." That's worked for us for many years. What we seem to understand is that personal beliefs are entitled to respect and that the core character of the individual is a reflection of his beliefs and values, regardless of what they may be. If my friends are decent human beings AND atheists, I respect that as part and parcel of what makes them decent men. They do likewise with respect to my catholicism.

It seems that only small-minded people try and condemn others' core beliefs. Prejudice and disrespect is wrong, even when applied to Christianity and even though it is currently chic.

 

[MADMANMIKE]

..Well said, AG and Verum!

-Mike >8]

 

[devan]

well according to Christians the earth is only around 6000 years old and dinosaurs walked the earth around 3000 - 4000 years ago

Far from fact. This are a few splinter groups who do believe that and are an embarassment to the 95% of Christians who know that is foolishness. Most of the U.S. advances in technology, medicine and physics have been made by Christians and Jews of (varying sincerity) over the past 50 decades.

I share the sentiments of Verum. For a universe to pop into existence from nothing, with elements and physics so finely tuned for life, it seems pretty bold to be so certain that there is not an omnipresent, intelligent consciousness behind it all. Remember the phrase, "can't see the forest for the trees"? Is our existence, the universe with its billions, or possibly never ending galaxies proof of God in itself? Maybe, maybe not. But what other proof is needed? By definition, God is that which nothing greater can be conceived.

A more reasonable philosophy would be that of an agnostic, someone who isn't convinced one way or the other, but has an open mind. I know of some very wise, almost mystical priests and rabbis who love to discuss the nature of God - particularly with atheists. The atheists often come away finding that they share many things in common with them. Rather than defiant believers in nothing but the secular world, they are often the ones who are bitter from past experiences or desperately looking for something they can't define.

 

[auntiegrav]

well according to Christians the earth is only around 6000 years old and dinosaurs walked the earth around 3000 - 4000 years ago

Far from fact. This are a few splinter groups who do believe that and are an embarassment to the 95% of Christians who know that is foolishness. Most of the U.S. advances in technology, medicine and physics have been made by Christians and Jews of (varying sincerity) over the past 50 decades.

See the last paragraph below. The next thing you will try to do is give Christianity credit for America, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet. I'll give you Chevrolet (Marketing), but that's it. Maybe those YoungEarthers are only 5%, but they are the vocal 5% and they own the 'Christian' TV stations and radio stations and pretty much control the flow of the majority of hatred in this country. If the other 95% of Christians are so damned good, why aren't they shutting those nutjobs up?

I share the sentiments of Verum. For a universe to pop into existence from nothing, with elements and physics so finely tuned for life, it seems pretty bold to be so certain that there is not an omnipresent, intelligent consciousness behind it all.
By definition, God is that which nothing greater can be conceived.

By your definition. By mine, God is simply a label for the concept of ultimate Net Creativity. (The purpose of Life is to be anti-entropy, creating structure to counteract the effects of decay, providing future potential usefulness in exchange for using resources. The ultimate endpoint of this concept is to create matter-based resources from the vacuum of space.) We do not yet know how this would be, but we also don't know how it can not be.

The universe is not so "finely tuned for life" as many people want to believe. It is just the opposite: Life has become able to adapt to almost all of the nasty things that the universe does to destroy it. Even to the point that the Earth's atmosphere has been modified by bacteria into an oxygen rich environment which those bacteria DON'T like, and then those bacteria evolved into things that DO like oxygen. Damage from radiation from space is compensated for by the simple concept of death and sexual reproduction: constantly changing the DNA so that there is always a new thing to try. Life doesn't evolve toward a specific goal; it explores EVERY possible change, and the ones that work survive. We look back and think "Oh, how conveeeenient that oxygen loving bacteria turned into CO2 loving bacteria, there must have been some intelligence that TOLD them they would have to be oxygen loving in their future", but in reality, the oxygen loving bacteria probably turned into millions of different forms nearly simultaneously, except only the oxygen-tolerant ones thrived, creating a historical picture of a single line of descent.

A more reasonable philosophy would be that of an agnostic, someone who isn't convinced one way or the other, but has an open mind. I know of some very wise, almost mystical priests and rabbis who love to discuss the nature of God - particularly with atheists. The atheists often come away finding that they share many things in common with them. Rather than defiant believers in nothing but the secular world, they are often the ones who are bitter from past experiences or desperately looking for something they can't define.

Just as atheists are told not to judge all religions with pigeon holes, Religionists shouldn't try to judge atheism or agnostic. A-theism simply means, to me, "Without theism". If I say I don't believe there is a Creator because I haven't seen one, I am a-theistic. If that Creator walks up to me on the street and says; "Hi, I created the universe.", and I believe him, that doesn't make me an agnostic, and it doesn't make him a God. Believing in a Creator is NOT the same thing as being religious. Religious Worship means giving up part of your questioning identity in exchange for "something else" to decide things for you, to determine your life's directions, and to be told that you won't die, but live some everlasting life, etc etc etc. If you think that someone created the universe, that's just great. Find that creator and have tea and crumpets with them. That isn't Blind Faith that there is some magical Sky Buddy pulling strings and running the universe so that Fluffy the poodle can attend a giant building with stained glass windows and a marketing department bigger than Microsoft.
Answer your questions about the universe first with logic, reality, and nuts and bolts. If there is something left to question, then don't say you know the answer and it's something that "Man cannot know"; just say you don't know and try to find out.
And for Christ's Sake, don't try to fathom the thoughts of agnostics and atheists. An agnostic is someone who doesn't have the guts to stand up in church and say "I don't believe this!". An agnostic is someone who is too nice to tell their friends and family and parents and priests that they cannot see the logic or evidence that all of the rituals and prayer and kneeling and singing is just for the sake of maintaining conformity under the guise of 'spirit'. That's why the statistics still show so many people attend church, especially in the Midwest and South: because they are too nice (or terrified) to speak their mind and stop going.

 

[Verum]

Devan, you sound somewhat strained and intolerant in your posting. That arbitrary 5% "new earther" Christians statement--I recognize that was not your figure-- is little more than flanking cover for your contention that this minority is dominating the view. Your further statement that it is the responsibility of the 95% to quell their beliefs is odd. Why must there be a victor, as if a belief system is a contest to be won or lost. Why can't they believe what they choose and you what you choose? The facts are that the vast majority of Christians around the world do NOT accept the fundamentalists' view of creation and the world. You may want to believe that that minority view represents the dominant view within Christianity because it advances your need to see Christians as wild-eyed uneducated sheep, but your belief is hardly premised upon the facts about Christianity and its beliefs and the broad spectrum of beliefs within Christianity.

Religionists shouldn't try to judge atheism or agnostic

I don't believe anyone judged them. Your defense of the terms is interesting but both are very clearly defined and recognized terms in everyday usage.

An agnostic is someone who doesn't have the guts to stand up in church and say "I don't believe this!".

Interesting, but a completely arbitrary JUDGMENT on your part, ironically enough. The agnostics I know don't seem to feel any compulsion to challenge others' faiths simply because they, as agnostics, acknowledge that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. Atheists in America, on the other hand, have become a quasi-religion, in which it actively seeks adherents and converts, has a hierarchy and holds an array of acceptable and unacceptable positions based upon its BELIEF that there is no God.

(The purpose of Life is to be anti-entropy, creating structure to counteract the effects of decay, providing future potential usefulness in exchange for using resources. The ultimate endpoint of this concept is to create matter-based resources from the vacuum of space.)

It's interesting that you have uncovered the "purpose of Life", a fundamental objective of the "religionist". I must admit that I have no idea what it means but it sounds as if the purpose of life as you've defined it is to be God..."TO CREATE MATTER-BASED RESOURCES FROM THE VACUUM OF SPACE". Something from nothing?!?! Yet you scoff at the very notion of an afterlife. And how exactly did you come to your knowledge of the "purpose of Life"? Most of mankind spends most of its existence seeking an answer to that question, so the source of your insight would be interesting.

As a general rule, I notice that the "anti-religion" crowd tend to be far nastier, proselytizing, arrogant and condescending (the very characteristics they ascribe to people who practice a religion) than those who simply choose to allow every person to find his meaning in a way most suited to leading him to being a fully-contributing, decent human being. If my religion makes me a good man, why on earth would anyone want to challenge the means by which I became a good man? Every man comes to truth in his own way and on his own terms. Intolerance is an obstruction to that, whether it comes from the practitioner of a particular religion or from one who believes in no supreme being.

 

[auntiegrav]

Devan,

Sorry Devan, I probably quoted you somewhere, so Verum thought it was you speaking. -AG

As a general rule, I notice that the "anti-religion" crowd tend to be far nastier, proselytizing, arrogant and condescending (the very characteristics they ascribe to people who practice a religion) than those who simply choose to allow every person to find his meaning in a way most suited to leading him to being a fully-contributing, decent human being. If my religion makes me a good man, why on earth would anyone want to challenge the means by which I became a good man? Every man comes to truth in his own way and on his own terms. Intolerance is an obstruction to that, whether it comes from the practitioner of a particular religion or from one who believes in no supreme being.

Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry. Everyone should tolerate everyone else forever and ever, Amen.

Yeah, Atheists act like cornered rats when they discuss religious matters. Can't help it. Maybe it has something to do with thousands of years of development of a cornering market....
I avoid any Atheist groups as much as possible. Those people are nuts. It isn't the atheism, it's the 'Blind Faith Groupism'. American Atheists, as you said, tend toward cultish behavior and 'belief' in their non-belief.

As American Anarchist says: If you have to ask where to join up, we don't want you.

I didn't say I was perfect. I am as judgmental as anyone. Hypocritical, too. Oh well. Welcome to the internet.

Thought about it some more (tolerance). One of my failings is that I assign too much credit to the sheep of religions for intentionally being intolerant of other religions. Most are not. I generally assume that if I spend time thinking about why religion is wrong, that others will be spending time thinking about why atheism is wrong. That is probably not the case. You probably couldn't care less about atheists because they aren't in your circle of influence, and you outnumber them so much that their concerns must be insignificant and petty.

If you really think about it, though, there is a (weak?) logic tree that says that if you believe in your particular God as The God, then you must believe that Your Church is The Church. Ergo, if you tolerate other religious beliefs as equal to yours, then you must question Your God as The God. Eventually, this twisted reasoning of mine leads to the conclusion that you should either believe totally in Your One True God and Church, or in none at all. Anything less is agnostic, and to my mind, Agnostic is really just 'kinda sorta maybe if I win the lottery' religion.

Sorry I vented that twisted logic on you. I'm sure you are a good, solid citizen and not a member of the Inquisition.

AG
P.S. As for the Purpose of Life, it is Here: What is Life? by Erwin Shrodinger
There is a grayed distinction between the Purpose OF LIfe and Life's Purpose. The religious Purpose of Living is more subjective and personal (Why am I here?). Schroedinger's purpose of Life is objective and general to all living things, and I submit, even applies to the in-organic effects of the universe like star and planet formation and gravity and light. In a general view, these things may be the surviving laws of many others which didn't work as well in the early universe.
PPS. I'm sure I don't use the proper terms in the proper way and everything I say can be picked apart. I expect that. If you want real facts, you'll have to buy them from the NSA like everyone else does.

 

[devan]

The facts are that the vast majority of Christians around the world do NOT accept the fundamentalists' view of creation and the world. You may want to believe that that minority view represents the dominant view within Christianity because it advances your need to see Christians as wild-eyed uneducated sheep...

Huh? That's what I said. And I added that, "most of the U.S. advances in technology, medicine and physics have been made by Christians and Jews of (varying sincerity) over the past 50 decades". Those on the left, who tend to be agnostic or atheistic in their beliefs, very often will portray a caricature of Christians based upon the beliefs of a very small minority. It could be out of ignorance or the politically-correct practice of mocking any religion other than Islam. It could also be due to a major tenet of the secular left in that there is no higher moral authority than one's conscience.

Religionists shouldn't try to judge atheism or agnostic

I didn't judge anyone when I said that a more reasonable philosophy [than atheism] would be that of an agnostic, someone who isn't convinced one way or the other, but has an open mind. How can one be so, so certain that there is no creator?

David frequently refers to us as ants, and he may be right. That's why I think it is the height of arrogance to say, for certain, that there is no ultimate intelligence behind the universe. Can you imagine if a microbe in your body had a sliver of consciousness? Could he ever imagine that he was part of something greater (immense, if he lived inside Rosie)?

But my ultimate point with this and many of my posts is that UFOlogy has been hijacked by left-wing politics, conspiracy theories (some here even doubt the moon landing), atheistic beliefs, book, CD and flashlight hustlers and a whole lot of back-biting. A clean break to a more focused study and with more mainstream participation is badly needed.

 

[devan]

Sorry Devan, I probably quoted you somewhere, so Verum thought it was you speaking. -AG

Sorry I vented that twisted logic on you. I'm sure you are a good, solid citizen and not a member of the Inquisition.

Yea, I thought it was weird how he dumped on me!

If you think that someone created the universe, that's just great. Find that creator and have tea and crumpets with them.

Using David's analogy again... ever had an aunt farm when you were a kid? Remember spending time, making sure they had everything that was needed to get going so you could see how they turned out? I'll bet they didn't believe in "you" either! ;-)

All I'm saying is that just because something is beyond our understanding, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It would seem that those of us on a paranormal forum would be open minded to the possibility. Besides, if we believe in ghosts, spirits, etc., it would be pretty scary to think that, in an afterlife, there's "nobody in charge". It's encouraging that NDE experiencers commonly report seeing a being of light more intense than anything imaginable who projects a feeling of total love and acceptance.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, 1941

 

[Verum]

Devan, let me apologize for myself. I'm sorry. I did mean to address my comments to Auntigrav. I am feeble and addled much of the time.

 

[David Biedny]

I got to this thread kinda late... wow, quite an exposition of ideas and attitudes.

Atheism has always seemed very limiting to me, it seems like the human brain absolutely requires the mystical spark in order to survive. I'd like to think that we're more than ants, actually, I'm fairly certain that there's a lot more to us than just being eating/shitting/sleeping machines. As Kurt Vonnegut stated in his last book, music is probably the ultimate proof of a higher intelligence.

Speaking of which... for the Radiohead fans in the audience... lookee here...

 

[devan]

No problem, Verum. And David's comment below regarding music reminds me of something. It probably should be another thread, but I hope humanity survives long enough to reach the stars. How depressing to think that our great works of literature, the writings of our philosophers, the music of Bach, Handel, Mozart, Chopin, Stravinski, Vivaldi, Veloso, etc. could be lost forever. Humanity's greatest achievements or it's even existence could disappear without a trace if our star dies or life is extinguished, by our own hands or natural means, before it can travel to other stars.

 

[nikki630]

Atheism has always seemed very limiting to me, it seems like the human brain absolutely requires the mystical spark in order to survive.

As an atheist I think it is believing in god that limits people. Just look at the past and how often religion has tried to squash science. How many people today ignore the facts that evolution is based on because they don't fit in with their god belief.

I'd like to think that we're more than ants, actually, I'm fairly certain that there's a lot more to us than just being eating/shitting/sleeping machines.

Being an atheist does not mean I have to relegate the human race to some biological machine. I revel in the creations of beauty that have come from human minds and wonder at the amazing set of circumstances that have brought us here. I know we have much more to learn, and that may extend to things we can not see. But that does not mean there has to be a supreme being.

Truthfully, I feel somewhat insulted when I hear people say that "humans alone could not have (fill in the blank). This goes for people that believe in god or 'the chariots of the gods'. In my mind both belief systems devalue human ability. While I am sure there are limits to what we can do, I don't think we have even come close to those limits.

As Kurt Vonnegut stated in his last book, music is probably the ultimate proof of a higher intelligence.

And Dick Cheney probably proves just the opposite -- lol

It is interesting that you quoted Kurt Vonnegut .... celebatheists.com list him as an atheist. Celebrity Atheist List.

 

[louis belanger]

Being an atheist does not exclude being a spiritualist

 

[louis belanger]

After reading everybody's arguments.assertions and discussion,I came to an hypothesis:the 'Alien' the primal alien is our brain.we don't know much about the brain.What if, it was all neuro-physiologic? The brain is so personal ,that nobody agree.Different neural pathway and a person think differently ,a little too much a neuro-transmiter and you see ghost.

 

[Ron Collins]

Atheism is a religon itself in my opinion. I have many a problem with organized religion and to a large extent any mass religious following. But this is not to say I do not believe in something greater than we. My issues with Christianity stem from one fact. I have had no defining moment that instilled me with faith in a God. Nearly all my religious friends have had this moment. A clear crossroads in their past that they can recall with fondness. For me that has never happened. And yes, I have tried to listen and look for it.

Anyway, one of my issues with the Christian God is the "glorify me" stuff. Why? This seems awefully juvenile. Nobody has ever explained this to me. Why is it important to glorify the "supreme being". Worship in general seems odd to me. Whether it is monotheistic or polytheistic it is always very ritualized and sybolic. I am not at all sure why the God/Gods require this. Like one poster, I also find prayer odd. What does the "God" get out of answering or not answering a prayer. What if two good prayers contradict one another. Is there criteria? It is all very confusing.

 

[nikki630]

Atheism is a religon itself in my opinion.

So is not believing in fairies a religion as well ?

"Anyway, one of my issues with the Christian God is the "glorify me" stuff. Why? This seems awefully juvenile."

This is certainly not limited to the Christian god. Every religion has rituals that glorify the god of choice.

Nobody has ever explained this to me. Why is it important to glorify the "supreme being". Worship in general seems odd to me. Whether it is monotheistic or polytheistic it is always very ritualized and sybolic. I am not at all sure why the God/Gods require this. Like one poster, I also find prayer odd. What does the "God" get out of answering or not answering a prayer. What if two good prayers contradict one another. Is there criteria? It is all very confusing.

Don't stop there. This is only one of the many things that don't make sense around a supreme being as we generally envision god. If I am wrong and thre is a supreme being NONE of the religions have it right.

 

[Ron Collins]

Atheism is a religon itself in my opinion.

So is not believing in fairies a religion as well ?

OK, fair point. But I say this because most atheists have a strong anti-belief system. There are tenets, books, and all the accoutrement's of a religious movement save overly symbolic rituals and ordained preists. Its like fairy haters on steroids.