Posted on 05/16/2011 12:41:52 PM PDT by Former Fetus
But I would happily accept any evidence someone could provide me.
How about this?
Note your first sentence above contradicts the last sentence below; and the 2nd sentence above seems to disagree in spirit with the 2nd sentence below...
To: khnyny
If he had been completely honest, he would have said “the Christian right and the radical left as well as the consumer culture”, but otherwise I can't find a lot of fault with that statement.
I know plenty of Christians that are utterly clueless and refuse to think openly about any number of subjects, not even including religion.
And yes, I’m a Christian too.
39 posted on Thu Nov 13 09:48:10 2008 by Rocky Mountain High
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Just guessing, but I'd bet that makes you the first atheist Christian in history. Take a bow.
Cheers!
And we all know your Intro to Microbiology in undergrad -- didn't you mention on another thread that you went to Community College? -- trumps someone with a Ph.D. in the field.
What is your graduate degree in, what level is it (Masters or Ph.D.) and from what school?
Cheers!
Their is no concept of a place of eternal torment in Hebrew or Jewish thought. That's a Christian invention, borrowed from pagan mythology.
The truth is rather more complicated than your feeble little mind can hold.
As a "Cliff's Notes" TO the "Cliff's Notes" -- suffice it to say that the development of philosophy and the development of science and the development of theology were all intertwined.
The historical myth of the "god of the gaps" arose because people in ancient times did not make distinctions in categories that to us seem obvious (historical Monday morning quarterbacking); and once the distinctions were made, it was a further step to separate the "why" (grounds/consequent) from the "why" (cause/effect).
It wasn't a matter of the common atheist mythology that "people used to believe in gods to assuage their fears of a scary world, but then science appeared, and we, the heralds of light, the brights, willing to accept the persecution of our inferiors much as Prometheus, nobly accept our calling to reveal the TRVTHTM". That's an autofellatory wet dream.
What really happened is that as people thought about things, they made practical applications to make their lives easier. Science was rooted in empirical technology (think the horse collar or easier navigation on the ocean, not "ennobling sense of learning for its own sake").
As the technology improved, people tried to create crude models to allow them to improve more rapidly: and much of early science was just as much a popularity contest or mass propaganda eerily similar to The Federalist Papers.
It was only after awhile that the idea of systematizing and comparing observations came about; and then the very TERMS used (mass, momentum, energy, temperature, volume, etc.) had to be painstakingly derived; not without many false starts.
Along the way, the geocentric system accounted very well for the motions of the inner planets: it was only after the invention of the telescope that moons were seen, that Kepler's Law was developed. Do yourself a favor and try deriving the mathematics behind epicycles *without* using Mathematica -- and then realize you have Google, and math textbooks, and calculators to help. The medievals didn't even have calculus or slide rules to help.
Mixed in with this was the dual change from scholasticism (reliance on trusted authority, seen in the Renaissance in the reliance on the Greeks and Romans, and today in places like Salon which consciously refer back to the degeneracy of skeptical France, and seen even today within Medicine much more than in physics) to empiricism, AND the change in asking "what is the teleological / moral 'purpose' of this or that event" to "what can we measure about it, and once we've measured it, can we predict or control it, first for the *hey, COOL!* factor, then for intellectual pride, then convenience, and finally, wads of cash"...
In the wake of this, the philosophical implications followed, and here as well the terms in use today had to be invented. And so, since the philosophy followed the observations, the idea came about that the concept of God was only a weak younger sister to the new, strong, bold, fresh ideas of science. But that isn't true, nor was it ever true. The real change came in the nature of the questions asked, and in the philosophical underpinnings changing from "why does this matter" to "can we predict what will happen next?"
Try reading Galileo's Daughter for more on this.
Remember that the most dogmatic resistance to science came from anti-religious, or even atheistic philosphies, and that in the 20th Century: from Adolf Hitler's dismissal of quantum mechanics as "Jewish science" to Stalin's embrace of Lysenkoism.
Then you have the further problem of uneven propagation of scientific knowledge coupled with the unintended consequence of specialization, that is, total abysmal ignorance outside of one's own chosen field. I have read on sites other than FR that most of the "new atheist" arguments have been hashed over and rejected by the professional philosophers and theologians ages ago; but the imprimatur of a scientific popularizer such as Hawking is enough to invest them with borrowed prestige.
And if you rely on Hawking you have descended to "argument from authority" which is just the same as arguing "because the Bible / Christians / God said so" -- except that the Bible already IS about morality, whereas Hawking is talking out of his ass on a topic unrelated to his studies.
And finally, the politicization of science -- it started with Lysenkoism, but the temptation is ever present, from Eugenics to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Recall the words of physicist C.P. Snow in his novel The Search:
“The only ethical principle which has made science possible is that the truth shall be told all the time. If we do not penalize false statements made in error, we open up the way, don’t you see, for false statements by intention. And of course a false statement of fact, made deliberately, is the most serious crime a scientist can commit.”
Cheers!
This is the same guy that claims the universe was created from nothing and that man made global warming will turn earth into Venus.
Hawking is an astrophysicist, therefore, he is qualified on all spiritual matters.
Likewise, the Dali Lama, therefore, is qualified to be an astrophysicist.
It is interesting the at least two Freepers gave the same answer, but that answer wasn’t what you wanted to hear.
I don’t suggest you stop listening to other people, but include “Mere Christianity” in the ideas you seek.
That certainly could be the case, but when did god last visit us?
You’re a troll.
The truth is rather more complicated than your feeble little mind can hold.
Once you led with insults, you lost your argument and I didn’t read anything else. Notice I didn’t call you a moron for believing in a mythology, but if the shoe fits..
Ahem! When did Hitler, Churchill, Napoleon last visit me? But I still believe they existed and furthermore they exist (they may not be here on earth, but they surely exist). You see, I don't need a so-called visitation to believe. In fact, if I had a visitation, it would be common sense to believe, not faith, and we all know that "the just shall live by faith" (Habakkuk 2:4).
Also, I couldn't care less if any "god" visits me or not... I believe in the one God, creator of the universe and all that is in it. As a scientist, I feel that I have a unique point of view on life on earth, and no explanation will suffice other than there IS a Creator, a designer, a God almighty.
I feel sorry for you. But then, Jesus knocked Paul off his horse and revealed Himself to him. Maybe He will knock you off your high horse and bring you to a saving knowledge of Him. That is my prayer!
Hell was not borrowed from pagan mythology. Jesus Himself taught about it, in parables (e.g. the rich man) and directly (e.g. "It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched" Mark 9:43). What was borrowed from pagan mythology was the word "hell", not the concept of it.
If I was a Jewish person, I might or might not believe in a place of punishment in the after-life. But I am a Christian, I believe that the whole Bible is the Revelation of God, and if at a certain point He let us know that hell is a place of punishment I automatically assume that's what He meant in the Old Testament, whether or not humans understood it.
It’s not very Christian to insult people which you’re coming pretty close to doing.
Hitler, Churchill and Napoleon are dead human beings. It might be hard for them to drop by for coffee.
I think it’s fine to have faith and to believe, but as rational, intellectually honest people, we have to come to terms with the lack of evidence in a god. If you choose to believe anyway, good for you. Faith and prayer can have powerful positive effects on a person.
I look at the world and see a tremendous amount of suffering and horror mixed in with the beauty and goodness. I do not accept that a god would allow the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the tsumanis’ body count, etc. etc. unless he is either helpless, incompetent, depraved or non-existent. I’m opting for non-existent.
I do not know that satan actually exists. No, I don’t expect to understand God, I ask questions to get answers from other people.
Other people believe in hell. I ask them.
They weren’t the same person, were they? There are lots of people on FR that I haven’t asked yet. I try to form my questions around their responses. As I have said repeatedly, I’m asking freepers questions, not God.
I do not accept that a god would allow the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the tsumanis’ body count, etc. etc. unless he is either helpless, incompetent, depraved or non-existent.
At least I am humble enough to confess that I do not understand God. You do not understand Him, so you choose to deny His existence. Is that supposed to make any sense? Is that rational and intellectually honest? By that standard, do you "believe" in atoms? I must confess that I had an awful time with quantum mechanics, so maybe I shouldn't believe!
Now, if you ARE rational and intellectually honest, I will keep on praying for you. Seek the Lord and He will reveal Himself to you (just don't demand a visitation).
That’s very nice, but I think it requires a belief in the Bible as the actual word of God, doesn’t it?
Yet you claim to believe in God. Why? I assume it's because of what you have read, heard, seen... Well, look around, read your Bible, go to a Mass/mosque/temple and then tell me how you don't believe Satan exists.
Yes, absolutely it does.
Quantum mechanics are the Devil’s business! Just kidding.
My financial planner is one of the best in the business. She’s absolutely amazing and she’s a die-hard evangelical Christian. However she doesn’t attribute blips in the market to acts of God, just as I wouldn’t ascribe “spooky action at a distance” to the supernatural either. Some things we haven’t been able to explain...yet.
I saw a ghost once. Another person was with me and saw it too. It was pretty bizarre but it is explainable even if we don’t have the knowledge to explain it yet.
Regarding God - with no visitation, no communication and no action, I’m opting out. Don’t feel sorry for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.