OT-Tolerance

Page 7 of 8  
miles wrote:


I regard myself as among "the faithful" (in that I think there probably is "something" like a God in this Universe although I doubt any religion really has a handle on the way it truly is), and I have no problem with a 4 billion old Solar system/Earth.

Of course it changes. The Catholic Church accepts the Sun being at the center of the Solar system. The fact that it at one time did not means simply that humans are error prone (and worse).
Any number of scientists through the ages have been wrong as well. Sometimes the scientific community itself can be quite hard on those who do not follow the widely accepted theory of the way things are.
Does that mean Science is a bad thing? Nope, just means scientists can be egotistical, self-interested and narrow minded at times just like anyone else.
SMH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stephen Harding wrote:

The Bible says it can't be 4 billion years old according to our resident scholar here.

My point was that at the time their religion was based on their belief the Earth was the center. It was a fundamental principal in their belief. We see that same thing with todays religions. To them the Earth can not possibly be older than about 8,000 years. They make no room at all for the possibility they are wrong. They turn their back on anything that suggests they are wrong. Just as happened in prior cultures and religions that are long gone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, if you take the bible LITERALLY, it COULD be. In Genesis 1 it says: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,and the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The beginning of the world AS WE KNOW IT started here. The "seven days", whether literal 24 hour days or not, start here.
Is it possible this is "earth MK II"? The remains of "earth MkI" may date from MUCH OLDER. NOWHERE in the bible does it say God created the earth from NOTHING.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Clare,
I apologize for my accusation about you being a liberal. I ask for forgiveness.
Please email me, if you will.
--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:23, 6:23
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:36:05 -0700, "Budd Cochran" <mr-d150@preciscom SPAM.net> wrote:>Clare,

clare, meet budd. budd, meet clare.
clare, will you be budd's friend?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Budd Cochran wrote:

Welcome to hell, Clare.
:-) Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

While the literal 7 day time span seems rather incorrect given current evidence, the ordering of developments seems to be quite on target.

Even with current good evidence of Big Bang theory and the expanding universe, you still get back to "why was all the matter of the universe compressed in on infinitely small point of space time dense enough to cause the mother of all explosions?" "How'd it get that way?", etc, etc.
Science has a long way to go in outright disproving the existence of some sort of very powerful supreme being/beings.
SMH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stephen Harding wrote:

I don't think the lack of knowledge is evidence of some supreme being. It just means we know so little. In the history of man people have explained what they can't understand by crediting a supreme being. If you could take modern knowledge and technology back in time the people of that time would think you were a God. We can now explain some things that were once credited to a supreme being.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Suddenly, without warning, miles exclaimed (16-Nov-06 10:27 AM):

Corollary of "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961)?
jmc
Big fan of B5's Technomages
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

Yes, there are those who insist the Bible is a literal book and the universe really was created in 7 days and a woman really does have one less rib than a man, etc., etc., etc.. I don't know that those beliefs necessarily characterize "religion" as narrow and even offensive in nature.
On need not concentrate on religion alone for those type qualities.
They are *human* qualities and they can be found in modern science and certainly politics or nearly any other form of organized or semi-organized human endeavor.
We're working with flawed players here.
If Budd insists that the world was created in 7 days because the Bible says so, let him think it. He chooses to ignore the best evidence we have *at the moment*. His choice. If he calls you blasphemer for saying otherwise, chuckle and move on to the next thread. Don't interact with him on the subject if it gets you too annoyed or upset. Is it really worth it?
SMH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message

You obviously don't understand the concept of "burden of proof". The individual making a claim bears the burden of proof so, in the absence of physical evodence, it's up to believers to prove the above.

In a word, BULLSHIT!!! The Bible is chronologically correct in SOME instances but the only way the spiritual content can be proven is by interviewing the (long dead) participants.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Kunkel wrote:

We're talking personal beliefs not a scientific journal article.
If you have a belief, than it must at be provable, or at least reasonable or possible to you. What it is to anyone else is irrelevant, and no one is under a burden to "prove" a "belief" to anyone, much less one that is unprovable.
I might reiterate what another poster said: proof of a God, or of the lack of a God, is largely impossible. These are "beliefs" and as such are not proven.
Generally, it's easier to prove something "isn't" rather than something "is", so deriving a proof that there isn't a God should be an easier task to accomplish.
SMH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stephen Harding wrote:

Thats backwards logic. You can't prove or disprove a thought.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

What's to prove? A thought is a thought. A manifestation of a cerebral state I suppose.
I wasn't arguing one can/can't prove of disprove a thought, "merely" the existence or non-existence of God.
The Scientific Method requires that one observe, formulate a hypothesis on why the observation occurred, and than attempt to *disprove* the hypothesis. It's generally very difficult to outright prove a hypothesis, so disproving it is the preferred route.
Clearly, the existence, or lack thereof, of a God, is well outside the realm of the Scientific Method's service to us, at least for quite a time into the future.
Whoa, this is getting heavy now! Remember back in the old days when this group talked Dodge trucks? What simpletons we all were back then, huh?
SMH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

First off, "science" isn't trying to disprove the existence of God. There are too many tangible, useful hypothesis to be tested ... like global warming, cancer, etc. I spend about 20 hours a week in the lab testing various hypothesis (some mine and some others) ... and I assure you, proving or disproving God never enters my, or anyone elses, mind.
Trying to prove or disprove the existence of God is a complete waste of time. So is talking about it.

Correct. The Scientific Method is for proving that which pertains to matter or energy. NOT the fantasy of an all powerful, all knowing God ... who apparently cares so little about his "followers" that he allows science to keep their sorry asses alive with the medical research we *have* proven, using the Scientific Method.

Indeed.
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Craig C. wrote:

Didn't mean to imply that science had any focus on proving/disproving the existence of God. I was merely responding to someone who claimed their beliefs were based on proofs. The scientific method, which has served humankind tremendously well in the past couple hundred years, is unusable for this task, as we agree.

You've decided the concept of a supreme being is fantasy. Fine for you. It is based on some sort of reasoning that a God would show more care for his "sheep" than appears to be the case.
Fair enough of an assessment. Not a proof since none will [probably ever] be available.
I choose to believe there is "something" based on the incredible complexity of life and the the universe as we currently understand it. It's just too big and interconnected to have come about purely randomly, as indeed current evolution says it did (for life). Even given gene mutation rates and an extremely long period of time, it just doesn't seem to be fully random. Why else a horseshoe crab that essentially hasn't changed in 200+ million years versus the evolution of humans in a mere 3 million (modern humans only a 200K years)! I have lots of questions like that.
I don't believe any religion is correct in its definition of God. They're perhaps all partially correct, but way off base for the whole of it.

My Ram got a remanufactured engine 7K miles ago. Never would have thought a 318 with only 150K miles would have heads so bad that they couldn't really be rebuilt, so it was either brand new heads at $3200 or a Jaspar remanufactured engine at $4700.
The new engine gets only about 14 mpg while the original regularly got 16-17.
Well, at least God brought down the gas prices of late!
SMH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stephen Harding wrote:

Fair enough.

Well, I disagree. Evolution (adaption of biological organisms), can be proven. Your questions, as I understand them, really do not question whether evolution is "fact". Rather they pertain to "how much" evolution played a role in our current state of being. Tough question ... and one that will take a very long time to answer with science.
I choose to believe that we did evolve from something else. How that "something else" came into to existence is beyond my abilities as a scientist to prove without more concrete information. However, my opinion is that my version of how I got here is much more plausible than some all powerful being that only exists in the heads of humans. Evolution, at least to a certain degree, can be proven. God and the spirit realm cannot.
If you choose to believe in that all powerful being, then that is your choice and I respect that as long as you or anyone else that believes it doesn't try to cram it down my throat.

:-)
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

absence
Actually, this is incorrect. It is just about impossible to prove that something isn't because just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean that it didn't or doesn't happen. To prove something is only requires that you see and verify it and although this can be extremely difficult at times, it is still easier than proving something never happened since we currently don't have the ability of time travel.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:00:23 -0500, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

Bullshit! Atheists and Agnostics could care less what anyones believes because we know it doesn't make any difference in the end. I've been an Agnostic all my life and I married a Catholic girl. To this day I encourage her to go to church every Sunday and pursue her inner happiness. What we do object to is having someone or the government trying to shove their views down our throats. Making a child stand up and thank God for his or her food before school lunch is a good example of what we object to. OTOH, I have no objection to a child reading his or her bible at school or saying grace before they eat their school lunch. I think you will find that we are the most tollerant of all.
I have no problem with Budd's beliefs. I just think that what he has been doing in here is far from a Christian behavior. He is exhibiting a terrorist mindset and doing Chritianity a huge disservce.
beekeep
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Budd Cochran wrote:

Your view and right to believe as you choose? Yes, absolutely.
Unsolicited talk (or preaching) resulting in the brow beating of others? Nope.
To many, Budd, God is no more real than Bugs Bunny. To others, God exists, but they are bitter about what religion has done. To either group, your need to CONVINCE them otherwise is, well, intolerable.
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.