I don't believe in any God, but I believe in God

Originally posted by James R
My point is: there are many possible reasons why somebody might believe they've seen a ghost. Only one of those reasons is that they actually did see a ghost. I try to avoid jumping to conclusions before all the evidence is in.

The only other possible conclusion is that she did not see a ghost, is it not?
What kind of evidence are you waiting for, we have the best of all evidence, not only an independent eye witness, but and independent experience.?

In 1905, Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity. That theory explained why experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect an ether. The theory gives good reasons why the ether is a superfluous concept.

I will look into that.

I take your point. Regarding abiogensis, it is important to remember that there is currently no generally-agreed scientific theory of abiogenesis.

Correct me if i am wrong, isn't the theory of abiogenisis, somehow conected to "the theory of evolution", "biological evolution of the species", it this is so, and it is only theory, why is it being taught throughout the media (in the UK, definately), as fact?

Scientists have an open mind on this; []

Surely scientists do not think with one collective mind (yet), some think this way and some that, don't they? So when you say “scientists” have an open mind, are you including every scientist, or is there some discrimination?
Religious people don’t have all the answers, God has all the answers.

Yes. I am aware that other people hold other (incorrect!) views. :)

So your view is correct than, and any other view is incorrect?

<i>So you believe we are all equal.</i>

Who is "we"? Humans and animals?

Living entities.

is no justification for granting one being rights over and above that of any other being.

I did not ask about rights.

In some respects we are more able than other animals; in others we are less able.

In what way are we less.

<i>Is “The Christian” religion mentioned in the bible?</i>

No; it was invented a little later.

Are you sure the christian religion was invented? A Christ-ian is an individual who accepts Lord Jesus Christ as his saviour, and therefore vows to follows in his path. I fail to see how such a thing could be invented, unless you are postulating that Jesus never existed in the way portrayed, for which I would appreciate some kind of documentation which validates this.

Aside from that, my point was when refering to the bible, why do always bring up the christian religion. I am not saying what they say shouldn’t be taken into consideration, but it is not a book just for christians.
It is glaringly obvious, that we, the personality, are different than our material bodies, as stated in the bible. It is obvious that we are part and parcel of Gods Absolute nature, in the case of Adam, it was His breath, as stated in the bible. That being the case we do not die when the body dies, unless of course God dies. :rolleyes:
You do not need to be a christian or even religious to work that one out.

and I don't want to do an extensive search).

I understand. :rolleyes:


For the health of the people, what kinds of dietary restrictions might be a good idea, do you think? Answer: the biblical ones aren't a bad start, given the knowledge of the times.

What do you know about the knowledge of the times?
Your problem is, you equate knowledge with scientific advancement.
Tell me something!
For you, what is there, outside of science?
People are also natural, God provides everything for all His children, you don’t see the animals unhealthy, due to lack of knowledge of diet, do you?
Diet and healthy eating only comes about after consuming unatural food, or consuming food in unatural quantities, which is usually self inflicted or inflicted by circumstances or other people, it has nothing to do with knowledge, there is more than enough food for every living entity on this planet.

The same kinds of things you and other religious people keep saying here.

What an answer!!
If you are tired of this conversation, say so.
If that is a true answer, then I ask, why did you campaign to become a moderator of this forum, and, are you really agnostic??

If you have some energy left, I would like to point out that your response does not answer the question.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Jan:

Me: <i>...there are many possible reasons why somebody might believe they've seen a ghost. Only one of those reasons is that they actually did see a ghost.</i>
You: <i>The only other possible conclusion is that she did not see a ghost, is it not?</i>

Notice the word "why" in what I said. I am not disputing that Pammy experienced something. I suggested possible explanations for that experience. Obviously, either she did or did not see a ghost. If she didn't see a ghost, then I want to explore other possible explanations for her experience.

<i>What kind of evidence are you waiting for, we have the best of all evidence, not only an independent eye witness, but and independent experience.?</i>

In Pammy's case? Who was the independent eye-witness?

<i>Correct me if i am wrong, isn't the theory of abiogenisis, somehow conected to "the theory of evolution", "biological evolution of the species"...</i>

No. Abiogensis is concerned with how life started. Evolution describes how life developed after it had started.

<i>...it this is so, and it is only theory, why is it being taught throughout the media (in the UK, definately), as fact?</i>

It is a common misconception of non-scientific people to think that the fact that something is "only a theory" is somehow a bad thing. Yes, evolution is "only a theory". But so is the theory of gravity and the theory of electromagnetism which explains why the computer sitting in front of you works. <b>All</b> scientific statements of any value are "only a theory". In science, the important thing is the extent to which a theory is supported by evidence.

<i>Surely scientists do not think with one collective mind (yet), some think this way and some that, don't they? So when you say “scientists” have an open mind, are you including every scientist, or is there some discrimination?</i>

Yes, scientists are individuals with a range of individual opinions. When I say "scientists has an open mind on this question", I am summing up a general consensus from my knowledge of many views in the scientific community. Yes, some scientists have made up their minds on abiogensis already, but they are in a minority (as I see it).

<i>So your view is correct than, and any other view is incorrect?</i>

On that paritcular point, yes. Based on a scientific understanding of the "web of life", there is no heirarchy among species.

<i>I did not ask about rights [of different species].</i>

When we say a word like "better", it usually has a connotation of moral judgement. In mentioning rights, I wanted to be careful to distinguish between the use of the word "better" in a morally judgmental way from its use as a non-judgmental statement of obvious fact (e.g. based on physical attributes).

Me: <i>In some respects we are more able than other animals; in others we are less able.</i>
You: <i>In what way are we less.</i>

I already covered this. Cheetahs run faster than us. Elephants can carry heavier loads. Eagles see better. Octopuses fit better through small spaces, and also see better than we do. Bacteria can survive in more extreme environments. etc. etc.

<i>Are you sure the christian religion was invented?</i>

Absolutely.

<i>A Christ-ian is an individual who accepts Lord Jesus Christ as his saviour, and therefore vows to follows in his path.</i>

That is Christianity stripped to its core. In this narrow sense "Christianity" is no more than a label meaning "followers of Christ". But I think you'll agree that there is more to Christianity than just following Christ. The trappings of the religion are inventions.

<i>I fail to see how such a thing could be invented, unless you are postulating that Jesus never existed in the way portrayed, for which I would appreciate some kind of documentation which validates this.</i>

For the purposes of this discussion, I am not disputing that Jesus existed. We could have a whole other discussion on whether he ever existed "in the way portrayed". Cris would argue that he never existed at all. But, as I say, that's another discussion.

<i>Aside from that, my point was when refering to the bible, why do always bring up the christian religion. I am not saying what they say shouldn’t be taken into consideration, but it is not a book just for christians.</i>

If you accept the New Testament, you accept certain beliefs about Christ. That makes you a Christian. I am aware that Judaism uses parts of the Old Testament.

<i>It is glaringly obvious, that we, the personality, are different than our material bodies, as stated in the bible. It is obvious that we are part and parcel of Gods Absolute nature, in the case of Adam, it was His breath, as stated in the bible. That being the case we do not die when the body dies, unless of course God dies. </i>

It is far from "glaringly obvious" to me. As far as I am concerned, we are (probably) nothing more than our material bodies. Nor do I think we are necessarily "Part and parcel of Gods Absolute nature". And I do not accept the story of Adam and Eve as literal fact.

<i>What do you know about the knowledge of the times?
Your problem is, you equate knowledge with scientific advancement.</i>

Knowledge usually leads to scientific advancement. On the other hand, I am willing to concede that there are many types of knowledge which are non-scientific. The whole of philosophy, whilst very valuable, is non-scientific because it is not in-principle falsifiable (among other reasons). That includes religious philosophy.

<i>For you, what is there, outside of science?</i>

Many things. I have a wide range of interests.

<i>People are also natural, God provides everything for all His children, you don’t see the animals unhealthy, due to lack of knowledge of diet, do you?</i>

Animals are adapted to eat certain kinds of food. In a sense, the food built the animals, rather than the animals popping up and suddenly needing the right kinds of food.

Me: <i>The same kinds of things you and other religious people keep saying here.</i>

You: <i>What an answer!!
If you are tired of this conversation, say so.
If that is a true answer, then I ask, why did you campaign to become a moderator of this forum, and, are you really agnostic?</i>

I gave you an honest answer. My religious instruction was probably pretty much the same as anybody else's who has had a religious upbringing, except perhaps that I have looked into religion a little more deeply than most people.

I am not tired of the conversation. If I was, I would have given up responding by now.

I offered to be moderator of this forum because I am interested in the subject matter, I think I can bring a relatively unbiased point of view to moderation, and I think that this forum deserves a moderator who can keep things under control whilst at the same time not descending to censorship of a diverse range of views. Of course, I said all this before I was appointed.

<i>If you have some energy left, I would like to point out that your response does not answer the question.</i>

What do you want? Am I supposed to go into minute detail of my religious studies? That would be long-winded, boring, and ultimately unrevealing. If you want to ask specific questions, go ahead by all means, but please don't ask me something as general as "what do you know about religion?" and expect me to be able to give you a complete answer in a few words.

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
Originally posted by James R
In Pammy's case? Who was the independent eye-witness?

Pammy.

No. Abiogensis is concerned with how life started. Evolution describes how life developed after it had started.

Abiogenesis - the hypothetical process where life spontaneously formed from organic material that had arisen from inorganic material.

Is it logical to assume that the process that makes life form from matter, would be the same or have something to do with evolution?

It is a common misconception of non-scientific people to think that the fact that something is "only a theory" is somehow a bad thing.

I’ve never thought that.

Yes, evolution is "only a theory". But so is the theory of gravity and the theory of electromagnetism which explains why the computer sitting in front of you works. <b>All</b> scientific statements of any value are "only a theory". In science, the important thing is the extent to which a theory is supported by evidence.

You’ll not get any argument from me. :)

When we say a word like "better", it usually has a connotation of moral judgement.

I think you should have asked me what I meant by better.

In mentioning rights, I wanted to be careful to distinguish between the use of the word "better" in a morally judgmental way from its use as a non-judgmental statement of obvious fact (e.g. based on physical attributes).

Read my posts again, you will find I use the term in the latter.

I already covered this. Cheetahs run faster than us. Elephants can carry heavier loads. Eagles see better. Octopuses fit better through small spaces, and also see better than we do. Bacteria can survive in more extreme environments. etc. etc.

Okay, you’re right, lets take the cheetah as an example, they can run way faster than us, so from that point of view their body is better, but from an overall point of view our body is better, because we can devise ways of moving faster.
You’re looking at it locally and I am looking at it universally. :p

That is Christianity stripped to its core.

Yes, but that is what it is, you cannot dispute that, unless there is something else.

In this narrow sense "Christianity" is no more than a label meaning "followers of Christ". But I think you'll agree that there is more to Christianity than just following Christ.

I agree with you, but this is where we must be sure as to what is “RELIGION” and what is “RELIGIOUS”.
This is the reason why there is so much misconception about God.

The trappings of the religion are inventions.

I agree with you.
This is why I always ask, what people know about religion and God. People who are caught up in its trappings, do not understand the reality of God, so they develop blind faith, these are the people that are gullible.

I know people who believe in science in the same way. Something will come on the T.V. about animals, and the narrator will say this animal is from such and such, and it evolved from such and such over this many millions of years ago, and they will believe it, and when you ask them why, they say, because if scientists say it is true, then it must be.

Cris would argue that he never existed at all.

Yes, I am aware of his desperation. :p

If you accept the New Testament, you accept certain beliefs about Christ. That makes you a Christian. I am aware that Judaism uses parts of the Old Testament.

Did you know that Abraham was from the east, and was brahmin?

It is far from "glaringly obvious" to me.

Read it for yourself, it doesn’t matter whether or not you believe in God, it is obvious that life comes from God, and if God is eternal, then life must be eternal, as stated in the bible, a simple equation don’t you think.

As far as I am concerned, we are (probably) nothing more than our material bodies. Nor do I think we are necessarily "Part and parcel of Gods Absolute nature". And I do not accept the story of Adam and Eve as literal fact.

James it doesn’t matter what you accept or not, we are searching after knowledge, as far as mundane knowledge is concerned, we are progressing, but there is so much we don’t know, about the mind, the intelligence or the soul (if it exists). So whether you or I accept something or not, makes no difference.

Knowledge usually leads to scientific advancement.

But the scientific advancement is only a tool for something, there is a personal reason behind it, I’m not so interested in the scientific advancement as I am about the person and personal reason behind it, whereas you are interested in the scientific advancement, or so it seems. This appears to be our positions.

On the other hand, I am willing to concede that there are many types of knowledge which are non-scientific.

Here, I would personally disagree with you, I believe science to mean knowledge, of course you tell a scientist that, he will say I have no idea what science means.
But I think, like religion and economic development, science has changed with the times and is now taking over the role once occupied by religion, but at the heart, it is interested in obtaining knowledge. So what you describe as non-scientific, I describe as scientific as there is always knowledge to be obtained in all walks of life, which can lead one to obtaining truth.
Just my own personal view.

Animals are adapted to eat certain kinds of food. In a sense, the food built the animals, rather than the animals popping up and suddenly needing the right kinds of food.

I believe Mother nature provides food for every single one of her children. ;)

My religious instruction was probably pretty much the same as anybody else's who has had a religious upbringing,

But you know there are organisations which do not adhere to neither the principles of their religion, or the text of their religion. So I’m just interested as to what those instructions were, of course you don’t have to say if you don't want to.

except perhaps that I have looked into religion a little more deeply than most people.

That is a very large statement if I’m to take it literally.

I am not tired of the conversation. If I was, I would have given up responding by now.

Good. ;)

I offered to be moderator of this forum because I am interested in the subject matter, I think I can bring a relatively unbiased point of view to moderation, and I think that this forum deserves a moderator who can keep things under control whilst at the same time not descending to censorship of a diverse range of views.

You did, but how can you be unbiased, when you believe God does not exist?
Why do you look for proof of a Spiritual Person, by way of mundane scientific experiment? I am not saying you shouldn’t, but I would have thought you would be prepared to open your mind a little more, and explore the philosophical aspect, because that is where the basic knowledge can be found, and from that you can use scientific analogies to help build a better understanding.
To be effectively bias, you have to start from the position of “I don’t know”wouldn’t you agree?

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Jan:

Me: In Pammy's case? Who was the independent eye-witness?
You: Pammy.

No, Pammy came up with the original story. There was no independent eye-witness.

Is it logical to assume that the process that makes life form from matter, would be the same or have something to do with evolution?

Only on a very general level. Evolution after the formation of life relies on variations in the DNA of organisms which have some autonomy - they can move around independently, reproduce, consume and excrete and so on. Prior to the formation of life, the only processes which occurred were purely chemical reactions. The basic requirement for evolution is descent with modification and competition for resources. Raw chemicals have no need to "eat" or compete for other resources - unlike life forms. Neither do raw chemicals reproduce, except in a very basic sense.

The line between life and non-life is a hard one to draw, which is part of the reason why the abiogenesis question is so difficult to solve. At what stage does a chemical become autonomous, with needs and the ability to reproduce? That is a tricky question to answer. It seems that a certain level of complexity must be present. This complex can only develop through pure chemical tendancies, and it is difficult to construct a chain of events which might lead to the required complexity.

Note: this is in no way saying that the question will never be solved scientifically. Nor am I claiming that a God could not have had a guiding hand in some stage in the process. But this level of explanation goes way beyond a simple folk tale such as the Adam and Eve story.

Me: When we say a word like "better", it usually has a connotation of moral judgement.
You: I think you should have asked me what I meant by better.

I thought that effectively I did ask you that.

Okay, you’re right, lets take the cheetah as an example, they can run way faster than us, so from that point of view their body is better, but from an overall point of view our body is better, because we can devise ways of moving faster.

What you're really saying is that humans are smarter than cheetahs. I agree. But that doesn't make us better in general - just better in the smarts department. Perhaps we place intelligence high on our list of priorities because it is something we seem to do well. It's an anthropocentric notion.

I know people who believe in science in the same way. Something will come on the T.V. about animals, and the narrator will say this animal is from such and such, and it evolved from such and such over this many millions of years ago, and they will believe it, and when you ask them why, they say, because if scientists say it is true, then it must be.

Sure. Many people do not have a detailed knowledge of science, and must accept certain things on faith or authority. But that in no way invalidates the science itself. Anybody sufficiently educated can see the truth of evolution, based on the reams of evidence in its favour. It's really a fairly simple and logical idea when stripped to its basics. Religious people tend to have two particular problems with it. It is not that they can't understand the theory. It is firstly that it seems to remove the need for God's guiding hand, and secondly that it removes Homo sapiens from its exalted position at the top of God's heirarchy of life. People like to feel important.

Did you know that Abraham was from the east, and was brahmin?

No. What of it?

Read it for yourself, it doesn’t matter whether or not you believe in God, it is obvious that life comes from God, and if God is eternal, then life must be eternal, as stated in the bible, a simple equation don’t you think.

As I've said before, it's <b>not</b> obvious that life comes from God. If it was obvious, it would be accepted by all people as a self-evident truth. The existence of God in the first place is not obvious. On the contrary, it is hugely debateable, as evidenced by most of the posts in this forum.

James it doesn’t matter what you accept or not, we are searching after knowledge, as far as mundane knowledge is concerned, we are progressing, but there is so much we don’t know, about the mind, the intelligence or the soul (if it exists). So whether you or I accept something or not, makes no difference.

Makes no difference to what? Whether something is true or not? I agree. But I thought we were discussing the most likely origin of life, according to the knowledge each of us possesses. The fact that you or I don't know something doesn't mean God is the only possible explanation.

the scientific advancement is only a tool for something, there is a personal reason behind it, I’m not so interested in the scientific advancement as I am about the person and personal reason behind it, whereas you are interested in the scientific advancement, or so it seems.

I can separate a scientific advancement from its social impact. I am interested in both. Aren't you?

...what you describe as non-scientific, I describe as scientific as there is always knowledge to be obtained in all walks of life, which can lead one to obtaining truth.

Scientists must be the ones to define the scope of science, as they are in the best position to do so. They know what they do. They define science as a set of methods used to obtain knowledge, along with the knowledge so obtained. Perhaps the most important underlying feature of science is its objectivity, as discussed above (evidence-based, independent verification, reproducibility of results, ability to change with new evidence, falsifiability etc.) This definition puts certain types of knowledge outside the ambit of science.

So I’m just interested as to what [your religious] instructions were, of course you don’t have to say if you don't want to.

I said I would answer specific questions. This question would take all day to answer, and I don't know what you're interested in in particular.

Me: except perhaps that I have looked into religion a little more deeply than most people.
You: That is a very large statement if I’m to take it literally.

Why? Most people seldom, if ever, think about their religious beliefs critically. They take religion as a given. I, on the other hand, have spent a considerable amount of time learning about religion and discussing it with other people (both religious and non-religious).

...how can you be unbiased, when you believe God does not exist?

I've never said I don't believe that God exists. Where did you get that idea from?

Why do you look for proof of a Spiritual Person, by way of mundane scientific experiment?

I don't.

I am not saying you shouldn’t, but I would have thought you would be prepared to open your mind a little more, and explore the philosophical aspect, because that is where the basic knowledge can be found, and from that you can use scientific analogies to help build a better understanding. To be effectively bias, you have to start from the position of “I don’t know”wouldn’t you agree?

Yes, I agree. What's your starting position, Jan?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by James R
Only on a very general level. Evolution after the....................................

........................... unlike life forms. Neither do raw chemicals reproduce, except in a very basic sense.

Thank you for the explanation.

The line between life and non-life is a hard one to draw,

So the organisms which have autonomy, aren't what you would call life?

At what stage does a chemical become autonomous, with needs and the ability to reproduce?

Maybe it never becomes autonomous?

But this level of explanation goes way beyond a simple folk tale such as the Adam and Eve story.

God scooped up some dust, formed a body of a man, then breathe life into his nostrils, then took the mans rib and created a woman?
What is so simple about that? :p

Maybe, all the elements, namely, air, water, fire and earth, and the chemical, are present within the earth, it does state that in the puranic section of the vedas.
It probably just needed a Master Scientist to know how to combine them, and a Supreme Spirit to give life. And when done a god-speed, it all looks very simple. :)
One of the attribute of great persons is they always make things look so simple.

But that doesn't make us better in general - just better in the smarts department.

I did say it was my opinion and also, given the choice i would prefer to have a human body, this is why i thought it was better, but i understand what you mean.

Sure. Many people do not have a detailed knowledge of science, and must accept certain things on faith or authority.

The same with religion.

But that in no way invalidates the science itself.

Neither the religion.

It's really a fairly simple and logical idea when stripped to its basics.

Not when you assume life comes from chemicals.

It is firstly that it seems to remove the need for God's guiding hand,

How so, life has not yet been created by chemicals, imo, it never will, so there is no worry.

and secondly that it removes Homo sapiens from its exalted position at the top of God's heirarchy of life. People like to feel important.

You are assuming.
I believe we are what we are, some humans are great, some are shitey, and all the bits in between.

As I've said before, it's <b>not</b> obvious that life comes from God.

I am not asking you to believe, i'm merely asking is it not obvious, from the biblical "POV", that life comes from God, so therefore life cannot end, unless Gods life can end.
Seeing as you see the story of genisis as nothing more than a simple folk tale, it should not be hard to understand. :)

On the contrary, it is hugely debateable, as evidenced by most of the posts in this forum.

Lets just say, to some people it is obvious and to some it is not. ;)
Something tells me you won't accept that!

The fact that you or I don't know something doesn't mean God is the only possible explanation.

That is not what i'm saying.
We know all about God, because God has left His word in the form of scriptures, so from a religous percpective, we do not need to substitute "i don't know" with "so God must have done it".
We say God created life, because there is information that God created life, we are not even bothered that He created life, as it makes no difference to our lives, we are more interested in Him.

Some scientists, on the other hand, seemed obsessed with how life came about, why is this? And what will they do if they could create life from chemicals?

I can separate a scientific advancement from its social impact. I am interested in both. Aren't you?

I have a superficial interest in scientific advancement, i don't really care for it, but it is the way of life now. I used to get excited at new things, but now i just take them for granted, nothing surprises me anymore.
As i am a musician, i have a state of the art recording studio, which houses some wonderful modern gadgets, and sometimes i really apreciate them, the downside to that is, unless there is other human contact, there is no feel or real energy.
If i have any criticism about scientific advancement, it is that it takes something away from the human endeavors and in a sense renders them useless.

Scientists must be the ones to define the scope of science, as they are in the best position to do so.

I agree, and the same respect should be allowed in the case of serious devotees of God.

Perhaps the most important underlying feature of science is its objectivity, [/i]

Where i think modern science is failing, is the ability to understand that all aspects of life cannot be empirically known, that the mind and intelligence cannot just be put down to chemical reactions in the brain, that emotions and thoughts are also a part of life.
It's as though there is no room for anything outside of the brain. There just doesn't seem any room for debate anymore, and the walls are closing in. :p

Call me paranoid, but i can't help thinking, somebody wants serious control.

Where did you get that idea from?

From you, but i couldn't prove it in a court of law. :)

If you believe that scriptures are nothing but anecdotes passed down from one generation to the next.
And that is what understanding God is based on, for the ordinary man, how can you believe that God may possibly exist, when your only understanding of God is from people who use the scripture.
Without the sciptures, how would we even know about God, what to speak of His existence.

I don't.

Do you have other ways of finding out, or are you not bothered about whether God exists or not?

Yes, I agree. What's your starting position, Jan?

1) I do not claim to be agnostic.
2) I am not the moderator of a forum, for which i have no real interest in.
3) I don't regard the theory of evolution as a truth, but i will and have, had seriously long discussions purely about the subject matter.
4) I always ask questions about things i admit to having no knowledge of, and ask questions which correspond with the topic.
If i argue against a scientific point, i will not directly give an answer which is of a spiritual nature, maybe philosophical.

My starting position is, trying to get someone to talk about God for a change, instead of trying to find physical evidence of His existence.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Jan:

So the organisms which have autonomy, aren't what you would call life?

There are many possible criteria for saying something is alive. Autonomy is one. Others include ability to reproduce, to react to the environment, to gather energy in some form and to excrete waste.

Maybe [a chemical] never becomes autonomous?

Our bodies are made of chemicals, and I think you'll agree we have autonomy. So, at least some arrangements of chemicals are autonomous.

God scooped up some dust, formed a body of a man, then breathe life into his nostrils, then took the mans rib and created a woman?
What is so simple about that?

If you had to invent a creation story from scratch, this is just the kind of thing you'd probably come up with. In fact, across the world's cultures, there are many creation stories which share similar elements. (No, not similar enough to the Adam and Eve story to imply that that story must be correct.)

Along the same lines, ancient peoples asked many questions about nature. What causes rain? How did mountains form? What makes the sun move across the sky? All of these questions can be and have been answered in stories about gods. God cries and it rains. Battles between gods inside the earth pushed up the mountains. The sun is the winged chariot of the Sun God which moves across the sky once per day.

All the stories are simple, just like the Adam and Eve story. They are the kinds of things you might tell children when you aren't sure of the answer yourself.

"How did people come to be, Dad?"
"Well, God made Adam and Eve..."

This is so much easier than:

"How did people come to be, Dad?"
"Well, Johnny, you need to know about chemistry and molecular biology..."

The thing is, one of these explanation is superficial and ultimately unrevealing. The other is deep and gives you more understanding of the world than you had before.

Maybe, all the elements, namely, air, water, fire and earth, and the chemical, are present within the earth, it does state that in the puranic section of the vedas.

The classification of elements into earth, air, fire and water dates back to Aristotle. Science progressed beyond that idea centuries ago.

One of the attribute of great persons is they always make things look so simple.

But great persons can also explain the complexities. Why didn't God do that in the scriptures?

Me: [Evolution is] really a fairly simple and logical idea when stripped to its basics.
You: Not when you assume life comes from chemicals.

It doesn't matter where life comes from, for the purposes of the theory of evolution. I thought I already made that point.

life has not yet been created by chemicals, imo, it never will, so there is no worry.

All living things are made of chemicals, so obviously chemicals can support life.

I believe we are what we are, some humans are great, some are shitey, and all the bits in between.

Yes, but I know you think that even the shitey human beings are much better than other animals. You've said so.

I am not asking you to believe, i'm merely asking is it not obvious, from the biblical "POV", that life comes from God...

Of course it's obvious from a biblical point of view. But that's begging the question. If you don't take the biblical point of view as <i>a priori</i> truth, then the question of the origin of life becomes much more complicated.

Seeing as you see the story of genisis as nothing more than a simple folk tale, it should not be hard to understand.

It's not at all hard to understand. I understand the biblical creation story in light of my knowledge of human nature, in particular the need for explanation to combat fear of the unknown.

We know all about God, because God has left His word in the form of scriptures, so from a religous percpective, we do not need to substitute "i don't know" with "so God must have done it"...

But there are many different "scriptures". Obviously you have looked beyond the bible. But where do you draw the line? Why are all your scriptures the absolute truth, whilst others are lies? Take the Mayan civilisation, or the Egyptians, or the Babylonians, or the Greeks. They all had different creation stories, and different beliefs about the nature of their gods. How do you know they were wrong and the bible is right?

Some scientists, on the other hand, seemed obsessed with how life came about, why is this? And what will they do if they could create life from chemicals?

Scientists seek to find out about nature. Science is a pursuit of knowledge by a particular set of methods. Only some scientists are interested in the origin of life. Many don't particularly care. Some scientists are relgious, some are not. There's a wide variety of beliefs among scientists.

What will scientists do when (not if) they can create life? Who knows? I'm sure we'll have ethical debates along similar lines to the current ones involving stem cell research.

I have a superficial interest in scientific advancement, i don't really care for it, but it is the way of life now....

Your life would be a lot less comfortable without many of the scientific advancements you take for granted.

If i have any criticism about scientific advancement, it is that it takes something away from the human endeavors and in a sense renders them useless.

You are certainly not alone in that view. It is a common one among religious people who don't know much about science (no offence). It also reinforces the point I made before about evolution tending to remove humanity from its position of pre-eminence in the animal kingdom. Many humans want to think that humans are the most important thing in the world. Science does tend to challenge that notion. The history of science has been one of successively knocking down the human ego.

Take astronomy. We humans always thought Earth was the centre of the universe. After all, God created it specially, didn't he? But then Copernicus suggested that the earth is not the centre of our solar system; it revolves around the sun. Later, we discovered that our sun is not at the centre of our galaxy; it is but one star among hundreds of thousands. And our galaxy appears to be unremarkable in terms of its relation to the rest of the universe.

Humans live out their lives on a tiny dot in a vast cosmos. Makes you feel insignificant, doesn't it? At least, it would if you didn't know that Earth is uniquivocally the most important thing to God.

The thing is, the study of science doesn't pander to human ego. It doesn't care if we want to be the most important thing. It strikes through our arrogance and shows us the world as it really is, along with our true position in that world.

If it makes you uncomfortable, at least you're not living a fantasy.

Where i think modern science is failing, is the ability to understand that all aspects of life cannot be empirically known, that the mind and intelligence cannot just be put down to chemical reactions in the brain, that emotions and thoughts are also a part of life.

Emotions and thoughts are also due to chemical reactions in the brain. Try proving that they are not.

It's as though there is no room for anything outside of the brain. There just doesn't seem any room for debate anymore, and the walls are closing in.

That's not true, actually. It is another common misconception that science and religion are antithetical. In fact, God can coexist with science, and many scientists believe in God. There is no conflict between believing, for example, that our thoughts and emotions are solely due to chemical and electrical processes in the brain and at the same time believing that God is concerned for us as individuals and can subtly direct our lives according to a pre-drawn plan.

Call me paranoid, but i can't help thinking, somebody wants serious control.

Perhaps, but who? A world-wide conspiracy of scientists? What do they have to gain from pushing, say, evolution? It doesn't make them any more important.

Or could it be the religious who want control? By telling us what we can and can't <b>do</b>, surely they seek to exert more control than a scientist who tries to tell us only what we <b>are</b>.

If you believe that scriptures are nothing but anecdotes passed down from one generation to the next.
And that is what understanding God is based on, for the ordinary man, how can you believe that God may possibly exist, when your only understanding of God is from people who use the scripture.

If I want to believe in God, I don't need to look at scripture. I might, for example, look at the complexity of the world, its beauty, its size, its variety, and conclude that God must have had a hand in its creation. But even if I believe in some kind of creation by God, it is a very large step from that to believing the story of Adam and Eve hook, line and sinker.

Without the sciptures, how would we even know about God, what to speak of His existence.

I can also understand God from direct experience, can't I? Doesn't the scripture say that? Why rely on a second-hand account when I can go directly to the source?

My starting position is, trying to get someone to talk about God for a change, instead of trying to find physical evidence of His existence.

I'm sure you'll find many religious people who are quite happy to do just that - some of them right here.

On the other hand, it seems to me that many posters here want to keep coming back to supposed "proofs" of the existence or non-existence of God, even though practically all scientists and philosophers agree that there simply are no such proofs at the present time. I agree that we should move on from that question, accepting that it has no answer right now.
 
Part 1....

Originally posted by James R
There are many possible criteria for saying something is alive. Autonomy is one. Others include ability to reproduce, to react to the environment, to gather energy in some form and to excrete waste.

Out of all those i would say the ability to reproduce is a definate criteria for saying somethin is alive.

Our bodies are made of chemicals, and I think you'll agree we have autonomy. So, at least some arrangements of chemicals are autonomous.

I don't believe our bodies are alive, i believe while the soul, the spiritual spark, is present within the body, the body acts, when it departs, the body ceases to act.

God scooped up some dust, formed a body of a man, then breathe life into his nostrils, then took the mans rib and created a woman?
What is so simple about that?

In fact, across the world's cultures, there are many creation stories which share similar elements.

The way God created Adam and Eve, may probably be one of an unlimited amounts of ways God creates. From all the scriptures we can understand that God only has to will.

What causes rain?

I don't think any of the aboriginal tribes worried themselves about what caused rain, as long as they were getting some. Its not the kind of thing you ask, unless you need to.

God cries and it rains.

Can you show any religous document where this is philosophy is accepted.

"How did people come to be, Dad?"
"Well, God made Adam and Eve..."

An ignorant dad"

"How did people come to be, Dad?"
"Well, Johnny, you need to know about chemistry and molecular biology..."

Another ignorant dad.

The other is deep and gives you more understanding of the world than you had before.

But in all seriousness, you do not know, what life is, how it comes into being, nobody has created life, all you have is ideas, so where is the depth. Why does one have to study chemistry and molecular biology, in order to understand themselves?

But great persons can also explain the complexities. Why didn't God do that in the scriptures?

He has, but you do not accept that it is so simple.

All living things are made of chemicals, so obviously chemicals can support life.

Supporting life and creating life are two different things would'nt you say.

Yes, but I know you think that even the shitey human beings are much better than other animals. You've said so.

Remember you mistook the word "better" for meaning we are essentially better, but i pointed out that that was incorrect, and it seems you still have'nt accepted my explanation.
I believe we are in a better position than animals, if we utalise it in a positive way. You will remember i said something like, if we as humans do not use this potential for understanding our real identity, then we are no better than animals in terms of how we act.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Part 2...

Of course it's obvious from a biblical point of view. But that's begging the question.

Relax JR, i am not trying to put words into your mouth, i understand that you believe the bible to be stories, i just wanted you to look at it from a biblical pov, which to you would be a story.
The reason i asked was to show that the christian religion does not regard that as reason enough to consider the possiblity of reincarnation.

I understand the biblical creation story in light of my knowledge of human nature, in particular the need for explanation to combat fear of the unknown.

If i want to combat fear, the last place i am going to look is in the bible. Thats just me personally.

But there are many different "scriptures".

There are many different scriptures because there are many different types of peoples and cultrures, and not everybody is on the same level.

But where do you draw the line?

There is no line.

Why are all your scriptures the absolute truth, whilst others are lies?

This does not apply to me personally, but when people make such claims, it is because of pride and ignorance. It is the same in all walks of life. My first proper understanding of God came through reading the Bhagavad Gita, since then, my understanding of other religions have easily increased.

They all had different creation stories, and different beliefs about the nature of their gods. How do you know they were wrong and the bible is right?

Why do think worship of gods is religion. If you study bona-fide religions, God always prefers us not to worship gods, for obvious reasons.
The worship of gods, and of God are completely different.

Your life would be a lot less comfortable without many of the scientific advancements you take for granted.

I totally agree, but being less comfortable is not really a problem for me, unless its things like sleeping on a floor or something, but microwaves, computers, t.v, radio, junk food, mobile phones etc, i do not regard as comfort.

Many humans want to think that humans are the most important thing in the world.

And technology increases such pride.

Take astronomy. We humans always thought Earth was the centre of the universe.

Try not making such broad statements as "we humans" instead say some humans or even most humans.

The vedas has been around for thousands of years, in its puranic section, there is an abundance of information, a tiny section of which gives full detail of the size, shape and position of the earth. So not everybody was in ignorance.

Humans live out their lives on a tiny dot in a vast cosmos. Makes you feel insignificant, doesn't it?

That and many other things, yes.

At least, it would if you didn't know that Earth is uniquivocally the most important thing to God.

Where does it say that?

It strikes through our arrogance and shows us the world as it really is, along with our true position in that world.

I'm afraid i disagree with you on this, but see your point.

If it makes you uncomfortable, at least you're not living a fantasy.

There are parts of modern science that makes me feel uncomfortable, but it most definately not what you said, but things a little more human.

Emotions and thoughts are also due to chemical reactions in the brain.

Try proving that they are not.

I can't, but that does not invalidate my opinion.

What do they have to gain from pushing, say, evolution?

Control over peoples minds.

Or could it be the religious who want control?

I don't think it boils down to religous or scientific, but the intentions. As i said earlier, a peodophile will want to go somewhere where he will have acsess to children, so he may become a teacher, preist or a scout leader etc.
Anybody who wants control through religion is not acting according to religion.

By telling us what we can and can't <b>do</b>, surely they seek to exert more control than a scientist who tries to tell us only what we <b>are</b>.

Scientists have warned mothers not to cuddle their babies, not to shout or be angry at your child when they are naughty, but give them rewards instead. This, in part has led to a complete rise in juvenile crime in Britain.

I can also understand God from direct experience, can't I? Doesn't the scripture say that?

But you wouldn't know that if it wasn't for the scripture.
Not sure what you mean by direct experience.

Why rely on a second-hand account when I can go directly to the source?

Because without that s/h account, you would know zilch.

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
Jan:

I don't believe our bodies are alive, i believe while the soul, the spiritual spark, is present within the body, the body acts, when it departs, the body ceases to act.

Does a dog have a soul, then? How about a frog? A worm? A bacterium? If not, how do you explain how these things act?

I don't think any of the aboriginal tribes worried themselves about what caused rain, as long as they were getting some. Its not the kind of thing you ask, unless you need to.

Many were convinced that God caused rain in one form or other. This is evidenced by the existence of many rituals meant to invoke rain.

But in all seriousness, you do not know, what life is, how it comes into being, nobody has created life, all you have is ideas, so where is the depth.

Religion tells us life is some mysterious essence which we can essentially know nothing about, since it comes from God. Science tells us all kinds of things about the nature of life, and disputes that we can never understand it fully.

There are many different scriptures because there are many different types of peoples and cultrures, and not everybody is on the same level.

What do you mean by "same level" in this context? Same level of what?

The vedas has been around for thousands of years, in its puranic section, there is an abundance of information, a tiny section of which gives full detail of the size, shape and position of the earth. So not everybody was in ignorance.

Can you please quote the relevant sections?

Scientists have warned mothers not to cuddle their babies, not to shout or be angry at your child when they are naughty, but give them rewards instead. This, in part has led to a complete rise in juvenile crime in Britain.

I think that this would be a very difficult connection to establish. Again, can you point me towards the relevant evidence for this claim?

Not sure what you mean by direct experience.

I mean things like feeling the presence of God. I don't need a bible for that to happen, do I?

[W]ithout that s/h account, you would know zilch.

What about the people who wrote the scriptures? How were they any different from me?
 
Originally posted by James R
Does a dog have a soul, then? How about a frog? A worm? A bacterium?

The soul is symptomised by consciousness, consciousness, under the control of material nature acts in 6 ways, 1) comes into being, 2) grows 3) reproduces 4) stays around for some time 5) dwindles 6) vanishes (death). If this occurs then it is evident that there is some consciousness, and if there is consciousness, then there is a soul.

Many were convinced that God caused rain in one form or other. This is evidenced by the existence of many rituals meant to invoke rain.

Some were and some weren't, depending on their religion. The aboriginal religion associated rain with a particular god or ancestor. The more spiritually advanced people associated rain ultimately to God, because they understand He is the source of all gods.
The rituals of the aboriginal tribes were performed to satisfy the senses (false-ego on occasions) of the particular god or ancestor, so that in return he/they would send rains, to produce good crops.

Religion tells us life is some mysterious essence which we can essentially know nothing about, since it comes from God.

Any religion worth its salt, tells that God is the origin of all life.
The next stage is to try and understand God, the best you can.

Science tells us all kinds of things about the nature of life, and disputes that we can never understand it fully.

That is very true, but it does not tell us the origin of life, after all, this is the real question people want answered.

What do you mean by "same level" in this context? Same level of what?

Consciousness.

I think that this would be a very difficult connection to establish. Again, can you point me towards the relevant evidence for this claim?

I can't, these would be small sections in newspapers or they would sometimes read it out on national news.

I mean things like feeling the presence of God. I don't need a bible for that to happen, do I?

Of course not, but someone would have to tell you, that is the way. The bible or any scripture is another medium, the best way would be a more personal contact.

What about the people who wrote the scriptures? How were they any different from me?

I think you mean who have the understanding as opposed to the people who pen the documents.

Their consciousness is God-consciousness, whereas our consciousness, or my consciousness to be sure, is material consciousness, i think in terms of "I" and "mine", i am to some degree or other, controled by my senses, this means i am not pure/fit to associate with God on the levels of such great souls. Such souls utalise their whole being in service of God, in this mood, God becomes almost subordinate to them, in the same way a loving father becomes subordinate to his little children. The relationship is one of deep love between the Lover and His Beloved.

Ahhhhhhh......:)

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Originally posted by James R
Does a dog have a soul, then? How about a frog? A worm? A bacterium?

The soul is symptomised by consciousness, consciousness, under the control of material nature acts in 6 ways, 1) comes into being, 2) grows 3) reproduces 4) stays around for some time 5) dwindles 6) vanishes (death). If this occurs then it is evident that there is some consciousness, and if there is consciousness, then there is a soul.

Many were convinced that God caused rain in one form or other. This is evidenced by the existence of many rituals meant to invoke rain.

Some were and some weren't, depending on their religion. The aboriginal religions or beliefs associated rain with a particular god or ancestor.
The more spiritually advanced people associated rain ultimately to God, because they understand He is the source of all gods.
The rituals of the aboriginal tribes were performed to satisfy the senses (false-ego on occasions) of the particular god or ancestor, so that in return he/they would send rains, to produce good crops.

Religion tells us life is some mysterious essence which we can essentially know nothing about, since it comes from God.

Any religion worth its salt, tells that God is the origin of all life.
The next stage is to try and understand God, the best you can.

Science tells us all kinds of things about the nature of life, and disputes that we can never understand it fully.

That is very true, but it does not tell us the origin of life, after all, this is the real question people want answered.

What do you mean by "same level" in this context? Same level of what?

Consciousness.

I think that this would be a very difficult connection to establish. Again, can you point me towards the relevant evidence for this claim?

I can't, these would be small sections in newspapers or they would sometimes read it out on national news.

I mean things like feeling the presence of God. I don't need a bible for that to happen, do I?

Of course not, but someone would have to tell you, that is the way. The bible or any scripture is another medium, the best way would be a more personal contact.

What about the people who wrote the scriptures? How were they any different from me?

I think you mean who have the understanding as opposed to the people who pen the documents.

Their consciousness is God-consciousness, whereas our consciousness, or my consciousness to be sure, is material consciousness, i think in terms of "I" and "mine", i am to some degree or other, controled by my senses, this means i am not pure/fit to associate with God on the levels of such great souls. Such souls utalise their whole being in service of God, in this mood, God becomes almost subordinate to them, in the same way a loving father becomes subordinate to his little children. The relationship is one of deep love between the Lover and His Beloved.

Ahhhhhhh......:)

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
To the lady in the back!

To the lady who started this thread:

Congratulations!
You have evolved by your own means to the thoughts of Kiergegaard.
He has written concerning the unvalid relation of the Church with God.

ex.:

1-Can any man made church hold the greatness of God? No.
2-Can man written scriptures talk of his words? No.

But the only thing I know in my existence... is that He exists.

So to the lady in the 1st post: Bravo!

-----------------

I really didn't care to read all of the posts, but one that is on the first page asks Pammy:

What is so wrong with being a souless creature of flesh and bones? Do you have something against animals?


To that I reply:

What is 'wrong' with such a belief is that no morality can exist in such a world.
In such a truly Darwinistic world, monkeys would have not felt compelled to evolve to the point of making sky-scrapers, cellular phones and atomic bombs that could eradicate planet Earth. In such a materialistic world, they would have all kept on enjoying eating freaking banana's in a simili-hammack somewhere where it never snows.
We clearly need morality in order to live with one another without killing each other... so God must have manned us with the proper concepts which are not of this world.

Thats why we are not just flesh and bones. Darwin can't explain us. If he can, he has just contradicted his own laws:

1-Survival of the fittest

How can the "fittest" go to the point of nuking the planet away and still claim he survived?
(Probability with Bush going war crazy since his election)

2-Principal of evolution
Giraff's grow longer necks through evolutions processesd that enables only the fittest to reproduce. Now what in the world did the monkey do to get in such a mess?

Peace.
 
P.S.

Never thought atheists had such strong instinctual desires to demise, ridicule and laugh at other human beings.

Just goes to show that if you don't know what the **** you came on this planet to do, you are most likely to do nothing productive. :)

C'ya

:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top