Ultimate heart-ache: Michelle dumps on atheists
posted at 1:57 pm on December 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
But affectionately. Sort of. Except for her suggestion that believers treat them like “trolls.” Heh.
I think she’s referring specifically to the sort of jackassery going on at the capitol in Washington, of which neither I nor the other conservative atheist/agnostics I read are fans. But just in case not, I take comfort in knowing that I’ll always have Ayaan.
Exit question: Um, what exactly is Gretchen saying here? Christianity’s going to disappear unless we … take away atheists’ First Amendment rights?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 15 Next »
Gretchen’s argument is a slippery slope fallacy, and a poorly made argument. The true argument that should be on the tongues of every Christian is that the atheists that put up the signs, the atheists that support the signs in their present location (right next to a nativity scene) are attempting to stifle the overall well-being of Christians, and the right to freely practice their religion.
Nobody is forcing atheists to practice or observe Christmas. However, by agreeing to stay home from work on this federal holiday, atheists are indicating that they choose to observe the holiday. I wonder how many atheists that support the sign would agree to work during the federal holiday since they don’t celebrate it? I’d be willing to guarantee that a very tiny amount would want to practice “their religious rights” when it means giving up a federal holiday.
Placing an anti-religious sign that calls religion a “myth” or “superstition” next to a nativity scene is purposefully incendiary, those responsible for doing it had every intent to incite unrest amongst people, and didn’t do it for any other reason than that. If they had done it to stand up for their religious rights, they would have placed it in another state location, away from the nativity scene.
leetpriest on December 19, 2008 at 9:54 AM
The tree is still up. It was there to begin with. How are the rights of Christians being stifled?
More demanding of violin playing for the people who already had a symbol of their religious ceremony presented for all to see, including those who entered the building but perhaps do not celebrate Christmas.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 10:00 AM
I guess it’s nice poetic prose, but it ain’t science – it’s cliched handwavey religious mumbo jumbo, which is ironic, coming from Sagan.
LimeyGeek on December 19, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Well I dunno, we never hear anything about a Mrs. God. Mrs Santa Claus, but never any Mrs. God. Rather suspicious. Maybe there are living in sin.
MB4 on December 18, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Mary is not only the Mother Of God, she is Mrs. God, too. She donated her DNA to Jesus, just as the Holy Spirit did. Well, assuming that the Holy Spirit had DNA to donate…
Bizarro No. 1 on December 19, 2008 at 10:08 AM
So, wait.
god created Mary, and Mary gave birth to god.
Folks, we have officially reached ouroboros.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Pretty much. However, you used incorrect capitalization for “God”.
Bizarro No. 1 on December 19, 2008 at 10:22 AM
I don’t capitalize the name of an entity I don’t believe in. To do so would be dishonest.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Do you believe in Bigfoot? Or should I say, bigfoot?
Bizarro No. 1 on December 19, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Not sure if Rose is still around, but I want to add to something she said a page ago about children and language.
I have twins, that until recently were considered nonverbal. However, they were still able to communicate with one another using sounds and signals, much as other apes or lesser creatures do. If we were not around to teach them our formal language, I’m quite sure this would have evolved into its own sub-language. And before you ask, no, they were not imitating English (or Russian, for that matter), as their ‘words’ for specific objects were not at all similar to the words the rest of the family used. An example would be their use of Gah-ga for Sophia, their older sister. Yes, anecdotal, but having been through langauge school and having studied linguistics for years, it strikes a chord in my mind.
Languages are dying out all the time, but there are some interesting ones still around, particularly in Africa. Languages are rated on a 1-5 scale, 1 being easy for an English speaker to learn, 5 being damn hard. The only cat 5 languages are English (grammatically) and the African click languages, which are spoken by way of gutteral and throat sounds. It doesn’t sound like any other langauge… but it sounds alot like my twins’ personal langauge.
Point being, language can evolve on its own; we don’t need a teacher to create it for us. We can look to nature for guidence, or to our own urgent needs (a cry of help or pain sounds the same universally) – human language is very organic indeed.
Anna on December 19, 2008 at 10:40 AM
I’m no scientist, but I remember finding it enlightening to read in Hawkings’ “Brief History of Time” that time, being as much a part of the fabric our our universe as matter or energy, didn’t exist “before” the Big Bang. Perhaps there’s an “Uber-time”; but time as we experience and measure it is believed by Bible-believers and very many (perhaps ‘most’, I really don’t know) scientists alike to have “begun” at some point, and not to have existed before that point — and to be destined to END at some point, as well!
“Better Christianity through Science”
RegularJoe on December 19, 2008 at 11:18 AM
That’s silly, condescending, and bad English to boot. I don’t believe in Ganesh, Godzilla or James Bond; but proper English specifies that their names should be capitalized, whether they are real or fictional. Furthermore, to capitalize Godzilla (in whom no sane person believes) but refuse to capitalize Ganesh (in whom nearly a billion people believe), my doing so could only be intended to insult and condescend to Hindus.
I really thought better of you than that.
RegularJoe on December 19, 2008 at 11:29 AM
There are many existential debates about time. After a while, I get a headache ;)
I think of time as a human abstraction, and that it is only meaningful to us because we measure it relative to some frame of reference, like the regular decay of some radioactive material.
In other words, time only ‘exists’ in the mind of the observer.
LimeyGeek on December 19, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Units of time are man-made and arbitrary.
The perception of passage of time (e.g., “time flies when you’re having fun”) is in the mind of the observer.
But time itself is real, verifiable, and subject to certain natural laws (special relativity being a famous one, your example of radioactive decay being another).
Forgive me if that seems to be splitting hairs; but when you get down to such elemental issues, in a discussion about the very nature and origins of the universe, and where so much of what we believe can’t be experimentally verified, precision in the things we CAN verify matters.
RegularJoe on December 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Oh, I understand that alright…the larger question is, without the observer, how can we possibly verify that such a framework of reference remains constant?
The concept of a ‘passage of time’ requires memory. Without that, there is no concept of before & after. It’s just a big soup of particles, of varying densities, interacting.
Maybe we can consider the abstract concept of time as being universal? I’m not committed either way…it’s an interesting mental exercise :)
LimeyGeek on December 19, 2008 at 12:21 PM
think again.
right4life on December 19, 2008 at 12:27 PM
If you all enjoyed Stephen Hawkings book, you should read Julian Barbour’s The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics.
My collie says:
Barbour is NOT a crank. He was recently recognized in an article in Discover magazine as having one of three candidate theories that could possibly reconcile quantum mechanics with Einstein’s theories and classical physics.
CyberCipher on December 19, 2008 at 12:30 PM
now we’re getting philosphical…you might the following interesting…about dualism, materialism, in regards to the mind/conciousness…
link
link
I find it rather interesting to view the debate between these 2..
right4life on December 19, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I think we tend to look down upon the ancients…I think they were smarter than we give them credit for. look at the antikythera mechanism
right4life on December 19, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Readers of science fiction have almost certainly come across the phrase, “space-time continuum.” If time is part of the universe, which seems indicated in many places, then it would not necessarily exist outside of the universe. Of course, I’m not at all sure what does exist outside of the universe.
At any rate, if time is part of the substance of the universe, and God created the universe, then God would by definition be outside time, and therefore eternal.
We’re all limited by our perspective. To the ancients, the world was flat, because they lacked the perspective of being able to see the curvature of the earth. (Speaking in a general sense. I believe there were some exceptions.)
Our view of God, and of the origin of the universe is still limited by time and distance. Of the two, distance is probably the easier limit to overcome. It’s hard to even imagine the existence of something not bound by time.
tom on December 19, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Measurement of time is a different matter than time itself. Presuming that time is dependent on consciousness complicates the issue. Time=change; it’s that simple, and it doesn’t require any awareness whatsoever to exist.
Bizarro No. 1 on December 19, 2008 at 1:01 PM
James Bond and Godzilla are bad examples, because everyone agrees that they do not really exist. However, in essence, they do exist as they were created by someone. Everyone agrees that the character of James Bond exists, as well the the character of Godzilla. To compare them to the philosophical and theological entity of god would, I would think, piss off some Christians.
I capitalize the names of people we know to have existed, like Jesus Christ and Buddha. I do not capitalize the names of fantasies that are in heavy dispute throughout the world, since I don’t believe in them. Using the comparison of fictional characters is a farce. I can show you James Bond, because he exists only on film and in books. You cannot show me god, because he is claimed to both exist and not exist, and to exist but in a plane or state that is not existence, and even to exist but differently than what some claim.
Capitalizing the name would show reverence which I don’t have. Lying about my reverence is as bad as saying I was one of the faithful, which I am not.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Wow, for a guy who doesn’t believe in science, you sure make a good creationist!!
In your world — with man not standing by to measure it — C14 could break down much faster, allowing things to APPEAR millions of years old when they are in fact mere thousands of years old. In your world, the Earth could hurled into place a sphere of molten iron & silicon after breakfast, and cooled to its current life-sustaining liquid-water temperature before lunch. The dinosaurs could have all lived and died in a matter of minutes! Why, you’ve just made a 6000-year-old earth not only utterly believable, but shown it to be child’s play!!
Except it just isn’t that easy. If I accept the verifiable facts borne out by science, a 6000-year-old Earth becomes a miracle of enormous proportion (I generally lean toward an older-earth, ‘Biblical-day-as-epoch’ understanding of Genesis, and I’m aware that even then the wording must be stretched a bit to jibe with some of the evidence).
No, God has created a marvelously consistent universe. Gravity works
nearlyevery time. I go a step beyond the naturalist in that I also believe that there is a Creator God who, from time to time, overrules natural law to suit His purposes. I can’t “prove” it — but I have observed evidence of it. Much of that evidence is more like courtroom evidence than laboratory evidence in that it is circumstantial and (since it is, I believe, God’s intervening in natural law) it is not reproducible.But none of that changes the fact that there IS a universe of natural laws, which allow us to invent, to plan, and simply to function (imagine any of Newton’s laws suddenly beginning to experience sporadic failure!)
RegularJoe on December 19, 2008 at 1:32 PM
When a business or school closes for observence of Jewish holidays, it doesn’t make everyone somewhat Jewish. If the institution has decided to close or operate with reduced staffing, it allows Jews to observe their holiday and non-Jews to sleep-in, catch a movie, have dinner with friends or whatever they choose.
Christmas is similar for non-Christians–they mostly don’t go to the office on 12/25 day but don’t become observant by that act.
dedalus on December 19, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Meh. Some Christians get p-ed off over anything, just like some atheists (LeviStrauss, you there?). Besides, you could make a similar argument that capitalizing Godzilla insults Betty Regular (my mother), since we’re using the same capitalization rules for both. Epic silly.
Tish tosh. Capitalizing names is correct English usage, plain and simple. I would capitalize Hitler or Stalin, though I certainly do not revere them. Not capitalizing them is a finger in someone’s eye, a boorish taunt. It doesn’t offend me, but it diminishes you in my eyes.
The closest you could come to salient argument here would be to diverge from the Christian practice of capitalizing pronouns that refer to God. THAT is an expression of reverence, and I would understand non-believers declining to do so. But not capitalizing a name? Childish.
As would be continuing to press my case. Do as you like, I’ll leave it to other readers to discern for themselves, and to you to consider, if you are the open-minded sort.
RegularJoe on December 19, 2008 at 1:43 PM
DOH!!!
RegularJoe on December 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Heh – the thread is STILL going.
But have we solved the eternal riddles of whether atheism is a belief system or a religion? And what about books? Do they write themselves?
/tongue planted firmly in cheek
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Again, your mother is someone that can be shown to me just like Godzilla can, where god cannot.
Additionally, yo mama.
Again, Hitler and Stalin existed, just as Jesus Christ and Buddha existed. That’s confirmed. The existence of god is not, nor his exact type of existence or what name he exists under or blah blah…not real.
And I really don’t care what you think of me.
No, respectful. Good lord, you so far have shown more offense over this than the Christians I’ve been discussing this with.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM
You have learned much.
But you are not a Jedi yet.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Are..are you a Christian? Defending good science? I really hope so. That would make my day. No sarcasm intended. I knew there were non-creationists out there, but they never speak up.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 2:01 PM
As others have already pointed out (in this thread — yes, I know that it is tedious reading all the comments), the SCOTUS has already declared atheism a religion. Many of us Christians find that we must abide by many, many SCOTUS rulings that we disagree with or that we despise. I see no reason why atheists should be exempt from SCOTUS rulings. They should abide by the SCOTUS ruling.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 19, 2008 at 2:07 PM
I think MOST Christians are non-six-24-hour-day-creationists.
Now, we still believe that God is the creator of all things…
…but most believe that religion and science is very compatible.
In fact, I’ve often noted that science answers the ‘how’ questions while religion answers the ‘why’ questions.
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Wasn’t there a poll about this a few days ago?
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 2:12 PM
LOL I’m just not afraid to follow concepts beyond our current bounds of understanding. That’s science :)
I will take CC’s pointer and read up on what Julian Barbour has to say. It’s a very challenging concept to consider – no time. Wow.
LimeyGeek on December 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM
My pet rock says:
Actually, I was one of those who brought up the SCOTUS ruling.
Also, I understand the point of the book analogy…
…it’s just that it relies, IMHO, too much on linguistic gymnastics.
Both arguments (is atheism a religion, does a book write itself), when voiced in the real world, usually devolve into a long and boring debate on definitions (like “depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”)
My pet rock states:
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM
As a member of HA, are you telling me that you actually believe what polls tell you??!!
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Yes. They’ll let anybody in.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I am a Christian and I believe that evolution is a now a viable theory — but ONLY in that past 20 years or so since modern genetic science has “come on line”. There are others (much more knowledgeable than me) — most notably Francis Collins, author of “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief”
My collie says:
Furthermore, evolution is NOT the ONLY plausible explanation. Certainly, organic life forms have made massive re-use of DNA code. That fact, however, could have come about in several different ways. Evolution is, for now, the most convenient explanation.
CyberCipher on December 19, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Offense? None I assure you. Well, maybe I’m offended that you’d accuse me of being offended… hmmm….
No, I just thought your stance a bit rude, and (based on a couple of previous exchanges you and I have had, where you seemed a pleasant enough person) I was somewhat taken aback. To be perfectly frank, my original post was intended to give you a chance to gracefully back away from what I assumed was a bit of hyperbole; though, after re-reading my original post, I see how it could be taken as outrage rather than just trying to show the absurdity of your statement.
You had also always seemed more logical than most people; and this seems a highly illogical standard — caps if existence or nonexistence is universally agreed upon, no caps if there’s any disagreement.
Besides, you say you know Buddha lived — but how do you know? Just because a bunch of books say he did? Someone has a bone they say was from him? I could probably find any number of people who doubt his existence (FWIW I assume, but do not claim to know with certainty, that he is historical). When it was fashionable, a few years back, to wonder if Shakespeare was a real person, did you cease to capitalize his name? I suppose Santa Clause will have to go in lower case, too; some people (my nieces, for example) believe in him, while others do not. Now, my nieces might be offended by your taunt.
I’ve gone a paragraph too far, if not a post too far. As I said, do as you like.
RegularJoe on December 19, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Yes CC, Barbour’s ideas are very much the kind of concept I was toying with. Thanks for pointing me in his direction :)
Trippy stuff.
LimeyGeek on December 19, 2008 at 2:25 PM
CyberCipher on December 19, 2008 at 2:20
Organic lifeforms have made massive re-use of non-coding (pop. “junk”) DNA. That’s what gives it away as random mutations. If you want to argue that God designed the laws that made it all possible, that’s a different argument. There’s never been plausible alternative to evolution. In fact, it’s never been necessary, because evolution is so well supported.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Well, yeah, that’s kind of obvious.
But the point I was making is that before one can accept a poll, one must understand what questions where asked, who did they ask them of, what was their methodology, and all of that kind of stuff.
How the questions are worded, though, is of utmost importance.
Here I’m reminded of surveys about abortion.
When the survey simply lists two choices (either for or against abortion), it almost always shows a fairly large percentage of people FOR abortion.
However, when the survey gets a little more complex and gives multiple choices (one survey I say had the choices of ‘all legal’, ‘mostly legal’, ‘mostly illegal’ and ‘all illegal’), a different answer comes out. Most people oppose abortion, but don’t wish it to be illegal.
Getting back to how the question is worded, part of the problem is with the words used and who defines them.
If I was asked if I believed in the Creation story, I would say absolutely yes. Thus, if there were no further break downs (between young earth and old earth creationism for instance), I would be lumped in with people who believe in 6 24-hour periods of creation.
So surveys should always be taken with a grain of salt.
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 2:33 PM
That’s the thing.
Scientists think they are presenting a cogent world view when in fact they cannot explain(nor do they understand) some of the basic and fundamental facts of reality.
First of all they cannot explain (nor have they even considered) Time and what it is.
Only Christian theology(Orthodox in particular) understands and can explain time.
In greek, there are three words for time, and only one is in fact, a reality.
If someone were to understand how this process works…they would immediately come to faith in Christ.
SaintOlaf on December 19, 2008 at 2:34 PM
To clarify my last post, I don’t mean that only non-coding DNA is re-used.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Buddha was a real person based on historical records, as was Jesus Christ, and Saint Nicklaus (for which Santa Claus is just another name, so I don’t doubt the existence (no tense specified) of Santa Claus, and am not one of the dicks who would ruin a child’s Christmas). Nearly all historians agree on the existence of these people. Still does not apply to an entity whose existence is in huge question.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I’m a Born-again, saved-by-faith, washed-in-the-blood, Southern Baptist child of God. And I AM a creationist in the sense that I believe God created the universe and everthing in it. My interest in how he accomplished it is virtually non-existent. It certainly appears that life appeared on Earth in stages, which is basically compatible with Genesis. But did God create different but similar creatures from the ground up, or did he use a blue parakeet to make a green parakeet (as he took part of Adam to make Eve)? Since there is (literally) no way for me to know, I spend very little time thinking about the question, there being much more important matters — like Madison Conservative’s capitalization practices. ;o)
But even to someone like me who is scarcely paying attention, it is quite obvious that, however old the Earth actually is — well, as I said, it would take an enormous miracle for the Earth to have developed, even guided by the hand of God, in 6000 years (a miracle which I take as a given God COULD perform, but see no cause for him to have done so).
RegularJoe on December 19, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Taking all that into account, I found the poll’s methodology sound. Some of the terms you use can have different usages in atheist and religious circles. What do you mean by “Old earth creationism?”
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 2:38 PM
RegularJoe on December 19, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Hmm. I’d disagree with much of that, but I’m content with the “live and let live” attitude (not that you need my approval). I don’t get this across as much as I’d like in these threads – I really don’t care what Christians believe, no matter how ridiculous I think it is. I get pretty fired up when they start treating their beliefs as scientific, though. I think it demeans both faith and science.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Well, they may get things wrong, but at least they’re trying. Science is a fickle pursuit. When it pays off, it pays off. I don’t recall reading about nuclear power in the bible ;)
LimeyGeek on December 19, 2008 at 2:44 PM
I’m not trying to be difficult, but my post mostly said “I don’t know”. I’m not quite sure what there was to disagree with.
I certainly agree that faith is faith and science is science; but I do maintain that TRUTH cannot contradict FACT. Therefore whatever I believe about faith and whatever I believe about science cannot be at odds with one another. If I find a contradiction, I must either reject the scientific findings, or — if I cannot do so (as when the Church had to come to terms with a round Earth) I return to scripture to see where I have erred in my interpretation.
I’m curious wherein we disagree.
RegularJoe on December 19, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Limey,
I’m not sure if I would use nuclear energy as an analogy of a good thing.
But even so, one could say it is mentioned in the Bible.
One of the Orthodox monks of Mount Athos, (years before nukes were invented), was writing(painting) an icon of events in the book of revelations, and one of the noticable images on that icon was a mushroom cloud such as one sees when a nuke is detonated.
SaintOlaf on December 19, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Those who believe in the story of creation but believe the periods of each ‘day’ were a wee-bit longer than 24 hours.
In other words, those who believe in the scientific dating of the age of the earth and also believe in the creation story.
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Michelle takes one step backwards in my book for this one.
As an atheist and conservative I find a lot of conflict in my political alliances, and it’s frustrating to see so little respect for atheist views from the right.
What is sad about this whole segment to me is that Michelle is basically participating in a discussion about how we can silence a minority. Not exactly the expression of the highest ideals of our country .
And that woman on the show (is it Gretchen?) is a complete moron. Her argument about the use of a sign with one of the ten commandments shows so little understanding of how arguements are made. The sign is used to point out the hypocracy of christians who don’t even follow their own rules.
Scrappy on December 19, 2008 at 2:56 PM
In other words, “each after their kind.” Is there any possibility that God, as he often did in the new testament, told Moses a parable? Moses probably would have thought he was having a hallucination and disregarded the whole mess if he had been presented with a modern scientific understanding that he would have had no way of understanding.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Good or not good isn’t my interest here, only that nobody parsed the biblical texts to unlock the secrets of subatomic energy.
I’d be interested to see visionary icons such as those you describe, although ordinary explosives also make ‘mushroom’ clouds, so I’m not sure you should be reading too much into it ;)
LimeyGeek on December 19, 2008 at 3:06 PM
I hope RZ won’t mind me piping up. “Old earth creationism” is basically a rejection of the dogma of 6×24 creation. We look at the world around us, consider the scripture that says “a day is to the Lord a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day” (Paraphrase by me), and interpret that to mean that God is not constrained by time in the way we are. It makes sense that if God is capable of being OUTSIDE the universe, then he could move around it at his pleasure, without having to “wait out” thousands or millions of years as the earth took its current form.
The further significance of old-earth creationism is that once one accepts that “day” can mean “epoch”, one can also accept that certain other descriptions might be more symbolic or allegorical as well. There is widespread disagreement among old-earth creationists whether God guided evolution, or created each individual species uniquely. Embarrassingly, some of them overreach in claims of scientific support for their arguments, just as the 6-day creationists do.
A belief in Divine Creation is essential to Christianity. If we weren’t (one way or another) created, who exactly are we sinning against? And if we didn’t sin, then God is playing a huge prank on us by either some people go to Hell or claiming he will; and a bigger prank on Jesus, for having him go needlessly to die on a cross. So Christianity does not stand or fall on a 6-day creation, but it DOES stand or fall on a DIVINE creation.
RegularJoe on December 19, 2008 at 3:08 PM
“Much of that” was a clumsy phrasing on my part; I meant that I disagreed with a central argument you seemed (to me) to be making. I disagree that the evidence is in any way unambiguous. Regardless of my atheism – even before I became an atheist – I think we have enough evidence that we can know the origin of species.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 3:10 PM
I’d just like to point out that no scientific explanation could ever refute – or affirm – a divine creation.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 3:20 PM
FWIW – I’ve often referred to the creation story as a parable.
Certainly there is essential truth in the story: God created and ordered everything with a purpose and considered it good.
There is even a decent amount of scientific parallel in the story (where creation starts and how it spreads).
But it is a fairly recent endeavor to take the story as literal, factual and historical truth.
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 3:22 PM
They are according to their adherents, at least many of them are. If there is one true religion (and, if it is a monotheistic faith there can only be one – which is why I said the New Testament contradicts other holy books) how are you to possibly know which is authentic? In almost every case, an individual’s personal faith is an accident in geography. Are you so certain that yours is “God breathed” simply because your parents passed down a specific religion to you, or the majority of your neighbors share the same faith?
Sign of the Dollar on December 19, 2008 at 3:22 PM
At least not with the science we have now.
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 3:23 PM
MadisonConservative,
You stick a thumb in the eye of everyone who reveres George Burns’ film career.
HarneyPeak on December 19, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Since a ‘divine creation’ isn’t a scientific theory, I reckon it would be rather futile for science to attempt to refute it.
What would be cool is if science came up with a theory of creation and applied it to create new worlds.
LimeyGeek on December 19, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Just because he called something eternal doesn’t mean he viewed it as a sentient being. And who cares what Carl Sagan said anyawy?
Sign of the Dollar on December 19, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Hey. His shows were cool.
LimeyGeek on December 19, 2008 at 3:35 PM
This is slightly off topic, but…
…if you really didn’t care what Carl Sagan said…
…then why are you defending it?
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Define, time.
Speakup on December 19, 2008 at 3:37 PM
The Uncreated Divine Energies of God are mentioned througout the Holy Scriptures in many places.
In fact in Greek, the term Energies itself and other energetic terms are described dozens of times.
The word Grace is another name for the Divine Energies of God.
God does not manifest Himself only as a trinity of hypostases – that is, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He also manifests Himself as the One who has (the congenital and not acquired) fullness of all good things - of “power, glory, wisdom, philanthropy” etc.; in other words, “all the good things that the Son has are the Father’s, and everything that the Father has, is made visible in the Son” (Gregory of Nyssa)
The Energies of God are Divine Energies. They are also God without being His essence. They are God that is why they make man god. If the Energies of God were not Divine, Uncreated Energies, then they would not be God, they would not be able to make us god, to join with God. There would have been an unbridgeable distance between God and people. However, by God having divine energies and with these energies joining with us, we can communicate with Him and join with His Grace, without equating with God, as it would have happened if we were joining with His essence.
We therefore join with God through His uncreated energies, and not through His essence. This is the mystery of the Orthodox Faith and of our life.
As Christians, we are called to “BE YE PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE”.
The fact is, salvation is not just saying I believe in Christ and calling it a day.
Salvation is something “we work out with fear and trembling”.
The purpose of Christianity is not to be a moral system or a theology of scholastic deduction.
The purpose of Christianity is to align ourselves fully and completely with the Uncreated Divine Energies of God and in doing so become god by Grace and experience THEOSIS(or Deification).
lit.(‘He became in-carnate (i.e. enfleshed) that man might become en-godded.’)
SaintOlaf on December 19, 2008 at 3:37 PM
I have trouble with the idea that science can pin God to a dissection tray. If you’re hinting at removing the materialist restrictions, that’s a dangerous idea – and more so for theologists than for biologists.
Until they do, you can always play Civilization
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Time? I’m going to have to think about that one.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 3:47 PM
No, I was simply pointing out that science is an ever evolving (no pun intended) discipline.
What is impossible now may be old news in 50 to 100 years.
Being that I believe very much in the existence of God…
…then I have no problem imagining a point at which our science can verify (not dissect, but VERIFY) the existence of God.
I don’t think it will ever be able to fully understand and comprehend God, but it may well ultimately be able to come face to face with Him.
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 3:47 PM
It seems here that you’re avoiding admitting the fallibility of scripture by assuming any disproven element can be attributed to an improper interpretation. Eventually, at this pace, there will be very little “Biblical truth” left to whittle away. I maintain that religions become increasingly less complex as a culture’s scientific knowledge grows. This suggests, to me, that religion and truth are at odds by their very nature. Religion exists to explain the unexplainable. As more of the unexplainable becomes known, it’s apparent that much of the religion was fabricated. Why would you continue to trust the rest?
Sign of the Dollar on December 19, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Touche.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 3:54 PM
yeah well supported by fundamentalist atheists who sue, harass, and silence any who dare disagree.
talk about arguments from ignorance…’junk dna’ right… ‘we don’t know what it is, so its junk’
evolution is the science stopper.
right4life on December 19, 2008 at 3:54 PM
A wise choice.
DeSouza doesn’t, he finds God en nano and his followers go ga ga over it.
Personally I think it belittles who he believes is omnipotent, but then.
Speakup on December 19, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Because it doesn’t really matter who a statement is attributed to. It matters whether or not the statement is true.
Sign of the Dollar on December 19, 2008 at 3:58 PM
I don’t think you quite get religion.
Religion exists to answer the ‘why’ questions of life.
Science exists to answer the ‘how’ questions of life.
(Yes, these are generalizations because there are ‘how’ questions religion answers and there are ‘why’ questions science answers.)
Religion deals with why we sin and what IS a sin. It deals with how we can overcome sin and why living right is important.
Science could care less about these topics. It’s interested in how things work and why certain physical features act like they do.
There has been times, though, when the church sought to answer scientific questions and science sought to answer religious questions.
Of course, each failed mightily when they tried that.
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Yep. The fact that anyone would care what DeSouza thinks about science at all is troubling. I’m curious, why did you want me to define “time?” I could have given a stock answer, but that’s cheating. Was it just a rhetorical question?
None of that reminds you of the Tower of Babel, does it?
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Are you implying that you think God will do something to science if it gets too close to ‘finding’ God?
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Sorry. Not buyin’ it. At least, not YET. It is true that there are vast swathes of DNA that APPEAR to be junk, because we don’t know what they are for and how they came about. IMHO the jury is still out.
For me, the reason that genetics makes such a HUGE difference, and makes the theory of evolution viable, is because it FINALLY gives us a theater or an arena where we can actually DO some controlled laboratory experiments.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 19, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Really what the whole old earth/young earth creationism and the non scientific and heretical theory of evolution comes down to is described in my earlier post.
Without an understanding of Time, one can not accurately describe reality, and the heretical propaganda of evolution becomes useless.
Only Christian theology can explain time.
The fact is, there is only one time, and that is the present moment.
The past and the future do not exist.
The Holy Scriptures state that it is Christ(The Word of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity) that is constantly CREATING and UPHOLDING the world.
The six days of creation could be more accurately described as God the Word setting the mold.
He set the mold and on the seventh day said that it was good and the mold was finished.
You see, Christ is LIFE. Without Christ there is no Life.
If Christ did not exist, the entire universe would fall apart.
He is constantly moving, creating and upholding all of existence!
SaintOlaf on December 19, 2008 at 4:21 PM
I’m implying that the bible frowns on the sort of thing you’re suggesting, nothing more.
****************
CC – I’m not making sweeping generalizations. I think some “junk DNA” will turn out to have some kind of latent expression, but there really is DNA that goes completely unexpressed in the genome. “Junk” is a poor description, because I think it will turn out to have some purpose as a placeholder, or possibly a source of adaptive responses in times of environmental stress, but there’s nothing about the actual sequence that would need to be shared from a design perspective.
It’s also part of a larger body of evidence for common ancestry. If it were the only thing supporting common ancestry, I’d need more to convince me.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 4:29 PM
No one is DISSING atheist views. If anything, precisely the opposite is occuring. Go back and re-read all the comments. We’ve already been through this.
My collie says:
By the same token, I am perfectly capable of peacefully co-existing with gays, feminists, and atheists. It’s the smaller aggressive, militant, in-your-face, handful of individuals that use violence or intimidation and the ones that perpetually whine, bitch , moan, and air their grievances that I have “a problem” with.
CyberCipher on December 19, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Well put.
dedalus on December 19, 2008 at 4:45 PM
There you go. From now on, no one should ever capitalize madisonconservative unless you have reverence for him.
Which, of course, leaves me out.
tom on December 19, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Go right ahead. You do the same with your own name, I see.
But again, I exist. god does not, or does, but not the way I think, or doesn’t exist under the name god but allah or yahweh or…
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM
This is too funny not to post, and it’s tangentially on topic. The War on Christmas (and Easter, and the tooth fairy) marches on with notorious atheist cartoonist Jack Chick:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1033/1033_01.asp
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Contrary to what some commenters assert on this thread, the theories of evolution are not dogmatic ideas. They are ever changing depending on what new surprises my be found in the next discovery.
My example is Neanderthal, an extinct relative of ours. When I was in grade school in the 1950s it was believed the Neanderthal represented a transitional member of the genus homo, that would include us. We now accept the fact the Neanderthal is either a close species or a subspecies of Homosapien. Furthermore, Neanderthals and other early humans were contemporaries.
I’m wondering where Creationists fit Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, Homo-habilis, homo erectus, Democrats, and all the other early human types into ceation theory.
Pelayo on December 19, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Do you think you caught some logical contradiction there? I don’t refuse to capitalize a name, i.e. common English practice for proper names, based on a personal statement of whether I believe there exists such a person.
It’s your [silly] rule, so I guess it can be reasonably applied to you.
For the record, I’m more amused than offended.
tom on December 19, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Sadly, the truth is that the vast majority of people don’t go “postal” because they’ve been lied to all their lives. They, in fact, become quite ACCUSTOMED to being lied to. The cartoon in this Christian tract is not NEARLY as “funny” as the Rod Blago scandal. The people that are doing the REAL damage to us and to society are the people that think lying is just “business as usual”.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 19, 2008 at 5:14 PM
It seems here that you’re avoiding admitting the fallibility of scripture by assuming any disproven element can be attributed to an improper interpretation.
Sign of the Dollar on December 19, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Gotta leave so this’ll be short & sweet. I’m not asserting that if my understanding of the Bible is wrong, it is my understanding, not the Bible, that is the problem.
Nor do I claim that to be provable.
RegularJoe, OUT!
RegularJoe on December 19, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Did they catch the person who did it? In the city where I grew up, there were several incidents of serious vandalism of Mormon churches, including arson a couple of times and a homemade bomb once. It wasn’t people upset at “hearing the truth.” It was usually disgruntled former members or members of rival churches. I wouldn’t be shocked if it turned out Palin’s church had been burned for political motives, but I’d be even less shocked if the culprit turned out to go to another church nearby.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 5:28 PM
RightOFLeft, there was a rash of church burnings in Tennessee several years ago. Two (at least) were insurance scams.
Pelayo on December 19, 2008 at 5:31 PM
I don’t care whether people follow a religion or not. I just am tired of those that do not Follow my religion trying to infringe on My Rights. Very Simple.
I won’t make a sign that says Atheists are godless and Going to Burn in Hell, if they don’t make signs calling my religion a Myth.
Fair enough?
BiasedGirl on December 19, 2008 at 5:37 PM
If I remember, you wanted a scientific way to prove God’s existence, well, here’s your chance, to prove, in part.
Speakup on December 19, 2008 at 5:38 PM
CyberCipher, my daughter’s Chihuahua says this about your collie:
Pelayo on December 19, 2008 at 5:42 PM
I’ve always HATED those yappy little dogs.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 19, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Do you want a dog? I don’t like chihuahuas either.
It’s pronounced chi-hoo-a-hoo-a.
Pelayo on December 19, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Sorry. You might try Paris Hilton. I understand that she’s inseparable with hers.
My collie says:
Whatever.
CyberCipher on December 19, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Somebody posted something about language yeaterday, and it reminded me of a story.
It’s about two devout Baptist yuppies who were attending classes to learn Korean. The instructor started asking the class members why they wanted to learn Korean. The yuppie couple said that they were adopting a Korean orphan and wanted to be able understand the little girl when she started to talk.
Pelayo on December 19, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Your collie is pretty deep. My daschhund only waxes philosophical when his food bowl is empty.
tom on December 19, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 15 Next »