View topic - Theology, Science and Other Stuff You Don't Want to Read.

unforum
a.r.g.b.b

Welcome!

New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.

Website Restoration Project

This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.

Announcements

This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.

This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.

Our Esteemed Contributors

The time now is Fri Nov 15, 2024 6:46 pm
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)

View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum

Calendar

Poll

Delete this thread?

Yes

35%

[ 12 ]

64%

[ 22 ]

Total Votes : 34

Forum index » Meta » Various & Sundry

Theology, Science and Other Stuff You Don't Want to Read.
Moderators: Giskard, imbri, ndemeter

Page 3 of 4 [46 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Author

Message

ScarpeGrosse
Site Admin

Joined: 30 Nov 2002
Posts: 1678
Location: The Shiny Castle in the Sky, Full of Cotton Candy and Hazelnut Lattes

thebruce wrote:

The goal of this thread is hopefully to reveal all the facts, and which opinions we all have are based on fact or on interpretation... hopefully, as long as we're all open minded, we can all accept the possibility of being wrong if we're shown to be wrong. Smile

If you check the poll, I think the current opinion is still to keep the thread around... I don't think it's gotten to the point of closing down yet

I guess you didn't catch my drift. This topic will be ending. No offense to anyone's belief system, but using my open-mindedness and hoping that everyone else is similarly open-minded to the fact that religious discussion is best left elsewhere, this topic will be ending

Very Happy

Cheers! And I'll lock it if i have to! Let's talk about more Halo!

EDIT- And because I'm *such* a nice person, I even Googled for you guys and found an ENTIRE FORUM dedicated to the debate - you can join in there! Look at all of the different topics!

_________________
Allow me to take off my 'assistant skirt' and put on my 'Barbara Streisand in The Prince of Tides ass-masking therapist pantsuit.'

Tumblr

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:50 am

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

*sigh* you're the admin

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:02 am

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

SuperJerms wrote:

you'd better hope Phaedra doesn't see that he called the OT an "on ramp" to the main event of the NT

*Phaedra hasn't been really paying much attention to this thread because she's well aware that it's nearly impossible, in an evolution/creation debate, to convince anyone on either side of anything, and she was intending to answer urthstripe's post, and nothing else.

However her attention is generally attracted by people mentioning her name, so....

Actually, SuperJerms, (and I hope this doesn't come off sounding harsh, because that's not how it's intended) I frankly don't care what this guy thinks of the Hebrew Bible/"Old" Testament. I'm well aware that many Christians consider it to be a lead-in to the important stuff (hence the very name "Old Testament") and as far as I'm concerned it's their loss and their mistake, but in general their perception doesn't particularly affect me.

Theology discussions with people I like and respect are well and good and fun, but that's the extent of it, for me. It's not my mission in life to Enlighten the Masses About the Amazing Hebrew Bible, I'm not interested in getting anyone to convert to Judaism (G-d forbid!), and I'm not selling anything. Smile

So, basically, unless the individual in question is using the Bible to justify antisemitism or something else I feel is morally abhorrent, or unless I'm in the midst of one of the aforementioned theology discussions and said individual falls under the rubric of "people I like and respect," (and, you know, know) I actually couldn't care less what he thinks the Bible says or how he chooses to interpret it.

Oh, one other exception...if he tries to insert his beliefs into my child's public school, I might take an interest, but as I'm not even married yet, let alone a mother, that's a way off, if it happens at all.

So, no, I'm not going to go read the article -- I doubt his hermeneutics hold any relevance to my beliefs or my tradition -- so it's all more or less irrelevant to me.

But don't let that put a damper on your fun. Carry on.

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:30 pm

ariock
Has a Posse

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 762
Location: SF East Bay

And ScarpeGrosse did descend from the mountain and bespake:

Well, as I said, I originally made the thread for thebruce and myself to openly discuss between ourselves and others to watch if they wanted. As you see, it quickly changed, and that was why I asked for it to be removed/locked.

However, since it isn't locked yet, watch this logic:

1. This is a discussion about evolution
2. ScarpeGrosse said "religious discussion is best left elsewhere"
3. ScarpeGrosse is an admin
4. Admins are God

Therefore God says Religion is best left out of discussions of evolution.

*Ariock bows and is promptly chased off the stage by the masses.

EDIT: All previous posts removed as redundant. Pick some other poster to take out of context and accuse of flame-bait. Since an admin won't delete the thread, I am deleting the offending posts.

_________________
"It says, 'Let's BEE friends'...and there's a picture of a bee!" -Ralph Wiggum
When the Apocalypse comes, it'll be in base64.

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:39 pm
Last edited by ariock on Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:13 pm; edited 1 time in total

hmrpita
Unfettered

Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 629
Location: East of the Ocean, West of the Bay, Close to many faults

Opinion

Beliefs do not change facts and, more often then not, facts do not change beliefs.

_________________
As is your sort of mind,
So is your sort of search;
You will find what you desire.
--Robert Browning

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:41 pm

ScarpeGrosse
Site Admin

Joined: 30 Nov 2002
Posts: 1678
Location: The Shiny Castle in the Sky, Full of Cotton Candy and Hazelnut Lattes

ariock wrote:

However, since it isn't locked yet, watch this logic:

1. This is a discussion about evolution
2. ScarpeGrosse said "religious discussion is best left elsewhere"
3. ScarpeGrosse is an admin
4. Admins are God

That's the most intelligent thing I've read all day!

Have I mentioned how much I enjoy ego stroking? I love you!

_________________
Allow me to take off my 'assistant skirt' and put on my 'Barbara Streisand in The Prince of Tides ass-masking therapist pantsuit.'

Tumblr

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:41 pm

Kagehi Kossori
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 75
Location: Lake Havasu AZ

Quote:

If the Bible claims to be the word of God, and claims to be the ultimate Truth, then if the Bible is incorrect on anything, then my entire belief system is incorrect.

Hmm. How about the fall of Jericho then. The geologic evidence quite clearly shows that a massive earth quake hit the region at one point, devistating the cities everywhere in that area. The problem is that the evidence also clearly indicates that the walls of the city where already gone when the city was supposed to have been attacked and where never completely rebuilt, so there was no reason for anyone to use trumpets to fell them. The quake happened a few hundred years 'before' the Bible claims the walls where destoryed.

Then there is Noah, actually a summerian king (can't remember the name now). The flood was only in the valley, but the storm did last as long as described and there is geologic evidence of it. The problem is that the Bible's version of events leave out the fact that he built the boat not as a way to save all the animals, but as a way to make more money and that contrary to the Bible, it wasn't loaded with two of everything. It was loaded with everything he could manage before the flood waters got to him and they had to cut the boat loose, then take their chances. There is also evidence in the summerian version that Noah, if not parts of the boat itself, can be found on an island in the extreme south of the Eufratis, where he lived out the rest of his life in exile (seems even kings have to account for all the cash they lost their creditors) and was eventually buried. Also left out is the fact that he lived there amoung people that miraculously survived this supposed world wide and devistating flood. Oh, and such storms and floods where not uncommon in the time period, this one just happened to be a bit worse than most.

If you can't find evidence of all the basic flaws, contradictions and errors in the Bible, then it is because you are not looking in the right place, not because it doesn't have them. Apologist gloss over the errors or try to explain them away. No doubt that fact that much of the summerian legend and its exact proximity to both when and where it took place is quietly brushed asside too, since all the similarities are somehow meaningless if the Bible had to be talking about someone else...

As for Superjerms comment:

Quote:

Ironically, we hear many, many, many more people try and use scientific data to do the latter.

Yeah. This isn't just ironic, but flat out stupid. At best science can only prove that God isn't inherently necessary, given physical laws that describe how and why something works. At best it can be shown that there is no direct evidence that God, if he was ever involved, did not and has not done much more than set up the program, then flip a switch. All the 'evidence' for his presence consists of anecdotal comments by people of having experienced some change, but no direct evidence they did not cause the change themselves. It no more constitutes proof of existance of God than if someone has an imaginary friend, which they say they talk to for advice. You can't prove a negative like, "X does not exist", especially if it is an intangible. At best, you can only show that, given enough facts, the chance that it exist is extremely unlikely or irrelevant. And as for the claims of various creationists, there is no evidence "period". There are a lot of stupid things, like claiming, "I can't imagine how something that complex could exist by accident, so it must be created", combined with misapplications of things like the second law of thermodynamics, which only says information (or complexity) cannot increase in a **closed** system. By what stretch of the imagination is Earth a closed system??? Just solar radiation by itself destorys the grounds to claim that evolution contradicts that law. They don't have evidence or facts, just an opinion, which they bend and twist other people's facts to try to prove. For a theory to be a theory is must:

1. Be testable.
2. Predict something.

You can't test for God, at least not without resorting to nonsense like the method one creationist came up with, which even he admits only prove 'copying', not creation. Creationism gives no other predictions, other than, "eventually we will be proven right", which is remotely testable. And I include 'all' forms of creationism in that. It simply is not science, does not describe verifiable processes and cannot provide any explaination about anything, unless, "we know the answer and so you shouldn't bother looking for a different one" constitutes an explaination. And yet, its advocates want it to be seen as a real alternative to a process that makes no claim at all about who started the process or what if anything directs it, at least beyond basic things like DNA are chemicals, chemical react like so, and random mutation can do some pretty odd things.

But for the creation advocates. Design implies two things that are contradicted by facts - 1) simplicity and 2) efficiency. There is no logical reason to design some of the rediculously complex things that make life the way it is, some of which, like the human appendix, don't even have a purpose. It makes even less sense for life to be created when you consider efficiency. How efficient is it for example that Mice, unlike every other species on the planet (that we have checked for this anyway) have one gene that when read by RNA encodes for an enzyme that will kill the animal, so a different gene first tells the RNA to reconfigure itself to read the first gene incorrectly, thus producing the 'correct' enzyme?? Random chance could produce such an idiocy, but who or what in their right mind would create such a things intentionally? You would think that if the same blueprint for producing that enzyme existed in every other creature and it worked, a creator would use it again in mice. What happened? Did he get bored or something? DNA is a hodgpodge of badly dsigned code, with hacks and patches applied, half of which do nothing but fix things that work wrong someplace else. You expect such from a random process that stumbles across its solutions (or maybe a Microsoft emplyee), but God?

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:25 pm

ScarpeGrosse
Site Admin

Joined: 30 Nov 2002
Posts: 1678
Location: The Shiny Castle in the Sky, Full of Cotton Candy and Hazelnut Lattes

ScarpeGrosse wrote:

I guess you didn't catch my drift. No offense to anyone's belief system, but using my open-mindedness and hoping that everyone else is similarly open-minded to the fact that religious discussion is best left elsewhere, this topic will be ending

Very Happy

Which part of the above post doesn't make sense? Please take the discussion elsewhere, and I'm also moving this thread to Various and Sundry, as it no longer has relevance to Halo or I Love Bees.

Thank you for your consideration.

_________________
Allow me to take off my 'assistant skirt' and put on my 'Barbara Streisand in The Prince of Tides ass-masking therapist pantsuit.'

Tumblr

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:30 pm

Kagehi Kossori
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 75
Location: Lake Havasu AZ

Yep, I am impressed as usually by the creationist version of reality:

Quote:

They go on to say that just as it is a fact that the sun shines, so evolution is a fact. But, just as we don’t know how the sun radiates energy, so we don’t know how the fact of evolution occurs!

Wrong. You don't have to bottle the sun to know about the reactions that happen in side it. They are based on the same basic math as gave us the atomic bomb. And yes, a lot of idiots did make proclaimations about man being the top of the evolutionary model, but those people based this not on evolution itself, but on the illogical conclusion that human, being better than everything else, must be that way because evolution evolved towars that point. They where willing to give up the superstition that God made man better, and chose instead claimed nature did and always would advance to the same point. This isn't entirely unlikely, since in general species adapt to best fit their environment, and it doesn't take a lot to cause on species to inadvertantly exceed that limitation. Though it might require extreme pressures that would wipe out one that wasn't already really close to that point in the first place.

The problem with publications like this, which attack science using science is that they carefully quote what suits their needs, then ignore everything else. It is like having the preconcieved notion that someone who commited murder is actually innocent, having them tell you, "no, my wife actually bought the gun", then reading the next morning in the paper, "Wife of suspect owned gun used in the murder. Police release suspect, in spite of all other evidence." Huh? Not bloody likely, but it is exactly the kind of BS creationists pull all the time when they use something from a book or speach of someone in the field to supposedly claim that it proves their arguement. A lot of scientist refuse to even talk to them anymore and probably wish they didn't have to publish or speak in public, since they know there is going to be some clown who take two lines out of a five hour lecture, entirely out of context, then wave it around a month later at a school board meeting as 'proof' that creationism is a viable alternative.

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:45 pm

Kagehi Kossori
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 75
Location: Lake Havasu AZ

Ooops! Sorry Ariock and sundry. I hadn't got to that post when I start on replies.... Sad

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:48 pm

joebrent
Unfettered

Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 640
Location: New York, sometimes

Phaedra wrote:

So, no, I'm not going to go read the article -- I doubt his hermeneutics hold any relevance to my beliefs or my tradition -- so it's all more or less irrelevant to me.

Huh huh huh. You said Hermeneutics. Have you been reading up on Leo Strauss? If so, PM me, let's talk.

_________________
http://www.josephbrent.com

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:53 pm

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

While looking for something completely different in this thread in order to quote it in an email, I came across this:

thebruce wrote:

Consider this: I'm a Christian, because I experienced a change in my life when I came to believe in God. By believing in God through the teachings of the Bible, which claims to be the inspired word of God himself, the Bible can only be entirely true, or entirely incorrect. If the Bible claims to be the word of God, and claims to be the ultimate Truth, then if the Bible is incorrect on anything, then my entire belief system is incorrect.

and it made me curious...

Don't feel pressured to respond at length, and this is not the opening feint of an attack on anything you've said in this thread -- I just want clarification for my own curiosity.

You believe that the entire Bible is the literal, direct word of G-d?

Including novellas like Ruth? Biography/history like Samuel and Kings?

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:05 pm

MageSteff
Pretty talky there aintcha, Talky?

Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 2716
Location: State of Denial

Re: Theology, Science and Other Stuff You Don't Want to Read

ariock wrote:

Once again, I think I probably should have deleted before I Submitted.

Nah. Just don't post discusions about personally held beliefs in Game areas.

Quote:

I have a problem when someone says that looking at mounds of evidence and formulating a reasoned estimation is a "belief" that is no better or worse than any other belief.

Belief is just that belief. Not theory, not science. Belief is a personal felling. I "believe" that we would have been better off if Gore had won the US presidency in 2000. You are free to disagree with that belief, regardless of how much information I can quote to support my belief. Beliefs are like opinions, everyone has one and none are any better or any worse than another. This has nothing to do with facts or figures.

Quote:

Science is not a popularity contest. It is a system for looking at the world/universe around us and figuring out how it works. The evidence I mentioned for evolution is fairly compelling. You are perfectly welcome to point out that a problem here or there exists with a specific theory. Unfortunately you aren't doing it to find a better answer apart from the one in your holy book.

You are making a value comparison. I would have used the word "different." Different doesn not make a belief better or worse than scientific theory. Placebo effect is a proven theory, so if I said I feel better when I drink a super mongo fruity tootie when I have the flu, then to some extent that is truth. For me. Your mileage may vary.

Quote:

The holy book that disagrees with every other religion's holy book on the planet. And you propose that magic is required to explain it all. It isn't. Science looks at the evidence and forms a reasoned explanation. Magic doesn't enter into it, because it doesn't have to. Creationism looks at the evidence and attacks or ignores anything that doesn't fit.

1. I have looked at the major premises in many modern religions. For the most part they all say similar things. "Don't intentionally harm others" "Eat healthy" "Protect children." We may differ on the name we put to the supreme power (G-d, Yesu, YVWH, Allah, Buddah, Krishna, ad infinitem), but the most important parts remain shockingly the same.

2. Creationism is a theory. Just as Evolution is a theory. They don't ignore evidence. First: They have different methodologies for scrutinizing it . Second: It is people who do the choosing to ignore what doesn't fit and sadly, Science does that just as much as any Faith based theory does.

Example: Lourdes in France. Science has been unable to identify the active principle that has accounted for several well documented "healing" events. In which case, I say we invoke the scientific theory of "Clark's Law" which states in part "any suffieciently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - be that magic "faith," "anti-gravity" "angels" or lights in the sky (UFOs, or the weather phenomenon of Sprites and Plumes).

There is still more wonders in heaven and earth than we have yet discovered.

Quote:

I appreciate that you say that if there was more evidence for evolution that you would be willing to change your mind. How much do you need?

Oooo.... OK that was a flame bait if I ever heard one.

The problem is not that there is not evidence, the problem is the lack of eye-witnesses to the events theorized by science. What do I know? Maybe the supreme power put fosil things there to keep some of us entertained and allow us the free will to choose what we put our faith and belief in.

Personally speaking I believe in both Creation theory and the Theories of "Big Bang" and Evolution. I choose to Interpret my holy book that when it says "On the first day the supreme being created light" to be equivalent to "In the begining the universe was nothing until the big bang." They do not need to be mutually excluding documents. It does not have to be an "Either... Or..." logic statement. I choose my logical statement to be "This AND That."

I am terribly opinionated, but I like to thing that where Religion and Science meet I have an open mind at least half the time.

_________________
Magesteff
A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:14 pm

DreamOfTheRood
Unfettered

Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 714
Location: Indiana

Phaedra wrote:

You believe that the entire Bible is the literal, direct word of G-d?
Including novellas like Ruth? Biography/history like Samuel and Kings?

I'll take this one. I've made attempts to derail this thread, but I'm going to actually make a concerted effort to create a cogent response to this query.

Much of the Bible is presented in such a fashion that it is clear that it was intended to be taken as being literal facts. Much of the history that is presented in the Torah, for instance, would fall into this category. That includes everything from Abraham getting his mack on with Hagar to the Israelites following a cyclone of fire across the wilderness. As well, it seems clear that much of what is presented throughout the rest of the Old Testament is intended to be taken in the same manner, that it is indeed historical fact.
The stories of Esther and Ruth are intriguing and mysterious, but a bunch of old guys got together about 1900 years ago and thought that these two books had enough validity to be grouped together with the other books in the ... crap, what is it called ... the Megilloth? Is that right? Or is the Megilloth the books of the major prophets? Either way, it doesn't strike me as odd that these two books are in with the rest. They provide a more intimate, personal viewpoint that we don't often see, and that's a good thing. It's especially something you're going to get when you're dealing with a collection of books by forty different authors.
Once you get to the New Testament, the overwhelming idea is that the books were definitely intended to be taken literally. I mean, there's just no getting around it. Just take a read through Luke. The guy reads like a textbook.
Like I said, sixty-something books, forty authors. The Bible as we know it took over 2600 years to write, and yet there is one dominating theme throughout the whole thing: G-d's relationship with man. That's a pretty hefty theme to keep over 2600 years. Kinda makes me proud to believe it.
Also, it seems quite unbelievable that the theme would be maintained for that long without being derailed if there wasn't a divine hand guiding the writing.
However, there are things within the Bible that are obviously metaphors. For instance, when the angel Gabriel comes down to Daniel and says, "This is a metaphor," that's a pretty good clue. Also, when Jesus is giving out his parables, those passages have the distinct feel of morality tales, meant to impart knowledge to the people. However, he says that's all they are.
So, yes, aside from the parts of the Bible that are explicitly stated as being metaphors or allegories, I think the book is the direct, literal Word of God.

As a sidenote, I find it interesting that you leave the 'o' out of G-d. If I remember right, the ancient Hebrew alphabet didn't have letters for vowels; they just kinda mixed and matched their consonants to get vowel sounds. So, we've got no idea if YHWH extrapolates to Yahweh or Yowoah.

_________________
Twitter: DreamoftheRood

Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:08 am

ariock
Has a Posse

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 762
Location: SF East Bay

words escape me....wait, no they don't.

What fun! Two trolls post within 9 hours of each other. My little ole thread has a brand new troll and a returning old troll! Curious symmetry?

Magestaff: Am I supposed to respond to this? If you want me to respond to your trolling, at least have the courtesy to appear to have read the thread. Some hints that you didn't: ignoring the fact that the original DID have content that applied to the forum in which it was posted, ignoring the fact that I warned away those who might not want to read about it in the title of the thread, and taking comments out of context to support a claim of flame bait.

But seriously, you probably don't really want me to respond. So I will just make a final point. And by final, I mean final.

To Magestaff and DreamoftheRood and anyone else who feels like joining in at this late date:

Your comments are not needed here. I won. My irrefutable logic is elucidated nine posts prior to Magestaff's. QED

A Side Query and Kudos for Dream:

According to krystyn, you owe us all cookies. I am waiting, but I see no cookies. Congratulations on derailing the thread and getting it moved here. You must be proud. You are definitely something...

_________________
"It says, 'Let's BEE friends'...and there's a picture of a bee!" -Ralph Wiggum
When the Apocalypse comes, it'll be in base64.

Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:47 pm

Display posts from previous: Sort by:

Page 3 of 4 [46 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Forum index » Meta » Various & Sundry

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum