Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believers

**rudemonk** · 06-09-2010, 04:18 AM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mrs_Ahmidis</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Natral, I hear what you are saying...but a reading of <span style="font-weight: bold">The Shack </span>if you haven't yet done so may answer some of your questions. </div></div>

i have to say, as a theodicy, this book does literally nothing to advance a solution to the logical problem of evil, it may at best- well it obviously does- make people feel a little better about the evil shyte that is in this world that people have to live through and experience. but what answer does it provide for the situation in Darfur, for example? Or the brothels of Calcutta?

God telling the main character that He could have intervened but for reasons the man just simply can't understand He did not intervene in his daughter's brutal murder, is a bit of a joke and doesn't even scratch the surface of some of the semi-successful theodicies that are out there trying to deal with the problem. it's the classic non answer, and still leaves God painted into a moral and ethical corner from which he can not escape and yet remain benevolent or omniscient or moral or ethical....so since that is the whole point of this book, it's a rather miserable attempt to be honest.

The Free Will Defense is a failed justification for the existence of Evil.

**f0rTyLeGz** · 06-09-2010, 04:47 AM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believers

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Faithfull</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Duh!!! This is way over your head, I see...

edit to say...I find something easier for you ...you cannot use the average run of the mill<span style="font-weight: bold"> definition</span> of words to argue something as deep and philosophical as this...you have to be prepared to understand the "CONCEPTS" underlying the words, and to examine them without bias or subjectivity. </div></div>
Bwoy... you too bright for me!

**MrHeathen** · 06-09-2010, 08:11 AM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">gobbledeegook
</div></div>
I like this word

**MrHeathen** · 06-09-2010, 08:13 AM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believers

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Faithfull</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Duh!!! This is way over your head, I see...

edit to say...I find something easier for you ...you cannot use the average run of the mill<span style="font-weight: bold"> definition</span> of words to argue something as deep and philosophical as this...you have to be prepared to understand the "CONCEPTS" underlying the words, and to examine them without bias or subjectivity. </div></div>
Bwoy... you too bright for me! </div></div>

gotta love ad hominem arguments lol

**jah_yout** · 06-09-2010, 10:32 AM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you are not comfortable with the idea that there <span style="font-weight: bold">may not be a god</span>, then you are not being deductive or logical.</div></div>

i'm comfortable with that idea-- keeping in mind that none of us knows for absolute sure--
but are you comfortable with the idea that there <span style="font-weight: bold">may be a 'god'</span>? (as you put it and it is commonly called)...
that is the question...

the 'atheist' concept of a random-chance spontaneous immaculate origin to the force called life is just as miraculous/fantastic/magical a concept as those spoken of by the 'creationist' schools of thought...

let me clearly state that my concept of creation is not shaped by the <span style="font-style: italic">literal</span> interpretation of the famous tale of creation found in the judeo-christian king james translation of the holy bible in the book of genesis...

remember we are both working with <span style="font-style: italic">theories</span> here...

your theory can not be proven at this juncture any more than mine can...(although i have an idea you will say different)

welcome back bredrin

**jah_yout** · 06-09-2010, 11:09 AM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

you can't say that, as a result of intelligent deductive reasoning, that that is a valid conclusion. first of all, not all complex systems are designed. many are spontaneous. </div></div>

the best computers i know were designed...i can throw a whole bunch of computer chips together and strike them with lightning, but sad to say, a complex operating system never forms that way...someone has to actually sit there and put the parts together with a logical function for even the smallest part of the final operating system...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in fact, when one examines just how poorly some complex systems for which the claim is made they were designed actually function more by luck than by anything else, we should actually expect to find random happy circumstances by which complex systems over time develop- and so it exactly seems to be what is being discovered in abiogenesis.</div></div>

yet these poor designs have never been improved upon by humans...
the artificial heart will never be as good as the 'natural one'---let's not even talk about the human brain...they are unable to duplicate/create from scratch any creation that 'appeared' naturally on earth...
yet they downplay and belittle these creations...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">there is no evidence to support the statement that all complex systems have a designer therefore life has one- that holds up, when you take it to the necessary logical conclusion.

all you can say is you don't know.</div></div>

yes-- if you are prepared to say you also don't know-- then i stand with you there;

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the logical conclusion one must reach if one is honest is agnostic.</div></div>

logical for you no doubt...
but if you say it is the logical conclusion for all, then that would be just as arrogant as me trying to say my concept is the 'only' logical conclusion...the religious fanatics say the same thing-- that their way/god/savior is the 'only' way...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the problem is you can not define or describe what created the creator, </div></div>

any more than you can define what created this creation and all that reside in it...you are going by theories...until the scientists can duplicate through experiment what they theorize --and so far they have never done so;

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">when it comes time to tackle that thorn, you get all kinds of mental gymnastics about definitions or worse, gobbledeegook </div></div>

disingenuous argument...if you are a big-bang theorist, what created the matter and energy that caused big bang?
where did it come from?
what was its <span style="font-style: italic">origin</span>?

i know you will have some non-gobbledeegook to easily explain those as the infallible scientists always do...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">like it is so far beyond our human comprehension and other tired saws, perpetrated on people by others who want you not to think.</div></div>

so you believe humans have mastered their entire brain capacity at this time?
we now know everything and can explain everything?
no wonder the world has not advanced in 20,000 years...
we have advanced in technology but not in civilization...
we still suffer from the same ignorant primitive animalistic philosophies that breed hatred and war---
too many of us feel we have figured it all out---they say we descended from animals and dropped out of the sky...
we have only become better at killing, stealing & raping...
how is that advancement---
too smart for our own good

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so for the same reason you dismiss all reasons other than a creator for there being life, you must also dismiss a creator</div></div>...

that is two different things...i don't know what the reason is that we are here, but my own conception is that it was an intelligent design...by a creator if you will;

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you want to be deductive and logical, you have to be able to accept the results of the process and not just stop where your comfort zone lies.
</div></div>

indeed, indeed...
even logic seems to be subjective these days

**rudemonk** · 06-09-2010, 01:03 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

you can't say that, as a result of intelligent deductive reasoning, that that is a valid conclusion. first of all, not all complex systems are designed. many are spontaneous. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
the best computers i know were designed...i can throw a whole bunch of computer chips together and strike them with lightning, but sad to say, a complex operating system never forms that way...someone has to actually sit there and put the parts together with a logical function for even the smallest part of the final operating system...
</div></div>

Yet, complex systems have indeed been shown to self organize and gain complexity over time. It's the over time part which tanks your argument. You expect to walk through a desert and find a watch, the assumption is the watch just appeared that way, as you found it.

But no one is claiming- on the science side- that that is how watches get made. So while there are complex systems which require observation and design, there are also complex systems which do not.

That's all that there is needed to show a designer is not necessary. Just one system. And we have countless examples.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in fact, when one examines just how poorly some complex systems for which the claim is made they were designed actually function more by luck than by anything else, we should actually expect to find random happy circumstances by which complex systems over time develop- and so it exactly seems to be what is being discovered in abiogenesis.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
yet these poor designs have never been improved upon by humans...
the artificial heart will never be as good as the 'natural one'---let's not even talk about the human brain...they are unable to duplicate/create from scratch any creation that 'appeared' naturally on earth...
yet they downplay and belittle these creations...
</div></div>

come now man, we are <span style="font-style: italic">improving</span> the design by leaps and bounds!! look at human lifespans. in your natural state you'd be dead long time ago, if you left your existence up to God, you'd be dead long time ago. Some babies are born to die, but not anymore with advances in prenatal care and post natal infant mortality- we are making things better.

Right now scientists are unlocking the applications of understanding our genome. Soon you will be able to regenerate limbs. God won't heal amputees, but science soon can. This is because we share a gene with frogs and other regenerative amphibians. But somewhere in our distant past, we mutated a switch that renders this gene non functional. But in the womb, it works.

What kind of 'intelligent' designer who is omniscient and omnipotent <span style="font-style: italic">decides</span> to do that?

In your model, you have to develop an absurd answer to explain that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">there is no evidence to support the statement that all complex systems have a designer therefore life has one- that holds up, when you take it to the necessary logical conclusion.

all you can say is you don't know.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yes-- if you are prepared to say you also don't know-- then i stand with you there;
</div></div>

I am saying we can know more than you are giving us credit for, but yes we are standing together.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the logical conclusion one must reach if one is honest is agnostic.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
logical for you no doubt...
but if you say it is the logical conclusion for all, then that would be just as arrogant as me trying to say my concept is the 'only' logical conclusion...the religious fanatics say the same thing-- that their way/god/savior is the 'only' way...
</div></div>

It has to be the logical conclusion for all. People can not choose their logic. It's the only way not by choice, or by fervor, it's logic because 2+2=4 and not 5. Religious fanatics do not employ logic. Maybe they employ what passes for a colloquial definition of the word logic, but that is different.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the problem is you can not define or describe what created the creator, </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
any more than you can define what created this creation and all that reside in it...you are going by theories...until the scientists can duplicate through experiment what they theorize --and so far they have never done so;
</div></div>

But they are getting close to. Juts like you dismiss out of hand the existence of Zeus or Odin and Thor, because you know now how lightning forms, and why there are earthquakes. Soon people will be forced to come to grips that what they have conceived of as the purview of God, is kind of absurd.

What I can do presently is show that logically, there is no reason to substitute God as a cause.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">when it comes time to tackle that thorn, you get all kinds of mental gymnastics about definitions or worse, gobbledeegook </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">disingenuous argument...if you are a big-bang theorist, what created the matter and energy that caused big bang?
where did it come from?
what was its <span style="font-style: italic">origin</span>?

</div></div>

Substitute "God" in these questions and you see immediately how your premise collapses.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i know you will have some non-gobbledeegook to easily explain those as the infallible scientists always do...
</div></div>

Here's the thing- I am not, nor would ever, nor would any scientists, ever, claim infallibility. For that, you need to look to religious people. Scientists will stand behind what can be testable, repeatedly, and proven.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">like it is so far beyond our human comprehension and other tired saws, perpetrated on people by others who want you not to think.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
so you believe humans have mastered their entire brain capacity at this time?
</div></div>

irrelevant, my friend.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
we now know everything and can explain everything?
</div></div>

certainly not implied by me. all I'm saying is if you stay up to date with advances in all converging fields of inquiry, it is leaving less and less room for God's possibly existence. Just like nobody worships by cutting out the hearts of people and stuffing them still beating into the maw of a sun stone.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
we still suffer from the same ignorant primitive animalistic philosophies that breed hatred and war---
</div></div>

I agree with you, but it is culture and ego which drive these philosophies- and many of those are based on mythologies developed about God and developing an identity of self based on some special concept of one's relation to the world and others.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
too many of us feel we have figured it all out---they say we descended from animals and dropped out of the sky...
we have only become better at killing, stealing & raping...
how is that advancement---
too smart for our own good
</div></div>

Do you know why people are fighting in the Middle East? For one thing, one set of people believe a man flew to Jerusalem on the back of a flying horse.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so for the same reason you dismiss all reasons other than a creator for there being life, you must also dismiss a creator</div></div>...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">that is two different things...i don't know what the reason is that we are here, but my own conception is that it was an intelligent design...by a creator if you will;
</div></div>

no it's the same, see above.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you want to be deductive and logical, you have to be able to accept the results of the process and not just stop where your comfort zone lies.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
indeed, indeed...
even logic seems to be subjective these days
</div></div>

logic is not subjective. but above you said my logic should be different than yours. which is it- obviously logic can not be subjective.

just follow the line of argument to it's conclusion:
<span style="font-style: italic">
if you are a big-bang theorist, what created the matter and energy that caused big bang?
where did it come from?
what was its <span style="font-weight: bold">[i]origin</span></span>?

What was God's origin?

If everything MUST have a creator, who created GOD, out of nothing?

you are going to say you don't know. and I am going to say well then there is no reason to add an extra step by making the problem once removed, because then you are making it so that God's existence needs a solution.

**rudemonk** · 06-09-2010, 01:06 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

let me add to say!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you are not comfortable with the idea that there <span style="font-weight: bold">may not be a god</span>, then you are not being deductive or logical.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i'm comfortable with that idea-- keeping in mind that none of us knows for absolute sure--
but are you comfortable with the idea that there <span style="font-weight: bold">may be a 'god'</span>? (as you put it and it is commonly called)...
that is the question...
</div></div>

Of course!!! I always allow there is a chance that a God exists. But what I will say, is that once anything more than that is claimed for him, then we can test those claims.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the 'atheist' concept of a random-chance spontaneous immaculate origin to the force called life is just as miraculous/fantastic/magical a concept as those spoken of by the 'creationist' schools of thought...
</div></div>

no man, not so. science doesn't need 'magic' to work or understand how things work. they make no leaps of faith then stop working as if they have a solution.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
welcome back bredrin
</div></div>

respect sir.

**johnnycakes** · 06-09-2010, 01:49 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

Monk,

I just took the time to read your back and forth with jah_youth with who I have many agreements on things political.

I have to say I am total agreement with your way of thinking on the God myths.
Thanks for your time and thoughtful explanations.

That said I have found that you really cannot argue this stuff with believers anymore than you can argue with people holding right wing views.
They accept what they have come to believe as (no pun intended) gospel, find comfort in this simplistic set of beliefs and are distressed to have the foundations of these house of cards seriously challenged.

As with faith, their distress is not based on logic but on having to rethink, reassess what they have believed for such a long time and defended so vociferously.

Sure, we all gave up on Santa Claus at age 7 or so but believing in a god or right wing political views for 30-40-50 years without challenging those beliefs locks the mind in concrete.

I have found it is best to avoid debating religion with people whom I otherwise find to be decent human beings. Their belief in God and the practicing of the moral values set out in the Bible can only do good.

Of course, those who claim that God is telling them to go to war, or who use their particular religious beliefs to infringe upon my rights in any way do not fit into this category and are rightful targets of abuse as are all right wing political people.

Again, thanks for the impeccable logic of your arguments.

**jah_yout** · 06-09-2010, 03:52 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you are not comfortable with the idea that there may not be a god, then you are not being deductive or logical.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i'm comfortable with that idea-- keeping in mind that none of us knows for absolute sure--
but are you comfortable with the idea that there may be a 'god'? (as you put it and it is commonly called)...
that is the question...</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course!!! <span style="font-weight: bold">I always allow there is a chance that a God exists</span>. But what I will say, is that once anything more than that is claimed for him, then we can test those claims.</div></div>

cool...
i admire your stance in at least acknowledging that a higher force- often called 'god' or 'the creator', could possibly exist...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the 'atheist' concept of a random-chance spontaneous immaculate origin of the force called life is just as miraculous/fantastic/magical a concept as those spoken of by the 'creationist' schools of thought...</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no man, not so. science doesn't need 'magic' to work or understand how things work. they make no leaps of faith then stop working as if they have a solution.</div></div>

in the case of the origins of life/the universe it does take somewhat of a leap of faith for science to claim to know exactly how it began...their theory can not be proven until they can duplicate the creation of earth & life in a controlled experiment starting out with only elements and energy...
they have not been able to create life from the raw elements of the earth or the universe...cloning is merely activating technology that was already there and not actually creating life from scratch...

translation: we simply do not know how this all began...

**jah_yout** · 06-09-2010, 04:24 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">jah_youth with who I have many agreements on things political.</div></div>

yes indeed...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That said I have found that you really cannot argue this stuff with believers anymore than you can argue with people holding right wing views.</div></div>

strange analogy, but true in a sense...including left-wing, big-bang/evolution/magic-life-dust-activated-by-lightning, etc. which are also belief-systems- or theories...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They accept what they have come to believe as (no pun intended) gospel, find comfort in this simplistic set of beliefs and are distressed to have the foundations of these house of cards seriously challenged. </div></div>

one should be careful to not lump all believers in a greater power/creator/god together into an mish-mosh category of those obsessed with religious books/stories/legends...
there is arrogance on both sides of the debate as both claim they know the answer of life, meanwhile neither really knows...
it is above our heads at this point in our knowledge of the universe...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have found it is best to avoid debating religion with people whom I otherwise find to be decent human beings. Their belief in God and the practicing of the moral values set out in the Bible can only do good.
</div></div>

it is simply wrong to automatically equate 'god' to 'the bible'...this is a gross oversimplification of the pursuit of enlightenment...the bible is merely one collection of books-specifically from the judeo-christian viewpoint--seeking human enlightenment...there are countless others, from other points of view; and morality is a human concept varying greatly from culture to culture, and even further from person to person...
the modern "evolution vs. religion" paradigm is ridiculously over-simplified in that the debate/discussion goes much deeper than two clear-cut opposing sides, as in right-wing/left-wing...that model does not really apply in this case...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course, those who claim that God is telling them to go to war, or who use their particular religious beliefs to infringe upon my rights in any way do not fit into this category and are rightful targets of abuse as are all right wing political people.</div></div>

this is reasonable...
good and evil has been & continues to be done on this earth by people who claim 'god', some who claim the 'devil', and some who claim neither...
these are all open to further interpretation...

i still say no one around right now knows exactly how this all began...no matter how great a scientist they can merely theorize on the origin of life---
they can not prove it at this point...

**f0rTyLeGz** · 06-09-2010, 05:06 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

I heard Marcelo Gleiser talking about his new book A Tear at the Edge of Creation on late night radio and ordered it the next day from from Amazon. I'm half way though it. Mr Gleiser is a great lecturer and writer. And I recommend it to you all who are interested in this topic.

http://www.amazon.com/Tear-Edge-Creation...4416&sr=1-1

**rudemonk** · 06-09-2010, 07:21 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
cool...
i admire your stance in at least acknowledging that a higher force- often called 'god' or 'the creator', could possibly exist...
</div></div>

yeah man, I just think if he does exist then he needs a radical recontextualization. what we have now, as the commonly held consensus model, does not reflect reality.

logically, if he exists, he is neither omnipotent, benevolent, nor omniscient, at least not all at once.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jahyouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
in the case of the origins of life/the universe it does take somewhat of a leap of faith for science to claim to know exactly how it began...their theory can not be proven until they can duplicate the creation of earth & life in a controlled experiment starting out with only elements and energy...
they have not been able to create life from the raw elements of the earth or the universe...cloning is merely activating technology that was already there and not actually creating life from scratch...

translation: we simply do not know how this all began...

</div></div>

while it is true that science relies on guesses made while considering what is known (hypothesis) it does not stop there. this is one of the major differences between science and faith, and which is a good reason why the two are not parallel or interchangeable as many people try and imply. Religion is actually where truth claims are made without basis in fact, NOT in the scientific method.

There is a lot that we do not know....<span style="font-style: italic">yet</span>. But it is science which is going to drive us to knowledge, not religion, per se.

Life has yet to be created, but there are currently experiments in the field of abiogenesis which DO point to spontaneous creation of proto life at least, given the right conditions- models exist for prebiotic earth and have been shown that what science is claiming <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> possible, observable, and further gains will be made...

This is much more than can be said for those who claim the whole shebang was kicked off by a God or other force, which can not be tested nor measured nor repeated without agency of that being.

If science or a scientist did claim that we knew how life began, it would indeed be a leap of faith, but it makes no such claim because it hasn't solved the problem yet- but we're very close. Science only puts out there some possible whys and we can say very educated guesses, many of which explain sets of observable facts which are shrinking the area in which God can exist exponentially- such as creation and the origin of species basically proving that genesis can be nothing but allegory- so especially if you are basing your comprehension of God on the Bible- which I know you are not I am just saying. The important thing to understand is the major difference between the two methods- faith invents a reason and usually stops there, then attempts to convince others by imploration. Science suggests a possible reason or cause, then tries to find out for sure. It only stops when it can prove something- then that stands until it is either advanced further or disproven by peers. So you see it is quite different actually.

Here are two videos which I recommend we view:
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6QYDdgP9eg"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6QYDdgP9eg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

and:
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3OwSARYTK7w"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3OwSARYTK7w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

**rudemonk** · 06-09-2010, 07:24 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Monk,

I just took the time to read your back and forth with jah_youth with who I have many agreements on things political.

I have to say I am total agreement with your way of thinking on the God myths.
Thanks for your time and thoughtful explanations.

</div></div>

respect sir.

I know i can be long winded, but it is for purpose.

these are important matters which effect us all- what people believe really matters. I think it is high time we shed ourselves of those cultural devices which force us to see the other as something not like ourselves.

when beliefs such as those which have destroyed entire peoples, and threaten to do so- such as what grips the middle east, can be shown to be what they really are, I think it behooves us to tirelessly beat the drum.

Right now we have people blowing themselves up over where a man on a flying horse visited.

That's rather ridiculous.

**Yvonne N.** · 06-09-2010, 08:52 PM

Re: Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believ

Thanks for your opinion <span style="font-style: italic">monk</span>; appreciated.

Blacks mirroring larger trend - Coming out as non-believers

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads