Defining "Them" · 12:36am Dec 28th, 2013
Now that "Them" is done, I can tak about various themes and ideas within it.
And really, there's so many I'm not sure how I can ever narrow them down!
Let's start with a quote, one that seems to encapsulate it quite well, and formed part of its inspiration...
“What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science: with a Prelude in Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs
Speaking of, I'd also recommend Cloud Atlas, a fascinating film about oppression, predation, rebellion, infinity, reincarnation, and the arc of history, all things that I touch on in "Them".
You know the real irony of all this? I don't believe in this post-modernist/religious stuff. This is me sincerely trying to wrap my head around non-materialist world views as well as I can, because I find it fascinating.
I'm dunk so fuck you! I'm also bi which doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything
1654376
I'm not sure this comment has to do with anything.
1654453
You're quite right
What do you find most interesting about religion and religious concepts?
1654572
The strange and myriad world views they represent, how they've captivated human imagination for centuries and persist even in the face of contrary evidence. It's very fascinating.
I find their stories interesting on their own, even if I disagree strongly with their moral arcs.
1654615 I don't plan on going too deep into a religious discussion, since we a: don't really have time, and b: it is a very touchy subject (understatement of the century right there). But ultimately, I'd say the biggest reason people believe in such religions is that the alternative of believing that this earth came together by chance doesn't sound any more logical than believing it was created by someone with the power to do so. I myself am religious and that reasoning is partly why I believe. Just my two cents for now.
1654659
I believe that's fundamentally a misunderstanding of how chance works. Honestly, it isn't that unlikely once you examine it in detail.
If you're curious, I can discourse in a very educated fashion on those topics. I enjoy it, and we can take it to PM if you're worried about bothering people.
1654723 So, it's four in the morning, and I don't know if I want to read your stories or not! Through the well of Pirene has been on my to-read list for a while, mainly because of that quote; "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", which I first encountered in a multi-crossover paperback novel, called, I think, Silverthorn? Have you read it? Is your story based on it in any way? Can you tell me if I'm right about the title? Should I read your story?
Also, if you want to discuss religion loudly and messily in this blog, I am more than game; I am an amateur philosopher and Christian apologist! I am often wrong, but rarely in doubt! I love to argue, and promise to attempt civility and not be easily offended.
Did I mention it's four in the morning? Good morning! Sleep well!
I have been up writing entirely too long.
1667167
You should absolutely read my stories, particularly Pirene.
And if you want to debate, be my guest. I warn you, though, I'm not an amateur and am almost never incorrect on citations. I can't say whether or not I'm wrong, because that would presuppose knowledge I am incapable of.
1667172 You get paid to philosophize? This is a neat trick! I will ask you questions, then. What are your favorite subjects/things?
But seriously, did you read that book? I'll move Pirene up my list. I tend to be chary of HIE, but...it's more of a reflex than anything. I mean, I write one, so they can't ALL be bad, right?
I work night-shift, so I'm honestly not as loopy as I might sound right now. Sorry if I seemed way to goofy.
1667181
I've been paid to debate, so that's technically a step up.
My favorite subjects are evolution, arguments for or against the existence of a deity or deities, the separation of church and state, and feminism.
But, no, I've never heard of Silverthorn.
1667193 Hmm, technically correct, that's the best kind of correct!
Ok, you mentioned that life evolving is more likely than people think; would you elaborate on that a bit?
Also, what do you think of the Fermi Paradox? Also, least favorite/most favorite arguments for the existance of God? Got any good ones against the existence of God?
1667219
To be more rigorous, he stated that the Earth coming together by chance seemed unlikely to him. The topics of evolution, abiogenesis, and Earth's formation are similar, however, but it has to do fundamentally with how probability is misunderstood.
If you took ten dice (d6) in your hand and rolled them, how likely are you to get ten sixes? That's a pretty simple calculation: there are 6^10 possible combinations, so your odds are 1 in 60466176. If you rolled them all once per second, you'd get all 6s eventually... in about a year, statistically speaking. We might compare this to the probability of an Earth-like planet forming in the habitable zone. As it turns out, this is incredibly common, now that we've sampled a good chunk of nearby stars for their planets. Given the number of stars in the galaxy and the number of galaxies in the universe and the number of planets average per galaxy, this should surprise no one.
However, when it comes to things like abiogenesis or evolution, we're actually looking at something different...
Imagine that, instead of rolling all ten dice at once, you got to roll one at a time and when you get a six, you keep it—by contrast, that'll take about 30 seconds. The difference here is that there's a series of events which don't need to happen simultaneously. This is believed to be the most likely explanation for the synthesis of amino acids in the early history of the Earth.
Now, when it comes to evolution, there's something on the order of 3.7 billion years and horrendous numbers of generations to do it in. If you move a micrometer every day for a billion years, you get pretty darned far.
Evolution is nothing more than a blood-drenched puzzle solver. The puzzle is the map of bio-available resources on the planet earth. It's like your solution to a labyrinth is to sit still and generate clones of yourself to throw themselves at every possible route and trap until by sheer weight of numbers you cover all the potential pathways (or get capped by a meteor!)
There's a couple possibilities:
1) We're number one. We could very well be the first in our galaxy to set foot outside - but don't hold your breath, we could be wiped out soon.
It's worth pointing out that supernovae routinely wash chunks of the galaxy in explosive bursts of radiation that can easily kill all higher order life on this planet even from a distance of light years (indeed, we've actually used supernova bursts to help map out portions of the galaxy by following the shockwave of their light reflecting off interstellar objectse.) Thankfully, we seem to be coasting in a relatively safe zone for the foreseeable future. That's not counting all the other potential doomsday scenarios, of course.
2) They're already here, but they're keeping themselves hidden.
3) They're on their way. There couid be, right now, a plague of Von Neumann machines sweeping across the galaxy, or even the universe, and they will dissemble our solar system for usable components. Thankfully, so far, we don't see any solar systems being converted... yet.
Regardless, insufficient information.
Disregarding infantile ones?
Okay, I know I just said I was disregarding infantile arguments, but the Ontological Argument is a favorite. If you're not familiar with it:
1. God is the greatest conceivable being.
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3. Therefore, God exists
As you can see, this is embarrassing for any serious philosopher to contemplate. You can hear put-downs from some of the greatest Christian apologists for this one.
The argument I find most offensive is the moral argument. It's both circular reasoning and essentially codifies Bullying as the ultimate moral truth: what is good is what someone tells you and enforces.
(Speaking of circular reasoning, you ever hear this one? "The Bible says it is the Word of God, therefore God is real and this is his Word." Hoo boy.)
Pascal's Wager is an entertaining one in that it's the most culturally offensive, since it supposes that only the Judeo-Christian God is a valid object for the wager.
In terms of best argument, as in the legitimately most difficult to defend against, I would have to saaaay...
Probably the Kalam argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.
It has two flaws, which should be immediately obvious to anyone with a passing certainty of such things:
A) This is essentially a God of the Gaps argument. We Do Not Know, Therefore God Is Responsible. That's leaping a step.
B) It blithely assumes that an intelligence must be behind all creation, rather than blind processes. We can consistently demonstrate order arising from chaos, and chaos arising from simple processes, so the idea that the universe began with ultimate intelligence and devolved from there.
Fun fact: it's possible to be simultaneously an agnostic and an atheist. Simply put: I regard the probability of God existing to be nonzero but not worth consideration barring further evidence.
And, ultimately, that is the most rational place to be. There is no concrete, good evidence for the existence of such an entity. We do not know, and as far as we can tell it is pointless to speculate.
However, one can construct arguments against specific gods all day long. The published ones. For example, Yahweh as he was conceived originally, as one of a pantheon among the Semitic peoples before the worship of other gods was discouraged and then banned.
It's against the vague Platonic/Deist entity that there's really no way to positively deny.
Ultimately? The only thing I can say about that God is Occam's Razor (and yes, I'm aware of the irony that Ockham was a monk - there's some fun history there.)
As far as we can tell, God is not necessary to the functioning of the universe. If there is a Watchmaker, he is Blind and cares not - the god that Spinoza, Jefferson, and maybe Einstein believed in. Einstein may have simply ascribed the term "God" to the mindless laws of physics.
Barring any further evidence, that's as far as it goes.
1667309 Hmm, your discussion of chance and evolution seems to be summed up by the idea "We've had a bloody long time, and it worked itself out that way." Am I right? Honestly, seems somewhat logical to me.
Chance is why I brought up the Fermi paradox; discounting Inhibitors, (shudder) if life can appear on Earth by chance, surely we should have heard from others by now? The sun seems much too young for us to be the first, and there are something like 80 billion observable galaxies in our universe so far. Your first paragraph about chance seems to contradict what I know about the galaxy. Am I mis-interpreting you? Do I just have my facts wrong? Your second seems to suggest that.
There's something I'm curious about, though; why life? Why, in your agnostic philosophy, do things WANT to live? Sure, if you pre-suppose 'alive', saying we got here by chance is a decent answer. Any ideas on this? It's fine if not; as you said, some things just aren't worth the energy to think about.
Moving on...sure, the Ontological argument is infantile.
I don't think I've heard your version of the moral argument; I never got that from the one C.S. Lewis gave, although I may be talking about something else. Is this about definitions of good and evil? I believe Lewis argued that since consistent ideas of good and evil seem to exist outside of conditioning, they must be from outside our experience; hence, they were formed by something greater than us. Not sure if I'm doing his argument justice, or if that really follows...hrm. At the very least, please, PLEASE tell me your not a relativist.
I find the circular arguments some Christians use extremely frustrating, too. Honestly, the discussions some people have about 'Creationism' Vs. 'Evolution' must be the most insane; if God created the world, does it really matter how he did it? They're pretending to argue about something meaningful while conflating religion and science on BOTH sides. Blargh. I'd rather look to the world for proof of the Bible. It's much sounder, and I've never found it wanting.
I also find Pascal's Wager entertaining. I think it took me five minutes to spot that hole the first time; I like to think I'm not so ethnocentric as some.
Kalam's argument is one I have heard if under a different name, and a good one. I think it does show the existence of a First Cause; whether this is more than a chance or demiurge, it can't answer. Still, something infinite must be out there; this world certainly isn't. Although the universe does not seem to require God's intervention for functioning. At least, as far as we can measure.
I'll have to disagree with you on something, soon, or the next subjects will have to be up to you...unless boredom sets in and we give up, I guess. You're right, 'God' is a poorly defined concept, and arguments have to be leveled against his character, rather than his name. Personally, I think God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and, this is the one most people (including, I thought, Einstein (does his name mean 'one cup'? Now I must check.)) have trouble with; all-good. This is the only God worth believing in, call him, her, it, what you may. Demonstrating the existence of these qualities can be tricky.
As for God being deaf, blind and uncaring; I must respectfully disagree, or retreat into Solipsism from here on out. But this is a matter of personal experience, and I can't expect a learned person such as yourself (changed from 'learned man...just realized you may be a woman. Hope that works, or we may have to discuss Feminism, which I know very little about) to take my word for it.
Ok, I haven't really provided much to argue about...maybe I'm worse at this than I hoped. Hmm, I really should be thinking about bed, though. 'K, maybe I'll download Pirene, and have a go at it; at least that we we can talk about writing, if nothing else.
I'm disappointed that you've never heard of silverthorn, which may or may not be it's actual name, but I understand; I've tried to find this book on the web, but I have the name wrong, or it's completely eclipsed by the Raymond E. Feist novel. (a sub-par writer if ever there was one.) I'd like to read it again; it pulled together characters from literally dozens of classics and mythologies, and I think I'd understand it a lot more now than I did when I was thirteen or so.
Huh. Apparently Stein in names usually means stone, or pebble; Einstein may be from einsteinen, to surround with stone, or fortify. Stein isn't used for 'glass' nearly as much in German as it is in English, only regionally, and only for certain mugs. Or so says the ever changing and capricious internet.
Sorry if this seems wall-of-texty to you; if it's a TL:DR this late (early?) I understand.
Hey, maybe you don't have a night job, and are actually up early. Whatever. I'm off to bed; I may see you at three in the afternoon, no earlier. I hope you've been enjoying this as much as I have.
1667378
Simple process + a long time to work it = Dramatic change.
I think a lot of confusion comes from the fact that we're looking at it from the top-down. People don't really intuit how messy and explosive the process of evolution was. Entire lines get wiped out, creatures go back-and-forth from land-to-ocean in search of food, safety, mates, etc.
Why?
1) Individual things - Entities desire to live because they are bound to by their impulses. Humans get the opportunity to contemplate and choose.
2) Life itself - Has no will or direction beyond that dictated by its basic rules.
Life is a consequence of certain natural laws, not a desire. I see no reason to project some sort of ineffable will over the whole process.
I will be completely fair to C. S. Lewis - he did not develop in a period where we had consistent ideas of evolutionary psychology. This is answered in a few ways:
A) We can say that there are certain "moral" ideas which are inherent to human biology. This isn't surprising, because we can mathematically demonstrate fitness benefits among communal animals. Reducing your own fitness in altruistic acts towards your kin slightly reduces your survival potential but increases your overall fitness potential because your kin have a nonzero portion of your fitness (how much depends on the exact genetic rules in your species, but for most mammals this is half for your immediate kin.)
B) Virtually all moral musing beyond that comes from humans, and is almost (but not completely) culturally dependent.
I do not believe that there is an external spirit or moral truth. Even if given the existence of universal "rewards" and "punishments" for moral behavior, we must treat with skepticism the claim that what one person (no matter how vast that person) says is moral is therefore moral. For instance, if an angel or god came down (and I believed them to be what they said) and told me that homosexuality was wrong, then I must respectfully disagree and demand evidence for it being wrong. Most of this sort of morality is bronze age crap - Do It Or I Kill You. Sin is "moving away from the light of God", not a statement of morality, by this definition.
However, I believe that we can draw axiomatic moral rules from a set of values or "virtues." Ones I am prepared to fight to defend. My desire is to see a world united by compassion for all thinking beings.
Even given the same facts and consequences, well-meaning people disagree on even the most basic, fundamental notions.
Regardless, I think some outcomes are so desirable that we must argue for them. A fair, just world, tempered by mercy, is one that benefits everyone.
The error, I believe, is assuming that this much be an infinitely complex entity.
We simply don't know. We have a lot of hypotheses, but that's all they are at the moment. It's complicated by the fact that gathering evidence about the universe that came before is exceptionally difficult, for reasons that should be obvious~
I find far more compelling the notion that as entropy increases to near-infinite, the universe kicks over and starts again, in an infinite froth of potential bubble universes. The question of first and cause becomes muddled when time itself is not a stable quantity.
It really makes as much sense as there being a prime intelligence. God does not answer this question, because then you must dare to ask "Wherefore God?"
This question was forbidden until our modern era by fearful inquisitions (and still is in some societies!) but it is an important one.
He made it extremely clear in his letters that he did not believe in a personal, intervening God, in response to questions by a Rabbi. Whether or not he was a Deist is slightly less clear, but he indicated strongly that what he called "God" he used as a shorthand to refer to a blind force that created the universe.
Man, I am a male feminist, and you're right, I'd need more than just your word.
Behold, a claim! But can you defend it?
Whoops, almost forgot about this one...
I think you're misinterpreting, but only slightly. Indeed, I would not be surprised if there are other intelligent species out there.
1) They may not be talking
2) They may be dead
3) We may not be listening the right way
4) We may not be listening in the right places.
You should read up a bit about SETI, it goes into the complications.
Well, good morning.
I think....hopefully, this is how you do those box things?
Well, maybe it worked. Anyways, I'm confused by this. Every natural law I see points me to the conclusion that life evolving by chance is not only unlikely, but rather illogical. The length of time helps, but seems a stop-gap measure; infinite monkeys, if you will, in a decidedly finite universe. Decay is the norm; entropy increases. Adding disorganized energy to a system damages it. What am I missing here? Selection of the fittest seems to pre-suppose life, and looks like circular reasoning to me. Life comes from selection, which requires life? I don't like it.
I am, you may have guessed, a creationist; I have no problems with evolution theologically, but I've always thought the evidence to be weak. Lack of 'missing links', irreducible complexity, assumptions on the past conditions of the Earth; none of these are insurmountable, but they seem merely to complicate what, for Christians at least, has a simpler explanation. However, as I've said, I don't like this debate a whole lot, because of people's inability to separate philosophy from science. Unfortunately, there's a paucity of evolutionary Christians interested in discussing it with me.
If my ineptitude is frustrating you, I'd rather drop this than risk your ire. Atheism presupposes evolution; without a God, you're left with nothing else. Panspermia is a stopgap measure at best. I understand that, and I'm not trying to argue you out of it, so please excuse me if I seem antagonistic.
The alternative you suggest, infinite time, is the best alternative. Although it requires a stopgap, the hard-reset of the next Big Bang. I've reached this conclusion independently. Still, I find the idea of an infinite deity more consistent with what I've observed. Why should one thing about this world be arbitrarily infinite, while the rest of it decays? Seems rather convenient, no?
It's so often compared to a watch; how amazing that the spring just happens to be the bit to never wear out! But I have the luxury of such skepticism, since I ground my belief in God in more concrete things.
This might, in my (unprofessional ;) opinion, be called humanism? Would you, perhaps, be willing to classify yourself as one of my friends does; an enlightened hedonist? He's someone I greatly enjoy talking to, and your intelligent discourse would fit well into our company.
(I'd ask if you are named Bronson, but the fact that computer science doesn't feature in your interests clues me out.)
Either way, as long as you don't assert that good and evil are formed solely by our opinions and perceptions of a situation, I think we have common ground to tread.
As you should! The evidence of people I find sane and trustworthy is not really the same secondhand. And, honestly? Although I do believe that God can be discovered entirely through reason, it's probably the hardest way to get there; through the eye of the needle, as it were. Not having tread this path myself, I can't in good faith offer to light your way.
I'm ashamed to admit that I've only had exposure to the 'popular' views of feminism, which seem rather....polarizing. Sure, the ideas seems sound, but I've never been really clear on what those ideas are. Some of the aims are good; yes, women deserve every opportunity a man does. But this seems to devolve into either saying women are the SAME as men, which seems ludicrous to me, or escalating into some form of antagonistic...male-supression. I honestly don't know; I'm tempted to reject the whole thing, simply because of the people associated with it.
Not you, of course.
Contrariwise, I recognize that the same happens to any philosophy or group that gets large enough; heaven knows there are lots of Christians who, if it weren't for the Protestant Revolution, I would happily excommunicate and ban for heresy.
So, what exactly does feminism mean to you?
I rather believe that the Bible defends itself. From my study of it, compared to my study of humanity, I find it to be the absolute best, most accurate and complete descriptor of everything to do with the world and human nature. Buddhism would probably be my second choice.
Consider this; although many people revile Christianity, even some of the most vitriolic detractors of the church will still say that Jesus was a great man and an excellent moral teacher. I'm not trying to make an argument from majority here; simply point out that what is in the bible has defended itself in the past.
I would also argue that the Old Testament, which formed and informed every aspect Jesus' teaching, doesn't differ from his message in any way, and can be included in this.
If the fact that what I see in it is so strongly shown in the world around isn't evidence that it's packed cover-to-cover with truth, I don't know what is.
I don't' want to argue 'the bible is true from God, and God is true from the bible'. I've already said, my view of God is informed by the world. Unfortunately, my view of the Bible also has to be argued the same. If you have a specific problem with a doctrine or passage, feel free to ask; I'll be happy to give my reasoning as an orthodox Presbyterian, but I don't know how useful that will be to you as non-christian. The doctrines of Hell and evil, which seem to bother many, are really only accessible from a Christan viewpoint...rejecting the idea of God, they become somewhat untenable.
Here's the thing; at it's core, Christ teaches a very, very uncompromising message. It's important for me, as Christian, to understand that getting people to believe it is out of my hands. My duty is to tell people about Christianity, and what it means; after that, only you, or God through you, (if he exists) can change your mind. I'm leery of arguing the truth of the Bible with a non-christian, because I feel the truth in it is mostly self-evident, and the rest isn't something I need to convince you of through argument, anyways.
Not understanding this has caused much tragedy and stupidity.
Sin, by my studied definition, is anything that separates you from God. Since God is everything good, sin is by definition harmful. I've yet to find a problem with this, and if I refer to sin in the future, this is where I'm coming from.
The sinfulness (or not) of homosexuality is unfortunately something of a poster-child for both bible bangers and bashers alike. I can't claim to have an informed opinion of this, because I'm not really involved; I have a least one gay Christian friend, but I'm ashamed to admit that I never took the opportunity to discuss this with him.
One and two, if I understand how light works, seem moot to me. Surely our wide-band radio broadcasts would be observable with radio telescope? Even if our current transmissions, along with voyager 1 & 2, later seem like youthful indiscretions, everyone is young once. And it's not like you can take back a space-probe without colony-capable tech....which is more confusing than anything.
As for listening the right way, or in the right places; well, that makes a modicum of sense. But, light is universal and omni-direcional, and SETI has the aforementioned radio telescopes.
Either way, I'm more than willing to let it rest here, and profess my confusion and ignorance on the subject. Maybe I need to do more reading on SETI, instead of wasting your time. Having studied quantum physics, I'm more than willing to admit that what 'seems reasonable' can often be anything but; and at least two of the subjects we're discussing could well fall under that category.
I started Pirene; so far, all it has done is make me cringe. I can't say I'm a fan of sticky slice-of-life, which seems to be mostly what the conflict between Daphne and her family is so far. The writing is well above average for fanfiction, though, and maybe things will change once I get out of the first chapter.
I don't know what you are reading, or like to read, but since I'm a dirty attention whore I'll shamelessly plug my work; I'd greatly appreciate an informed opinion if you can make it past my senseless drivel. Or, if you like, I just completed a oneshot I could really use a proofer for. Lrya tells Bon-Bon about her time with the King of the Faeries. (Think leprechauns...although the leprechaun was really only the faeries cobbler, in the stories that inspired the piece.)
Anyways, have a happy new year; may all your endeavors be fruitful, and your days filled with joy and peace, by the love and grace of God. Even if you don't believe in him. :D I'm off to a party.
1668464
Yes, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Entropy always increases in a closed system. Earth, and its available biosphere, is an open system. The biosphere gains energy from geothermal processes and the sun, it loses energy to space.
Considering billions of years and billions of planets, that it would happen is not at all surprising.
There is nothing illogical about evolution.
You're confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution does require life to happen, but it is not how life began. That is abiogenesis.
1) Missing Links: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what species are. Species are not discrete, they are continuous. We have substantial links to connect virtually every single possible branch of life. The weakest spot currently, as I recall, are bats, because of the environment bats are supposed to have lived in
2) Irreducible Complexity: This has been repeatedly and substantially disabused. I can direct your attention to several sources, among them the recent Dover Pennsylvania trial. There is no evidence for irreducibly complex systems, and we can repeatedly demonstrate the antecedents of complex phenomena.
3) Assumptions on the Past Conditions of the Earth: We have substantial geological evidence that allows us to reconstruct the early earth. I'd suggest asking a geologist.
No, the evidence indicates evolution occurred and suggests abiogenesis. An atheist supposes only that the probability of a god being involved in this process is next-to-nonexistent.
I'm often surprised by how many creationists are so confused about basic precepts. I can direct you to some popular books on evolution, or if you want more technical literature I'm sure I can direct you.
Try to define "time decays" for me, because that's pretty facile. I would also point out that space and time are related and relative, so good luck making a consistent theory there.
For this in general, I direct you to theoretical physicists and philosophers of science.
I would refer to myself as a secular humanist if pressed. Hedonism, aka pleasure for its own sake, is fine so long as you don't let it distract you from important things.
They probably aren't formed by metaphysical entity.
I believe women should have identical opportunity to men, and this includes dismantling structural sexism. There is no male-suppression in pure feminism.
Men and women have differences, but they are A) relatively minuscule, as far as sexual dimorphism goes humans are pretty weak and B) not a sufficient reason to include structural sexism.
Offer
A) No reason to accept its moral precepts as valid, beyond some coincidental things. Worse when you get into things like how you should sell your children into slavery, stone homosexuals, keep an arbitrary day free of work, treat women as unclear for having menstruation cycles, stone disobedient children... so on, so forth. The Bible as a moral guide is fraught.
B) No reason to accept its historical statements as true, so there's no reason to take its claims seriously.
These are technical considerations, and I direct you to the published science. It explains the current state of the search and the technical considerations.
Yes, they will.
1668574
You sound like you're disagreeing, but...do you really think I'm wrong? If you write God out of the picture, chance and time are all you have left for where life, and humans, came from. You seem to be saying that evolution leads to atheism, but I'll disagree there; atheism is a philosophical viewpoint, and completely disconnected from the science of where we came from.
Siiiiiigh. You seem to be saying 'stop bothering me and go read something', so I guess I'll do that. Maybe I'll give the Dover trial a go.
Acceleration affects time; during the inevitable collapse of the universe, time as we know it will eventually stop...at least, from an outside perspective. We really don't have the math to understand 'singularity' yet, but time is not some fixed thing; it's surprisingly malleable. As you approach the speed of light, both time and space are skewed. The assumption that the universe is continually expanding and contracting is a nice one, but backed by no observations, (for good reason!) and very little math as far as I can tell; all our equations run to zero or infinity in these spaces.
Make of it what you will; it doesn't inspire confidence in me.
Hence the 'enlightened'. If I wasn't a Christian, this is where I would be, I think. It is the most rational viewpoint if you reject God, and I applaud your clarity of vision.
Haha, you sound a little sore about this. Going to throw the Crusades in there too? Maybe the Spanish Inquisition? Let's talk about the Salem Witch Trials!
Listen, dude, there's something I should make clear about Christianity; there is God, and there are people. God is perfect, people are not, no matter how hard we try. The bible, like it or not, is a human book; given to us by God, but written by humans in very different times and places in history. I don't claim it's totally inerrant, and I despise any who do unless they have (at a minimum) studied under a Jewish rabbi and read it in Greek and Hebrew. Then I will listen carefully.
If you actually read the Bible, especially Paul, you will find that the early Christan church had a very clear view of the law of the Jews; it will specifically show you how screwed up the world is. Jesus fulfilled it by showing that this really isn't the point of what God is doing. The people Jesus was hardest on in his ministry were the Pharisees, the most zealous and closest to the law of the bunch, and the people he spent the most time with were the people who were ignored it; tax collectors, whores, and those looked down on by 'decent' people. In short, the ones who need help.
Sure, the historical stuff in the bible could be wrong, in detail or in large chunks. I'm not interested in arguing it; whatever. The message of the bible is true; people are broken, and need help, God loves us, and wants to help us, but we need to ask him for it first. This, I have seen evidence of in the world, and that's enough for me.
Do you really understand what Christianity is about? It's not about theology, or 'church', or tithe, or Christmas...it's about being a better person by God's grace, and making the world a better place. If you tell me that Jesus' message of 'help the hurting, feed the hungry, love your enemies and work as if you're doing it for God himself' is 'fraught', I will (respectfully) laugh in your face.
...Hmm. this comes off as rather...impassioned. Oh well. If you've had enough of my company, I apologize for the offense.
well, the party ended sooner than I thought, so Happy New Year again.
1669569
No, I'm not. I'm saying that the evidence supports evolution, it has literally nothing to do with atheism.
None of that has to do with decay. Space and time are related, however.
Again, though, you're asking a physics question.
supposes that a God exists, but without a reason to suppose that a God exists it is irrelevant.
1669585 Actually, I rather think I'm making a physics statement; we don't know what will happen at this time. What we do know, suggests that time may stop completely. If that's not some form of 'decay', (winding down? Slowing? Stopping?) I don't know what is.
Steven Hawking, at one point in his career, (our foremost expert on black holes) suggested that since the laws of physics break down in a singularity, literally anything can happen. He's since, I believe, suggested that there are laws there; we just don't know them yet. So, what will happen? Who knows? Not me. But, may be just as likely that the entire universe will vanish as it is it will restart.
Fine, I'll stop bugging you and go read something.
1669569
Are you playing that game where if I tell Mom about what I did before you rat me out, it's no longer as offensive as simply trying to get away with it? Because I have to say, the truth is that never really works.
Take a look at my name! Don't forget the people who were 'part of the church to begin with' who were rooted out and destroyed for heresy as well.
I actually have nothing against Catholics, in an ironic totally evolutionary way, they did what they needed to survive. They hurt lots of people, but they inspired and comforted as well. They fostered learning albeit at a cost, they patroned the arts, and many of the world's landmarks are because of them.
What am I getting at? Well...
Then the Bible wasn't given to us, it was given to one man, or a group of men, and they twisted it to their own needs. Mostly, to rally a people that was constantly getting conquered by ancient civilizations and cultures by binding it under one law, the law of a war god.
So you're saying that you despise anyone who says the book is without error or blemish, unless they've dedicated their life to studying its earliest editions? That doesn't really make a lot of sense, the validity, or value, of the message is based on the message, not the value of the person reading it to you.
If you actually read the history of the bible, you'll find that the Early Christian church didn't have a very clear idea on anything at all, except they had a loose series of beliefs centered on a prophet, and they had regular meetings to iron out what should be 'canon' regarding those thoughts. The early church started off crying out against persecution and prejudice, then as soon as they found their feet, they annihilated any dissent, especially within their own ranks. Because they learned what every organization tends to learn.
It's great that you can focus on the root, but good wombs hath borne bad sons and all that.
Let's ignore for a moment that again, everything the bible says is prefaced with 'allegedly', Jesus 'allegedly' said this or that, as interpreted by all of the people with their own little books in the bible (and the ones with books that are not included.)
Yes, Christianity is about all of those things. They did them, they participated in them, and in many cases they insist on the necessity of it today. Your root message that you're focused on? That people are broken, living in a fallen world, and there is a source of infinite love and wisdom waiting for them all? That's almost the point of Gnosticism, which was originally part of Christianity before getting stomped flat (or more like being sent to the corner for a thousand years or so, and spreading its ideas into all sorts of other ideologies.
I'm just going to invoke Godwin's Law here (see? I can tell Mom before you can rat on me too!)
Nationalism, as a concept, doesn't have to be a bad thing. Taking pride in your group, in your nation, wanting to be a part of it and further it? Those are all noble ideas. They're ideas that led to the Nazi party taking off because it's what Germans in that era wanted and needed to hear. So saying that real Christianity has nothing to do with what everyone has added to it (It only has to do with things I endorse and appreciate!) is akin to saying that real Nazis support Nationalism without being genocidal assholes about it. Believe it or not, there were good Nazis, just like there are good Christians, or good Slave Owners.
The category is still marked and known by the actions of those who founded or subscribed to it. If you differ, then you disagree with them, you disagree with the category, the word they've used to define what they're about.
And then you're no longer a Christian. You're something else, a spiritualist, of sorts. Taking a god of war and isolation and trying to turn it into something else. Just like a certain someone tried and failed to, a long time ago.
I have to point out that this is a medium that isn't a verbal debate, in other words you can aim an arrow for a much greater period of time before releasing it, and sometimes you can even recall the arrow (delete it) before it hits its mark.
Don't apologize, don't be sorry. Be better. If you feel like your message is unduly inflamed, then calm down, and edit it. To acknowledge that your words are emotional and potentially offensive, and then to send it out anyway, is an endorsement of that approach. It's telling Ether and everyone else "I think this might be offensive, but I also think it's necessary for my message to be offensive."
1674241
This is correct, and I apologize for not taking the time to better edit my previous message, because it does seem to have angered you, even if E.E. may have disregarded it. I'm not intending to play any sort of game with my words, except possibly to defuse the situation; I suggested talking about highly controversial topics because I could understand impassioned argument on those subjects. Less so about my beliefs of the Bible. I'm sorry if I offended you.
Yes? I don't see what's illogical about this. If you claim to be an expert on something, why shouldn't I expect you to have studied it extensively? And claiming to understand the Bible enough to say you're confident it's without error is not a small claim.
Part of this, though, is that people who say "Just look at the bible! This is what it says!" drive me absolutely nuts. The Bible REQUIRES interpretation, and a good translation is PART of that. Claiming inerrancy is, to some degree, a claim that interpretation is unnecessary. If they claim that, but still read a translated version, their arguments have no weight to me. Don't even get me started on the King James-ers we get here in the south.
I've added these paragraphs in an attempt to clarify my thoughts for Ether, as the original discussion was with him. As for the rest of this...I'm afraid that I'm not qualified to argue for or against Gnosticism, which you apparently claim to be coming from. I don't really understand the philosophy, honestly, and since you've invoked Goodwin's Law, it seems you're not really interested in further discussion. (If I correctly understand the meme.) If you'd like to discuss this further, maybe you could PM me? I don't know how Ether feels about us taking over his blog, as entertaining as the argument may be.
1675489
I think you need to establish that the book's claims are valid before any meaningful discussion can take place.
1675489
Do not confuse an argument utilizing Pathos for angering me or offending me.
Also stop making assumptions and then rolling with them in your comment, because that does get annoying. It doesn't come across as you employing empathy, it comes across as you telling the other person what they're feeling.
Alternatively it comes across as mewling and a little sad, to steal a quote:
"Shyness has a strange element of narcissism, a belief that how we look, how we perform, is truly important to other people." - Andre Dubus
(Or heck, why not two?)
"Many a man is praised for his reserve and so-called shyness when he is simply too proud to risk making a fool of himself." - J.B. Priestley
There is no situation to defuse. You used Pathos, in a kind of silly half-hearted way, I'm here yo show you how real Pathos is done, with a modicum of conviction at the very least. I demand at least one awe-inspiring broad statement. It doesn't get you anywhere or do you any credit to try and tackle someone, only to lift them back up, dust them off, and say: "Terribly sorry about that sir or madame, I don't know what got into me... You know what? Perhaps tis better you just ignore me. Cheerio."
It's illogical because you don't need a degree to see that the bible 'is' fallible, and that if it's the gift of a kind loving god, it certainly got lost in translation. All the fancy pieces of paper in the world aren't going to change the message. Again, you're placing the value on the person reading the book instead of the book itself. I don't know if you're a protestant or not, but if so there's a special kind of irony in that.
I don't care if there is a roll of papyrus somewhere that contains God's 'true message, untarnished, unblemished, by the telephone game'. If that exists it is functionally a different book than we have. That the bible is full of inconsistencies and distasteful morals is self-evident. All you need to do is read the book Christians have been using since their inception. You don't need to be a talmidim to look up the earlier translations, or even some of the more 'accurate ones' we have today. Those apparent 'errors' are still there.
Hell, we don't even need to go that far, we can just turn your logic back on you. Mankind is broken and imperfect. They were given the word of god to put down in a book. Because the book is written by broken and imperfect man, the book therefor cannot be ineffable. We didn't need to find someone who spent way more money on Religious Studies in college than was strictly necessary.
I am an Agnostic, but if I were to subscribe to any religion or set of beliefs, it would be Gnosticism, because I do not believe that any loving perfect god could be responsible for this universe. I really don't want to believe that, to be honest. That says things about love I am just not comfortable with.
Bringing up Gnosticism was just a way of pointing out that Christianity—that religion of brotherly love—is not opposed to turning on its own brother. So at the very least it's unbiased in that respect.
Try asking me instead of assuming.
All Godwin's Law says is that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
There are people who have decided that once a conversation reaches this point, there is nothing of value left to discuss. I'm not one of them, but it still amuses me how this seems to be an actual thing.
There wouldn't be much of a point in that. A common misunderstanding is that two people debate to resolve matters between themselves. This is rarely the case. People aren't convinced by someone else 'telling them' they're wrong. They need the truth in themselves. The purpose of a debate is for others to look on, and to decide for themselves who they agree with. It externalizes the conflict and keeps them removed just enough to employ a degree of objectivity.
Ether is fine with it, or they'd tell me to stop, since we have each other on Skype.
1675754 The thing is, I don't think I want a debate, formal or otherwise, with you. I started this discussion with Ether, because he seemed inviting and I like learning about other people's world views. My impression of you, on the other hand, has been mostly unpleasant, and since I don't want to invite any more of that, i think I'm done here unless Ether has something to add.
1681159
I don't much appreciate the tone, PNG. tepidGnostic's points are valid, and as worthy as my own comments in being answered.
1681994 Well, let me think about this for a bit then, and maybe I'll have another go at it, although now New Years break is over, replies may take longer.
However, reading what he's written, I can't help but feel he's being intentionally rude and unpleasant, and that makes it difficult for me to take him seriously.
I can start with answering a concern, though.
Yes, if someone claims the bible is inerrant, then I would place the onus on the person to back that claim up. The least amount of qualifications I think necessary to argue that is what I've listed. Any less, and I feel they've invalidated their own claims though not really understanding what they're talking about.
1674241
None of the Christan theologies I've studied encourages war.
Except I don't. Christian means 'Little Christ'. If I agree with Jesus, I'm a Christian. If you don't believe I'm following the bible, that's one thing; if you don't believe Jesus, and through him God, said what's in the bible, that's another. As Ether said, if we can't agree on what's in the book, we can't have a meaningful discussion.
1696422
I was referring to the Hebrew peoples who began worshiping their god before Jesus or Christianity happened. Anthropologically speaking it was a time of war, strife, and regular enslavement, no matter who you are or what race you belonged to. The Middle-East is and was a melting pot of growing religions, mythologies, and beliefs. The Torah, or 'The Law', was the collective effort of various tribes to band together in the face of this adversity and perpetuate the cultural identity. That is why there is so many random and some might say outrageous demands. The whole rules about how your house must be built? The kinds of clothes you are allowed to wear? It's all to preserve their cultural, it is cultural nationalism.
—And, by extension, like isolationist mindsets, it breeds discontent for the outsiders that threaten their community. This exacerbates things and leads to war and other violent acts. The god of Abraham is a war god because the religion was built with this in mind. Whether or not that means he doesn't exist is up for you and other people to decide for themselves, but that is the origin and purpose of it in history.
I don't feel one way or the other about whether or not you follow the bible or whether or not you don't. I don't even know you, or who you are. You do not exist in a vacuum, though. If you say you are a Christian, people will believe you are saying you are a member of the Church of Christianity, and/or one of its iterations or sects, such as Catholic, Presbyterian, and so on.
To requote you.
Again, I do not care what the bible actually says in it. I've read it too, and I like Jesus just fine as a person. (Ether does not, but he can tell you all about that if he wants.)
It doesn't matter how much the book talks about love and compassion, in practice, the Christian Church believes and preaches a number of things. Homosexuals are against God, unbaptized children go to limbo, having sex outside of wedlock is worth excommunicating someone, etc.
If you disagree with enough of these often commonly held beliefs among that 'party', you confuse others by claiming to be a member of it. You're stubbornly trying to maintain that it's still what that word means to people, and you're ruining the lines of communication because of it. It leads to having to clarify and elaborate on what you're talking about just so people will understand where you're coming from, and that defeats the point of having a category to simplify where you stand in the first place.
And yes, if you do belong to any one of those organizations, then you belong to an organization that endorsed some pretty terrible things. It doesn't mean that you're a terrible person, or that Christians are terrible people, it only means that Christianity—The Church of Christ—was responsible for those things. And it was, this is undeniable.