View Full Forums : Stephen Hawking VS The Pope
Panamah
06-18-2006, 10:19 AM
http://www.space.com/news/060615_ap_hawking_news.html
HONG KONG (AP) -- Famed physicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that Pope John Paul II tried to discourage him and other scientists attending a cosmology conference at the Vatican from trying to figure out how the universe began.
The British scientist joked he was lucky the pope didn't realize he had already presented a paper at the gathering suggesting how the universe was created.
"I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo,'' Hawking said in a lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. John Paul died in 2005; Hawking did not say when the Vatican meeting was held.
Galileo ran afoul of the Roman Catholic Church in the 17th century for supporting Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun. The church insisted the Earth was at the center of the universe.
In 1992, John Paul issued a declaration saying the church's denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension.''
Hawking said the pope told the scientists, "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God.''
The physicist, author of the best seller "A Brief History of Time,'' added that John Paul believed "God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand.''
John Paul insisted faith and science could coexist. In 1996, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he said that Darwin's theories were sound as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God and that Darwin's theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis.''
But Hawking questioned whether an almighty power was needed to create the universe.
"Does it require a creator to decree how the universe began? Or is the initial state of the universe determined by a law of science?'' he asked.
Hawking's groundbreaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe has made him one of the best-known theoretical physicists of his generation. He proposes that space and time have no beginning and no end.
The scientist uses a wheelchair and suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a neurological disorder. But he said people shouldn't let physical disabilities limit their ambitions.
"You can't afford to be disabled in spirit as well as physically,'' he said. "People won't have time for you.''
Hawking must communicate using an electronic speech synthesizer, and he was asked why he used a voice with an American accent.
"The voice I use is a very old hardware speech synthesizer made in 1986,'' Hawking said. "I keep it because I have not heard a voice I like better and because I have identified with it.''
But the 64-year-old Hawking said he's shopping for a new system because the hardware is large and fragile. He also said it uses components that are no longer made.
"I have been trying to get a software version, but it seems very difficult,'' he said. "One version has a French accent. I said if I used it, my wife would divorce me.''
The moderator at the lecture told the audience that at a recent dinner, she asked Hawking about his ambitions. He said he wanted to know how the universe began, what happens inside black holes and how can humans survive the next 100 years, she said.
But, she added, he said had one more great ambition: "I would also like to understand women.''
Hawking ended his lecture saying, "We are getting closer to answering the age-old questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from?''
Minadin
06-18-2006, 01:42 PM
http://www.pvponline.com
June 16, 2006
HAWKING MISREPRESENTS POPE JOHN PAUL II
Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said yesterday that Pope John Paul II once told scientists that “It’s OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God.” The news story says Hawking did not say when the pope allegedly made this remark.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented as follows:
“There is a monumental difference between saying that there are certain questions that science cannot answer—which is what the pope said—and authoritarian pronouncements warning scientists to back off.
“On p. 120 of Hawking’s book, A Brief History of Time, he says that at a 1981 Vatican conference on cosmology Pope John Paul II said that ‘it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang, but we should not inquire into the Big Bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God.’ Importantly, there are no quotation marks around those words and no citation is offered. Ergo, this is Hawking’s impression of what the pope said.
“Here is what the pope actually said: ‘Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question….’ The pope then quoted Pope Pius XII as saying, ‘We would wait in vain for an answer from the natural sciences which declare, on the contrary, that they honestly find themselves faced with an insoluble enigma.’
“In 1988, John Paul said that ‘Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.’ Hawking, who claims—without any evidence—that space and time have no beginning and no end, would be wise to refrain from positing false absolutes and learn to realize when he’s out of his league. Most important, he should stop distorting the words of the pope.”
MadroneDorf
06-18-2006, 02:09 PM
personally i trust the impression hawkings got from a conversation with the pope then what the pope said or said he said!
Araxx Darkroot
06-18-2006, 02:22 PM
This is like the age old question that will never be answered but will persist until the end of time with thousands, nay, millions of people rallying to both sides:
What came first, the chicken or the egg...
Religion plants what it considers as the truth directly into the mind.
Science tries to discover that which surrounds us, how it works, why, etc.
I don't understand Religion's obsession with trying to stall science's atempts at answering the great unknown. Kinda makes me think they're trying to hide sumin'...
/shrug
‘Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question….’
This seems to be a false scientific assumption by the Pope. It works fine as an act of faith. I'm not surprised that Hawking felt entitled to ask ...
"Does it require a creator to decree how the universe began? Or is the initial state of the universe determined by a law of science?'' he asked.
Tudamorf
06-18-2006, 03:54 PM
They're both just doing their respective jobs. Hawking is working to discover the truth of the Universe, whereas the pope, as have all his predecessors, is working to hide it.
Panamah
06-18-2006, 05:31 PM
Well, at least they don't kill guys like Hawking for it any longer. We've made progress!
palamin
06-18-2006, 09:49 PM
So did the guy in the wheel chair beat down the old guy with the funny hat.... or was it vice versa? Did the old guy in the funny hat lay some cane down with that thunder stick?
B_Delacroix
06-19-2006, 08:10 AM
Egg came first between chicken and egg competition by virtue of evolution. The chicken as we know it came from an egg from a creature that was not a chicken.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/
There are more.
Now to play the devil's advocate. Who is to say that simply because we can explain a thing means it wasn't put into motion by some other dimensional engineer?
Aidon
06-19-2006, 09:03 AM
Like Lord Xanu....
Jinjre
06-19-2006, 10:19 AM
FSM!!! Of Pasta we were made, of Pasta we shall return!
My favorite part of the article was at the very end, where Hawkings said he wanted to understand black holes, how man can survive the next 100 years and 'women'. He's got a better shot at the first two than the third.
And how his wife would divorce him if he used a language synthesizer with a french accent. I can just imagine Iagoe talking like Pepe LePew constantly. I'd divorce him too ;)
Fyyr Lu'Storm
06-19-2006, 12:16 PM
Dr. Hawking's other endeavors. (http://www.mchawking.com/)
Araxx Darkroot
06-19-2006, 12:18 PM
Now to play the devil's advocate. Who is to say that simply because we can explain a thing means it wasn't put into motion by some other dimensional engineer?
I've always said that if God existed, then science, at the end of the line, would discover that God made everything and that the laws of physics were no longer theories. They would be absolutes.
But, so far, in science we have a few laws and many theories, and in religion we have many truths, because there are so many religions... What to do what to do????? :confused:
Dayuna
06-19-2006, 02:00 PM
Religion A says "you're going to hell if you don't believe in what we do!"
Religion B says "you're going to hell if you don't believe in what we do!"
Assuming both religions are correct, we're all going to hell... might as well kick back and enjoy the ride! Or kill everyone of the opposing religion depending on your beliefs
Panamah
06-19-2006, 02:04 PM
Maybe hell isn't such a bad place? All the really interesting people are going there.
Aidon
06-19-2006, 02:46 PM
Religion A says "you're going to hell if you don't believe in what we do!"
Religion B says "you're going to hell if you don't believe in what we do!"
Assuming both religions are correct, we're all going to hell... might as well kick back and enjoy the ride! Or kill everyone of the opposing religion depending on your beliefs
Judaism doesn't have Hell.
There is no requirement that everyone be Jewish. Just because you aren't Jewish doesn't mean you are going to hell...
The way it goes down is that if you follow God's laws...you will have a good life, and so will your decendants (unto a thousand generations at that!). If you disobey God's laws...you will have a crappy life (you know..fields laying fallow...blight ridden sheep, etc) and so will your decendants (yea unto a thousand generations, woe be unto you, defiler).
Panamah
06-19-2006, 03:34 PM
But uh... quite a few good jews have had some pretty crappy lives. Seems like you gotta promise something intangible to make it all worthwhile.
Tudamorf
06-19-2006, 04:13 PM
But uh... quite a few good jews have had some pretty crappy lives. Seems like you gotta promise something intangible to make it all worthwhile.No, a religious zealot can make random promises. If they happen to be fulfilled, he says that the god is very pleased with you (and please give us more money, power, etc. because we helped you so much).
If they aren't fulfilled, he says that the god is upset with you for not following some religious rule (and please give us more money, power, etc. to help appease the god), or that not enough time has passed, or that "god works in mysterious ways".
People buy this crap all the time.
Jinjre
06-19-2006, 07:23 PM
"As for me, I don't care where I go after I die: Heaven for climate, Hell for company." ~Mark Twain
Aidon
06-19-2006, 11:47 PM
No, a religious zealot can make random promises. If they happen to be fulfilled, he says that the god is very pleased with you (and please give us more money, power, etc. because we helped you so much).
If they aren't fulfilled, he says that the god is upset with you for not following some religious rule (and please give us more money, power, etc. to help appease the god), or that not enough time has passed, or that "god works in mysterious ways".
People buy this crap all the time.
Heh, have you ever read what most of the important laws in Judaism are?
Very little have to do with giving people money (unless you've done them some harm).
The laws of Judaism form the very foundation of our Western Society...and without most of the dogmatic mumbo jumbo.
Your anti-religious zealotry fails in the light of education.
Tudamorf
06-20-2006, 01:06 AM
Heh, have you ever read what most of the important laws in Judaism are?No. But I'll bet the cardinal rules involve worship of certain god(s) and rejecting any other, plus a carrot/stick approach to following a laundry list of rules that clearly flag you as a member. That type of system keeps the religious zealots in power (which equals money), even if the sheep who follow them don't give direct donations.
Drive down the street and count all the worship buildings. Each one is a testament to money and services wasted on behalf of the zealots, just so they can remain in power. We taxpayers even subsidize the zealotry through the ridiculous classification of religious organizations as tax-exempt.
Aidon
06-20-2006, 03:23 AM
No. But I'll bet the cardinal rules involve worship of certain god(s) and rejecting any other, plus a carrot/stick approach to following a laundry list of rules that clearly flag you as a member. That type of system keeps the religious zealots in power (which equals money), even if the sheep who follow them don't give direct donations.
The cardinal rules are the Ten Commandments. The others range from social laws such as a requirement that 2nd floor balconies have a railing to the notion of restitution if you or your property injures another person or causes damage to them. Some deal with famlial responsibilities and marital responsibilities. Yet others deal with criminal offenses. Many do deal with the priestly responsibilities and the responsibilities of the people to the Priests...however those particular laws haven't been followed since the fall of the 2nd Temple.
And, yes, many deal with differentiating Jews from those around them. However amongst them are also mandates to treat the stranger amongst you equally.
Drive down the street and count all the worship buildings. Each one is a testament to money and services wasted on behalf of the zealots, just so they can remain in power. We taxpayers even subsidize the zealotry through the ridiculous classification of religious organizations as tax-exempt.
Drive down the street and count everything. It all has its basis in Judaism. This religion you disdain is the foundation of so many of the liberal qualities you hold dear. Few religions are as tolerant and inoffensive to outsiders as Judaism. We're amongst the most 'live and let live' religions there are. Don't paint us as 'religious zealots', for our zealots overwhelmingly (yes, we have some whacko's, but they are extremely rare) strive to provide charity...without proselytizing.
Our synagogues so very frequently find themselves struggling to make ends meet, while our Jewish charities provide for needy Jews and Gentiles around the world.
Our religion has produced some of the finest minds on the planet which have expanded all fields of study from the hard sciences to medicine to the arts and philosophy.
We have no zealots to keep in power. Even our 'holy men' are called simply "teacher". There is virtually no dogma, everything is permitted to be questioned and debated.
Jinjre
06-20-2006, 10:21 AM
quite a few good jews have had some pretty crappy lives.
Well, obviously their ancestors did something pretty awful, and they were part of those "unto a thousand generations". (said tongue in cheek, but the logic works better in this situation than many more zealous religions...or at least it doesn't contradict itself)
Panamah
06-20-2006, 10:38 AM
Well, obviously their ancestors did something pretty awful, and they were part of those "unto a thousand generations". (said tongue in cheek, but the logic works better in this situation than many more zealous religions...or at least it doesn't contradict itself)
So no matter how good you are, if your ancestor screwed up you're screwed and your kids as well? Hmmm... then why try to be good?
Aidon
06-20-2006, 11:54 AM
So no matter how good you are, if your ancestor screwed up you're screwed and your kids as well? Hmmm... then why try to be good?
For the children!
And there have been alot of questions asked in the history of Judaism, about why things such as the Holocaust have happened.
Noone has a particularly good answer...
and yet one can look at the Holocaust and wonder where God was for us...and then look at the Arab-Israeli wars and see the obvious miracles (There is no way...no way in hell Israel should have been victorious in those wars).
Adonai never claimed to be the only God out there...and perhaps he isn't the most powerful God from time to time. But he is our God..and I'm a big believer of dancing with who brung ya. He's brought us through four thousand years.
Tudamorf
06-20-2006, 01:53 PM
And, yes, many deal with differentiating Jews from those around them. However amongst them are also mandates to treat the stranger amongst you equally. Few religions are as tolerant and inoffensive to outsiders as Judaism.And Islam supposedly teaches all about peace, too. So does Christianity -- turn the other cheek, right? But put enough power in the hands of the zealots, and they twist the religion to tap more power. It has nothing to do with Judaism per se, it's a failing of all religions, or more accurately, a failing of their zealot leaders.Our synagogues so very frequently find themselves struggling to make ends meet, while our Jewish charities provide for needy Jews and Gentiles around the world.But they make ends meet. That's money taken out of the useful economy. Not to mention, I subsidized all those religious sermons with my tax dollars.
And don't confuse charity with religion. People can be charitable without being religious, and vice versa. Just because a charity happens to hoist a religious banner doesn't mean that a "god" is doing the work or that they wouldn't have been charitable people if they weren't religious.Our religion has produced some of the finest minds on the planet which have expanded all fields of study from the hard sciences to medicine to the arts and philosophy.Replace "religion" with "race" and I might agree with you. Just because someone happens to follow a certain religion doesn't mean that religion is responsible for all their achievements (another zealotry tactic).And there have been alot of questions asked in the history of Judaism, about why things such as the Holocaust have happened. Noone has a particularly good answer...The answer is the one you refuse to accept: your god is a fictional character in a book. You're giving the typical illogical religious zealot answer: all the bad stuff is because "god works in mysterious ways," but the good stuff, that must have been "by the grace of god!" And you call yourself open-minded.
Aidon
06-20-2006, 02:17 PM
And Islam supposedly teaches all about peace, too. So does Christianity -- turn the other cheek, right? But put enough power in the hands of the zealots, and they twist the religion to tap more power. It has nothing to do with Judaism per se, it's a failing of all religions, or more accurately, a failing of their zealot leaders.
There are plenty of religions who don't massacre and persecute those around them. Including Judaism.
But they make ends meet. That's money taken out of the useful economy.
Who is to say it isn't useful? Synagogues (and other houses of worship) provide services. Spiritual sustenance, marriages, social counselling, social welfare, childcare, etc. They build community awareness and social interaction.
And don't confuse charity with religion. People can be charitable without being religious, and vice versa. Just because a charity happens to hoist a religious banner doesn't mean that a "god" is doing the work or that they wouldn't have been charitable people if they weren't religious.Replace "religion" with "race" and I might agree with you. Just because someone happens to follow a certain religion doesn't mean that religion is responsible for all their achievements (another zealotry tactic).The answer is the one you refuse to accept: your god is a fictional character in a book. You're giving the typical illogical religious zealot answer: all the bad stuff is because "god works in mysterious ways," but the good stuff, that must have been "by the grace of god!" And you call yourself open-minded.
You fail to understand that you bear the burden of proof that my God doesn't exist. There is as much proof that my God exists as there is proof that there was a big bang or that black holes exist. Those who claim that science are religion are mutually exclusive are a particularly narrow minded group of people, be they religious or scientific.
I believe in black holes and the Big Bang theory and most other science. I also believe that my God exists and that something other than random chance started our universe in motion.
Your mindset is as faulty, in its way, as the mindset of those who believe the bible must be taken word for word as truth.
science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein.
Tudamorf
06-20-2006, 02:44 PM
You fail to understand that you bear the burden of proof that my God doesn't exist. There is as much proof that my God exists as there is proof that there was a big bang or that black holes exist. Those who claim that science are religion are mutually exclusive are a particularly narrow minded group of people, be they religious or scientific. I believe in black holes and the Big Bang theory and most other science. I also believe that my God exists and that something other than random chance started our universe in motion.Another typical religious zealot tactic: shift the burden of proof to the "non-believer" to prove that the god(s) don't exist, since it is impossible to prove the negative. Oddly, this is contrary to how (sane) human beings work in every other aspect of life. The parallels between religion and insanity are often curious.
You also cannot compare gods, which are fictional characters in books, to scientific theories, such as black holes and the Big Bang. Fictional gods are invented by the author without any evidence and assumed to be true. The followers are expected not to challenge the basic assumptions, such as that the god(s) exist and have certain powers.
Scientific theories, however, are proven through experimentation and evidence. For example, the Big Bang theory is based on evidence that galaxies are moving away from one another despite the attraction of gravity, suggesting that they emerged from a violent initial explosion. It's common sense; there's no leap of faith necessary.
And even then, scientific theories are not taken as gospel, just theories. They are not assumed to be the absolute truth, just the best current explanation. Everyone is invited to come along and produce competing theories, or to try to disprove them, and no one will be killed or tortured for doing so.science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein.Einstein is a good example. After publishing his brilliant theories on relativity in the early 1900s, he spent the remainder of his life in relative obscurity because he refused to accept the emerging field of quantum mechanics. The theory of relativity was extremely elegant, and he refused to believe that his god would create a universe described by such an ugly theory as quantum mechanics. So he searched for an elegant theory of everything. Of course, quantum mechanics is now an accepted theory, but he still wasted the last part of his life contributing little or nothing to the advancement of science, partly because of his religious bias.
Aidon
06-20-2006, 03:07 PM
Another typical religious zealot tactic: shift the burden of proof to the "non-believer" to prove that the god(s) don't exist, since it is impossible to prove the negative. Oddly, this is contrary to how (sane) human beings work in every other aspect of life. The parallels between religion and insanity are often curious.
Science works regularly on the belief that things exist or act in certain manners which we cannot prove. Most of the field of Astronomy is all conjecture, for instance.
You also cannot compare gods, which are fictional characters in books, to scientific theories, such as black holes and the Big Bang. Fictional gods are invented by the author without any evidence and assumed to be true. The followers are expected not to challenge the basic assumptions, such as that the god(s) exist and have certain powers.
Scientific theories, however, are proven through experimentation and evidence. For example, the Big Bang theory is based on evidence that galaxies are moving away from one another despite the attraction of gravity, suggesting that they emerged from a violent initial explosion. It's common sense; there's no leap of faith necessary.
There is a huge leap of faith involved. We work with only what we know..which is precious little. The big bang theory would predicate that, indeed, somewhere, there is a center of the universe from which all else expanded, and yet...we cannot locate it. Science would have its 'followers' not challenge the basic assumptions. What goes up must come down. A black hole is a super massive gravity well from which nothing can escape caused by a collapsing super nova which has expended its energy...except we've never seen one, nor been anywhere near one and it exists solely as theory. For all we know what we call black holes are trans-dimensional portals held open by Angels fluttering their wings very fast.
And even then, scientific theories are not taken as gospel, just theories. They are not assumed to be the absolute truth, just the best current explanation. Everyone is invited to come along and produce competing theories, or to try to disprove them, and no one will be killed or tortured for doing so.Einstein is a good example. After publishing his brilliant theories on relativity in the early 1900s, he spent the remainder of his life in relative obscurity because he refused to accept the emerging field of quantum mechanics. The theory of relativity was extremely elegant, and he refused to believe that his god would create a universe described by such an ugly theory as quantum mechanics. So he searched for an elegant theory of everything. Of course, quantum mechanics is now an accepted theory, but he still wasted the last part of his life contributing little or nothing to the advancement of science, partly because of his religious bias.
Religions are questioned and evolve in the same manner as Science, through great thinkers. The Judaism of today is not the Judaism of 1230 BCE. Even such a dogmatic religion as Catholic Christianity has evolved over the millenia.
Science cannot and does not answer everything (such as why it is that Humanity actually evolved intelligence to the degree we have), and religion isn't meant to answer everything, but to provide spiritual and moral guideposts.
Religion breeds morality. Science without morality is the greatest threat to humanity. Science without morality breeds truly monstrous acts. To act with pure logic would send humanity down a horrible path.
Panamah
06-20-2006, 03:21 PM
Religion breeds morality. Science without morality is the greatest threat to humanity. Science without morality breeds truly monstrous acts. To act with pure logic would send humanity down a horrible path.
I strongly disagree. Religions can certainly take some credit for inspiring great acts of morality, sacrifice, charity in people, but the reverse is also true. If you go to any prison you'll find it filled with religious people who believe in god.
Science alone doesn't inspire any particular morality but it also doesn't inspire the sort of hate and intolerance that religion does either.
Eridalafar
06-20-2006, 04:19 PM
Some more or less random thoughts:
Don't forget that a society need rules to be fonctionnal (or it will not last long as society). On when you look at our history, how many time do the religions have taken the mantle of the creation of these rules by saying it was given by god. A lot of time. When in fact it was the religious rules that have come from the society ones and not the other way around. And when you are the sole one in controlefor these rules, how long before you make rules that will help you to keep your power?
I see the bible and the Coran as one of the first try of creating a History's book of a part of humanity. When it come from a time where very few humans was able to read/write and often these in power have foced the religious leader to make change in the book, and forced the same relgious leader to put code in the book to try to keep something in (let say, Neron and the number of the beast...). And most of the keys for this code is now lost or not so well understod.
Up to the last century, churchs, mosque or synagods was realy needed as the only place big enought to house all the citicens of the town (or a good part of it) and where the center of the of the town social's live. The proof: presently the Church in Quebec is clossing a good number of his church and when a small town get closed, often the town is seen as almost dead even if it isn't. Also as the church are owned by the Church, the peoples can't say nothing about that (even if the peoples want to buy back the church (and often they are the same people that have given the money to build the church) and make it a community's building (the Church owning the churchs is another thing but it a pet peeve for me).
Eridalafar
Aidon
06-20-2006, 04:28 PM
I strongly disagree. Religions can certainly take some credit for inspiring great acts of morality, sacrifice, charity in people, but the reverse is also true. If you go to any prison you'll find it filled with religious people who believe in god.
Science alone doesn't inspire any particular morality but it also doesn't inspire the sort of hate and intolerance that religion does either.
Doesn't it?
Ecoterrorism.
PETA.
The Rainbow Warrior.
Tudamorf
06-20-2006, 04:28 PM
Aidon, let's recap science versus religion:
<table border=1 cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2><tr><td align=center><b>Science</b></td><td align=center><b>Religion</b><td></tr><tr><td>Based on doubt</td><td>Based on faith</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusions must comply with the Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) to be validated</td><td>Conclusions are assumed to be true with no evidence (circular reasoning)</td></tr><tr><td>Uses empirical observation and logical reasoning to best explain phenomena</td><td>Imposes a fixed explanation for phenomena ("god" did it)</td></tr><tr><td>Any theory or assumption can be overturned with evidence or competing theories; nothing is "holy" other than the Scientific Method itself</td><td>Basic assumptions cannot be questioned, or you will be cast out, tortured, killed; certain books are considered "holy" and beyond question</td></tr><tr><td>Decentralized; there are no particular institutions or leaders who directly benefit from continuing to follow it</td><td>Centralized hierarchy of holy people who directly benefit from its continued existence, at the expense of the population</td></tr></table>
Anyone who thinks science and religion are even remotely comparable is a fool.The big bang theory would predicate that, indeed, somewhere, there is a center of the universe from which all else expanded, and yet...we cannot locate it.Of course we can't locate it, because according to theory, it happened about 14 billion years ago. And it's just that: a <i>theory</i>. There are competing explanations for the origins of the Universe; that's just one of them. And people who believe it concede that it has a number of unexplained flaws, but hold to it as the best current explanation.For all we know what we call black holes are trans-dimensional portals held open by Angels fluttering their wings very fast.There is evidence of black holes, even if it is not conclusive. Is there any evidence that there are trans-dimensional portals held open by angels fluttering their wings very fast? I didn't think so.Religions are questioned and evolve in the same manner as Science, through great thinkers. Religion breeds morality.Can you question the existence of your god(s), or believe in others? (Hint: what did the Jews do to Jesus?) Can you contradict your ten commandments? Religion only "evolves" as it is forced to confront realities. The zealots are forced to twist the religion because the sheep aren't as adept at <i>doublethink</i> as the leaders would like. Finally, equating religion with morality is the most ridiculous thing you have said in this post. Just look at the past 2000 years.Science cannot and does not answer everything (such as why it is that Humanity actually evolved intelligence to the degree we have)Humans evolved intelligence because they needed it to survive, as have many other intelligent animal species. Early humans subsisted partly from hunting, which, given the human's size and physical characteristics, required intelligence and tool-making. Also, the early humans that were best able to adapt to a wide variety of situations, and thus the most intelligent, were the most likely to survive, which is why the Neanderthals died out. All of this is well supported by evidence in the archaeological record.
MadroneDorf
06-20-2006, 04:28 PM
As an agnostic/Atheist non-believer type Judaism is probably one of the "best" religions, I cant really think of a time when a Jewish person has harassed me, tried to convert me, or generally given me greif for not being jewish/religion, I cant say the same about Christianity, and well Islam, well sorry to say but all those crazy Clerics in the middle east pretty much give me a general negative view of it as well.
Religion breeds morality. Science without morality is the greatest threat to humanity. Science without morality breeds truly monstrous acts. To act with pure logic would send humanity down a horrible path.
Bull****, you of all people should know that religion does not breed morality, how many atrocities or wars or attacks have been commited in the name of morality (from religion) or from a more "moral" people.
Dayuna
06-20-2006, 04:45 PM
Religion works to explain what science cannot. There is evidence that the Big Bang happened, but we do not know how it was started in the first place, thus until it it proven otherwise, a theory could be that a diety of some sort set it in motion.
Organized religion scares me more than the government. At least the government isn't actively wanting to kill me for not believing what it does.
Most of the field of Astronomy is all conjecture, for instance.
I'm somewhat curious about how observing the movement of stars and planets is conjecture any more so than watching the path that Joe Schmoe takes to and from work every day. I think you mean physics, which is very much conjecture, but it's based on observation rather than just the words of a physicist. What I fail to see with this arguement, is how religion is not 100% conjecture.
Panamah
06-20-2006, 04:51 PM
Religion works to explain what science cannot. There is evidence that the Big Bang happened, but we do not know how it was started in the first place, thus until it it proven otherwise, a theory could be that a diety of some sort set it in motion.
Yes and no. There's plenty of examples of things we know where religion still doesn't accept any scientific evidence to the contrary. Like those who insist the world is 6,000 years old and god created a man and a woman.
Organized religion scares me more than the government. At least the government isn't actively wanting to kill me for not believing what it does.
Well, most religions don't want to kill you either. But some governments might! They can both be scary.
MadroneDorf
06-20-2006, 04:56 PM
You dont need religion to explain what science cannot, but it does help some people.
I'm personally perfect content that some things will not be found out scienctifically in my lifetime, if ever, but that doesnt work for everyone.
Aidon
06-20-2006, 05:00 PM
Aidon, let's recap science versus religion:
<table border=1 cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2><tr><td align=center><b>Science</b></td><td align=center><b>Religion</b><td></tr><tr><td>Based on doubt</td><td>Based on faith</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusions must comply with the Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) to be validated</td><td>Conclusions are assumed to be true with no evidence (circular reasoning)</td></tr><tr><td>Uses empirical observation and logical reasoning to best explain phenomena</td><td>Imposes a fixed explanation for phenomena ("god" did it)</td></tr><tr><td>Any theory or assumption can be overturned with evidence or competing theories; nothing is "holy" other than the Scientific Method itself</td><td>Basic assumptions cannot be questioned, or you will be cast out, tortured, killed; certain books are considered "holy" and beyond question</td></tr><tr><td>Decentralized; there are no particular institutions or leaders who directly benefit from continuing to follow it</td><td>Centralized hierarchy of holy people who directly benefit from its continued existence, at the expense of the population</td></tr></table>
Perhaps the religion you were brought up with was based on blind faith. Mine was based on education and constant questioning.
And there is no excommunication in my religion. Noone has been killed for blasphemy or heresy in some 2000+ years.
Of course...scientists regularly ostracize those who propose different theories than the prevailing beliefs, even if they have provided the necessary tests and work to support their theories, if not outright prove them. Disrupt the scientific status quo at your own risk.
There is also no centralized hierarchy of holy people. At best we have organizations set up to provide for the standardization of Post-graduate education and organizations set up to provide for the most basic level of religious tradition...but that tradition is heavily influenced by the local community.
Anyone who thinks science and religion are even remotely comparable is a fool.
I would venture to suggest that your religion is science and its no more valid a belief system than mine. My belief system is certainly more tolerant than yours...I can incorporate that which makes sense from Science and retain the faith I have in God. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of accepting anyone believing in anything besides your own religion of science.
Of course we can't locate it, because according to theory, it happened about 14 billion years ago. And it's just that: a <i>theory</i>. There are competing explanations for the origins of the Universe; that's just one of them. And people who believe it concede that it has a number of unexplained flaws, but hold to it as the best current explanation.
It is the best current explanation and thus is believed. That belief will evolve as our knowledge improves. Just as religions have evolved as knowledge improved. No longer do we believe that we must sacrifice a sheep to cleanse ourselves after being near a menstruating woman. No longer do we believe that it is impossible to fly faster than the speed of sound. I am fairly certain someday people will laugh at our quaint notion that humanity could not travel faster than light could travel and I'm sure that my notions of religious faith will be viewed as quaint by the Rabbis in the 32nd Century.
There is evidence of black holes, even if it is not conclusive. Is there any evidence that there are trans-dimensional portals held open by angels fluttering their wings very fast? I didn't think so.
There is evidence that gravity in certain areas is such that it distorts various means of energy transmission in its relative vicinity. We postulate as to what is causing such gravitational pull. We have zero proof of what its caused by. We've never witnessed a star collapsing into a black hole. It has as much of a chance of being angelic wing beaters as a dying star.
Can you question the existence of your god(s), or believe in others? (Hint: what did the Jews do to Jesus?)
Jesus didn't believe in other Gods, nor question the existance of our God. He made the fatal mistake of disrupting the politics of the region, which included foreign powers exerting direct power over the regional government. It so happens that the government of the time and place was theocratic, something Judaism has long since established as a mistake.
Conversely, even Science has its baseline assuptions based on our perceptions. Our measurements are relative to our assumptions and perceptions. Time is relative our perception. There is dogmatic quality to the notion that one day equals the period we assign to it. There is even a dogmatic quality to the notion that 1+1=2. It is predicate on the laws of science as we know them. We have no proof nor conception that these laws hold true the next universe over (or even, truthfully, the next galaxy over). It is all fundamentally based on an agreed upon foundation.
Can you contradict your ten commandments?
Yes. We question the meaning of the ten commandments from time to time. What is coveting thy neighbors wife and goods? What is honoring thy mother and thy father? What constitutes bearing false witness? Is it acceptable to testify falsely to protect someone from an unjust law? We've even questioned, at times, if the Lord is indeed our God, as we were fed into the furnaces of Europe.
Religion only "evolves" as it is forced to confront realities. The zealots are forced to twist the religion because the sheep aren't as adept at <i>doublethink</i> as the leaders would like.
Religion evolves out of necessity, the same as Science. When the old way of doing things starts having issues do to modern developments...things must change.
Finally, equating religion with morality is the most ridiculous thing you have said in this post. Just look at the past 2000 years.
Our modern liberal morality is a direct descendant of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Its just that Christendom has time and again ignored its own morality for the expediency of hatred and conquest. You make a mistake of equating Religion with the Churches it spawns.
Humans evolved intelligence because they needed it to survive, as have many other intelligent animal species. Early humans subsisted partly from hunting, which, given the human's size and physical characteristics, required intelligence and tool-making. Also, the early humans that were best able to adapt to a wide variety of situations, and thus the most intelligent, were the most likely to survive, which is why the Neanderthals died out. All of this is well supported by evidence in the archaeological record.
What evolutionary need spawned the development of the internal combustion engine or the transistor or nuclear fission?
Had our development stopped 10,000 years ago, we'd still be the dominant species on the planet.
Aidon
06-20-2006, 05:00 PM
Bull****, you of all people should know that religion does not breed morality, how many atrocities or wars or attacks have been commited in the name of morality (from religion) or from a more "moral" people.
Religions breed morality.
Churches breed atrocity.
Tudamorf
06-20-2006, 05:25 PM
My belief system is certainly more tolerant than yours...I can incorporate that which makes sense from Science and retain the faith I have in God. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of accepting anyone believing in anything besides your own religion of science.Wrong. Prove your theory that god exists through the Scientific Method, and scientists will accept it. The trouble is, you can't, because it's fiction.Jesus didn't believe in other Gods, nor question the existance of our God. He made the fatal mistake of disrupting the politics of the region, which included foreign powers exerting direct power over the regional government. It so happens that the government of the time and place was theocratic, something Judaism has long since established as a mistake.Israel is theocratic, to a much greater extent than is the United States. And although Judaism's past has not been even remotely as bloody as Christianity's has been, you don't know what would have happened had Judaism been the dominant religion. It would have probably been similar, people killing each other in the name of their god(s). The problem lies not with the name of the religion, but human nature.Yes. We question the meaning of the ten commandments from time to time.You might question the meaning, but you take the commandments themselves as a given.What evolutionary need spawned the development of the internal combustion engine or the transistor or nuclear fission?Those aren't products of physical evolution. Humans are just as intelligent today as they were 10,000 years ago. The rest is just social evolution.Had our development stopped 10,000 years ago, we'd still be the dominant species on the planet.Ten thousand years ago, humans weren't even remotely dominant. There were only a few million (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html) humans on Earth, living sparsely in inhospitable conditions.
Anyone who thinks science and religion are even remotely comparable is a fool.
Religion provides answers for the unknown through faith and belief. Science provides answers for the unknown through research and investigation. They are comparable for their contrasting ideology.
Bull****, you of all people should know that religion does not breed morality, how many atrocities or wars or attacks have been commited in the name of morality (from religion) or from a more "moral" people.
Any shared belief system will create some sort of law or morality, otherwise the beliefs would be trivial or being ignored. Consider also that before the important human moralities were created there was incessant war or conflict everywhere. If you have lived without fear of invasion or personal conflict then that is due to the unifying morality that you share with your neighbours in your street, city, or country. If you had lived four thousand years ago it is unlikely that you would have had the same security.
Panamah
06-20-2006, 05:40 PM
I think the unifying morality I share with others has its roots in the secular. They're the rules and principles that let people who are tightly packed together get along without destroying each other too much.
Dayuna
06-20-2006, 06:07 PM
Just because Christianity coined the phrase "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" doesn't mean it's the root of the concept and the basis of morality. Religion gives an incetive to being a moral person (i.e. go to heaven, get reincarnated in a better position, etc..) and it does teach that people should be moral, but as previously stated, you can be moral without being religious.
oddjob1244
06-20-2006, 08:07 PM
So why can't "the answers" be a combination of both science and religion, why does it have to be one or the other? Or why am I supposed to believe something that a scientist pulled out of his hat with no logical proof but totally deny something a bishop/priest/pope/prophet said with no logical proof?
The bible is pretty vague about what happened during creation. Maybe god created the universe as a giant mass of stuff set to explode and creating what we know today?
Palarran
06-20-2006, 08:11 PM
The big bang theory would predicate that, indeed, somewhere, there is a center of the universe from which all else expanded, and yet...we cannot locate it.
I just wanted to point out for the record that this is incorrect.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Tudamorf
06-20-2006, 08:25 PM
Or why am I supposed to believe something that a scientist pulled out of his hat with no logical proof...You're not.
Aidon
06-21-2006, 01:45 AM
Wrong. Prove your theory that god exists through the Scientific Method, and scientists will accept it. The trouble is, you can't, because it's fiction.
I don't need to prove God exists. You, however, do seem to feel the need to prove he does not.
I can look at the world and realize that it was not random chance which created such an intricately designed system of codependancy. Do I know who or what God is? No. God could simply be the collective subconcious of hyper-intelligent shades of blue.
But neither does a scientist know exactly where or when an electron will be at any given time or know if there are other inhabitable planets out there. Not knowing doesn't mean you mustn't believe.
Israel is theocratic, to a much greater extent than is the United States.
Israel is secular, actually. Theocracy is the ruling of a nation by religious officials. Israel is not.
Iran is a theocracy. The Vatican is a theocracy.
And although Judaism's past has not been even remotely as bloody as Christianity's has been, you don't know what would have happened had Judaism been the dominant religion. It would have probably been similar, people killing each other in the name of their god(s). The problem lies not with the name of the religion, but human nature.
If the problem lies in human nature, than towards what end your striving to destroy all religion? Human nature does not require religious beliefs to enact cruelty and bloodshed.
You might question the meaning, but you take the commandments themselves as a given.
They are the basic groundwork of four thousand years of western civilization...the foundation of everything we consider to be a society. Yes, I take the 10 commandments to roughly be a given. At least the last seven are. Believe as you would for the first three.
Those aren't products of physical evolution. Humans are just as intelligent today as they were 10,000 years ago. The rest is just social evolution.
I rather suspect humans are more intelligent today than they were 10,000 years ago, but we have no way of knowing that one way or the other.
Ten thousand years ago, humans weren't even remotely dominant. There were only a few million (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html) humans on Earth, living sparsely in inhospitable conditions.
If we're going by numbers, we're still far from the dominant species. The insect world outnumbers us by orders of magnitude.
Tudamorf
06-21-2006, 02:51 AM
I can look at the world and realize that it was not random chance which created such an intricately designed system of codependancy.If you're talking about life forms, it's not just random chance, but rather random chance tempered by evolution (survival of the fittest). The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and the diversity you see is the product of a long, drawn out natural process. These things didn't happen overnight (or during 5,000 years, as your book says).
I still don't see where a "god" must fit into all of this. There's only one reason you believe in a god: you were brainwashed from birth into believing it was so, and your social group reinforced that belief. There's no conclusive evidence of a god, i.e., evidence that cannot be reasonably explained in any other way. And have you ever wondered who wrote your holy books -- I mean who <i>actually</i> sat down and wrote it, not what the book or legend says? What makes that person's judgment beyond reproach? He was probably just an ancient version of L. Ron Hubbard.
If you were born on a secluded island where no one ever discussed religion, and you were taught not to fear the unknown, but just try to accept it or uncover the truth, you would see no need for religion.If the problem lies in human nature, than towards what end your striving to destroy all religion? Human nature does not require religious beliefs to enact cruelty and bloodshed.Precisely. Without the pretext of "my invisible friend versus yours," people will be forced to confront the reality of what they're doing, instead of cloaking it in some holy aura that makes it beyond reproach. Not to mention, so much of the time and resources now wasted on religion will be spent on productive pursuits.They are the basic groundwork of four thousand years of western civilization...the foundation of everything we consider to be a society. Yes, I take the 10 commandments to roughly be a given. At least the last seven are. Believe as you would for the first three.Please. They are the foundation of nothing. Half the text talks about about holy the god is and you had better not dare believe in another. The other half talks about a few "crimes," such as murder, theft, adultery, etc. -- crimes which the religious zealots themselves don't hesitate to commit. It's barely relevant to today's society, let alone the foundation of it.I rather suspect humans are more intelligent today than they were 10,000 years ago, but we have no way of knowing that one way or the other.Sure we do. There is a clear archaeological record showing that humans from 10,000 years ago were anatomically identical to today's humans, including the same brains. Not to mention, tons of artifacts showing their expertise in art, weaponry, and so on.
Yes, they were just as smart as you or I. The difference is that today we are educated with the benefit of 10,000 years of knowledge and discovery. If I took the average human from 10,000 years ago, and you, and educated you identically from birth, you would come out with the same level of functional intelligence.
Madie of Wind Riders
06-21-2006, 05:53 AM
And it's just that: a theory. There are competing explanations for the origins of the Universe; that's just one of them. And people who believe it concede that it has a number of unexplained flaws, but hold to it as the best current explanation
What makes that statement different from "belief" of religion. Religion is a theory and those who believe it concede that it has a number of unexplained flaws, but hold to it as the best current explanation.
Finally, equating religion with morality is the most ridiculous thing you have said in this post.
I still do not understand this statement. Can you explain why you believe that equating religion with morality is incorrect?
Wrong. Prove your theory that god exists through the Scientific Method, and scientists will accept it. The trouble is, you can't, because it's fiction.
Again, scientists cannot "prove" many things, like the creation of the planets... yet they accept certain theories as the best possible explanation. Religion is the exact same, theories based on the facts as they know them.
Again, scientists cannot "prove" many things, like the creation of the planets... yet they accept certain theories as the best possible explanation. Religion is the exact same, theories based on the facts as they know them.
There is a difference. The nature of science is to examine the evidence, come to a conclusion, but if the assumptions change then the conclusions are changed too. In religion there are underlying assumptions that are absolute, they never change, and challenging them is seen as heresy as the theories are "God given".
Aidon
06-21-2006, 08:51 AM
I think the unifying morality I share with others has its roots in the secular. They're the rules and principles that let people who are tightly packed together get along without destroying each other too much.
Those rules and principles find their roots in the evolution of social laws starting back with Hamurabi...and most heavily influenced by the social and judicial laws found in the Torah up through the ages to English common law and modern American beliefs.
Aidon
06-21-2006, 08:53 AM
Just because Christianity coined the phrase "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" doesn't mean it's the root of the concept and the basis of morality. Religion gives an incetive to being a moral person (i.e. go to heaven, get reincarnated in a better position, etc..) and it does teach that people should be moral, but as previously stated, you can be moral without being religious.
And you can be religious without being moral.
That doesn't mean that those concepts which we consider righteous did not have their roots in religiosity.
Aidon
06-21-2006, 08:59 AM
I just wanted to point out for the record that this is incorrect.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
So the universe is moving...but not from any central point and all movement is the same regardless of your point of view.
So where where was this great explosion?
This simply solidifies my point that, indeed, science does not have the answer to everything. There is a great deal of speculation and attempts to find mathematical logic which fits into what we observe.
That doesn't make it any less valid, but it somewhat debunks the notion that science is infallible and doesn't change over the years.
Aidon
06-21-2006, 09:28 AM
If you're talking about life forms, it's not just random chance, but rather random chance tempered by evolution (survival of the fittest). The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and the diversity you see is the product of a long, drawn out natural process. These things didn't happen overnight (or during 5,000 years, as your book says).
I'm referring to the random chance of there being a planet formed which has the unique and rare qualities which permit it to sustain and evolve complex and intelligent life forms. It really is boggling to the mind.
I'm also referring to the very fact that there is a universe...towards what end this creation of time and space and matter and energy? Do you honestly believe it simply is?
I still don't see where a "god" must fit into all of this. There's only one reason you believe in a god: you were brainwashed from birth into believing it was so, and your social group reinforced that belief. There's no conclusive evidence of a god, i.e., evidence that cannot be reasonably explained in any other way.
Reasonably explain to me what came before the "Big Bang" and what caused it to happen. What was there before the universe and predicated its birth?
There isn't conclusive evidence of a great many scientific beliefs. Hell modern medicine seems to change its mind every 10 years about what is or isn't good for us.
And have you ever wondered who wrote your holy books -- I mean who <i>actually</i> sat down and wrote it, not what the book or legend says? What makes that person's judgment beyond reproach? He was probably just an ancient version of L. Ron Hubbard.
Actually there were multiple people who wrote my holy books. They were written down from the oral traditions. They are a story. You're attempting to paint me in the same light as those who take the bible word for word, which you know I am far from. But it paints you with the same brush as them. Anyone who dares believe different than you must be a fool.
If you were born on a secluded island where no one ever discussed religion, and you were taught not to fear the unknown, but just try to accept it or uncover the truth, you would see no need for religion.
And yet...every human society, no matter how remote or idyllic their life is, has developed a spiritual belief system along the way (albeit it systems which evolve over the millenia).
Precisely. Without the pretext of "my invisible friend versus yours," people will be forced to confront the reality of what they're doing, instead of cloaking it in some holy aura that makes it beyond reproach.
No, it simply forces people to find other justification. Such as the 'scientific' justification for Eugenics. Or a system where only those who's genetics meet a certain criteria are permited to go to certain schools.
There have been, and continue to be, societies on our planet where religion is outlawed. Take a look at how they've done.
Please. They are the foundation of nothing. Half the text talks about about holy the god is and you had better not dare believe in another. The other half talks about a few "crimes," such as murder, theft, adultery, etc. -- crimes which the religious zealots themselves don't hesitate to commit. It's barely relevant to today's society, let alone the foundation of it.
You've never actually read the Torah, I can see. This discussion is pointless then. The railing of a bombastic zealot, in your own right, who refuses to even countenance opposing views enough to research them.
However, the Torah sets forth all manner of social laws, from the absolution of debts, to letting the earth lie fallow so that it might rejuvenate its nutrients, to the responsibilities of tortious conduct, to the notion of equal justice under the law, as opposed to a special law set aside for nobility.
I'm sorry, Tudamorf, but your society has its roots in my religion.
Sure we do. There is a clear archaeological record showing that humans from 10,000 years ago were anatomically identical to today's humans, including the same brains. Not to mention, tons of artifacts showing their expertise in art, weaponry, and so on.
Ah, and yet, humanity has grown stronger, taller, and faster over the past 10,000 years.
Yes, they were just as smart as you or I. The difference is that today we are educated with the benefit of 10,000 years of knowledge and discovery. If I took the average human from 10,000 years ago, and you, and educated you identically from birth, you would come out with the same level of functional intelligence.
No, I do not think so. I think I would come out taller than he, more robust than he, more capable of surviving illness than he, and functionally more intelligent than he.
I just wanted to point out for the record that this is incorrect.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Well that just ruined my day. Now I'll be thinking about this all day trying to figure out WTF it means. Or maybe someone can reduce it to terms i can understand, lol.
Palarran
06-21-2006, 10:40 AM
So where where was this great explosion?
When you ask "where" the Big Bang occurred, you're assuming an embedding space--some sort of meta-universe that our universe exists in. We have no evidence of anything outside the universe*.
As far as we can tell, the structure of the universe itself is what expanded with the Big Bang (thus allowing it to expand faster than the speed of light, because matter and energy are constrained, but not spacetime itself). This can be compared to ants on the surface of a balloon that is inflated rapidly. Two ants walking toward each other on the surface of the balloon might never reach each other, since the surface of the balloon between them expands faster than the ants can walk. I would also point out that there is no point on the balloon that can be considered the "center" of the inflation. If such a center exists, it's not on the surface of the balloon-universe.
And yes, there is experimental evidence for the Big Bang. For example, based on this theory, scientists predicted "cosmic background radiation" in 1948--that in all directions there should be uniform electromagnetic radiation of a particular spectrum. This was not detected until the mid 1960's by a group of people who were not even looking for this radiation.
So, in short, asking where the Big Bang occurred is a flawed question that has no answer, not because we are unable to find one, but we think there IS no correct answer.
*There are controversial hypotheses that, if true, would explain apparent contradictions between our understanding of general relativity and quantum theory. Some of these, which can be grouped into the misnamed "string theory", propose that the visible universe is part of one "brane", and that there are multiple branes in some higher dimensional space. However, I'm not aware of any experimental evidence that supports these ideas, so for now they are merely mathematical constructs that may or may not have any relevance to the "real" world.
B_Delacroix
06-21-2006, 10:44 AM
Science and Religion are both tools. They can both be used for good or ill and anyone of us can cite examples of both.
Scientists have their own dogma as well. If you come up with a theory that isn't of the establishment. IE several doctors have made their name on perpetuating the established theory. You are ostracized and ridiculed. You still have to go through the scientific process and still need proof, but even when you have proof, some of the old school guys still put you down.
If you were born on a secluded island where no one ever discussed religion, and you were taught not to fear the unknown, but just try to accept it or uncover the truth, you would see no need for religion.
Would you? How can you be sure? Religion started somewhere. It didn't just appear one day and inject itself into civilization. Someone somewhere sometime thought that a deific explanation was the best one for what they saw at some time. What's more. Some other someones agreed.
Palarran
06-21-2006, 10:49 AM
And yet you are still correct, Aidon, when you point out that science does not have an answer for everything. It cannot, because by definition it is limited to that which is observable, whether directly or indirectly. Metaphysics--the study of that which is above or beyond nature (the observable universe)--is outside the boundaries of science. However, some would argue that it is meaningless to ask about things that can have no observable consequences in the, er, observable universe.
For example, suppose that reality as we know it is actually a Matrix or 13th Floor-style simulation run on a computer in the "real" universe. Assuming it is a perfect simulation, there would be no way to detect it from within the framework of the simulation itself. The computer running the simulation would still be "real" but completely irrelevant and unknowable to anyone "living" inside the simulation.
Palarran
06-21-2006, 10:54 AM
Yes, scientists are human. The difference with science is that over time such dogma is questioned and overturned in light of new evidence.
I would also argue that doctors are not acting as scientists when treating patients. They are more like engineers at that point, putting scientific knowledge to practical use, although even the engineer comparison would be flawed.
Panamah
06-21-2006, 11:35 AM
Doctors are definitely not scientists. Or at least most aren't. I'm beginning to think they're more like car mechanics where the car is incredibly complex and no one really knows exactly how it works and you spend 11 minutes on each potential break down in school.
Dayuna
06-21-2006, 11:53 AM
And you can be religious without being moral.
That doesn't mean that those concepts which we consider righteous did not have their roots in religiosity.
I think that here, I would be more willing to say that religion simply turned existing morals into law. People who lived before the ten commandments were not without rules, and were far from animalistic in dealing with each other (i.e. winner eats loser). I'd imagine morals were born when Caveman 1 clubbed Caveman 2 over the head, then got clubbed back. Both then decided that there were consequences that were painful and figured they shouldn't club each other over the head anymore.:twak:
I'm referring to the random chance of there being a planet formed which has the unique and rare qualities which permit it to sustain and evolve complex and intelligent life forms. It really is boggling to the mind.
If one assumes the universe is infinite, then this planet and others like it are an inevitability. Infinite number of possibilities, one of infinity comes up as a water covered planet with conditions suitable for life as we know it. It is extremely likely there are other planets out there with life of some form on it, though assuming the universe is infinite, those planets may as well not exist since they are probably very very very far away.
But neither does a scientist know exactly where or when an electron will be at any given time or know if there are other inhabitable planets out there. Not knowing doesn't mean you mustn't believe.
But the scientist knows that the electron exists and isn't required to believe that there are other inhabitable planets. Scientists who defy convention may be questioned extensively, but if their theory holds water it eventually becomes accepted. Religious people who defy the conventions are simply ignored or denounced by the religion.
God can't be proven to exist (and also logically, not exist), at least not until we fly a spaceship into a black hole and meet that subconcious of a hyper-intelligent shade of blue.
Panamah
06-21-2006, 12:02 PM
I think we can get a pretty good idea of how things like empathy and compassion work by observing the same behaviors in other animals. I think our brain has developed in such a way that we've evolved those basic behaviors. They're still changing. Look at how much our views have evolved over the last 200 years. Slavery is nearly extinct in much of the world. Is that because people are more religious? The concept of everyone is entitled to food, health, participation in government is another one that would have been unheard of 300 years ago, when, arguably religion was a far more dominant force than it is now. These concepts that we call "moral" ones didn't come from religion.
Klath
06-21-2006, 01:14 PM
I think we can get a pretty good idea of how things like empathy and compassion work by observing the same behaviors in other animals. I think our brain has developed in such a way that we've evolved those basic behaviors.
/agree
I think it is much more likely that these altruistic behaviors were incorporated into religions than created by them. From a sociobiological standpoint, it is advantageous to group together to face obstacles so behaviors that foster grouping are likely to be selected over behaviors that thwart it.
Aidon
06-21-2006, 01:46 PM
When you ask "where" the Big Bang occurred, you're assuming an embedding space--some sort of meta-universe that our universe exists in. We have no evidence of anything outside the universe*.
If the universe is the sum of all creation with nothing existing beyond it, then how can it have a point from which it began. If it appearred from nothing, what caused its creation? Where did this hyper-dense point of mass and energy come from? What caused it to expand?
It seems to me that any 'Big Bang' theory must be predicate on the supposition that there is, or was, something beyond our Universe.
Aidon
06-21-2006, 01:54 PM
And yet you are still correct, Aidon, when you point out that science does not have an answer for everything. It cannot, because by definition it is limited to that which is observable, whether directly or indirectly. Metaphysics--the study of that which is above or beyond nature (the observable universe)--is outside the boundaries of science. However, some would argue that it is meaningless to ask about things that can have no observable consequences in the, er, observable universe.
For example, suppose that reality as we know it is actually a Matrix or 13th Floor-style simulation run on a computer in the "real" universe. Assuming it is a perfect simulation, there would be no way to detect it from within the framework of the simulation itself. The computer running the simulation would still be "real" but completely irrelevant and unknowable to anyone "living" inside the simulation.
And yet, would that not make the programmers of such a simulation "God"? The databases his heavens?
I said, before, that I do not pretend to know the nature of God. My God could very well be a cosmic Geek playing a super massively multiplayer metaphysical Civ XXVI and such tragedies as the Holocaust were because he got pwnz0r3d by the Geek playing the Germans.
In the end, that is immaterial. He is still my God.
Tudamorf
06-21-2006, 02:04 PM
Reasonably explain to me what came before the "Big Bang" and what caused it to happen. What was there before the universe and predicated its birth?No one can at this time. What is your point? That your fantasy explanation is better than simply confronting the unknown? Science can't explain everything and scientists are honest about that.There isn't conclusive evidence of a great many scientific beliefs.Again, what is your point? Theories with little evidence are taken as such, not as iron-clad laws. In scientific terms, religion isn't even a theory, it's a hypothesis, a mere conjecture with no evidence, yet it's held in religion to be the undeniable truth.Actually there were multiple people who wrote my holy books. They were written down from the oral traditions. They are a story.What makes that story inherently correct, as opposed to, say, an L. Ron Hubbard novel? The only difference between the two is the level of societal acceptance.However, the Torah sets forth all manner of social laws, from the absolution of debts, to letting the earth lie fallow so that it might rejuvenate its nutrients, to the responsibilities of tortious conduct, to the notion of equal justice under the law, as opposed to a special law set aside for nobility.And do you think some guy just sat down and invented all this? No, he just documented the common sense rules that his society had already learned. The society created the religion, not vice versa.Ah, and yet, humanity has grown stronger, taller, and faster over the past 10,000 years. No, I do not think so. I think I would come out taller than he, more robust than he, more capable of surviving illness than he, and functionally more intelligent than he.Stronger and faster -- yes, since the discovery of training methods and steroids. Taller -- yes, since the discovery of agriculture and a consistent and reliable food source. The genetic potential of the human hasn't changed in any detectable way, however.
I realize you want to believe that your religion somehow improved man on a genetic level, but in reality, the infant from 10,000 years ago, growing up in today's society, would appear to be no different from any of us, physically or intellectually.
Aidon
06-21-2006, 02:11 PM
If one assumes the universe is infinite, then this planet and others like it are an inevitability. Infinite number of possibilities, one of infinity comes up as a water covered planet with conditions suitable for life as we know it. It is extremely likely there are other planets out there with life of some form on it, though assuming the universe is infinite, those planets may as well not exist since they are probably very very very far away.
Except that, definitionally, infinity has no beginning nor end. If there was a 'Big Bang' beginning to the Universe...then somewhere the Universe ends. While it may be infinitely expanding to our perception, as currently we are incapable of travelling faster than the universe expands, somewhere there is a point where the Universe has not yet expanded to...and what lies beyond that point?
Regardless, we are moving off onto a tangent. I have no doubt that somewhere in our Universe there are other planets supporting complex and intelligent ecologies. But Science has yet to explain why such planets would exist...
But the scientist knows that the electron exists and isn't required to believe that there are other inhabitable planets. Scientists who defy convention may be questioned extensively, but if their theory holds water it eventually becomes accepted. Religious people who defy the conventions are simply ignored or denounced by the religion.
Really? I can think of one religious person who defied the conventions and spawned the most powerful religion the world has seen to date.
I can think of many many Jewish thinkers who have changed the way Judaism thinks about our religion.
God can't be proven to exist (and also logically, not exist), at least not until we fly a spaceship into a black hole and meet that subconcious of a hyper-intelligent shade of blue.
A Quark can't really be proven to exist either. Noone has found one. Indeed from what I understand of Quarks...when something doesn't fit their mathematical models, they simply devise a quark that does fit (simplistically speaking).
Yet, I suspect most Physicists hold that quarks exist.
Aidon
06-21-2006, 02:14 PM
I think we can get a pretty good idea of how things like empathy and compassion work by observing the same behaviors in other animals. I think our brain has developed in such a way that we've evolved those basic behaviors. They're still changing. Look at how much our views have evolved over the last 200 years. Slavery is nearly extinct in much of the world. Is that because people are more religious? The concept of everyone is entitled to food, health, participation in government is another one that would have been unheard of 300 years ago, when, arguably religion was a far more dominant force than it is now. These concepts that we call "moral" ones didn't come from religion.
They evolved from religious beliefs
Oh and the concepts that everyone is entitled to food and health are found in the Torah. You must lift up the fallen, heal the sick, feed the poor.
Aidon
06-21-2006, 02:35 PM
No one can at this time. What is your point? That your fantasy explanation is better than simply confronting the unknown? Science can't explain everything and scientists are honest about that.
The point is that my beliefs about the unknown are as valid as your beliefs about it. You are the one insisting that everything must be proven to be believed and yet belief is not predicated upon proof.
Again, what is your point? Theories with little evidence are taken as such, not as iron-clad laws. In scientific terms, religion isn't even a theory, it's a hypothesis, a mere conjecture with no evidence, yet it's held in religion to be the undeniable truth.
I think in your ignorance you work under some gravely mistaken idea's of what religion's hold. My religion holds very few undeniable truths. We believe in God. And from that we work through what is said to have been His laws to us and determine which work still and which don't. This is done on an almost individual level.
You swallow the anti-religious dogma as readily as the fundamentalist christian or muslim follows the dogma of his religious leader. You are no better than them, excepting that your religion is science. You think and act with the same degree of intolerance, mandating that any belief you do not agree with should be done away with, instead of entertaining liberal thought and toleration with the attitude that each man is entitled to believe as he sees fit.
What makes that story inherently correct, as opposed to, say, an L. Ron Hubbard novel? The only difference between the two is the level of societal acceptance.
Well, societal acceptance and historigraphical evidence.
And do you think some guy just sat down and invented all this? No, he just documented the common sense rules that his society had already learned.
Actually, yes. Some guy sat down and invented rules. The first guy to do so was Hammurabi (who, mind you, was considered divine in his own right in the Babylonian religion/mythos). Hammurabi's laws were further expanded, refined, and adapted by the Hebrews and there is a direct decendancy of English common law from the ancient Jewish laws.
Stronger and faster -- yes, since the discovery of training methods and steroids. Taller -- yes, since the discovery of agriculture and a consistent and reliable food source. The genetic potential of the human hasn't changed in any detectable way, however.
Humanity is stronger and faster and taller across the board than we were as recently as 60 years ago.
War, alone, would create a mighty evolutionary force throughout the past 10,000 years.
But your notion is absurd in and of itself as we can look here in America and see the effects of evolution in that mere 10,000 year span.
Tudamorf
06-21-2006, 02:48 PM
You think and act with the same degree of intolerance, mandating that any belief you do not agree with should be done away with, instead of entertaining liberal thought and toleration with the attitude that each man is entitled to believe as he sees fit.Who said anything about restricting freedom of religion? You're free to believe in your fantasies, but they're no more correct than is an episode of Lord of the Rings.Actually, yes. Some guy sat down and invented rules.No, he was just the first to document them. Humans lived in social groups with laws, all over the world, long before he was born. Many animal species, whose intelligence isn't as developed as a modern human's, also live in complex social groups with hierarchies and rules. Laws have existed for a very long time.Humanity is stronger and faster and taller across the board than we were as recently as 60 years ago. War, alone, would create a mighty evolutionary force throughout the past 10,000 years.You're talking about social evolution, not <i>physical</i> evolution. Physically, in terms of our appearance and intellectual potential, we are the same humans as those people living 10,000 years ago.
Aidon
06-21-2006, 03:06 PM
Who said anything about restricting freedom of religion? You're free to believe in your fantasies, but they're no more correct than is an episode of Lord of the Rings.
And I suggest that they are as valid a belief as a great many scientific theories. The conversation has come full circle.
No, he was just the first to document them. Humans lived in social groups with laws, all over the world, long before he was born.
No, actually, humans lived in social groups with some rules and morals which were immediately fluid based on enforcability and social status.
Many animal species, whose intelligence isn't as developed as a modern human's, also live in complex social groups with hierarchies and rules.
Seeing as the measurement of intelligence is highly subjective, I would venture the opinion that one of the fundamental measures of intelligence is the adoptions of morality. The pack of animals which cares for its sick and injured versus leaving them to die alone...shows remarkable intelligence.
However, it is impossible to seperate social morality development from religion, historically speaking, as it was, despite everything you try to claim, religion and/or spirituality which spawned social mores. Some good, some bad.
Laws have existed for a very long time.You're talking about social evolution, not <i>physical</i> evolution. Physically, in terms of our appearance and intellectual potential, we are the same humans as those people living 10,000 years ago.
No, actually I was speaking in terms of differences between breeds of humanity. A black skinned west african is quite noticably different from a white skinned nordsk, with different facial features, skin tone, hair color, eye color, and genetic disease susceptibility, amonst many other differences.
MadroneDorf
06-21-2006, 03:20 PM
Pre-Existing Morals/Laws/Whatever you want to call it, got adopted into (A) religion, which spread more quickly and became more "standard."
it would be foolish to deny that present day laws and morals have a lot of root in religion, but as said before, they existed before that religion, Religion put them in a nice package.
However you dont need religion to be moral, and being religions does not make you a moral person.
Whether or not being religion makes you more likely to be a moral person, probably depends on your definition of morality, which of course will be influenced by your religion, or lack thereof, so naturally most people will think, there religion, or lack thereof, is a positive moral force.
Re: evolvution/codepedencies/earths "System"
The problem, with your problem (Aidon) is that your finding it impossible/almost impossible that a system would randomly evolve into "this" system, which is of course correct. However things could have happended differently, and we could be living in a vastly different co-depedent system, among a probably near infinite amount. Any one system is nearly impossible, but not impossible, and the nearly infinite amount of nearely impossible systems make it probably for a system (out of the possiblities) to happen.
if that makes sense, but i think i lost myself
Klath
06-21-2006, 03:50 PM
While it may be infinitely expanding to our perception, as currently we are incapable of travelling faster than the universe expands, somewhere there is a point where the Universe has not yet expanded to...and what lies beyond that point?
There isn't such a point. The universe isn't expanding to fill up a larger existing space. Space is actually created by the expansion.
Tudamorf
06-21-2006, 03:53 PM
However things could have happended differently, and we could be living in a vastly different co-depedent system, among a probably near infinite amount. Any one system is nearly impossible, but not impossible, and the nearly infinite amount of nearely impossible systems make it probably for a system (out of the possiblities) to happen.
if that makes sense, but i think i lost myselfYou mean, if you make an ink blot or snowflake there are a nearly infinite number of possible patterns, each intricate and beautiful in its own way, yet that does not mean that any one pattern must be divinely inspired.
Except that, definitionally, infinity has no beginning nor end. If there was a 'Big Bang' beginning to the Universe...then somewhere the Universe ends. While it may be infinitely expanding to our perception, as currently we are incapable of travelling faster than the universe expands, somewhere there is a point where the Universe has not yet expanded to...and what lies beyond that point?
There are alternative views of the universe. Consider that an ancient sailor could have been forgiven for thinking that if he travelled in a straight line he would fall off the edge of the earth or forever be finding (infinite) new lands. He would however have been measuring his travels in the wrong way without understanding the curvature of the earth. Modern scientists might currently be unable to measure the universe in an appropriate manner but if they find the right way then the concept of 'the end of the universe', measured either in time or linear distance, might be as irrelevent as 'the end of the earth'.
Tudamorf
06-21-2006, 04:15 PM
No, actually, humans lived in social groups with some rules and morals which were immediately fluid based on enforcability and social status.Just as humans live today.Seeing as the measurement of intelligence is highly subjective, I would venture the opinion that one of the fundamental measures of intelligence is the adoptions of morality. The pack of animals which cares for its sick and injured versus leaving them to die alone...shows remarkable intelligence.Not really. For a group of prey animals, tending to the sick and injured can easily get the entire group killed, and is thus far from the intelligent thing to do if the goal is to propagate the species. It's easy for you, as the current top predator, to impose that value judgment, but you'd feel differently if your family's life was constantly threatened by predators.No, actually I was speaking in terms of differences between breeds of humanity. A black skinned west african is quite noticably different from a white skinned nordsk, with different facial features, skin tone, hair color, eye color, and genetic disease susceptibility, amonst many other differences.Yes, but those differences emerged long before 10,000 years ago. Mitochondrial DNA analysis shows that "Eve," the common female ancestor of modern humans, was African (black, like a modern purebred African), and lived 150,000-200,000 years ago. After that, humans migrated out of Africa, and began to form the various race gene pools, and those were well-formed by 10,000 years ago. So, no, there has not been a great deal of change since then.
Klath
06-21-2006, 04:17 PM
The problem, with your problem (Aidon) is that your finding it impossible/almost impossible that a system would randomly evolve into "this" system, which is of course correct. However things could have happended differently, and we could be living in a vastly different co-depedent system, among a probably near infinite amount. Any one system is nearly impossible, but not impossible, and the nearly infinite amount of nearely impossible systems make it probably for a system (out of the possiblities) to happen.
if that makes sense, but i think i lost myself
It sounds a bit like you may be describing what cosmologists refer to as the Anthropic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle).
Aidon
06-22-2006, 02:05 AM
There isn't such a point. The universe isn't expanding to fill up a larger existing space. Space is actually created by the expansion.
An impossibility.
If the universe started somewhere and is expanding...there must be something outside of it. The notion of nothingness, even, denotes a state in which our space time does not exist, which, in and of itself, becomes something, if only a phase in which our space time doesn't exist.
I would venture to guess it is physically impossible for there to be true nothingness, anywhere, ever.
Aidon
06-22-2006, 02:09 AM
You mean, if you make an ink blot or snowflake there are a nearly infinite number of possible patterns, each intricate and beautiful in its own way, yet that does not mean that any one pattern must be divinely inspired.
But if one of those snowflakes were to develop an extensive codependant ecosystem upon it...I'd be quite willing to attribute it to divine intervention.
Aidon
06-22-2006, 02:10 AM
There are alternative views of the universe. Consider that an ancient sailor could have been forgiven for thinking that if he travelled in a straight line he would fall off the edge of the earth or forever be finding (infinite) new lands. He would however have been measuring his travels in the wrong way without understanding the curvature of the earth. Modern scientists might currently be unable to measure the universe in an appropriate manner but if they find the right way then the concept of 'the end of the universe', measured either in time or linear distance, might be as irrelevent as 'the end of the earth'.
And, yet, that doesn't change the fact that there is, indeed, and 'end of the earth'. It was simply up...
Aidon
06-22-2006, 02:19 AM
Just as humans live today.Not really. For a group of prey animals, tending to the sick and injured can easily get the entire group killed, and is thus far from the intelligent thing to do if the goal is to propagate the species. It's easy for you, as the current top predator, to impose that value judgment, but you'd feel differently if your family's life was constantly threatened by predators.
Our ancestors were constantly threatened by predators. Those predators simply happened to be each other most frequently.
Yes, but those differences emerged long before 10,000 years ago. Mitochondrial DNA analysis shows that "Eve," the common female ancestor of modern humans, was African (black, like a modern purebred African), and lived 150,000-200,000 years ago. After that, humans migrated out of Africa, and began to form the various race gene pools, and those were well-formed by 10,000 years ago. So, no, there has not been a great deal of change since then.
You misrepresent mitochondrial Eve.
I've seen estimations for the Most Recent Common Ancestor set as recently as 5-15k years ago.
That's just a matter of actual time, which is essentially immaterial to the discussion at hand. The fact remains that the humanity has physically changed between its inception and modern humans. We've created a myriad of different breeds. We've grown larger, stronger, faster, and most likely more intelligent.
The weak, slow, small, and dumb males tend to die violent deaths relatively early throughout human history.
Tudamorf
06-22-2006, 02:53 AM
You misrepresent mitochondrial Eve.
I've seen estimations for the Most Recent Common Ancestor set as recently as 5-15k years ago.Where, in a religious zealot textbook? If you want to discuss science, stick to scientific facts. We can't pinpoint her age with current testing methods, but she is at <i>least</i> 150,000 years old, and some estimate as old as 200,000 years. Humans left Africa over 60,000 years ago, and there are actual human skeletons, outside of Africa, over 40,000 years old. "Eve" could not have existed by this point because humans were far too spread out across the world, and she definitely could not have existed 5,000 years ago, when humans were almost everywhere.
It's funny how, when discussing human origins with a religious zealot, the zealot inevitably mentions the time frame of 5,000 years. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif> Unfortunately, the actual time frame here (150,000+ years) is so far removed, even the zealots will have difficulty trying to twist the meaning of their holy books to conform to reality.The fact remains that the humanity has physically changed between its inception and modern humans. We've created a myriad of different breeds. We've grown larger, stronger, faster, and most likely more intelligent.Again, get your facts straight, Aidon. The average 500 lb. mountain gorilla, a close relative of the human, can do a 1-arm pullup as easily as you take a step forward. Only the strongest and leanest humans can even attempt such a feat, and then they can only do it a few times before they tire.
The Neanderthals, an even more closely related (but extinct) species, were more robust than modern humans, and could survive assault and extreme climates far better than a modern human can. They were much better hunters.
Ever see a gibbon (a great ape, another close relative) move through the trees at 35mph? He would leave the world's greatest human sprinter in the dust.
Physically, the modern human is inferior to his closest relatives. He is weaker, slower, more fragile, and more poorly adapted to cold climates. We are slowly getting weaker and slower, Aidon, not stronger and faster. Modern humans do have the superior intelligence, however, 10,000 years is not enough time for physical evolution to change the overall intelligence of the species.
So, going back to the original point: we are physically the same as we were 10,000 years ago.Our ancestors were constantly threatened by predators. Those predators simply happened to be each other most frequently.What's your source for this? A bad sci-fi movie? <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>
Klath
06-22-2006, 03:33 AM
somewhere there is a point where the Universe has not yet expanded to...and what lies beyond that point?
There isn't such a point. The universe isn't expanding to fill up a larger existing space. Space is actually created by the expansion.
An impossibility.
Matter/energy, space/time, and the forces that govern their interactions are what define our universe. You're thinking of cosmic expansion in terms of a conventional explosion and that's not an accurate model.
I would venture to guess it is physically impossible for there to be true nothingness, anywhere, ever.
If there were, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. :)
Aidon
06-22-2006, 03:46 AM
Where, in a religious zealot textbook? If you want to discuss science, stick to scientific facts. We can't pinpoint her age with current testing methods, but she is at <i>least</i> 150,000 years old, and some estimate as old as 200,000 years.
Mitichondrial Eve is not our MRCA.
Humans left Africa over 60,000 years ago, and there are actual human skeletons, outside of Africa, over 40,000 years old. "Eve" could not have existed by this point because humans were far too spread out across the world, and she definitely could not have existed 5,000 years ago, when humans were almost everywhere.
"Eve" was nowhere near the only woman in existance at the time. Simply the first woman who shares certain aspects of our communal DNA.
I told you, you are misrepresenting Mitichondrial Eve. Or misunderstanding what the designation is.
It's funny how, when discussing human origins with a religious zealot, the zealot inevitably mentions the time frame of 5,000 years. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>
Actually, scientists mention the 5k-15k timespan for our MRCA (which is different from "Eve", remember). If I recall...the same scientist who pegged Mitichondrial Eve, as a matter of fact.
Unfortunately, the actual time frame here (150,000+ years) is so far removed, even the zealots will have difficulty trying to twist the meaning of their holy books to conform to reality.Again, get your facts straight, Aidon.
Again, you attempt to suggest that I have some belief that the Torah is literal. Science has long since disproved the notion that the world is less than 6000 years old.
However, your facts are not entirely accurate.
The average 500 lb. mountain gorilla, a close relative of the human, can do a 1-arm pullup as easily as you take a step forward. Only the strongest and leanest humans can even attempt such a feat, and then they can only do it a few times before they tire.
The Neanderthals, an even more closely related (but extinct) species, were more robust than modern humans, and could survive assault and extreme climates far better than a modern human can. They were much better hunters.
Actually, the Neanderthals were not much better hunters. They were starved out by Cro-Magnon, or so it is hypothozided.
Ever see a gibbon (a great ape, another close relative) move through the trees at 35mph? He would leave the world's greatest human sprinter in the dust.
Physically, the modern human is inferior to his closest relatives. He is weaker, slower, more fragile, and more poorly adapted to cold climates. We are slowly getting weaker and slower, Aidon, not stronger and faster. Modern humans do have the superior intelligence, however, 10,000 years is not enough time for physical evolution to change the overall intelligence of the species.
The modern human is still significantly different from his closest relatives, having evolved along significantly different lines.
But your irrational suggestion that 10,000 years is not enough time for us to have bred physically and intellectually superior humans is preposterous.
Humanity has created breeds of dogs with significant differences in appearance, structure, and intellect in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that amount of time.
However, the length of time still remains irrelevant. The first modern human of our species holds significant differences from a contemporary human.
So, going back to the original point: we are physically the same as we were 10,000 years ago.What's your source for this? A bad sci-fi movie? <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>
Here is but one example of where I am getting the notion that we're changing... Even skeletal structure has been altered in relative recent times, if you read this article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html?ex=1299387600&en=03aecd6036986b0e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
Palarran
06-22-2006, 03:47 AM
If the universe started somewhere and is expanding...there must be something outside of it.
Sorry, this is flat out incorrect. An embedding space is possible but NOT necessary for the geometry of the universe to change.
Aidon
06-22-2006, 03:50 AM
Matter/energy, space/time, and the forces that govern their interactions are what define our universe. You're thinking of cosmic expansion in terms of a conventional explosion and that's not an accurate model.
If something is expanding...it must be expanding in something and it must have borders somewhere, or else it isn't expanding, but simply shifting about.
Regardless of what form that expansion comes in.
]
Aidon
06-22-2006, 04:00 AM
Sorry, this is flat out incorrect. An embedding space is possible but NOT necessary for the geometry of the universe to change.
You realize that what you are suggesting makes as little (or as much) sense as the notion that there is a supernatural entity we call God?
This is one instance where Science enters the realm of religiosity, introducing its own particular brand of mathematical dogma.
There is no conceivable means for humanity to have even the basest inkling of where or what the boundaries of our universe are. It is all postulation and extremely theoretical physics. The very notion that the universe can be expanding and yet be all encompassing, providing for no external state, is as alien and faith based as the notion that worshipping a trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is monotheism.
Neither make any sense and require convulted reasoning to work.
Madie of Wind Riders
06-22-2006, 04:14 AM
The very notion that the universe can be expanding and yet be all encompassing, providing for no external state, is as alien and faith based as the notion that worshipping a trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is monotheism.
Neither make any sense and require convulted reasoning to work.
This is my whole point. I believe that science is it's own religion, with the same "faith based" beliefs as modern religion. Instead of believing in a "God", science uses other terms and solutions to explain history. However, its all the same, beliefs (theories) based on historic knowledge and proof of what is currently known. :physics:
I find it amazing that there are people who can believe that some cosmic explosion happened millions (billions) of years ago that created what we have today, yet refuse to believe that there may be a spiritual being (entity) that had something to do with it. Aren't both similiar in the aspect of provability?
Palarran
06-22-2006, 04:45 AM
Similar in provability, perhaps, but not in predictive power. I should point out that it is remarkably difficult to prove anything at all outside of an artifical construction such as mathematics. Science is about useful models with predictive power that are based on evidence, not proof in the logical sense.
If something is expanding...it must be expanding in something and it must have borders somewhere, or else it isn't expanding, but simply shifting about.
Incorrect. The universe can be finite but unbounded, and as mentioned before, an embedding space is NOT a necessity.
http://astro.uchicago.edu/home/web/olinto/courses/A18200/nbower.htm
And I would add that this is not dogma because scientists do NOT claim this as absolute truth. Given the evidence it is the best model we have to date.
The very notion that the universe can be expanding and yet be all encompassing, providing for no external state, is as alien and faith based as the notion that worshipping a trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is monotheism.
I'll ignore the dig at christianity there.
As a mathematician, I think it is plausible that the universe defines it's own extent. As conjecture though it lacks theoretical proof and supporting measurable evidence. Who knows, future generations may be able provide consistent evidence to prove or disprove it. I think it is far more likely that scientists will find theoretical proof and evidence of that than any proof or evidence of God.
You statement can be paraphrased as "I don't understand the current scientific explanation, I don't believe there will be a scientific explanation, therefore I have faith in a Creator of existence".
Aidon
06-22-2006, 09:10 AM
Not correct. If science develops far enough it may be able to provide a theoretical proof and measurable supporting evidence. (I expect it's likely though that we'll never measure beyond the extent of our universe). There is never going to be any proof that God created the universe other than "we don't understand so we'll say that God did it" or "prophets told us it was true". It will always rely on faith.
Incorrect. Who is to say science or religion, or some combination thereof, will not someday discover that there are, indeed, God like beings which correspond with humanity's dieties? I find the possibility as likely as discovering the extent of our universe and beyond.
Indeed, if, as has been postulated in this thread, the universe is infinite, then wouldn't it stand to reason that somewhere within this never ending forge of possibilities, there would eventually spawn a race of beings capable of manipulating the very energy and matter of the universe in order to pull together a solar system and instigate a complex biosystem on the 3rd planet?
Remember that pioneering mathematics have always produced incredibly alien concepts that have in time been accepted into mainstream science.
The concept that something which has a beginning must have an end is a concept which I doubt will ever be shown incorrect. Attempts to claim otherwise simply seem illogical.
If the universe was born somewhere...there must have been something it was born in. There must have been a state of "isn't" at the very least...to differentiate from the current state of "is".
Aidon
06-22-2006, 09:17 AM
I'll ignore the dig at christianity there.
As a mathematician, I think it is plausible that the universe defines it's own extent. As conjecture though it lacks theoretical proof and supporting measurable evidence. Who knows, future generations may be able provide consistent evidence to prove or disprove it. I think it is far more likely that scientists will find theoretical proof and evidence of that than any proof or evidence of God.
You statement can be paraphrased as "I don't understand the current scientific explanation, I don't believe there will be a scientific explanation, therefore I have faith in a Creator of existence".
My statement can be paraphrased as "The current scientific explanation still doesn't answer fundamental issues we are discussing and exists only in the esoteric language of the Scientific priesthood...who tells me it is ok, to simply believe them, and that any questioning of their divine words is ignorant".
Nothing I've seen linked has shown to me that the universe can be both boundless and finite.
Klath
06-22-2006, 11:15 AM
If something is expanding...it must be expanding in something and it must have borders somewhere, or else it isn't expanding, but simply shifting about.
If the universe is "expanding in something" it's not doing so in the conventional three dimensional sense of growing to consume empty space. Space itself is expanding.
Panamah
06-22-2006, 12:15 PM
My statement can be paraphrased as "The current scientific explanation still doesn't answer fundamental issues we are discussing and exists only in the esoteric language of the Scientific priesthood...who tells me it is ok, to simply believe them, and that any questioning of their divine words is ignorant".
Nothing I've seen linked has shown to me that the universe can be both boundless and finite.
Well, you get the same from the religious priesthood. You ask the basic questions of, "Why do good people suffer and bad people get rewarded?" and the answer is usually either nonsensical, or you're told to have "faith" that something good happens beyond your life. Problem is, no one has ever reported back on that.
I can't understand all the answers that science provides either, but at least I know that there are others who have the education and brains to understand it also have looked over those answers and either said, 'doubtful' or 'likely' and if knowledge changes, those guys are going to eventually hone in on the truth or at least some of it. If the answer is currently not known, they'll say so, they don't make up some garbage to convienently fill in the gaps. I'm ok with not knowing but I don't like believing things that are untrue.
Most religions fear knowledge because it turns their dogma into crapma. And they really need people to turn off their skepticism and accept the truths provided by the official channels. I don't think that is the way humanity should go.
Palarran
06-22-2006, 12:28 PM
Aidon, the burden of proof lies with you when you claim that something is absolutely impossible. Scientists aren't saying "the universe is finite but unbounded"; they're saying "the universe could be finite but unbounded".
On what grounds do you claim it's impossible for the universe to wrap around on itself? When considering only the surface of the Earth, you could say that the surface of the Earth is finite but unbounded. The earth appears more or less flat, but we know better now. Why not the universe itself?
The concept that something which has a beginning must have an end is a concept which I doubt will ever be shown incorrect. Attempts to claim otherwise simply seem illogical.
Unfortunately, there is a simple mathematical model called "counting" that starts at zero and continues one, two, three, and so on without end. It seems rather logical and is very useful in modelling the real world. It also sometimes provides counter-intuitive results, but I don't think anyone needs to believe in God just because they can't count past their fingers.
Who is to say science or religion, or some combination thereof, will not someday discover that there are, indeed, God like beings which correspond with humanity's dieties? I find the possibility as likely as discovering the extent of our universe and beyond.
There is a pedantic argument which says that God-like beings are merely that, supreme but not divine. Lets deal with that when we come to it, or else this thread could continue ad infinitum.
Tudamorf
06-22-2006, 01:51 PM
Again, you attempt to suggest that I have some belief that the Torah is literal.If your holy book isn't to be taken literally, then why do you take the god literally? Maybe it's just an ancient king. The "miracles" could just be exaggerated war stories of a military leader. All done by regular men who lived and died millennia ago. Would you accept that?
I think religious zealots would like to take every word in their holy books literally, <b>except</b> where doing so would (a) not serve their own interests or (b) conflict so much with established reality that even the brainwashed sheep would refuse to comply.
Aidon
06-22-2006, 01:56 PM
If the universe is "expanding in something" it's not doing so in the conventional three dimensional sense of growing to consume empty space. Space itself is expanding.
I understand this concept. Space, and thus time would be ever expanding. However...if space is expanding, what is it expanding in? What existed before time? What exists where time hasn't reached? What exists beyond space?
Difficult concepts because it defies our knowledge, vocabulary, and basic conceptions to contemplate what exists beyond all of creation? However, if creation began in a form of "Big Bang", it requires that before the Big Bang (if we can really use the word "before" to describe a state of existance outside of time and space) there was some state, some dimension, something.
Unlike the Pope, I think these are matters we should look into and attempt to find the truth of. My faith, however, suggests that the answers will not be incompatible with the concept of there existing divine beings.
Aidon
06-22-2006, 02:02 PM
Well, you get the same from the religious priesthood. You ask the basic questions of, "Why do good people suffer and bad people get rewarded?" and the answer is usually either nonsensical, or you're told to have "faith" that something good happens beyond your life. Problem is, no one has ever reported back on that.
I can't understand all the answers that science provides either, but at least I know that there are others who have the education and brains to understand it also have looked over those answers and either said, 'doubtful' or 'likely' and if knowledge changes, those guys are going to eventually hone in on the truth or at least some of it. If the answer is currently not known, they'll say so, they don't make up some garbage to convienently fill in the gaps. I'm ok with not knowing but I don't like believing things that are untrue.
The religious men I speak with deal only with hypothesis and ideas and are quite unfraid of telling us they don't have the answer. They don't pretend to speak for God or even pretend to have a true understanding of what God is.
I suggest you find better holy men.
Most religions fear knowledge because it turns their dogma into crapma. And they really need people to turn off their skepticism and accept the truths provided by the official channels. I don't think that is the way humanity should go.
Many religions. Not necessarily most. Judaism has long embraced the persuit of learned knowledge (for the most part. There are, of course, still some which in many degrees live in the 17th century).
Aidon
06-22-2006, 02:07 PM
Aidon, the burden of proof lies with you when you claim that something is absolutely impossible. Scientists aren't saying "the universe is finite but unbounded"; they're saying "the universe could be finite but unbounded".
On what grounds do you claim it's impossible for the universe to wrap around on itself? When considering only the surface of the Earth, you could say that the surface of the Earth is finite but unbounded. The earth appears more or less flat, but we know better now. Why not the universe itself?
But we have managed to leave the surface of the Earth and escape its boundaries, have we not?
Aidon
06-22-2006, 02:17 PM
If your holy book isn't to be taken literally, then why do you take the god literally? Maybe it's just an ancient king. The "miracles" could just be exaggerated war stories of a military leader. All done by regular men who lived and died millennia ago. Would you accept that?
I think religious zealots would like to take every word in their holy books literally, <b>except</b> where doing so would (a) not serve their own interests or (b) conflict so much with established reality that even the brainwashed sheep would refuse to comply.
I think it is much more likely that God started the whole shebang off and has kept relatively hands off since.
I also think there are things best explained by God. Occam's Razor, as it were. The 1948 Israeli War of Independance, for instance. I view that as a miracle. No, there were no burning bushes or parting of seas. No glowing hand of God striking down from the sky to smite our enemies.
Just some subtle influence which somehow permitted a group of vastly outnumbered out armed Yids to defeat the combined armies of the Arab nations.
Dayuna
06-22-2006, 02:24 PM
We figured out the earth was not flat long before we left it's boundaries. Religion had very little to do with us figuring that out.
Tudamorf
06-22-2006, 02:35 PM
I think it is much more likely that God started the whole shebang off and has kept relatively hands off since.You haven't answered the question. If you're not supposed to take your holy book literally, why do you take the god literally? Past socieities have deified great leaders; why do you think yours is different?The 1948 Israeli War of Independance, for instance. Just some subtle influence which somehow permitted a group of vastly outnumbered out armed Yids to defeat the combined armies of the Arab nations.Battles are won by people, not gods. You've never seen the underdog score a military victory before?
Klath
06-22-2006, 02:41 PM
Unlike the Pope, I think these are matters we should look into and attempt to find the truth of.
After reading Minadin's post containing Bill Donohue's clarification (http://www.catholicleague.org/06press_releases/quarter%202/060616_Hawking.htm)of what Pope John Paul II said, it sounds like you and the pope agree more than you disagree.
My faith, however, suggests that the answers will not be incompatible with the concept of there existing divine beings.
Aye, you can't prove that divine beings don't exist.
If there was or is something out there before the universe started expanding.... and before space.... and before time.....
some say that that was their God and that God started all these things. But what was there before that God? Do the Gods have their own Gods? Do they wonder how their universe was created?
Aidon
06-22-2006, 03:37 PM
You haven't answered the question. If you're not supposed to take your holy book literally, why do you take the god literally
Past socieities have deified great leaders; why do you think yours is different?
For a myriad of reasons. For one, there is no historical suggestion that there was a king named El or El Shadai who was deified. It could be a possibility, but if so it occurred in pre-historic times. We're reasonably aware of the evolution of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from the Sumarian pantheon. Its considered likely that Abraham lead a group of people away from the city of Ur bringing the worship of the patron diety of Ur (El) with them, because Ur was coming under the influence of other city-states in the region who wished to promote the worship of their particular patron diety over the patron god of Ur.
Battles are won by people, not gods. You've never seen the underdog score a military victory before?
The underdogs win wars but rarely and almost inevitably through outside influence. In the case of our Revolution that influence was French aid and the sentiment in Britain that the Americas were not worth the trouble..and growing need for Britain to consolidate its power across the sea, rather than continue a prolonged costly campaign in America.
In the '48 war...well, there was no logical reason for the Israelis to have won. They had little to no external support financially. They were fighting with WWI era weaponry against people with relatively modern weapons (WWII). They were outnumbered. They were outgunned. They were out financed. They fought with an inspiration that I can readily see the hand of God in.
Aidon
06-22-2006, 03:39 PM
If there was or is something out there before the universe started expanding.... and before space.... and before time.....
some say that that was their God and that God started all these things. But what was there before that God? Do the Gods have their own Gods? Do they wonder how their universe was created?
I don't know. Someday I suspect we will find out, however.
Panamah
06-22-2006, 04:29 PM
They fought with an inspiration that I can readily see the hand of God in.
You mean you can see the "noodly appendage of God" in.
Tudamorf
06-22-2006, 04:32 PM
For a myriad of reasons. For one, there is no historical suggestion that there was a king named El or El Shadai who was deified.If such a thing had occurred, history would have painted him as a deity, not a king, so how would you know? If you want to take your holy book as a loose interpretation of a few historical events, then there is a 195,000 year gap between the emergence of modern humans and the first event in the book. A lot could have happened before then.The underdogs win wars but rarely and almost inevitably through outside influence. In the '48 war...well, there was no logical reason for the Israelis to have won.Well, true or false:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War<i>This imbalance in ordnance, along with the entry into the fray of the regular, relatively well-equipped and trained forces of the armies from the neighboring Arab states, led to a nearly universal, world military opinion about the outcome of the conflict.
However as the war progressed, the IDF managed to field more troops than the Arab forces. By July 1948, the IDF was fielding 63,000 troops; by early spring 1949, 115,000. The Arab armies had an estimated 40,000 troops in July 1948, rising to 55,000 in October 1948, and slightly more by the spring of 1949.</i>It sounds as though people won that war, not a divine entity. Perhaps you should give credit to the soldiers who did the work, and not your invisible friend.
Aidon
06-22-2006, 05:02 PM
Perhaps you should give credit to the soldiers who did the work, and not your invisible friend.
And perhaps you should stop trying to paint all spiritual believers as idiots, you stupid ****ing biggot.
You're as bad of a piece of **** as any fundamentalist Muslim or Christian.
Your insistance on the complete secularization of every facet of american life and the demonization of anyone who holds faith at all shows a rare breed of imbilicity that is normally reserved for Holy Rollers who insist I'm going to hell for not believing in Jesus.
Time and again you've failed to show any reason why I should give up my faith, other than to insult the notion. To which I reply, **** you.
My faith in God is as viable as your blind unquestioning faith in science which has its own unsolveable riddles. You have misrepresented various scientific principles in your repeated diatribes attempting to paint anyone who believes in spirituality or divininty as redneck bible beaters taking the St. James bible at face value, showing, in the end, a remarkable absence of knowledge about that which you are railing against and an even greater void of knowledge about the religion you are scoffing at.
Unlike your narrow minded self, I am quite capalbe of realizing and acknowledging that Science can answer a great number of questions, without overturning or disproving my fundamental religious beliefs.
You attribute blank open statements to religion as a whole which are patently untrue while ignoring your own sheeplike following of the religion of Science, where you unquestioningly accept the rules and statements of your Holy Men, who speak in a language you don't understand about rules and laws you do not know for yourself...and yet claim to be too enlightened to take anything on Faith.
In short...you've proven yourself to be on essentially the same level as creationists. Cheers.
Tudamorf
06-22-2006, 05:39 PM
At least I can discuss science rationally without flaming, because I know that scientific conclusions can ultimately be based on rational things that any normal person can understand. I also know that no conclusion in science is holy, and can (and should) be questioned at any time.
You aren't allowed to challenge your god. You twist your holy texts to serve your own purposes, saying on the one hand that it shouldn't be taken literally (when that serves you), but on the other hand, it must be taken literally (in the case of the god, since <i>that</I> serves you).
You attribute positive fortune to your gods, without explaining why or confronting the facts. Yet poor fortune gets shrugged aside, since "god works in mysterious ways," again without explanation.
Yes Aidon, you are a bona fide, <i>doublethink</i>ing religious zealot. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif> It's unfortunate you can't see the hypocrisy inherent in your belief.
Aidon
06-22-2006, 07:17 PM
At least I can discuss science rationally without flaming, because I know that scientific conclusions can ultimately be based on rational things that any normal person can understand. I also know that no conclusion in science is holy, and can (and should) be questioned at any time.
Actually, you seem to be having difficulties discussing anything other than science rationally...and your grasp of the science hasn't been spot on either.
You aren't allowed to challenge your god. You twist your holy texts to serve your own purposes, saying on the one hand that it shouldn't be taken literally (when that serves you), but on the other hand, it must be taken literally (in the case of the god, since <i>that</I> serves you).
We challenge our God with some frequency. We wonder why things have happened. Why some things haven't. We don't twist our holy texts, we acknowledge that they were works created by man thousands of years ago and thus, even though many of their ideals hold true today, they cannot be read literally in a modern context and still work. There is nothing wrong with this. Science readjusts its ideas to work with a changed perception of reality constantly.
You attribute positive fortune to your gods, without explaining why or confronting the facts. Yet poor fortune gets shrugged aside, since "god works in mysterious ways," again without explanation.
Yet another erroneous conclusion on your part. We do not hold that our God is only magnimonious and does not punish or perhaps even make mistakes. I don't know what God is. Bad things could happen because he was mad. They could have happened because we was off on Rigel 6 soaking up some sun. They could have happened because God god pwned in a celestial strategy game. I don't know. But I believe.
Yes Aidon, you are a bona fide, <i>doublethink</i>ing religious zealot. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif> It's unfortunate you can't see the hypocrisy inherent in your belief.
No, the hypocrisy lies with your beliefs. Myself, I don't need to prove the existance of my God to you, because I don't insist that you believe in him. You cannot prove to me, however, that God does not exist. So I will continue in my beliefs.
You, on the other hand, I am sure, will continue to spout misconceptions of scienctific theories in order to rail against anyone who believes anything even slightly different than yourself and continue striving to eliminate religion from our society, entirely. You rail against their tax breaks because you hate them, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of them operate essentially as non-profit charities. You attribute erroneous beliefs to religion as a whole, while ignoring the correlations and similarities between the beliefs of religious people and your blind faith in Science.
Tudamorf
06-22-2006, 08:36 PM
We do not hold that our God is only magnimonious [??] and does not punish or perhaps even make mistakes. I don't know what God is. Bad things could happen because he was mad.Yes. It's funny how a supposedly infinitely wise, all-powerful being so often displays the temperament of a spoiled 2-year-old child. Seeing what he has done to you, and how he behaves, I wouldn't want to follow your god even if he did exist.
Panamah
06-22-2006, 09:13 PM
When you say "we" Aidon, who are you speaking for?
Aidon
06-22-2006, 09:35 PM
Yes. It's funny how a supposedly infinitely wise, all-powerful being so often displays the temperament of a spoiled 2-year-old child. Seeing what he has done to you, and how he behaves, I wouldn't want to follow your god even if he did exist.
Don't worry. You don't have to.
That's the beauty of my belief system.
Aidon
06-22-2006, 09:39 PM
When you say "we" Aidon, who are you speaking for?
I suppose I'm speaking for those in my community who taught me and molded me.
There is no dogmatic central belief system for most of Judaism (though some of the ultra-orthodox have something akin to it).
But it was my Rabbis who taught me that the Torah was written by various different authors, with different political and social goals. Who taught me that we cannot know and understand who or what God is. And yet, we can understand the history of our religion without losing our faith in it.
Perhaps we're just more intellectually capable than athiests and able to flex our minds to accept that science and history are not exclusive of faith.
Tudamorf
06-22-2006, 09:42 PM
Don't worry. You don't have to.Until you zealots come to power and try to force me at gunpoint, or so saturate my surroundings with religious symbols/propaganda/rituals that I feel as though I'm at a sermon. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>
Palarran
06-22-2006, 10:04 PM
I found this interesting, though not surprising (from Wikipedia):
# A number of Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church in particular, have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of the origin of the universe, interpreting it to allow for a philosophical first cause. Pope Pius XII was an enthusiastic proponent of the Big Bang even before the theory was scientifically well established. This view is shared by many religious Jews in all branches of rabbinic Judaism.
# Adherents of Kabbalah, esoteric Jewish mysticism, accept the Big Bang theory as factual, and relate it to the theory of "divine retraction" (tzimtzum) as explained in Jewish mystical texts, such as the Zohar.
MadroneDorf
06-22-2006, 10:05 PM
Clearly the dark ages was when god just broke up with his girlfriend
Aidon
06-23-2006, 01:46 AM
Until you zealots come to power and try to force me at gunpoint, or so saturate my surroundings with religious symbols/propaganda/rituals that I feel as though I'm at a sermon. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>
I don't think you have to worry about being saturated by Jewish propaganda.
And I know you don't have to worry about Jews coming to power and forcing you at gunpoint to be Jewish.
You don't meet our standards.
Madie of Wind Riders
06-23-2006, 05:46 AM
I really don't think I can say anything here that Aidon hasn't already said very eloquently. I am a christian, but my uncle married a Jewish woman and she was very kind in sharing with anyone in our family that wanted to know, her religion and religious beliefs.
I spent many hours with her, and she taught me much about the Jewish religion. From the limited knowlege I have, I believe that the Jews are the one religion that does continually question their book. They have always debated issues written and do not attempt to say they have all the answers.
I still am in awe that you, Tumadorf, can not realize that the science you believe in is extremely similiar to the religion of others. Its all based on theories and postulates.
I believe that science and religion can co-exist and find answers to the ultimate questions together. Believing is believing. Whether or not it is in science or religion.
Klath
06-23-2006, 10:36 AM
I still am in awe that you, Tumadorf, can not realize that the science you believe in is extremely similiar to the religion of others. Its all based on theories and postulates.
Except that scientists don't have a long history of persecuting, torturing, and slaughtering other scientists who refuse to accept their theories. :)
Panamah
06-23-2006, 10:41 AM
I spent many hours with her, and she taught me much about the Jewish religion. From the limited knowlege I have, I believe that the Jews are the one religion that does continually question their book. They have always debated issues written and do not attempt to say they have all the answers.
Some of them, yes. Probably the vast majority in the US. But there's also a fundamentalist-like Jewish paradigm where they take their texts quite literally.
There's a lot of Christians who are not literal about their texts either.
Given the two religions, if I were forced to choose one for myself, I'd probably pick a liberal Judaism one versus a liberal Christian one. I just don't buy into the Jesus thing at all. And I've built up a lot of resentment for Christianity from the actions of the fundamentalists in this country.
Although, I've been to a Unitarian church and found people there who believe like nothing from the Bible, don't believe in an afterlife, etc. It was like church for agnostics. I suppose at some level they're acknowledging something spiritual, but since I don't even believe in a soul or spirit, I was kind of like, "What's the point of this?".
Aidon
06-23-2006, 10:50 AM
Some of them, yes. Probably the vast majority in the US. But there's also a fundamentalist-like Jewish paradigm where they take their texts quite literally.
Actually, the most fundamentalist-like Jewish group (and the only one that takes it very literally) numbers something like 20 people.
The Torah hasn't been taken literally since around the time of the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 72 C.E. And it had been debated about how to adjust Judaism for then modern life for some decades. That debate is what Jesus was actually a part of.
Jews questioned, even then, the rationality of following thousand year old laws blindly.
The Ultra-Orthodox of today follow Rabbinic Law strictly, but even they question and debate those laws and constantly adapt them to modern life as they deem necessary, and those determinations are not made across the board for all Ultra-Orthodox, but indeed are primarily localized, due to a lack of a central dogmatic unifying body.
Palarran
06-23-2006, 11:00 AM
I believe they can coexist as well. However, science IS fundamentally different from any religion. Science is based on falsifiable theories backed by observational evidence from repeatable experiments. Religion is based on faith and concepts that are beyond the realm of science (that which is knowable in principle). They are compatible but mutually exclusive, in the sense that there is no overlap. The line may only appear blurry due to a combination of bad scientists and bad journalists who report on science.
What you have to remember is that true science does not claim ANYTHING as a fact besides observations themselves. Anything that sounds like a fact carries with it an unspoken "according to our best understanding at this time" or "according to the models that best fit the data to date". Now, an individual is free to believe that scientific theories are facts, but that belief is by definition external to science.
Aidon
06-23-2006, 11:14 AM
Except that scientists don't have a long history of persecuting, torturing, and slaughtering other scientists who refuse to accept their theories. :)
Fault the Church, not religious belief in and of itself.
Aidon
06-23-2006, 11:24 AM
I believe they can coexist as well. However, science IS fundamentally different from any religion. Science is based on falsifiable theories backed by observational evidence from repeatable experiments. Religion is based on faith and concepts that are beyond the realm of science (that which is knowable in principle). They are compatible but mutually exclusive, in the sense that there is no overlap. The line may only appear blurry due to a combination of bad scientists and bad journalists who report on science.
What you have to remember is that true science does not claim ANYTHING as a fact besides observations themselves. Anything that sounds like a fact carries with it an unspoken "according to our best understanding at this time" or "according to the models that best fit the data to date". Now, an individual is free to believe that scientific theories are facts, but that belief is by definition external to science.
That's a given.
However, to the vast majority of people...including Aethists who espouse to a strictly scientific outlook...the difference between Science and other dogmatic religious beliefs are essentially nil.
To most people Scientists are a 'superior' class holding discourse they don't fully understand about things they couldn't hope to confirm themselves and they take it on blind faith that these Scientists know what they are talking about.
What does put Science and Scientists above most dogmatic religions is that many of the Scientists themselves will readily admit that they don't know what they are talking about and that its all supposition, hypothesis, and theory.
However, there are enough things in our world that Science cannot explain that to point blank preclude the possibility of the spirtual...is foolish.
Klath
06-23-2006, 11:33 AM
Fault the Church, not religious belief in and of itself.
I do. The Church (or power structure based on any religious belief), is good at manipulating people who are willing to take things on faith into committing atrocities.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
06-23-2006, 11:49 AM
Science allows one to predict.
The more accurate the predictions, the more valid the science.
You may want to lump it all in(or even confuse it with religions, bah), but it is different.
If something does not allow one to predict, it is not a science(it is a philosophy, or religion).
Big Bang Theory is a philosophy. Because there is no way to test it, and does not allow one to predict whatever. We know that the Universe is expanding, we have deduced that at one point it was a singularity. Other than intuition(from planet Earth), there is NO real reason to think, or believe that it ever was at a singularity. It is just as likely that the Universe has ALWAYS been expanding, and will ALWAYS be expanding. The Bang portion is not science(so far as I have discovered), it is only belief.
Now that is physics of course. Most of the psychologies and sociologies?, they are pure bogusness.
If something does not allow one to predict, it is not a science(it is a philosophy, or religion).
Measurement is a science and it does not predict anything. Measurement is not a philosophy or religion.
Big Bang Theory is a philosophy. Because there is no way to test it, and does not allow one to predict whatever.
If we can put together well evidenced theories about the Big Bang there is no reason why we can't predict the future of the universe or the nature of the unmeasured universe. Even if the theories are incomplete or not proven, the predictions may allow us to test solutions which harness otherwise unknown cosmological features.
Klath
06-23-2006, 12:32 PM
Big Bang Theory is a philosophy. Because there is no way to test it, and does not allow one to predict whatever.
It predicted the existence of cosmic background radiation and the abundance/ratio of hydrogen and helium in the universe.
Aidon
06-23-2006, 01:29 PM
Measurement is a science and it does not predict anything. Measurement is not a philosophy or religion.
Measurement is not a science. Its an arbitrary method of standardizing amounts.
Tudamorf
06-23-2006, 01:52 PM
I still am in awe that you, Tumadorf, can not realize that the science you believe in is extremely similiar to the religion of others. Its all based on theories and postulates.Religion is based on conjecture and speculation, <b>not</b> theory. "In science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory), a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, <i>capable of predicting future occurrences</i> or observations of the same kind, and <i>capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation</i>." Oh yes, religion has many fanciful explanations for phenomena, but it is not capable of predicting future similar occurrences, and it cannot be tested through experiment or falsified. In fact, if you try to falsify it, you will be tortured, killed, or cast out (historically).
If you're a religious zealot, you dictate to me that a god exists plus certain other canons and, while we may quibble about terms, I <b>must</b> accept it. I <b>must</b> accept that the god exists, even though there is zero conclusive evidence of such an entity. I <b>must</b> "believe," as you say.
Science dictates nothing. I do not have to "believe" in any conclusion. You observe something, and come up with a possible explanation for it. Then you test your explanation through experimentation. If it holds up, your hypothesis may become a theory. If a future scientists discovers you were wrong, they will challenge you. Nothing is holy, nothing is given. Many great scientists became great by challenging widely accepted notions that turn out to be inaccurate.
Science is an extension of human common sense. It's the way we operate day to day. Religion, if anything, is an extension of the human fear of the unknown. Or at least it probably used to be, but then the zealot leaders probably learned to manipulate the fear of the unknown to gain power. Those of us who choose not to fear the unknown find little need for religion.
Tudamorf
06-23-2006, 02:15 PM
Fault the Church, not religious belief in and of itself.Religion has no way of expressing itself except through humans (acting supposedly in the name of their gods). The abstract concept, and the actions that follow, are inseparable.
Aidon
06-23-2006, 02:32 PM
Religion has no way of expressing itself except through humans (acting supposedly in the name of their gods). The abstract concept, and the actions that follow, are inseparable.
They are very seperable.
Christianity, essentially, is a good religion (a big fru-fru and unrealistic imo, but still essentially a good religion). Christendom, on the other hand, has been the greatest travesty the world has seen...though the Muslims are doing a damn fine job of challenging it in recent decades.
Religion sets forth ideals. It is up to the adherents to attempt to fulfill the potential of those ideals.
Teaenea
06-23-2006, 02:45 PM
Religion has no way of expressing itself except through humans (acting supposedly in the name of their gods). The abstract concept, and the actions that follow, are inseparable.
Ah, so because organized religion has caused problems all faith is therefore just as bad. By that logic, Science is no better since plenty of atrocities have been commited in the name of Science. Nazi human experimentation and Eugenics in the US are prime examples.
The two things about this thread that strikes me the most is that the original statement by Hawkings has been shown to be incorrect as he misquoted the Pope. Second, none of the people of faith in this discussion has been accusing the other of being zealots. Btw, a sure fire way to keep people from agreeing with you is to label them zealots.
The Truth is, faith and science aren't mutually exclusive They just use different methods to come to their conclusions. I think it's even more telling that some of the greatest scientific minds in history believed that there was some sort of god. Newton dedicated more of his life to studying religion than any other discipline. Einstein believed that the harmony of natural law revealed an intelligence so superior that "all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." Darwin himself considered himself more of an agnostic than an aethiest as he grew older.
Even the Vatican operates its own observatory. The Astonomical community refers to it as The Pope Scope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Advanced_Technology_Telescope).
Tudamorf
06-23-2006, 02:45 PM
Christianity, essentially, is a good religion.Many religions are "essentially" good, on paper. That is, until the zealots wield absolute power, supposedly from a divine source which the adherents cannot question.
The problem lies not with the specifics of the religion, but the notion that there are divine entities which you cannot see or hear but command you to take actions in the real world. Usually, brutal actions that you could not otherwise justify rationally.
You know, if you claimed those voices were anything other than "god", you'd be locked up in a mental institution.
Teaenea
06-23-2006, 03:03 PM
The problem lies not with the specifics of the religion, but the notion that there are divine entities which you cannot see or hear but command you to take actions in the real world. Usually, brutal actions that you could not otherwise justify rationally.
Come on, historically most of the wrongs commited in the name of religion have nothing to do with the religion itself. Religion was often used as a motivator but it wasn't the true reason for the brutal actions. Like most other brutal actions, it was usually something human and not divine. Power, Greed, Corruption. These are not religious virtues nor are they exclusive to religion. History is rife with brutal actions that have nothing to do with faith. If history can demonstrate anything, man doesn't need religion to justify brutal actions.
Panamah
06-23-2006, 03:14 PM
So you don't think there's a link between the violence in Islamic countries and their religion?
Klath
06-23-2006, 03:19 PM
Christianity, essentially, is a good religion (a big fru-fru and unrealistic imo, but still essentially a good religion). Christendom, on the other hand, has been the greatest travesty the world has seen...though the Muslims are doing a damn fine job of challenging it in recent decades.
I suspect that Jews would have committed similar atrocities if they'd had the numbers that Christians have. Some of the things that the fundamentalist Jews have done have been pretty barbaric. Face it, it's not a Christian/Jew/Muslim/whatever thing, humanity in general is fraught with xenophobes who will use whatever excuse they can to be sh1theads to their fellow man.
MadroneDorf
06-23-2006, 03:21 PM
religion in conflict serves more as motivation for the general populace/soldiers.
Its a lot easier to say "lets kill these heathens because they are against our religion, or because god wants us to" and have people follow, then "yo peons, I want more land/power, go kill these people, they are in the way."
regardless, it would be niave to think that religion hasnt made so many of the conflicts possible, or as bad as they were.... However, Human history and religion are so intwined, its impossible if it has been a good force, or a bad force overall, since pretty much everything would be different.
Its not surprising that most of the great minds of times past were religious, the farther back you go, the more people are religous.
However, most of the "Great minds" of times past beleived more in the concept of a divine power, or "greater force" then a specific god or orthodox religion, hardly fundamental insert your religion here.
Teaenea
06-23-2006, 04:18 PM
So you don't think there's a link between the violence in Islamic countries and their religion?
First I didn't say all incidents. But, I feel the link between violence in islamic countries is more related to individuals using religion to gain personal power. Religion is a very powerful motivator. Especially in poorer regions.
If Islam were to have never existed, the region would likely still be an extremely volitile and violent area. It was that way long before the rise of Christianity or Islam and is amplified by the poverty of the area. Religion is simply throwing gasoline on an already out of control fire.
What the Qur'an contains has little to do with what it's used to justify. Ultimately it's men in power that use it to their own purposes. In some cases, like the middle east (and Europe in the middle ages and beyond) It's ingraned deeply into the power structure where you are just asking for problems.
The Root of the problem isn't with religion or faith, but with the people that abuse it.
Teaenea
06-23-2006, 04:29 PM
However, most of the "Great minds" of times past beleived more in the concept of a divine power, or "greater force" then a specific god or orthodox religion, hardly fundamental insert your religion here.
And most humans still believe in one faith or another. No one here is asserting that their faith is correct and everyone else is wrong. In fact, the Pope didn't even say that to Hawkings. He said:
“Here is what the pope actually said: ‘Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world, such as the one that says that there is a basic atom from which the whole of the physical universe is derived, leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe. By itself science cannot resolve such a question….’ The pope then quoted Pope Pius XII as saying, ‘We would wait in vain for an answer from the natural sciences which declare, on the contrary, that they honestly find themselves faced with an insoluble enigma.’
In a nutshell, Science can't give us the ultimate answer. This whole thread got started based on the idea that the Pope told Hawkings not to look into the creation of the universe, which never happened.
Plus the notion that science is inherently better than faith because people have done some great evils in the name of religion is simply wrong. Science, when not adhering to a strong moral or ethical guideline is every bit as destructive as a religion being used to justify war, persecution, or any other thing you care to think of, if not more so.
Aidon
06-23-2006, 04:39 PM
Many religions are "essentially" good, on paper. That is, until the zealots wield absolute power, supposedly from a divine source which the adherents cannot question.
But you presume, to the extend of absurdity, that all religions are controlled by these zealots wielding absolute power that adherents cannot question.
Whereas I've been telling you this entire thread...not all religion is like that, and that, indeed, my religion is most certainly not like that.
You, frankly, look foolish.
The problem lies not with the specifics of the religion, but the notion that there are divine entities which you cannot see or hear but command you to take actions in the real world. Usually, brutal actions that you could not otherwise justify rationally.
I don't think anyone here supposes that God has told people to go do things. You and I both know that it was someone using God as a means of rallying people. If it isn't God, they'll use some other means. Means like "Patriotism", "Racial Purity", "The Motherland", or "Scientific Goal". Don't blame the concept of spirituality for the inherent flaws in human nature. Science has proven no safer a refuge from the monstrosities of the mob.
You know, if you claimed those voices were anything other than "god", you'd be locked up in a mental institution.
You know...if I claimed God was talking to me...I'd be locked up in a mental institution too.
Aidon
06-23-2006, 04:46 PM
I suspect that Jews would have committed similar atrocities if they'd had the numbers that Christians have.
No, not really. We're a more educated and liberal people than Christendom has shown itself to be.
Some of the things that the fundamentalist Jews have done have been pretty barbaric.
Such as? I defy you to find the fundamentalist Jewish organization that round up everyone different from them to gas them.
I defy you to find the fundamentalist Jewish organization which tortured non-Jews until they converted, or kidnapped christian babies to raise them as Jews.
I defy you to find the fundamentalist Jewish group which shoots on school busses of children, or sends teenaged suicide bombers into their enemies shopping centers.
Our craziest fundamentalists burn tires and stage sit ins. One eventually went so far as to assassinate the Israeli Prime Minister.
Don't attempt compare Jews to the intolerant violence shown by Christians and Muslims.
If we began absolute depravity today, it'd take us at least a few centuries to catch up to those butcher bills.
Panamah
06-23-2006, 04:52 PM
The Root of the problem isn't with religion or faith, but with the people that abuse it.
Actually, I think religion has something to do with it to. It is easy to motivate and control people using religion. They believe what you tell them, after all, you're a descendant of the prophet or you're a Pope or whatever, and you've got a direct line to God.
In the case of Islam currently often the laws are religious laws. I mean, look at the poor fellow who wanted to change religions in Afganistan, the law says he got to be put to death.
Then there's quite a few biblical laws that call for being put to death for things like going to a fortune teller or being gay.
Outside of that, the priests are in control in Iran or overseeing the education of young people in other countries. These priests use their position to teach the parts of their holy text that appeal to them, like killing infidels gets you a ticket to paradise.
If these kids were raised in a secular environment where they were taught to question things, think critically, distinguish between reality and fantasy, it might not be so easy to convince them that murdering others is such a good thing. Much in Religion relies on unquestioning acceptance of things not based in reality. That isn't a good spot to make life and death decisions from, IMHO.
Klath
06-23-2006, 04:59 PM
Such as? I defy you to find the fundamentalist Jewish organization that round up everyone different from them to gas them.
Such as the Kahanist guys who planned to bomb a Palestinian girls school. If they hadn't been caught shortly after placing the bomb they'd have killed a lot of children. Such as Baruch Goldstein who targeted and killed 29 civilians.
I defy you to find the fundamentalist Jewish group which shoots on school busses of children, or sends teenaged suicide bombers into their enemies shopping centers.
The Kahanist guys I mentioned specifically targeted a girls school.
I know that these guys are a minority and that they don't represent Jews as a whole. I also think Israel has done a reasonably good job of pursuing them and preventing their plots. However, they are Jewish and they are terrorists.
Tudamorf
06-23-2006, 05:23 PM
If history can demonstrate anything, man doesn't need religion to justify brutal actions.I agree, humans are a sorry lot and need little justification to maim, torture, rape, steal, and kill. But a religious mandate is far more powerful than a secular one. Greed and power are things that people can understand and question, but gods are cloaked in holyness, and no adherent is allowed to question them. It's no coincidence that the daily suicide bombers are also zealots; can you imagine an atheist doing that?
Come on, historically most of the wrongs commited in the name of religion have nothing to do with the religion itself. Religion was often used as a motivator but it wasn't the true reason for the brutal actions.
I think there are a number of reasons that religion can create conflicts. First is the absolute nature of religious teaching. Laws are provided by divine will and there is no debate against the law itself, only the interpretation. Any failure to follow the law, even in a situation where alternative action seems reasonable, is an offense against divine will. The lack of compromise or exception for those with differing views can inevitably lead to conflict.
Secondly, people of shared religion can unite together even when they're from different backgrounds. The reverse is also true though and some religious followers give no humanity to those outside their faith. The worst religious atrocities seem to have this common theme, whichever religions are involved.
Tudamorf
06-23-2006, 05:37 PM
But you presume, to the extend of absurdity, that all religions are controlled by these zealots wielding absolute power that adherents cannot question.
Whereas I've been telling you this entire thread...not all religion is like that, and that, indeed, my religion is most certainly not like that.Of course it isn't, because it doesn't have great worldwide influence. You have, what, 15 million followers? Christianity has over 2 billion and Islam over 1.2 billion. If your religion ever reaches those subscription levels, to the point where multiple powerful countries have a majority of your followers, it will be the same as Christianity.
Aidon
06-24-2006, 01:40 AM
Such as the Kahanist guys who planned to bomb a Palestinian girls school. If they hadn't been caught shortly after placing the bomb they'd have killed a lot of children. Such as Baruch Goldstein who targeted and killed 29 civilians.
I can't find anything about bomb plots. But supposing it happened. The difference between Jews and well...Arabs, and Christianity for much of its history is that Israel outlawed the Kahanist movement. In one particular instance, a Kahanist shot at a Palestinian bus...Israelis captured him and turned him over to a Palestinian mob, who tortured and killed him.
As opposed to voting them into power or giving them money.
Klath
06-24-2006, 02:26 AM
I can't find anything about bomb plots.
Here's a link Israel thwarts Jewish bomb attack on school (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,714484,00.html)
The difference between Jews and well...Arabs, and Christianity for much of its history is that Israel outlawed the Kahanist movement.
It's not a who's-the-bigger-bunch-of-bastards contest. My point isn't that Jews are better or worse than Christians or Muslims, it's that you talk about and judge other religions like your own is beyond reproach. It isn't. If you want Christians and Muslims to take responsibility for every act committed in the name of their religion then you should own up to the fact that your religion has some skeletons in its closet as well. Personally, I think it's unfair to condemn an entire religion based upon the actions of a minority of its followers but if you're going to do it, at least don't be a hypocrite.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
06-24-2006, 03:25 AM
Here's a link Israel thwarts Jewish bomb attack on school (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,714484,00.html)
Ya, you must see "Eqypt, Jordan, Syria, Whatever thwarts Muslim bomb attack on Jews" headlines much more than I do.
It's not a who's-the-bigger-bunch-of-bastards contest.
Of course it is. It is a qualitative and quantitative discussion of what is better. Some cultures are superior to other cultures, there is no way you can honestly deny that. On virtually every litmus test you can put together, Jews are superior to all of the other major religions.
My point isn't that Jews are better or worse than Christians or Muslims,
And you would be wrong with your point.
it's that you talk about and judge other religions like your own is beyond reproach.
Where does that come from, I do not detect that from him.
It isn't. If you want Christians and Muslims to take responsibility for every act committed in the name of their religion then you should own up to the fact that your religion has some skeletons in its closet as well.
Are you really unable to make qualitative judgments...Or do you just defer the ability out of principle.
Personally, I think it's unfair to condemn an entire religion based upon the actions of a minority of its followers but if you're going to do it, at least don't be a hypocrite.
What minority is it that you speak of?
I will assure you that the number of Muslims who tolerate Jews are the true minority. It is not the other way around. You have been brainwashed so thoroughly that religious tolerance is just the way 'it should be' that you can not fathom a culture which is completely religously intolerant(or something). Find me 5 major theological Muslims leaders, throughout the entire world, who preach tolerance of Jews. Just 5 out of the billion or so sample size(they have to be leaders of the faith though). 5.
I doubt you can do it.
MadroneDorf
06-24-2006, 03:34 AM
Of course it is. It is a qualitative and quantitative discussion of what is better. Some cultures are superior to other cultures, there is no way you can honestly deny that. On virtually every litmus test you can put together, Jews are superior to all of the other major religions.
I dontknow about eastern religions (because Ireallydont know about eastern religions... like atall exceptfor something about a golden path and a multie armed dude! but even tho it may be valid that Jewish people would be worseon a global scale if theywere a larger religion, the fact is they arnt and hence judgement must be made reality... and well its true...the Jewish Religion is superior to Islam and Christianity, from a perspective of negative influence (lack thereof) they've had on the world.
while remaining in perspective is important, its also niave to portay all as equal. because well they arnt
Tudamorf
06-24-2006, 03:44 AM
On virtually every litmus test you can put together, Jews are superior to all of the other major religions.Only compared to Christianity and Islam (the related religions), and only on account of major differences in subscription rates. Christians and muslims outnumber jews over 200 to 1. It's hard to be oppressive when you're small and powerless. If the numbers were reversed, so would be the roles, as the three religions are so similar.
If you consider the whole world, Hinduism and the various Asian religions (Buddhism, Shinto, etc.) are far more benign. I don't even think many of the asians have a god or gods <i>per se</i>, it's more of a historical and philosophical approach to life. They're certainly not about jihads and crusades.
Reidwen
06-24-2006, 07:01 AM
Of course it is. It is a qualitative and quantitative discussion of what is better. Some cultures are superior to other cultures, there is no way you can honestly deny that. On virtually every litmus test you can put together, Jews are superior to all of the other major religions.
That begs the question, do the qualities that make your definition of a superior religion predispose it to be poor at spreading its influence. The religions that use unquestioning faith and the extermination of heathens certainly seem to be the most influential
On virtually every litmus test you can put together, Jews are superior to all of the other major religions.
If you judge Judaism by modern secular values then Judaism might pass that test. What does that mean though? Are we pleased that Judaism is a religion that least act like a religion? Are we pleased that Judaism has possibly less adherence to religious teaching? Are we pleased that Judaism makes little effort to provide salvation to unbelievers who will suffer God's wrath?
This is a case where standing on the outside and looking in is not the same as being inside.
Klath
06-24-2006, 09:39 AM
Ya, you must see "Eqypt, Jordan, Syria, Whatever thwarts Muslim bomb attack on Jews" headlines much more than I do.
What does that have to do with anything?
And you would be wrong with your point.
No, as usual, you've just missed it completely.
Of course it is. It is a qualitative and quantitative discussion of what is better.
Even if that were true, you're not taking into account the number of followers in the conclusions your drawing from your quantification.
it's that you talk about and judge other religions like your own is beyond reproach.
Where does that come from, I do not detect that from him.
Well, most recently, this. (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showpost.php?p=202650&postcount=145)
Are you really unable to make qualitative judgments...Or do you just defer the ability out of principle.
I make plenty of qualitative judgments. Unlike you, I take into account the relative sizes of the religions before making them.
What minority is it that you speak of?
In this case, the Kahanists.
Find me 5 major theological Muslims leaders, throughout the entire world, who preach tolerance of Jews. Just 5 out of the billion or so sample size(they have to be leaders of the faith though). 5.
Fyyr, we've done this dance in past debates. I'll go out and find 5 (or more) and post the list and then you'll make up some bullsh1t reason why they don't fit your criteria or you'll ignore the post completely. Been there. Done that.
Klath
06-24-2006, 09:48 AM
but even tho it may be valid that Jewish people would be worse on a global scale if theywere a larger religion, the fact is they arnt and hence judgement must be made reality... and well its true...the Jewish Religion is superior to Islam and Christianity, from a perspective of negative influence (lack thereof) they've had on the world.
If that's your sole method of measuring things then the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is superior to all of the Judeo-Christian religions.
Aidon
06-24-2006, 10:58 AM
Here's a link Israel thwarts Jewish bomb attack on school (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,714484,00.html)
My point isn't that Jews are better or worse than Christians or Muslims, it's that you talk about and judge other religions like your own is beyond reproach. It isn't. If you want Christians and Muslims to take responsibility for every act committed in the name of their religion then you should own up to the fact that your religion has some skeletons in its closet as well.
What you are suggesting is along the lines of Mr. Klebold saying "You can't judge my son...because your son was caught shoplifting when he was 12".
Personally, I think it's unfair to condemn an entire religion based upon the actions of a minority of its followers but if you're going to do it, at least don't be a hypocrite.
Its not a minority. Every time the Muslim world is pissed at any Western power...and decide to go out and march and burn a few flags and issue a few death threats...they also decide to pull out their Israeli flags and burn them too, while shouting "Death to the Jews".
Aidon
06-24-2006, 11:07 AM
Only compared to Christianity and Islam (the related religions), and only on account of major differences in subscription rates. Christians and muslims outnumber jews over 200 to 1. It's hard to be oppressive when you're small and powerless. If the numbers were reversed, so would be the roles, as the three religions are so similar.
Tudamorf...could you pull a larger load of **** from your ass?
Do you want to know the major difference between the religions?
Jews don't proselytize. We don't seek converts. We accept them....but don't seek them out. Never have.
If you consider the whole world, Hinduism and the various Asian religions (Buddhism, Shinto, etc.) are far more benign. I don't even think many of the asians have a god or gods <i>per se</i>, it's more of a historical and philosophical approach to life. They're certainly not about jihads and crusades.
Hinduism has its own bloody history, make no mistake. Shinto is essentially ancestor worship, which provided for its own brand of bloodiness (honor issues). Buddhism has its flaws as well...there is a certain lack of care for the sanctity of life in Buddhist Asian cultures. Life has always been cheap over there. Charity has always been somewhat thin.
I'm not suggesting their religions are better or worse than ours, but don't put them up on some flawed pedastal, simply because they are exotic.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
06-24-2006, 11:11 AM
What does that have to do with anything?
It has EVERYthing to do with the conversation at hand. The conversation is about comparing religions and cultures.
No, as usual, you've just missed it completely.
Nope, not a missing. Just a disagreement.
Even if that were true, you're not taking into account the number of followers in the conclusions your drawing from your quantification.
I am. I don't know about you.
Well, most recently, this. (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showpost.php?p=202650&postcount=145)
Discussion of superior traits does not mean he is saying they are perfect. I get none of your original point(that Jews are flawless) by stating accurate qualities about Jews in general. Frankly, he is being modest in this post, and left out many I would have included. And I hate religions.
I make plenty of qualitative judgments. Unlike you, I take into account the relative sizes of the religions before making them.
I take into consideration size, history, amounts, geography, at the same time I am considering and predicting future trends from said cultures.
You post ONE link of bad stuff from Jews and then you equated it with millions of acts of Muslims and millions of acts from Christians. You stated that they were equal. That is inaccurate.
In this case, the Kahanists.
This group is reviled by most Jews. It has been made illegal and is a banned entity. They are a relative minority as you say. Their cohorts in the Muslim culture are NOT a minority, and they are not reviled and are not made illegal or banned by other Muslim cultures.
Fyyr, we've done this dance in past debates. I'll go out and find 5 (or more) and post the list and then you'll make up some bullsh1t reason why they don't fit your criteria or you'll ignore the post completely. Been there. Done that.
Validates my point, if I give you a simple task, and you reject it, then it must not be so simple. Most Muslims hate Jews and want the end of Israel, those who are Muslim extremists are not in the minority(as you want us to believe), they are in fact a majority force in the general Muslim culture.
Aidon
06-24-2006, 11:21 AM
If that's your sole method of measuring things then the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is superior to all of the Judeo-Christian religions.
Idiocy.
Don't seek to bring my religion down to your level out of some petulancy.
You want another standard? Take a look at the proportion of Nobel Prize winners that have been Jewish, compared to our numbers. And that's with the traditional anti-semitism that was pervasive in Europe.
Take a look at the number of Jewish Supreme Court justices, compared with our numbers.
From 1909 until the '70's it was Jews who helped found and presided over the NAACP (and its predicessor the NAC) pushing for the fair treatment of Blacks in America.
Oh the list could go on and on.
Lets us...recall why it is that Islam and Christianity are the two largest religions in the world:
Because they forced their religion on everyone else with blood and fire and have repeatedly attempted to purge those who will not join their cults.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
06-24-2006, 11:29 AM
Only compared to Christianity and Islam (the related religions), and only on account of major differences in subscription rates. Christians and muslims outnumber jews over 200 to 1. It's hard to be oppressive when you're small and powerless. If the numbers were reversed, so would be the roles, as the three religions are so similar.
One of the biggest superior traits of Jews is that they are not evangelical. If they were evangelical, their numbers would be greater. My point still stands.
If they were evangelical(or whatever the Jewish equivalent) then they would be greater in numbers, and I would run into more evangelical Jews, and then they would annoy me as much as evangelical Christians. And then would lose superiority points(if you will).
I state that it is superior because one of its qualitities is that it does not have irrational recruitment as its main traits.
Which is the reason for the comparitive numbers.
Stated another way. Christianity spreads voraciously like a virus. Judaism may still be a disease, but is not as virulent. Christianity is like ebola. Judaism is merely a pimple. If you are like the other poster who says, that a disease is still a disease, and that ebola is just like a pimple, I have to disagree with you too.
If you consider the whole world, Hinduism and the various Asian religions (Buddhism, Shinto, etc.) are far more benign. I don't even think many of the asians have a god or gods <i>per se</i>, it's more of a historical and philosophical approach to life. They're certainly not about jihads and crusades.
Asian religions are superior to Christianity and Islam because they are like Judaism in that they are not evangelical. Their sphere of influence also is a factor.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
06-24-2006, 11:34 AM
That begs the question, do the qualities that make your definition of a superior religion predispose it to be poor at spreading its influence. The religions that use unquestioning faith and the extermination of heathens certainly seem to be the most influential
Yes.
Frankly, it is superior as a culture and religion because it is NOT IN MY FACE.
They do not try to recruit me. They do not treat me negatively because of our differences of opinion.
That is a superior trait.
Klath
06-24-2006, 11:48 AM
I get none of your original point(that Jews are flawless) by stating accurate qualities about Jews in general.
My point was not that Jews are flawless.
You post ONE link of bad stuff from Jews and then you equated it with millions of acts of Muslims and millions of acts from Christians.
There are others. If you did a bit of research you could find references to other acts of terrorism committed by Jews in the name of their religion.
You stated that they were equal. That is inaccurate.
Show me where I stated that they are equal.
This group is reviled by most Jews. It has been made illegal and is a banned entity. They are a relative minority as you say. Their cohorts in the Muslim culture are NOT a minority,
Bullsh1t, the majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
Validates my point, if I give you a simple task, and you reject it, then it must not be so simple.
Do I look like your employee or something? Do your own "simple tasks."
Klath
06-24-2006, 12:03 PM
If that's your sole method of measuring things then the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is superior to all of the Judeo-Christian religions.Don't seek to bring my religion down to your level out of some petulancy.
Did you actually read the statement you responded to or is this some sort of smoke and mirrors attempt to steer the debate away from the fact that, contrary to your claims, Jews have in fact committed acts of terrorism? If you read my statement again you'll see that it disparaged the method of measuring, not your religion.
You want another standard?
Your other standards are much better because they take into acount your numbers.
Lets us...recall why it is that Islam and Christianity are the two largest religions in the world:
Because they forced their religion on everyone else with blood and fire and have repeatedly attempted to purge those who will not join their cults.
And this is the reason so many outside these cults are so hateful towards them (as seen in this forum). And unfortunaltly all cults get lumped together in this hate.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
06-24-2006, 12:23 PM
My point was not that Jews are flawless.
You seem to be the only one who thinks someone stated they were flawless.
"A is better than B(and C)" is not equal to "A is flawless".
Only someone with weak critical thinking abilities thinks those are equal.
There are others. If you did a bit of research you could find references to other acts of terrorism committed by Jews in the name of their religion.
And you judge all Jews by those few acts. Sounds racist and anti-Semitic to me.
Show me where I stated that they are equal.
You implied it. You agree that Muslims frequently commit acts of religously based aggression.
You provide an example of one Jewish group which professes religious aggression.
You then make the conclusion that Jews in general and Muslims in general are the same.
Bullsh1t, the majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
The majority of Muslims are not terrorists. The majority of them are anti-Zionist, they hate Jews. I did not say, state, mean, or imply that the majority of them were terrorists(you are the one who is mentioning terrorism, not I).
Do I look like your employee or something? Do your own "simple tasks."
You give ONE Jewish preacher dude as your example of Judaism as an inferior religion. The rest practice and preach tolerance. That can not be said of Muslim preacher dudes. Most of them preach intolerance. Many of them are out and out evil. No, you are not my employee. You are making the posit that Muslims are superior, and that we must be tolerant of their culture.
My posit is that it is a general and integral thread(backbone) of Muslim culture to be intolerant of others(especially Jews). If I can not be intolerant of those who are intolerant, who can I not tolerate then?
I am not a Christian, I don't have to be tolerant, I don't have to turn the other cheek.
You were making a roundabout point, that Muslims are just like you(or are just like Jews), and that they are nice guys and all. I just want you to prove your point. I would not hire you. But you are making an assertion(in a circular fashion), I am just asking you to support your point. I am not asking anything more than that. Prove YOUR point, give your evidence.
Aidon
06-24-2006, 12:24 PM
Did you actually read the statement you responded to or is this some sort of smoke and mirrors attempt to steer the debate away from the fact that, contrary to your claims, Jews have in fact committed acts of terrorism? If you read my statement again you'll see that it disparaged the method of measuring, not your religion.
Actually, a Jew attempted to commit an act of terrorism, but was stopped...by Jews, and another one did..and he was punished with a tortured death.
Your other standards are much better because they take into acount your numbers.
Regardless, the point is this:
When Jews have been capable of exerting influence over the world around...that influence, overwhelmingly, to an unfounded degree, has been for those things which we would consider Right and Good. Even our mistakes...(relatively high support of Communism) has been altruistic, founded in a belief against tyrrany and oppression (boy that ended up not turning out so well for us. ****ing Slavs).
Klath
06-24-2006, 12:47 PM
You seem to be the only one who that they were(flawless).
Where did I say that?
And you judge all Jews by those few acts. Sounds racist and anti-Semitic to me.
WTF? What part of "Personally, I think it's unfair to condemn an entire religion based upon the actions of a minority of its followers (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showpost.php?p=202669&postcount=152)" did you fail to grasp?
You implied it.
Where?
You give ONE Jewish preacher dude as your example of Judaism as an inferior religion.
I never said or even remotely implied that Judaism is an inferior religion. I said that it has terrorists of its own. Big difference.
I posted one example because that was all that was necessary to refute Aidon's assertion that there were no examples.
You were making a roundabout point, that Muslims are just like you, and that they are nice guys and all.
No, I'm not. My point is all of the Judeo-Christian religions have terrorists who commit barbaric acts in the name of the religion. I'm not sure how to state it any better than I did originally "My point isn't that Jews are better or worse than Christians or Muslims, it's that you talk about and judge other religions like your own is beyond reproach. It isn't. (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showpost.php?p=202669&postcount=152)"
Frankly, it is superior as a culture and religion because it is NOT IN MY FACE.
Ah, here we are again. Judaism is a superior religion because you can ignore it. Just as long as you can sit in your appartment and ignore anything that doesn't knock on your front door, you're going to be happy. That's all fine, as long as you don't try to persuade us that something is great just because your selfish needs are met.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
06-24-2006, 01:05 PM
In the post you just linked to.
You are making comparisons and equating them. You are implying that 'they are all the same'.
[QUOTE]I never said or even remotely implied that Judaism is an inferior religion. I said that it has terrorists of its own. Big difference.
You are saying that one act of terrorism is the same as a culture of terrorism, that they are the same. And that one can not qualify or quantify comparisons.
I posted one example because that was all that was necessary to refute Aidon's assertion that there were no examples.
Can we all agree that religious intolerance is NOT a general part of the Jewish culture, and agree that religious intolerance IS a general part of Muslim culture. Generally that is true, wouldn't you agree?
No, I'm not. My point is all of the Judeo-Christian religions have terrorists who commit barbaric acts in the name of the religion. I'm not sure how to state it any better than I did originally
There are many ways to state the same thing. Some of them superior and some of them inferior.
"My point isn't that Jews are better or worse than Christians or Muslims, it's that you talk about and judge other religions like your own is beyond reproach. It isn't. (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showpost.php?p=202669&postcount=152)"
I think 'above' reproach is more accepted than 'beyond', but regardless... Going back to the your question at the top of this post, it is you, here, who is mentioning the absolute, interjecting the idea of absolutism, into this thread. And you are doing it here.
When talking to smart people, is it really necessary to qualify ever single statement? I mean, if you are not talking to children, when I say "Jews are such and such" do you really hear, do you really hear me saying "Every single Jew on the planet is such and such"?
Or do you hear, like a rational adult would do, do you hear "Generally speaking, most Jews are such and such, because there are many exception to every rule, and I know this one Jew back in Hackensack NJ, who is not such and such, but...generally speaking Jews are such and such".
Don't you do that in your head? Already.
Or are you like a child and don't do that?
Klath
06-24-2006, 01:10 PM
Actually, a Jew attempted to commit an act of terrorism, but was stopped...by Jews, and another one did..and he was punished with a tortured death.
You know as well as I do that there are more incidents of Jewish terrorism than just these two. I agree that the Israel police are pretty effective but that doesn't negate that there are Jewish terrorists who target children.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
06-24-2006, 01:10 PM
Ah, here we are again. Judaism is a superior religion because you can ignore it. Just as long as you can sit in your appartment and ignore anything that doesn't knock on your front door, you're going to be happy. That's all fine, as long as you don't try to persuade us that something is great just because your selfish needs are met.
I am glad we are here, I guess.
"Judaism is a superior blah blah"
Is that what you really hear?
Does everything have to be qualified for you to understand it. No wonder you guys get stuck on absolutism. You live by it.
You read me say one quality among many which makes Jewish superior and you hear that I am saying that it is the only one. Facile.
Don't you guys have your own Equalizer bar, with banks of sliding switches, in your heads about stuff like this. Or is it just one knob? You can only look at one dial at a time, I suppose.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
06-24-2006, 01:14 PM
This your post Klath, the start of this whole thing.
Originally Posted by Aidon
Such as? I defy you to find the fundamentalist Jewish organization that round up everyone different from them to gas them.
Originally Posted by Klath
Such as the Kahanist guys who planned to bomb a Palestinian girls school. If they hadn't been caught shortly after placing the bomb they'd have killed a lot of children. Such as Baruch Goldstein who targeted and killed 29 civilians.
You are saying that some illegal renegade organization made up of Jews, which was thwarted by other Jews is comparable to the Holocaust.
I find that equation and comparison absurd, ludicrous, and retarded.
If that is the best that you can do, stop trying.
Klath
06-24-2006, 01:31 PM
You are saying that some illegal renegade organization made up of Jews, which was thwarted by other Jews is comparable to the Holocaust.
No, I'm not. Put down the bong, pick up your reading glasses, take a deep breath, and reread what I said. I'm not making a comparison. I simply provided evidence to refute Aidon's assertions.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
06-24-2006, 01:37 PM
No, I'm not. Put down the bong, pick up your reading glasses, take a deep breath, and reread what I said. I'm not making a comparison. I simply provided evidence to refute Aidon's assertions.
So then you agree that there is no comparison?
Good, we agree.
Klath
06-24-2006, 01:57 PM
So then you agree that there is no comparison?
Between the Hitler and Baruch Goldstein? Well, I suppose you could compare them on the basis of the number of people they killed in which case Hitler is 380,000 times more deadly than Goldstein. That wasn't what I was doing, however.
As I've said before, my point is that all of the Judeo-Christian religions have terrorists who commit barbaric acts in the name of their religion. Aidon challenged me to list some examples of barbaric acts committed by Jews and I did. Do you have any evidence to refute the examples I gave? I didn't think so.
Tudamorf
06-24-2006, 02:07 PM
You want another standard? Take a look at the proportion of Nobel Prize winners that have been Jewish, compared to our numbers. And that's with the traditional anti-semitism that was pervasive in Europe.
Take a look at the number of Jewish Supreme Court justices, compared with our numbers.
From 1909 until the '70's it was Jews who helped found and presided over the NAACP (and its predicessor the NAC) pushing for the fair treatment of Blacks in America.So you attribute every achievement of a member of your race to your god/religion? Religion most likely had little or nothing to do with any of that.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
06-24-2006, 02:11 PM
Between the Hitler and Baruch Goldstein? Well, I suppose you could compare them on the basis of the number of people they killed in which case Hitler is 380,000 times more deadly than Goldstein. That wasn't what I was doing, however.
This is the specific quote you are attempting to refute. You quoted this one specifically.
I defy you to find the fundamentalist Jewish organization that round up everyone different from them to gas them.
Do you really still think that your example is a good refutation of Aidon's challenge?
As I've said before, my point is that all of the Judeo-Christian religions have terrorists who commit barbaric acts in the name of their religion. Aidon challenged me to list some examples of barbaric acts committed by Jews and I did. Do you have any evidence to refute the examples I gave? I didn't think so.
Your point is showing that there are exceptions to every rule? I think we all know that, already.
my point is that all the Judeo-Christian religions have terrorists,,,
So ****ing what about that point? It is not useful or meaningful, because you fail to quantify your reasoning. If one is, then all are, is that your point. Or do percentages, the amount of something matter too?
Unless your sample size is so small to exclude commonalities, there are commonalities within populations. You point to a statistical anomoly, a flyer, and outlying data point, and somehow are saying that it disproves the rest of the curve. That is assinine. Or worse, you are implying that it is part of the curve, that is just retarded.
You can not deny that when you take the Muslim population as a whole, that the curve, the line of data points(of the any sample size), you will see a corelative trait of religous intolerance(they hate Jews) amonst the total data set. It is a commonality shared by the population generally.
You can not refute that point by pointing to a flying data point in another population, or sample set, and stating that they are the same.
That is retarded.
Klath
06-24-2006, 02:25 PM
This is the specific quote you are attempting to refute. You quoted this one specifically.
I was refuting his entire post and you know it. Face it, you can't refute my argument so you've resorted to trying to extricate yourself from the debate with a cheap diversion over syntactic minutiae. How pathetic.
Klath
06-24-2006, 02:29 PM
If one is, then all are, is that your point.
Stop trying to float that turd of an argument again. I've already addressed it in earlier posts.
Fyyr Lu'Storm
06-24-2006, 02:31 PM
I was refuting his entire post and you know it. Face it, you can't refute my argument so you've resorted to trying to extricate yourself from the debate with a cheap diversion over syntactic minutiae. How pathetic.
I am attacking your general thought process, because it is weak.
It is founded in Cultural Relativism, that is what I am attacking.
I am drilling down into the minutia, because Cultural Relativism does not fall apart until it is scrutinized closely. When it is, it is absurd. On the surface, the PR, the marketing, it sound all nice and clean and tight, but it really isn't. And it is a popular and ubiquitous world view, but popularity never means something is good or correct.
I am hoping that you develop the ability to critically think, and then form your own opinion about CR on your own. If you are a logical superior thinker, I can not but hope that you will see it as I do.
I am also working on developing better tactics in debunking CR here, to be used in real life.
That is what I am really doing(in between watching Autumn Haze in an 10 guy bukkake session).
Klath
06-24-2006, 02:58 PM
That is what I am really doing(in between watching Autumn Haze in an 10 guy bukkake session).
It's abundantly clear from quality of your arguments and the readability of your posts that your blood isn't flowing to your brain and that you're typing with one hand.
Aidon
06-24-2006, 03:46 PM
Ah, here we are again. Judaism is a superior religion because you can ignore it. Just as long as you can sit in your appartment and ignore anything that doesn't knock on your front door, you're going to be happy. That's all fine, as long as you don't try to persuade us that something is great just because your selfish needs are met.
Yes.
Judaism is a superior religion because we don't go out door to door pulling Goyshe children from their homes and giving them to Goyshe families to raise as Goyim (and frequently with a little rape, murder, and arson thrown in for a spot of fun).
Judaism is a superior religion because we don't rampage through non-Jewish neighborhoods with macheting killing anyone who won't convert...
Judaism is a superior religion because we sit there and protect the Churches and Mosques in the one part of the world under our control...whereas you can't count the number of synagogues Christians have destroyed...and the first thing the Muslims did after regaining control of Gaza is to burn down the synagogues.
Because we have a fundamental respect for other religions. Even if they are religions who call for our death and persecution.
Aidon
06-24-2006, 03:54 PM
You know as well as I do that there are more incidents of Jewish terrorism than just these two. I agree that the Israel police are pretty effective but that doesn't negate that there are Jewish terrorists who target children.
No. Jews don't target children.
One whacko targets children.
When I get on an airplane...noone worries about me blowing it up or taking a hostage...because Jews don't do that.
You're attempting to make a truly insulting comparison.
There has been, what, one incident and one attempted incident?
In 60 years?
Arabs fire on Jewish school buses weekly.
Aidon
06-24-2006, 04:04 PM
So you attribute every achievement of a member of your race to your god/religion? Religion most likely had little or nothing to do with any of that.
Religion had everything to do with it. But you're too ignorant to realize that.
Our religion is about learning. Its about study. Its about knowledge.
Rabbi means teacher.
It pervades our every aspect of our communal culture.
Its not coincidence that virtually everywhere you find Jews, they are per capita the most literate people there. Its not coincidence that wherever Jews are permitted higher education...they become, overwhelmingly so, doctors and lawyers and professors and teachers and engineers and physicists.
Hell, the Janitors in Israel are more educated than most of West (many of the Jews coming from Russia were scientists and engineers....there was a glut of them to such an extent that work couldn't be found for them. There were, in the 80's and 90's many an engineer sweeping floors).
Our primary directive, as it were, religiously speaking...is to study.
We're called the People of the Book for a reason.
Tudamorf
06-24-2006, 04:21 PM
Our religion is about learning. Its about study. Its about knowledge.That's cultural, not religious. Cultures that stress education tend to have better educated members. Non-religious members of your culture stress the same things. The same could be said for Asian cultures. Deities are irrelevant here.
Kitty Ember
06-24-2006, 04:42 PM
I'm presently laughing my ass off at Bll Donahue for saying that Hawking's out of his league and should refrain from talking about things he knows nothing about. Irony, oh sweet irony.
Kitty Ember
06-24-2006, 04:56 PM
And Islam supposedly teaches all about peace, too. So does Christianity -- turn the other cheek, right? But put enough power in the hands of the zealots, and they twist the religion to tap more power. It has nothing to do with Judaism per se, it's a failing of all religions, or more accurately, a failing of their zealot leaders.But they make ends meet. That's money taken out of the useful economy. Not to mention, I subsidized all those religious sermons with my tax dollars.
Useful economy is sort of subjective. Your views on religion aside, the encouraging of a moral lifestyle is what I'd call useful economy.
Kitty Ember
06-24-2006, 05:02 PM
Bull****, you of all people should know that religion does not breed morality, how many atrocities or wars or attacks have been commited in the name of morality (from religion) or from a more "moral" people.
And in how many of those cases (hint: all) was religion merely a scapegoat for the greed and empiricism of the nations involved?
Klath
06-24-2006, 05:11 PM
No. Jews don't target children.
And yet I provided evidence that there are Jews who do. Are you saying that the plot to blow up the girls school didn't happen?
One whacko targets children.
It was a bunch of wackos, actually. I'm surprised that you haven't bothered to do any research about them.
When I get on an airplane...noone worries about me blowing it up or taking a hostage...because Jews don't do that.
If you were getting on a plane in Iran they might.
You're attempting to make a truly insulting comparison.
No, I'm saying that followers of your religion are not immune from being manipulated by religious zealots into committing barbaric acts.
There has been, what, one incident and one attempted incident?
The Gush Emunim Underground used car bombs and attempted to plant bombs on Arab buses. In the case of the buses, they were caught by the Israeli police. Kahanist followers routinely shoot Palestinians in the west bank. Some of them probably deserve it but given the Kahanists penchant for taking revenge on any Palestinian when the one that pissed them off isn't available, others undoubtedly did not deserve it. Also, as you have already mentioned, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Kahanist. Taking down a PM is a pretty good score by terrorist standards.
Aidon
06-24-2006, 09:51 PM
That's cultural, not religious. Cultures that stress education tend to have better educated members. Non-religious members of your culture stress the same things. The same could be said for Asian cultures. Deities are irrelevant here.
Our culture is religious.
Jews do not all come the same culture background, with the exception of our religious beliefs.
The French Jews is a very different person from the Polish Jew who is vastly different from the Yemeni Jew who is not the same as the Spanish Jew.
Aidon
06-24-2006, 09:58 PM
If you were getting on a plane in Iran they might.
They wouldn't let me into Iran. And as of right now, they probably won't let the Jews in Iran out. They are too useful as hostages.
No, I'm saying that followers of your religion are not immune from being manipulated by religious zealots into committing barbaric acts.
Immune? No. But then neither are secularists.
Of the bunch, Jews are pretty ****ing safe to live around.
The Gush Emunim Underground used car bombs and attempted to plant bombs on Arab buses. In the case of the buses, they were caught by the Israeli police. Kahanist followers routinely shoot Palestinians in the west bank. Some of them probably deserve it but given the Kahanists penchant for taking revenge on any Palestinian when the one that pissed them off isn't available, others undoubtedly did not deserve it. Also, as you have already mentioned, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Kahanist. Taking down a PM is a pretty good score by terrorist standards.
Actually, taking down a PM is, definitionally, not terrorism. He's not a civilian target.
How about this? You go decide where you'd rather live as an athiest secularist liberal. Tel Aviv or Damascus, Riyad, Amman, etc.
****ing idiocy.
Klath
06-24-2006, 10:19 PM
How about this? You go decide where you'd rather live as an athiest secularist liberal. Tel Aviv or Damascus, Riyad, Amman, etc.
****ing idiocy.
I sure as sh1t wouldn't go and live amongst the Kahanists in the west bank. I doubt that a group that seeks the violent expulsion of non-Jews from Israel would take much of a liking to an agnostic like myself.
In any case, I'm glad that you've finally acknowledged the fact that your religion is plagued by same problems that plague other religions.
Tudamorf
06-24-2006, 11:37 PM
Our culture is religious.Then you'd be the only people on Earth who have no culture outside of religion. Somehow, I think you're mistaken.
Aidon
06-25-2006, 12:12 AM
I sure as sh1t wouldn't go and live amongst the Kahanists in the west bank. I doubt that a group that seeks the violent expulsion of non-Jews from Israel would take much of a liking to an agnostic like myself.
You'd have a difficult time living amongst the Kahanists. They've been outlawed for over twenty years.
In any case, I'm glad that you've finally acknowledged the fact that your religion is plagued by same problems that plague other religions.
But, no, really it isn't.
You may want to think so, in order to asuage your own guilt, or simply as a desire to pull all religion down, but that doesn't change the fact that Judaism has been, as a whole, only a force for good in our world.
Aidon
06-25-2006, 12:31 AM
Then you'd be the only people on Earth who have no culture outside of religion. Somehow, I think you're mistaken.
There is plenty of culture outside the religion...but the central facet which ties Jews together, despite great geographical and cultural differences...is our religion and it is our religion which propels us to intellectual pursuits.
If you are illiterate, you cannot study the Torah.
If you're mind is not agile, you cannot discuss the Rabbinic Laws.
Across all of world Jewry, the most respected profession a Jew could be is the Rabbi...because they are, and always have been, phenominally educated.
It doesn't matter whether they were Sephardic Jews, from the Levant and other Spanish/Moorish areas, Ashkenazic Jews from non-Iberian Europe, or Mizrahi Jews from Arabia/Persia. They didn't even speak the same languages. (other than Hebrew, but even the Hebrew was different until Modern Hebrew was codified in modern times).
Klath
06-25-2006, 01:46 AM
You'd have a difficult time living amongst the Kahanists. They've been outlawed for over twenty years.
If you think that's caused the Kahanists to disappear then you're wrong.
I don't think Kach and Kahane Chai were outlawed until the mid-90's although Kach was banned from the Knesset earlier. You can ban organizations but it's kinda hard to ban a religious philosophy. If you want proof, I'll refer you back to the attempted bombing at the girls school -- that was only a few years ago.
You may want to think so, in order to asuage your own guilt
Hey, you Jews have committed more atrocities than we agnostics. I defy you to show me examples of atrocities committed by agnostic fundamentalists in the name of their beliefs. :)
or simply as a desire to pull all religion down
Yeah, down off its high horse.
Tudamorf
06-25-2006, 01:59 AM
There is plenty of culture outside the religion...but the central facet which ties Jews together, despite great geographical and cultural differences...is our religion and it is our religion which propels us to intellectual pursuits.
If you are illiterate, you cannot study the Torah.
If you're mind is not agile, you cannot discuss the Rabbinic Laws.
Across all of world Jewry, the most respected profession a Jew could be is the Rabbi...because they are, and always have been, phenominally educated.There are over 5 million jews in the United States. How many are rabbis, or commit themselves to studying holy texts? Probably a tiny fraction. The majority are more or less secular, and pursue professional careers. The desire for education is a cultural phenomenon, and does not apply only to the religious. Once again, you're giving too much credit to your religion and too little credit to the actual people.
Aidon
06-25-2006, 12:22 PM
If you think that's caused the Kahanists to disappear then you're wrong.
I don't think Kach and Kahane Chai were outlawed until the mid-90's although Kach was banned from the Knesset earlier.
80's afaik.
You can ban organizations but it's kinda hard to ban a religious philosophy. If you want proof, I'll refer you back to the attempted bombing at the girls school -- that was only a few years ago.
They are a bizzare and reviled offset. If we had any form of central religious body or any form of excommunications, they've have been subject.
Hey, you Jews have committed more atrocities than we agnostics. I defy you to show me examples of atrocities committed by agnostic fundamentalists in the name of their beliefs. :)
Yeah, down off its high horse.
Agnostics commit their atrocities in the name of the Fatherland, or the Motherland, or Patriotism, is all.
My horse is so much ****ing higher than yours you can't knock it down.
My people make your people look like scuttling insects grubbing around in mediocrity.
Aidon
06-25-2006, 12:26 PM
There are over 5 million jews in the United States. How many are rabbis, or commit themselves to studying holy texts? Probably a tiny fraction. The majority are more or less secular, and pursue professional careers. The desire for education is a cultural phenomenon, and does not apply only to the religious. Once again, you're giving too much credit to your religion and too little credit to the actual people.
Tudamorf. You've shown, again and again, in this thread an absolute lack of knowledge.
Our culture and religion are so intertwined that they are inseperable.
Your attempts to denigrate the religion by seperating it from our accomplishments are an impossibility.
You need to realize this.
Klath
06-25-2006, 02:07 PM
80's afaik.
AFAIK, you're wrong. I'm pretty sure it was after Goldstein killed 29 Arabs at that mosque in Hebron. I think you're confusing when they were banned from the Knesset for when they were labeled a terrorist organization and outlawed.
They are a bizzare and reviled offset. If we had any form of central religious body or any form of excommunications, they've have been subject.
I'm sure you would. You'll find that most Christians feel the same way about their nut-bar extremists. However, in many of the debates here you've failed to make that distinction and blamed Christians as a whole for the actions of some bizarre and reviled offset. That makes you a hypocrite.
Agnostics commit their atrocities in the name of the Fatherland, or the Motherland, or Patriotism, is all.
Nice try. Religious people do that as well and with greater frequency and fervor.
My people make your people look like scuttling insects grubbing around in mediocrity.
Oh yeah! Well my dad can kick your dad's ass.
Aidon
06-25-2006, 04:20 PM
AFAIK, you're wrong. I'm pretty sure it was after Goldstein killed 29 Arabs at that mosque in Hebron. I think you're confusing when they were banned from the Knesset for when they were labeled a terrorist organization and outlawed.
Having read more on the Kahanists...while I think they are misguided...I find it difficult to blame their philosophy.
It is rooted three basic notions: "Israel belongs to the Jews" and "Jews have to stand up for themselves" and "terror for terror is an effective means".
All three are true. I don't agree with the last one. But two for three, I don't have any issue with.
I'm sure you would. You'll find that most Christians feel the same way about their nut-bar extremists. However, in many of the debates here you've failed to make that distinction and blamed Christians as a whole for the actions of some bizarre and reviled offset. That makes you a hypocrite.
No, Christians and Muslims tend to elect their nut-bar extremists to power.
Nice try. Religious people do that as well and with greater frequency and fervor.
Christians and Muslims, yes. Unfortunately they combine to comprise of over a third of the population on the planet.
No, Christians and Muslims tend to elect their nut-bar extremists to power.
Whereas a modern Jewish nation would never elect a former general that had been involved the massacre of refugees?
Klath
06-25-2006, 05:44 PM
Having read more on the Kahanists...while I think they are misguided...I find it difficult to blame their philosophy.
It is rooted three basic notions: "Israel belongs to the Jews" and "Jews have to stand up for themselves" and "terror for terror is an effective means".
All three are true. I don't agree with the last one. But two for three, I don't have any issue with.
Apart from them wanting to blow up children and violently expel all Arabs from Israel, they're a great bunch of guys.
No, Christians and Muslims tend to elect their nut-bar extremists to power.
You think that hasn't happened in Israel as well?
Aidon
06-25-2006, 09:21 PM
Whereas a modern Jewish nation would never elect a former general that had been involved the massacre of refugees?
Only if you consider not actually being involved at all to be "involved"
That is the biggest ****ing propagandist bull****.
The rest of the world regularly does nothing about massacres.
And yet they come down on Israel for not stopping a massacre of their enemies that they weren't involved in.
****ing double standard of anti-semite Arabs and their European dupes.
Aidon
06-25-2006, 09:26 PM
Apart from them wanting to blow up children and violently expel all Arabs from Israel, they're a great bunch of guys.
I can't say I, too, wouldn't be pressed into perhaps contemplating terrorist tactics if I'd been subject to terrorist attacks from Arabs for decades.
I know, for sure, that Americans would be suggesting we just nuke the entire country if one of our neighbors committed the acts Arabs have committed against Israelis over the decades.
You think that hasn't happened in Israel as well?
Considering that we haven't wiped out every palestinian or called for the destruction of all Muslims everywhere...
No, Israel hasn't elected anyone that bad off into power. The restraint Israeli's leaders have shown is beyond what any other nation would have shown.
Klath
06-25-2006, 10:54 PM
Only if you consider not actually being involved at all to be "involved"
I assume you guys are talking about Ariel Sharon. If so, the Israeli government's own people found him to be responsible out of negligence (as opposed to complicity).
And yet they come down on Israel for not stopping a massacre of their enemies that they weren't involved in.
Everything I've read makes it sound like Israel was very involved. Could you provide or link an account of the events that you think more accurately portrays the events?
Klath
06-25-2006, 11:18 PM
I can't say I, too, wouldn't be pressed into perhaps contemplating terrorist tactics if I'd been subject to terrorist attacks from Arabs for decades.
I'm sure you're not alone. It pretty counter productive, though, when terrorists on both sides have a policy of "You kill one of ours, we'll kill 10 of yours." It's downright vile when they are willing to take their vengeance on anyone who they perceive to be the enemy rather than the actual combatants. I suppose that's inevitable when people see others solely for their group affiliation rather than as individuals.
No, Israel hasn't elected anyone that bad off into power. The restraint Israeli's leaders have shown is beyond what any other nation would have shown.
If Israel doesn't show restraint they create problems in their relationship with the US. I think any nation in Israels position would show the same restraint if they had intelligent leaders.
And yet they come down on Israel for not stopping a massacre of their enemies that they weren't involved in.
****ing double standard of anti-semite Arabs and their European dupes.
An internal Israeli investigation found him personally responsible (as opposed to a governmental failing) and unfit for office as defence secretary. The Israeli public decided to re-elect him as Prime Minister. There is no double standard here, except within Israel.
(By the way Aidon, I'm sure you've learnt by now that if you post something on a messageboard then it's bound to get shot down. So I haven't a clue why you started posting about how wonderful Judaism is, it was really only an invitation for people to argue with you. That is why this is yet another thread where you're calling half the universe anti-semitic).
Aidon
06-26-2006, 09:38 AM
Everything I've read makes it sound like Israel was very involved. Could you provide or link an account of the events that you think more accurately portrays the events?
Its somewhat complicated, but basically this is what happened at Sabra and Shatila:
The Phalangist (or Falangist) militia (one of the Christian Lebanese Militias Israel had been supporting) was sent into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp(s) to root out suspected PLO members who had, under the terms of a peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, were supposed to have all left Lebanon. Israeli forces surrounded the camp and the Phalangists were supposed to root out the PLO members and bring them to the Israeli forces. Instead the Phalangists killed some 300-800 people within the camps.
While the Israeli forces did not take part in the massacre, at all, neither did they stop it, though there is controversy on this issue. Obviously, Arabs would have it believed that Israeli forces were in the camps killing people and that Ariel Sharon was personally in there raping boys with goats or some such. And Israeli conservatives would have it believed that Israeli forces knew nothing about the massacre until after the fact.
The Kahan report (no relation to the Kahanists. Kahan, as a version of Cohen, is one of the more common Jewish surnames) found Israel and Ariel Sharon responsible, not for taking part in the events, but for remaining idly complicit.
The conflict between the Muslim and Christian Arabs in Lebanon had been particularly bloody and vicious, with massacres being commited by both sides.
Heresay reports have the commander of the Phalangists forces obliquely ordering the killing of civilians and Israeli forces ordering the Phalangists to behave like a civilized army and leave civilian targets alone, however, the that is as far as the Israeli forces went.
It is fairly clear that the Phalangist troops disobeyed orders from Israeli forces more than once, but that Israel was not particularly motivated to interfere.
Given the history of massacre and retaliatory massacre between the Christian and Muslim Arabs, Israeli forces seemed hesitant to get involved in stopping their allies.
Things to be noted: As Minister of Defense, Ariel Sharon was not actually present for the raid and was held personally responsible, essentially for ordering the operation which led to the massacre.
This part of the Kahan report, I disagree with, strongly. It would be as if the investigation into Haditha found Donald Rumsfeld personally responsible for the massacre there.
In the end, Israeli forces are guilty of simply not acting. They didn't stop the Militia from committing the massacre. How much Israeli forces knew of the massacre while it was happening is a matter of debate. I suspect they became aware of it sometime while it was occurring. I also am not sure I would have been able to bring myself to interfere, if I were the commander on the ground, either. The Muslim Arabs had slaughtered many a Christian Arab village and camp.
Aidon
06-26-2006, 09:44 AM
If Israel doesn't show restraint they create problems in their relationship with the US. I think any nation in Israels position would show the same restraint if they had intelligent leaders.
Not really.
The US has a long history of supporting violent, bloody, tyrants.
And until the fall of the Soviet Union, Israel was pretty much the only ally the US had in the region.
Hell, the US was giving Iraq weapons in the 80's...
I don't think Israel's restraint was solely because they feared loosing US support (directly. Israel does greatly fear losing support of American Jews, who are a particularly liberal bunch. American Jewry, with our money and political influence in Washington, is vital to Israel).
Aidon
06-26-2006, 09:49 AM
An internal Israeli investigation found him personally responsible (as opposed to a governmental failing) and unfit for office as defence secretary. The Israeli public decided to re-elect him as Prime Minister. There is no double standard here, except within Israel.
(By the way Aidon, I'm sure you've learnt by now that if you post something on a messageboard then it's bound to get shot down. So I haven't a clue why you started posting about how wonderful Judaism is, it was really only an invitation for people to argue with you. That is why this is yet another thread where you're calling half the universe anti-semitic).
Judaism is pretty damn wonderful.
We essentially leave everyone else alone, so long as they leave us alone.
I started posting, simply, that it is unfair to paint all religions with the same atrocity laden brush Christianity and Muslims have painted themselves with. As I am not buddhist, or Hindu, or Sikh, but rather am Jewish, I had to show it from a Jewish perspective.
Of course, had I been Buddhist, there would not have been a bunch of haters coming forth from the woodwork. Its not politically acceptable to hate buddhists.
But its perfectly fine to hate us zionist jewish dogs. The arabs tell you its ok /eyeroll.
****ing Eurotrash.
Aidon
06-26-2006, 10:08 AM
Let me say this.
I do not disagree that Sharon should have been reprimanded, or even lost his job as Defense Minister for what happened at Sabra and Shatila.
But the Arab world and their pawns continually suggest that Sharon is a war criminal because non-Israeli forces committed a massacre. This I find ridiculous. I've seen no credible or neutral suggestion, ever, that Sharon ordered or knew what was going to happen there (Arabs insist he should have known, knew, ordered, partcipated, personally killed 400 dual wielding uzi's and riding a flaming war pig which he used to rape arab women).
All of the responsibility issued to him is because he ordered the operation, personally, and did not punish the commanders on the ground who decided to stay out of it.
Sharon was not a peacenik, until the end of his career. He was a violent and bloody man involved in violent and bloody wars. He was a warrior. He was a hard man with little sympathy or mercy.
He was not, however, a war criminal.
Klath
06-26-2006, 11:14 AM
Its somewhat complicated, but basically this is what happened at Sabra and Shatila:...
I think you are downplaying the level of enmity between the Phalangists and the Palestinians. The Phalangists had a history of massacring refugees and they had just lost one of their leaders to a bombing they attributed to the Palestinians. In a nut shell, they were out to take revenge. The Phalangists were charged with going into the camp to root out the PLO members but they were under the operational authority of Israel and Israel had the camp surrounded and was providing logistical support to the Phalangists. In light of the circumstances, it should have been abundantly obvious what would happen. Sharon was either incompetent or barbaric. The former would have been out of character for him.
I do not disagree that Sharon should have been reprimanded, or even lost his job as Defense Minister for what happened at Sabra and Shatila.
I believe he was fired.
Klath
06-26-2006, 11:23 AM
The US has a long history of supporting violent, bloody, tyrants.
Absolutely -- when supporting them furthers our goals. If Israel were to fall under the control of a bloody tyrant, its utility to us would be drastically reduced and it would become much more difficult for American Jews to lobby on its behalf.
I don't think Israel's restraint was solely because they feared loosing US support
Nor do I.
Klath
06-26-2006, 11:45 AM
Of course, had I been Buddhist, there would not have been a bunch of haters coming forth from the woodwork. Its not politically acceptable to hate buddhists.
But its perfectly fine to hate us zionist jewish dogs. The arabs tell you its ok /eyeroll.
That sounds a lot like the "your either for us or you're against us" rhetoric that nationalists trot out when trying to marginalize dissenting views. Identifying the faults in a system is an important part of the process of improving it.
We essentially leave everyone else alone, so long as they leave us alone.
I started posting, simply, that it is unfair to paint all religions with the same atrocity laden brush Christianity and Muslims have painted themselves with.
Well as soon as you leave Christianity and Islam alone you might find that some other people leave Judaism alone too. I expect it is against your nature, but who knows, it might work.
There was absolutely no Jewish relevance in this thread about science and religion until you personally put it there.
Aidon
06-26-2006, 03:48 PM
I think you are downplaying the level of enmity between the Phalangists and the Palestinians. The Phalangists had a history of massacring refugees and they had just lost one of their leaders to a bombing they attributed to the Palestinians. In a nut shell, they were out to take revenge. The Phalangists were charged with going into the camp to root out the PLO members but they were under the operational authority of Israel and Israel had the camp surrounded and was providing logistical support to the Phalangists. In light of the circumstances, it should have been abundantly obvious what would happen. Sharon was either incompetent or barbaric. The former would have been out of character for him.
I think you slightly misunderstand the senario in Beirut at the time.
Both the Muslims and the Christian groups (and there were a veritable myriad of each) had a history of massacring refugees and civilians. It was virtually systemic in the conflict.
The given senario of having a history of massacre and having recently lost a leader could have been made about most of the Christian militia.
Hindsight is always 20/20. I don't think it would have been abundantly obvious that they were going to start slaughtering people.
I also don't know that I would have stopped them, were I the commander there, either. The Muslims had committed their fair share of atrocity against the Christians.
I believe he was fired.
He was fired, yes.
Aidon
06-26-2006, 03:51 PM
That sounds a lot like the "your either for us or you're against us" rhetoric that nationalists trot out when trying to marginalize dissenting views. Identifying the faults in a system is an important part of the process of improving it.
When it comes to a group of people who have made it abundantly clear for over half a century that they want to kill all Jews and destroy the one safe haven for Jews...yes, you're for us or against us.
If you support those who wish to see me and mine dead...you're against us.
Its simple.
Klath
06-27-2006, 01:53 PM
The given senario of having a history of massacre and having recently lost a leader could have been made about most of the Christian militia.
Hindsight is always 20/20. I don't think it would have been abundantly obvious that they were going to start slaughtering people.
Given their history of massacring people and the fact that the leader who had just been killed was the newly elected president of Lebanon, Sharon should have known that there would be trouble using them for this task. It's an obvious match-meets-gasoline scenario and no hindsight was required to foresee that what happened had a high probability of happening.
I also don't know that I would have stopped them, were I the commander there, either. The Muslims had committed their fair share of atrocity against the Christians.
They kill some of your unarmed women and children so you kill some of theirs. I'm sure your god would be very proud.
Wikipedia, as usual, has a pretty good write up on the Sabra and Shatila massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre)and they do a good job of citing their sources. If you think they've made some factual errors then you should consider contributing in the discussion area (lots of interesting info there as well).
Panamah
06-27-2006, 01:55 PM
Hmmm... a twisted thought entered my mind:
Steven King (Lose the Haw) VS The Pope
Now that would be a match up I'd love to see.
Klath
06-27-2006, 02:12 PM
Steven King (Lose the Haw) VS The Pope
Now that would be a match up I'd love to see.
Aye, Stephen King thrusting and parrying with a Black Beauty pencil and the Pope swinging big hay-makers with his crozier. I'd have to see the various weapon stats and check the procs before betting but my money is on the pope. He'd have too great a reach advantage.
Panamah
06-27-2006, 02:22 PM
Frankly I think Stephen King would use a Ticonderoga #2 and use a Toshiba Laptop as a shield.
Aidon
06-27-2006, 03:32 PM
I think a ticonderoga #2 may be well and fine for mundane tasks...a confrontation with the Pope, however, would require the mystical powers found only in the Berol Black Beauty.
On the other hand, though, Mr. King does have the ultimate weapon. The Wang word processor (of the Gods, no less).
Panamah
06-27-2006, 05:54 PM
Oh dear, I have no idea what a Berol Black Beauty is. Hopefully not a mechanical pencil, I hate mechanical pencils. Don't know why, but I do. Perhaps he should be using a pen, it is mightier than a sword.
Aidon
06-27-2006, 09:41 PM
The Berol Black Beauty is the pencil Thad Beaumont uses to write in The Dark Half, iirc.
Madie of Wind Riders
06-28-2006, 05:00 AM
I have to admit that I am a die hard Stephen King fan, was hooked when I was 11 years old and read Firestarter.
A Berol Black Beauty is one of those old big fat red pencils that kids use when they first learn to write. Sturdy, non-toxic lead. It is his favorite writing tool. :)
vBulletin v3.0.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.