RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

wittynamehere -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 7:51:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

quote:

ORIGINAL: wittynamehere
Why didn't the catholic church make this announcement 100 years ago? Why doesn't the bible mention any of this? Think about that.


100 years ago Science didn't mention it either. Think about that.


Bingo :)



Tantriqu -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 7:53:39 PM)

So the pope sez the universe is a god fart?
A genius is found guilty of heliocentricity by the inquisition, is imprisoned by the pope for 10 years, goes blind. But at least he gets an apology almost 400 years later.
Maybe in another 500 years, women will be people!

[image]local://upfiles/372485/884797A6182A484082E35C9138D273B5.jpg[/image]



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 8:01:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wittynamehere

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

quote:

ORIGINAL: wittynamehere
Why didn't the catholic church make this announcement 100 years ago? Why doesn't the bible mention any of this? Think about that.


100 years ago Science didn't mention it either. Think about that.


Bingo :)



Bingo?

Science grows incrementally. The supposed word of the all knowing god was handed down centuries ago. Genesis could very easily have talked about the big bang.

Not to mention the fact that the big bang is a theory of the CREATION of the universe. If God caused the big bang then he has to exist outside the universe. If hes outside our universe who gives a fuck.



wittynamehere -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 8:01:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub
 Billions of people all over the world spend their lives devoted to what is essentially an image, an idea, a "re-presentation" of what is. They are so transfixed by the image, they never get even close to the reality it veils. In short, they never have a direct experience of being alive.

I have to say, I enjoy reading your posts. The font and colour are great, btw. But it's the content that is the best part. Thank you!



wittynamehere -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 8:04:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: wittynamehere

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

quote:

ORIGINAL: wittynamehere
Why didn't the catholic church make this announcement 100 years ago? Why doesn't the bible mention any of this? Think about that.


100 years ago Science didn't mention it either. Think about that.


Bingo :)



Bingo?

Science grows incrementally. The supposed word of the all knowing god was handed down centuries ago. Genesis could very easily have talked about the big bang.

Yes, this is what we're talking about.



anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 9:13:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

OP, as a courtesy, could you improve the appearance of your text.  I don't think it is a color issue, but the font you are using is making the posts very difficult to read.  I know that this may be My issue due to My eyesight.  In fact, I struggled reading the original.  The longer post that you followed up with is worse and I can't possibly address it.  Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
Frankly, not THAT statement.  He is of course a believer in the Bible (kinda comes with the job).  So he believes in the Genesis version of the world in seven days.

What his statement means is that he sees no conflict between Genesis and the Big Bang.  This is surprising to me, considering how conservatively the Catholic Church has classically taken the Bible.


This may be a bit simplistic on the subject, however I find it an interpretation that works in My case.  It relates only to the seven day bit, which is actually six.  Rest came on the seventh "day".

One of the issues that many folks have with the bible is the fact that all written passages were done by men.  That being the case, any version that God passed down to men had to be in terms that men of that era could understand.  The "day" doesn't necessarily refer to a day as we understand it, being the twenty-four hour kind.  Instead, it may very well be a day such as God understands.  Considering a being who is the Alpha and the Omega, a day isn't going to be a single rotation of the earth.

The bible has many instances where terms are used that aren't exact definitions.  It may be the very same case. 

Since the topic of the thread, at least in part is ignorance, I suppose that is My perspective.  When a being understands the vastness of the universe and all things that have ever happened or will happen, I'm pretty sure that once in a while, He has to put things in such a way that will make sense to creatures that can't possibly have the same kind of comprehension.



Sure no problem. That font is Verdana and the color is one I chose many years ago as it's one of my favorite colors (the other is blue). I'll write this post using the default and if it works for you than all the better.

While I'm at it I will take this opportunity to say to anyone who has been taken back by my writing that it's been quite a while since I've posted anything and realize this is a sensitive subject and I may be coming across a bit heavy handed. That is not my intention so I apologize in that regard.

You mentioned above how the bible has many ambiguous terms that are not exact definitions. This is an important observation. The bible can be interpreted as meaning many different things. Other religions suffer the same problem. Islam is rifled with phrases that have been interpreted so differently that entire segments of the Muslim community are divided by what each things it is trying to say. A good example is the portion that comments on how a woman should be dressed. Some believe it's okay for the eyes and hands to be visible, others believe nothing should be visible, and then there are some brave women who interpret it so loosely they are comfortable wearing modern western style clothing.

Pretty much every religion throughout history has splintered into multiple factions due to how people choose to take the meaning of the religion's writings. There are other factors as well. I mentioned the impact of printing previously. The advent of the printing press made it possible for education to be more readily available to a greater number of people than ever before.

Everyone from that point forward would read the exact same text since books were being mechanically reproduced. When Martin Luther's "95 theses" was printed, it was printed in German so many more people could know what his issues with the church were. Prior to that, the church benefited from the use of Latin in all their writings. This kept important information (knowledge is power) away from the general populace and only those few who had been educated to read, write, and speak Latin were privy to what the church had to say in important matters. The Protestant movement spread much more quickly than the church was prepared for due to all its writings and communications being written in German.

Another side-effect of the printing press was the standardization of languages wherever the printing press was used. At the time, the way languages were spoken could vary even from one town to the next but soon everyone would learn from the same copies printed off a master edition. In some ways, the printing press can be compared to the Internet in how it has accelerated the availability of knowledge among the masses.



jlf1961 -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 9:43:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wittynamehere

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder
I am a believer in God but I'm also a believer in science and I don't ever feel any confusion with believing in both.

Maybe you haven't taken a good look at the two concepts. One is based on the study of reality, and one is made up by people who didn't believe in reality.




Actually, the people that came up with religion, no matter what religion, tried to explain reality in a way they could understand from the time of the oral traditions as laid down in any creation myth or story you wish to consider.

Now, being a person of faith (yes I believe in god) and I have a college education, I see no problem with comparing the scientific progress of the Universe from the big bang to the same progression as found in Genesis.

When you consider that the progression in Genesis is as follows:
1) Creation of heaven and earth, but please note that the bible says that the earth was WITHOUT form.
2) Then came light. Now considering that Stars were the second step in the progression of the Universe, speaking of the larger items found in creation
3) Then around the stars he created two firmaments, one the heavens, but he had not yet created the planets. Figure this to be the separation of interstellar space from the discs of matter that surrounded the stars.
4) God created the planets.
5) Then god brought forth life, plant and animal.

Now granted, the creation of the sun and moon are out of place at this point.

6) God created animal life,
7) Modern Man appeared.

When you consider that most, if not all creation myths have the same progression, it would seem that prehistoric people had some clue as to how and in what way the Universe came into existence. Science just confirmed what was already written down.

By the way, the Catholic Church funds scientific research, there is a Catholic Church observatory that has discovered some of the exosolar planets that have been discovered. There are priests that have doctoral degrees in the hard sciences and these men have found more in science to confirm their faith than they have things to disprove it or put it in doubt.

Criticizing people who choose to have faith in something greater than themselves is rather childish. We have free will, God made us that way. We can choose to believe or choose to not believe.

I find that my faith is a comfort. I have had some experiences in my life that I could find no logical, rational explanation on why they played out the way they did.

One of which is when I drove a truck and a drunk crossed the median at over a hundred miles an hour. He hit the right front fender and tire, causing me to lose control, the tractor separated from the trailer and rolled over one and a half times. I ended up with a broken arm.

The highway patrol that arrived on the scene took there time before checking the cab, since they figured no one would have survived.



tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 9:46:42 PM)

That is all fine and well except when people get so vested in the placeholder that they forget about what is still there and is actually more real than what they have made up in their minds to replace it. This is my main beef with religions. None of them is the truth. Billions of people all over the world spend their lives devoted to what is essentially an image, an idea, a "re-presentation" of what is. They are so transfixed by the image, they never get even close to the reality it veils. In short, they never have a direct experience of being alive. Maybe they might during a really scary car accident or when they slip on some ice and the situation overwhelms their mind so much that they have a similar situation to the one I described above about forgetting yourself. But that will be all they get. Wouldn't it be something to experience life directly without your "self" interpreting everything?

My problem with this supposition is that its only your truth that matters, according to you.

In short, they never have a direct experience of being alive

Im interested in your proof for this statement, beyond your belief that its true.



anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 9:59:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

I am a believer in God but I'm also a believer in science and I don't ever feel any confusion with believing in both.

So the big bang was created by scientific methods. What created those scientific methods? And then what created those and so on and so forth.





You ask a good question. If you want to take it back to the beginning, let's consider the time when the only technology in existence was stone tools. Stone tools are made systematically by breaking off shards of stone to create a specific shape with a sharp point and sharp edges. It's likely one day someone stumbled upon a shattered rock and had the bright idea to use one of the splintered pieces as either a weapon or a tool. But finding shattered rocks would not always be possible and so the idea came to try and make one.

Over time, this very primitive form of tool making would be honed until the toolmaker was able to not only make tools on demand but make them in the same shape consistently. Now here is the important part...think about this time in history. You figure out how to make a stone tool but how do you explain the steps to another person? Remember this has never been done before.

Although not proven it has been suggested that the need for one person to explain to another how to make something was what spawned the beginning of logic. Making a tool is done in a specific order of steps. Coming up with a way to explain the steps forces the person doing the explaining to think in a step by step (logical) manner. You could also say that teaching toolmaking and using logic were sort of a chicken and the egg situtation...one drives the other.

Now back to scientific method. Scientific method is the epitomy of logic. The Big Bang theory was developed based on using scientific method. But it was also based on a long chain of seemingly unrelated observations in other fields of science. I cannot give you the exact series of observations that were used but I can say many of them were the result of scientists looking for something else entirely and then later on someone else learned of these earlier experiments and found how they could be applied to whatever that person was exploring. Accidental discoveries are more common in science than most people realize.

The discover of DNA was actually based on the previous works of several scientists who were not working together. But one team had seen the data from each of the other scientists and using these other findings together with their own, were able to demonstrate the existence of the double helix at the molecular level. Watson and Crick got the credit and it is still a controversy to this day.

Air conditioning was accidentally discovered by a doctor who was trying to come up with a way to remove "bad air" from a room. The doctor believed many ailments were caused by something in the air people breathed. His experiments to remove bad air didn't help sick patients but as a side effect, air conditioning was invented.

Infrared light was discovered when a scientist was using a prism to defract light into a rainbow. He placed a thermometer in each band of light to record their temperature. By chance he laid down the thermometer near but not in the rainbow of light and was surprised to find a temperature was being set where he could see no light. This proved that something was there even though he could not see it but he correctly surmised that light has a much broader spectrum than the human eye can see.

Anyway, I think I'm getting off track a bit. Science and its methods can be seen as a history of refinements. As new instruments with greater precision and more ability are developed, new information is made available that either disproves, affirms, or expands on existing theories. In a couple years, a new telescope will be launched. This telescope will have an orbit further away from the earth than the moon. It will be much more powerful and sensitive than the Hubble. Given what has been discovered with the Hubble, one can only imagine what this new telescope will reveal. It is said it will be capable of imaging planets orbiting distant stars.



ramzaruglia -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 10:18:06 PM)

Actually, this issue emerged when Georges Le Maittre, a Roman Catholic priest and a astrophysicist came up with the "Cosmic Egg"(the theory before the Big Bang) theory. The stupid pope at that time(I can't remember his damn name), said that the theory represents the moment of creation in Genesis.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. They can't just accept the fact that their theory that the earth is just 6000 years old was broken by carbon datings, and the age of the universe was way too far from the claims of the creationists(sorry people, you can blame Edwin Hubble for that).

This issue was like, during when Einstein accidentally proved in his "Theory of General Relativity" that once the universe started in a "singularity". I think 50 to 60 years ago.



tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 10:22:58 PM)

quote:

Stupid, stupid, stupid. They can't just accept the fact that their theory that the earth is just 6000 years old was broken by carbon datings, and the age of the universe was way too far from the claims of the creationists(sorry people, you can blame Edwin Hubble for that).


Who is "they"?



anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 10:27:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

That is all fine and well except when people get so vested in the placeholder that they forget about what is still there and is actually more real than what they have made up in their minds to replace it. This is my main beef with religions. None of them is the truth. Billions of people all over the world spend their lives devoted to what is essentially an image, an idea, a "re-presentation" of what is. They are so transfixed by the image, they never get even close to the reality it veils. In short, they never have a direct experience of being alive. Maybe they might during a really scary car accident or when they slip on some ice and the situation overwhelms their mind so much that they have a similar situation to the one I described above about forgetting yourself. But that will be all they get. Wouldn't it be something to experience life directly without your "self" interpreting everything?

My problem with this supposition is that its only your truth that matters, according to you.

In short, they never have a direct experience of being alive

Im interested in your proof for this statement, beyond your belief that its true.


Let me put it a different way. Where is God in religion? You see a church, a mosque, a temple. You see books, priests, ministers, imams, rabbis, ornaments, special clothing, rituals, and lots of people in attendance but where is God? If you wish to have a direct experience of God why all the trappings and protocols? You go to church and have an experience with your fellow worshippers. That experience is emotional but is no different than the collective feeling people get when they go to a music concert, sporting event, or political rally. Baptist churches are famous for their emotional singing and participation. Think back to the Shakers and how they would work themselves up into a frenzy and begin trembling (hence the term, "Shakers").

Have you ever seen the Vatican (let alone the inside)? Do you think Jesus had that in mind back in his time? Over time people have gotten completely lost with what their religion represents and they don't realize it. It's a symbol of a greater reality but people forget this. And then they forget that they have forgotten. It's not something that needs to be proved...it's obvious when you are not distracted by all the pomp. Your statement about my suppostion is a supposition in itself. My truth matters to me. I cannot give you your truth...you have to find it for yourself.

I say that because one of the points behind my statement you quoted is this....

If someone is looking for the truth and they rely on what someone else tells them or what they read in a book, they are not getting the truth. They are getting someone else's truth (if it is truth at all). When I speak of having a direct experience of life, this is what I am talking about. As long as you follow someone else you are not walking your own path to the truth. Don't take what I say as the truth. Go into it for yourself. If you understand this then you will see that I am not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I'm putting things on the table for consideration...that's all.



ramzaruglia -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 10:27:27 PM)

They = creationists.



tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 10:48:50 PM)

quote:

Let me put it a different way. Where is God in religion? You see a church, a mosque, a temple. You see books, priests, ministers, imams, rabbis, ornaments, special clothing, rituals, and lots of people in attendance but where is God? If you wish to have a direct experience of God why all the trappings and protocols? You go to church and have an experience with your fellow worshippers. That experience is emotional but is no different than the collective feeling people get when they go to a music concert, sporting event, or political rally. Baptist churches are famous for their emotional singing and participation. Think back to the Shakers and how they would work themselves up into a frenzy and begin trembling (hence the term, "Shakers").


And yet you cannot seem to seperate the religion from the religious. I see that inability in alot of those who post here.

quote:

Have you ever seen the Vatican (let alone the inside)? Do you think Jesus had that in mind back in his time? Over time people have gotten completely lost with what their religion represents and they don't realize it. It's a symbol of a greater reality but people forget this. And then they forget that they have forgotten. It's not something that needs to be proved...it's obvious when you are not distracted by all the pomp. Your statement about my suppostion is a supposition in itself. My truth matters to me. I cannot give you your truth...you have to find it for yourself.


And yet, in your statement, you declared what the truth was for all of us.

quote:

That is all fine and well except when people get so vested in the placeholder that they forget about what is still there and is actually more real than what they have made up in their minds to replace it. This is my main beef with religions. None of them is the truth.


This is your quote. Who are you to state what is truth and what isnt, except in an opinion form, which you have not. You stated it as fact, then continued on ...

quote:

Billions of people all over the world spend their lives devoted to what is essentially an image, an idea, a "re-presentation" of what is. They are so transfixed by the image, they never get even close to the reality it veils. In short, they never have a direct experience of being alive. Maybe they might during a really scary car accident or when they slip on some ice and the situation overwhelms their mind so much that they have a similar situation to the one I described above about forgetting yourself. But that will be all they get. Wouldn't it be something to experience life directly without your "self" interpreting everything?


How do you know what billions of people spend their lives doing? Then you assume they "never have a direct experience of being alive". This isnt a supposition statement, its a statement of fact. And i would love to see your proof of this fact.

quote:

If someone is looking for the truth and they rely on what someone else tells them or what they read in a book, they are not getting the truth. They are getting someone else's truth (if it is truth at all). When I speak of having a direct experience of life, this is what I am talking about. As long as you follow someone else you are not walking your own path to the truth. Don't take what I say as the truth. Go into it for yourself. If you understand this then you will see that I am not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I'm putting things on the table for consideration...that's all.


So, someone studying the sciences, and reading about different theorms and such, they shouldnt believe them? Interesting that you would make such a statement.

quote:

When I speak of having a direct experience of life, this is what I am talking about. As long as you follow someone else you are not walking your own path to the truth.


Again, proof. How do you know millions of people arent following different paths... or even forging some.



tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 10:50:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ramzaruglia

They = creationists.


Thank you. Its what i thought you meant. You will also find that those who believe such are on the fringe of most religions.



LadyPact -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 11:20:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub
Sure no problem. That font is Verdana and the color is one I chose many years ago as it's one of my favorite colors (the other is blue). I'll write this post using the default and if it works for you than all the better.

Thank you.  I appreciate that.  You could probably stay with the color.  I'm certain it was the Verdana that was causing Me the issue.  It's nice to see that folks are willing to be considerate. 

quote:

While I'm at it I will take this opportunity to say to anyone who has been taken back by my writing that it's been quite a while since I've posted anything and realize this is a sensitive subject and I may be coming across a bit heavy handed. That is not my intention so I apologize in that regard.

I appreciate this as well.

quote:

You mentioned above how the bible has many ambiguous terms that are not exact definitions. This is an important observation. The bible can be interpreted as meaning many different things. Other religions suffer the same problem. Islam is rifled with phrases that have been interpreted so differently that entire segments of the Muslim community are divided by what each things it is trying to say. A good example is the portion that comments on how a woman should be dressed. Some believe it's okay for the eyes and hands to be visible, others believe nothing should be visible, and then there are some brave women who interpret it so loosely they are comfortable wearing modern western style clothing.

Pretty much every religion throughout history has splintered into multiple factions due to how people choose to take the meaning of the religion's writings. There are other factors as well. I mentioned the impact of printing previously. The advent of the printing press made it possible for education to be more readily available to a greater number of people than ever before.

Everyone from that point forward would read the exact same text since books were being mechanically reproduced. When Martin Luther's "95 theses" was printed, it was printed in German so many more people could know what his issues with the church were. Prior to that, the church benefited from the use of Latin in all their writings. This kept important information (knowledge is power) away from the general populace and only those few who had been educated to read, write, and speak Latin were privy to what the church had to say in important matters. The Protestant movement spread much more quickly than the church was prepared for due to all its writings and communications being written in German.

Another side-effect of the printing press was the standardization of languages wherever the printing press was used. At the time, the way languages were spoken could vary even from one town to the next but soon everyone would learn from the same copies printed off a master edition. In some ways, the printing press can be compared to the Internet in how it has accelerated the availability of knowledge among the masses.

I don't tend to speak on the differences amongst the religions.  As someone else has so eloquently stated, I consider Myself more a person of faith.  This has to do very much with points related to My other comment.  It's My belief that people are flawed and therefore, that trickles into organized religion.  It's hard for Me to believe that, with all of those generations of people and all of their flaws, that some things didn't get messed up along the line somewhere.  That's probably another topic all together, so I won't derail your thread with that.

At this time, I can't see why it isn't possible that both are true.  Big Bang could have been happenstance.  At the same time, it absolutely could have been the exact design of the creator.  It's not possible at this point for any person who holds that it must be an either/or concept to be able to prove that they can't co-exist. 



anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 11:21:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: wittynamehere

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder
I am a believer in God but I'm also a believer in science and I don't ever feel any confusion with believing in both.

Maybe you haven't taken a good look at the two concepts. One is based on the study of reality, and one is made up by people who didn't believe in reality.




Actually, the people that came up with religion, no matter what religion, tried to explain reality in a way they could understand from the time of the oral traditions as laid down in any creation myth or story you wish to consider.

Now, being a person of faith (yes I believe in god) and I have a college education, I see no problem with comparing the scientific progress of the Universe from the big bang to the same progression as found in Genesis.

When you consider that the progression in Genesis is as follows:
1) Creation of heaven and earth, but please note that the bible says that the earth was WITHOUT form.
2) Then came light. Now considering that Stars were the second step in the progression of the Universe, speaking of the larger items found in creation
3) Then around the stars he created two firmaments, one the heavens, but he had not yet created the planets. Figure this to be the separation of interstellar space from the discs of matter that surrounded the stars.
4) God created the planets.
5) Then god brought forth life, plant and animal.

Now granted, the creation of the sun and moon are out of place at this point.

6) God created animal life,
7) Modern Man appeared.

When you consider that most, if not all creation myths have the same progression, it would seem that prehistoric people had some clue as to how and in what way the Universe came into existence. Science just confirmed what was already written down.

By the way, the Catholic Church funds scientific research, there is a Catholic Church observatory that has discovered some of the exosolar planets that have been discovered. There are priests that have doctoral degrees in the hard sciences and these men have found more in science to confirm their faith than they have things to disprove it or put it in doubt.

Criticizing people who choose to have faith in something greater than themselves is rather childish. We have free will, God made us that way. We can choose to believe or choose to not believe.

I find that my faith is a comfort. I have had some experiences in my life that I could find no logical, rational explanation on why they played out the way they did.

One of which is when I drove a truck and a drunk crossed the median at over a hundred miles an hour. He hit the right front fender and tire, causing me to lose control, the tractor separated from the trailer and rolled over one and a half times. I ended up with a broken arm.

The highway patrol that arrived on the scene took there time before checking the cab, since they figured no one would have survived.


Hi,
I like you from the way you write. I want to say I'm sorry if you think I'm being childish for what I have written but someone has to say these things. I have a big problem with living in a world where people stick with explanations for things even though advancements in technology and understanding have long since proved otherwise. For example, the earth is not the center of the universe or God's special planet where the only life in the entire universe exists.

It's extremely arrogant for anyone to think this is the only place where life exists. I'm not saying you do necessarily, I'm just speaking in general.

The problem with the bible is it is not written concisely. It is open to interpretation in a major way and there have been many, many explanations of what portions of the text is supposedly saying. It is certainly not a history book by any stretch. Recently I read yet another explanation trying and reconcile science with religion. It was stated that in the bible, the phrase "The world was void and without form" really means "the world was becoming void and without form" due to how the Hebrew words were translated incorrectly. So instead of God creating the world 6000 years ago, he was really fixing it to remove the corruption. This was also used to explain dinosaurs (dinosaurs were part of the corrupt world and destroyed when God corrected everything to what we see today) and the age of the planet beyond 6000 years.

I have a degree in anthropology (surprise). All I can say is if you look at the historical record of the advancement of human civilization, it is clear that religion is a social tool that was born as you say at a time when people did their best to explain things they didn't understand. But somewhere along the way it got embedded in the fabric of civilization and with time and numbers of people, gained an enormous amount of power and authority which it has been slowly losing over the past 300 or so years.

You mention the similarities of ancient myths. This was something I picked up on when I was 8 years old (I lived at the library as a child). Historically, civilization began in 5 independent areas around the world all within a few centuries of each other...China, the Andes, the Indus Valley (modern Pakistan), Central America, and the Fertile Crescent (Israel and Jordon down to central Iraq).

My thinking is that human beings are pretty much the same psychologically. As such, it's no surprise that they would all come up with similar stories to explain the big mysteries of life. Our brains all work the same way so why is it not possible for this to have happened? I can't prove it but I think its not far fetched. Similarly, Central and South American cultures did not make use of the wheel even though they knew of it. But they also had no draft animals so perhaps there was no driving motive to push them to make use of it. My point here is that the environment influences the way people see their world and as a result, the way they think. The Inuit (Eskimos) have 24 words for snow. The Aztecs had one which was also used for the color blue.

Anyway, it's hard to say these things knowing it steps on some toes. But that is not my intention. I'm happy for your comfort in spite of what I have been saying in this thread.



tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 11:28:57 PM)

quote:

You mention the similarities of ancient myths. This was something I picked up on when I was 8 years old (I lived at the library as a child). Historically, civilization began in 5 independent areas around the world all within a few centuries of each other...China, the Andes, the Indus Valley (modern Pakistan), Central America, and the Fertile Crescent (Israel and Jordon down to central Iraq).


Until recently...

A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101227/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_ancient_teeth



tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 11:32:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

First: I'm an atheist.

This is a serious question, not a snide one:

Could you provide scientific proof, or just a logical argument, that shows it's better to be alive than dead?  You see, I can't.  I'm still alive because I have a largely unquestioned faith that it's better to be alive than dead. 

The Pope may be the world's leading bullshitter and all religion ultimately a lot of drivel, but I honestly don't think most people realise just how much irrational faith they have, nor how crucial it is that they maintain that faith. 

Excellent post!

Thanks for pointing out that, contrary to what many people like to think, none of us are entirely rational creatures. While the exact mix of rational/irrational behaviour and thinking is probably individually unique, it is clear that exclusively rational approaches to understanding ourselves, our behaviours and the universe we are part of fall short of the mark.

There doesn’t appear to be any reason to suppose that future results will be any different. For those interested, there is a formal proof of the impossibility of a rational Theory of Everything (Godel's Theorem) Scientific research has yielded many insights but cannot answer the ‘big questions’ satisfactorily.

Despite being a permanently inadequate tool for this particular line of enquiry rational investigation remains far and away our most successful and reliable methodology. Alternative approaches such as religion seem to encounter great difficulties in explaining even the most basic observable phenomena, as the history of Church-Science debates illustrates. While religions may provide emotional comfort to many, they seem inadequate as a viable alternative approach.

Eventually, this line of enquiry leads us to consideration of Truth as a basic value, as the object and validator of belief systems and behaviours. As objective Truth seems to be forever beyond human potential are there any alternatives that might prove to be better suited to our needs?

Eastern philosophies have long focussed on harmony as a core and central value. Harmony has the merit of being of being within the range of human potential. Thus, it is both attainable and, I would assert, desirable. Would humans be better off focussing on learning how to live together rather than continually attempting the impossible?



anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/6/2011 11:56:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Let me put it a different way. Where is God in religion? You see a church, a mosque, a temple. You see books, priests, ministers, imams, rabbis, ornaments, special clothing, rituals, and lots of people in attendance but where is God? If you wish to have a direct experience of God why all the trappings and protocols? You go to church and have an experience with your fellow worshippers. That experience is emotional but is no different than the collective feeling people get when they go to a music concert, sporting event, or political rally. Baptist churches are famous for their emotional singing and participation. Think back to the Shakers and how they would work themselves up into a frenzy and begin trembling (hence the term, "Shakers").


And yet you cannot seem to seperate the religion from the religious. I see that inability in alot of those who post here.

quote:

Have you ever seen the Vatican (let alone the inside)? Do you think Jesus had that in mind back in his time? Over time people have gotten completely lost with what their religion represents and they don't realize it. It's a symbol of a greater reality but people forget this. And then they forget that they have forgotten. It's not something that needs to be proved...it's obvious when you are not distracted by all the pomp. Your statement about my suppostion is a supposition in itself. My truth matters to me. I cannot give you your truth...you have to find it for yourself.


And yet, in your statement, you declared what the truth was for all of us.

quote:

That is all fine and well except when people get so vested in the placeholder that they forget about what is still there and is actually more real than what they have made up in their minds to replace it. This is my main beef with religions. None of them is the truth.


This is your quote. Who are you to state what is truth and what isnt, except in an opinion form, which you have not. You stated it as fact, then continued on ...

quote:

Billions of people all over the world spend their lives devoted to what is essentially an image, an idea, a "re-presentation" of what is. They are so transfixed by the image, they never get even close to the reality it veils. In short, they never have a direct experience of being alive. Maybe they might during a really scary car accident or when they slip on some ice and the situation overwhelms their mind so much that they have a similar situation to the one I described above about forgetting yourself. But that will be all they get. Wouldn't it be something to experience life directly without your "self" interpreting everything?


How do you know what billions of people spend their lives doing? Then you assume they "never have a direct experience of being alive". This isnt a supposition statement, its a statement of fact. And i would love to see your proof of this fact.

quote:

If someone is looking for the truth and they rely on what someone else tells them or what they read in a book, they are not getting the truth. They are getting someone else's truth (if it is truth at all). When I speak of having a direct experience of life, this is what I am talking about. As long as you follow someone else you are not walking your own path to the truth. Don't take what I say as the truth. Go into it for yourself. If you understand this then you will see that I am not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I'm putting things on the table for consideration...that's all.


So, someone studying the sciences, and reading about different theorms and such, they shouldnt believe them? Interesting that you would make such a statement.

quote:

When I speak of having a direct experience of life, this is what I am talking about. As long as you follow someone else you are not walking your own path to the truth.


Again, proof. How do you know millions of people arent following different paths... or even forging some.


We are certainly at odds here. I am speaking in general terms. Obviously I do not know what is going on in every single person's mind. You are making suppositions about what I am saying but to quell the issue...yes, all that I have said is my opinion...I leave it to everyone else to determine if it is factual or not should they wish to do so.

So in opinion form....

People do not need religion to understand life.

Truth is a dangerous word. Your truth is not my truth and vice versa but there are universal truths to be sure. For example, no matter how much you learn there will always be the unknown.

Billions of people worship and are religious. This is a fact. That they are distracted from experiencing life directly is my opinion based on the fact. And yes, some of them very likely have slipped on some ice at some point in their lives and had a direct experience of living.

Nobody should take information without question...even scientists...but then that's what they do actually. No scientific theory is ever accepted without rigorous testing. This makes science efficient. The testing makes it possible to accept theories as valid without having to test them each and every time they are used. Religions (particularly western religions) have a history of not being so tolerant. In many parts of the world today you can be executed for questioning religion.

In truth (no pun intended) people are following their own path (but many do not realize it for a variety of reasons).

Socrates once said, "He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool...shun him. But he who knows not and knows that he knows not is a wise man...follow him." You probably think I'm the fool whereas I know that I know not. But I would not want anyone following me. Much better for everyone to find truth for themselves. That's really all I am saying here. Whether they do or not is up to them.

Peace



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875