I just find it interesting that someone like you, who appears to have some knowledge, can take something like this so far. Well, I don’t find it unusual, but interesting.
Here’s a man, claiming to be enlightened, to have understanding and to have a grasp of reality, using science to back up his equation. Now I’m sorry, but as someone who also knows a few things, I know that science, a religion in and of itself, is NOT the worlds answer to all of our questions. In truth, the scientific method taught in our schools is NOT the true scientific method. You know that as well, don’t you?
You should also know that science is merely a tool meant to take observations and, after all is said and one, to comment on those observations. And what’s silly is, how can you be so absolutely certain that what you have not seen, that is what existed before you, really existed at all? Sure, you can take things that are here now and use that as your evidence, but where is the true science in that? You’re only observing what you see and know now, not what really was or wasn’t. There is absolutely no way science can prove or disprove anything about the origins of life, about where this solar system or universe came from, because we were simply not there. And this tool we call science is just a tool, created by human minds, molded and shaped to fit the confines of our understanding. Where science is good is when it is used to do what it is good at doing – observing and commenting. Where science fails is when it tries to enforce and justify a philosophy (whether of “intelligent design†or not).
To go further with my point, our modern understanding of science began with philosophy. It began as a thought and as a way of looking at life. So science, which was once a philosophy (even used by many Christian philosophers), still IS a philosophy, and philosophies change as societies change, as people change. Science will change, and in fact has MANY times since its methods were invented. Today the idea (yes philosophy) of no intelligent design will be pushed, tomorrow it will be disproved by the very thing that tried to substantiate it. It’s been this way for thousands and thousands of years, and you know this.
But through all of this, there is one thing that has NEVER changed (well, the principals have never changed anyway), and that is the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Heck, your science has found the very places and even artifacts pertaining to the life of the Christ. But put that aside, and simply think about how you put your faith in the religion of science, a constantly changing and disproving liquid, while there is something changeless and timeless that exists, which calls you by name – a rock that never moves or breaks. Though it breaks the heads of many who do not believe.
It’s all faith, sir, and you well know that there is no science or philosophy that can substantiate your claims to the origins of life – because we were NOT there to witness it. But we WERE there to witness Christ and his death. And we WERE there to witness his resurrection. It’s written in the history books – and not just the Bible. The crumbs of true enlightenment lead to the cross – they always have, and always will.
So push your science all you want to, but I hope and pray that you will come to a realization of the truth in your walk, and in your search for it. Because only the truth will set you free, and freedom is what you are searching for.
Roy D Carlson
I’m no expert on the intricacies of the Spaghetti Monster vs. ompnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being universe creation debate, but I think I know the difference between science and religion; in science, every part of our world-view is potentially up for debate and rejection, except the core assumptions of the methodology, without which reasoned criticism of our world-view would be impossible. In religion, certain assumptions that cannot be evidentially assessed are placed beyond doubt, even though they are not essential to all meaningful world views, thus immunising the religion against all criticism. If science is a faith, it is the faith that it is possible and desirable to criticise our world-view, rather than just accept whatever our predecessors taught us was true.
So I guess the question has to be whether the assumptions of Spaghetti monster-ism or Christianity are ‘better’. But better how? They are both beyond evidential assessment, since either The Spaghetti Monster or God can feed us any evidence He/She/It likes. So I guess we just have to decide which beleif-set has the most favourable consequences, according to our personal value system (which is also a matter of faith, but one I don’t think we can do without.)
I don’t know whether Christianity has been responsible for more love and tolerance or hate and oppression, but personally I prefer pirates to preachers, so I embrace the Spaghetti Monster into my heart. If you prefer preachers, you go be a Christian. That’s fine with us Spaghetti-Monsterists; we think you’re wrong, but we don’t pretend to have any evidence (although this may be a church-dividing issue. If so, I claim my own denomination), and we respect your right to your opinion. Why can’t you do the same for us, instead of accusing us of demeaning the name of your God?
/applaud
Can I be a Markian-Pastafarian too?
I’ll leave the merits of your definition of science to the more informed among us. I’d like to respond to one specific point you made.
You claim the ’saving grace of Jesus Christ has never changed’. Ignoring the science proving the existence of the world/universe before our race existed, we have at least 6-8 millenium (depending on the sources an ID proponent would choose to accept) since the birth of writing. Christianity is a recent invention, a relatively young 2000 years old.
According to most interpretations of your holy book, everyone born before Christianity would be condemned to hell since they worshipped different deities (and many of them more interesting).
Thousands of religions existed before Christianity and ruling out a mythical golden age of rational thought (and presuming our continued existence), thousands more will exist long after it has lost all relevance.
With all due respect to the Great Pasta in the Sky, I say bring back the Greek Gods. At least they knew the value of knocking back a few drinks, having a laugh and trying to pick up mortal women.
Roy, thanks for being civil. That’s a low benchmark, but by the standards of what I’m seeing elsewhere here it’s not an easy one to clear. You did it with style and with logic - and with decent grammar, too. Thanks for that.
As to the substance . . . well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that, because -everything- about the Christian religion, from the book to the practice, has changed with the years. The Testaments weren’t even written until well after the man/son of God’s death, IIRC? And then there’s the multiplicity of faiths with their multiplicity of understandings of the text . . . and the Gnostic writings that were discarded . . .
It’s hardly unchanging, and it’s simply nothing one can base their faith in, IMO.
Were you to have made the case with the Torah, which has had a much more rigid copyist standard (IIRC, entire scrolls were discarded if there was so much as a single character miscopied), you’d have had more of a case . . .
. . . but in any event it’s still words written by man, no matter their provenance, and words can be wrong, or twisted.
But seriously, thanks for being an adult in tone, even if I think your faith is (to say the least) misguided.
-j
I think the funniest part of this post is being missed and that is the statement:
> it breaks the heads of many who do not believe
SO:
there is something which has no object, no dimensions, no mass, no weight, no volume, and is not testable by science though it is a rock and
OR to put it another way:
this is the thing which we dare not speak of because it is beyond knowledge, the holiest of things, and it will BREAK YOUR HEAD
That’s the thing that Christianity has over pastafarianism: behind all the religious posturing, there is a serious thump on the head, as in, my Dad thumped me on the head so I’m gonna thump you on the head, and that’s why you better belive. Are Christian’s into exploring the brute authoritarian side of their religion?
“…in science, every part of our world-view is potentially up for debate and rejection, except the core assumptions of the methodology…”
And one of the current core assumptions (which will change, eventually, like most popular scientific beliefs of the day that you would have been a “fool” to disagree with at the time), is evolution, which is not a proven fact by any stretch. Dare to disagree with evolution in the scientific community and you will be held back and mocked. How is this any different from any other community of believers?
“I’ll leave the merits of your definition of science to the more informed among us.”
Hahahaha.
“Ignoring the science proving the existence of the world/universe before our race existed…”
It has not been proven that the earth existed before humans, this is a belief based on data. Anyway, Christians believe that the earth existed before humans as well.
“According to most interpretations of your holy book, everyone born before Christianity would be condemned to hell since they worshipped different deities (and many of them more interesting).”
In my opinion, the majority of modern Christians do misinterpret the Bible. Your statement about interestingness is just sad-ass retarded though.
“Thousands of religions existed before Christianity…”
Yeah, so? There were a few listed in the Old Testament as well, this is nothing new.
“…and ruling out a mythical golden age of rational thought…”
Like the kind you display? Heh. Heh heh. Right.
“…thousands more will exist long after it has lost all relevance.”
Now you’re a prophet? There’s one of those pesky beliefs again.
“It’s hardly unchanging, and it’s simply nothing one can base their faith in, IMO.”
One thing that is mostly unchanging from one millennium or denomination to the next, barring cults, is that if you believe in Jesus you will be saved. And that’s the most important part. My faith is not in anyone’s teaching, or anyone’s translation. I go to the source (the original languages) when I need clarification. As I said, I believe a good majority of Christians believe in lots of bad theology that they are taught, or learn by reading one translation, instead of earnestly seeking the truth. But there is really only one major requirement to being a Christian, and that’s to believe that Jesus (being sent by God) came to save the world and will succeed.
“. . . but in any event it’s still words written by man…”
This is your opinion, or rather, your belief. Christians also believe the Bible was physically written by men, but authored by God.
“…even if I think your faith is (to say the least) misguided.”
Again, this is your faith, which you are attempting to push as superior to his, which makes you a… can you guess what’s coming next?… hypocrite.
“. . . but in any event it’s still words written by man…”
This is your opinion, or rather, your belief. Christians also believe the Bible was physically written by men, but authored by God.
Monster, dude! Lighten up! Xianity, Judaism, and Islam all have the same fundemental flaw - they focus on what you believe rather than what you do. How is that better than a purist group of Trekkies huddled in their mom’s basement arguing if ‘classic Trek’ is better than ‘Next Gen Trek’?
Xians, in particular, seem to enjoy the flippant option of ‘turn the other cheek’ vs ‘eye for an eye’. Is the almighty gawd indecisive, or is it easier to assume that he was misinterpreted? Either way, gawd can not be perfect. In changing his mind, he establishes his own imperfection.
So I guess it doesn’t matter whether or not he wrote the bible himself or phoned the notes in.
I at least hope you take the time to read the New Testament, and pay particular attention to the words of Jesus of Nazarene (seems to be the prominent figure there). Then ask yourself if you are walking in His likeness. When you are, feel free to throw stones.
“And one of the current core assumptions (which will change, eventually, like most popular scientific beliefs of the day that you would have been a “fool” to disagree with at the time), is evolution, which is not a proven fact by any stretch. Dare to disagree with evolution in the scientific community and you will be held back and mocked. How is this any different from any other community of believers?”
Go against evolution and be mocked - that is if you go against evolution with no proof for a counter theory or proof against the former. Those being mocked are those that give alternate theories with no physical proof that these theories are more correct than evolution.
“It has not been proven that the earth existed before humans, this is a belief based on data. Anyway, Christians believe that the earth existed before humans as well.”
I am in no way a Christian scholar/follower in any way/shape/form and may be EXTREMELY off when I say this but is there one part of the bible that says something like “He” created the world in a week-ish time a few thousand years ago?
I’m about to head home from work so I’ll put this short:
The thing about the magnificent “religion” of science is science will keep growing. Once someone finds something to say that the current method of dating dino fossils had a variable that drastically changed, I’ll be slightly shocked but also jump on the bandwagon of the new theory.
“And one of the current core assumptions (which will change, eventually, like most popular scientific beliefs of the day that you would have been a “fool” to disagree with at the time), is evolution, which is not a proven fact by any stretch.”
Google “evolution” and “misconceptions.” I understand that when one feels one’s faith is being attacked, the first reaction is to fight back. However, before any rational discussion can be held about Intelligent Design, its supporters should learn about what evolutionary theory actually means.
I respect your right to practice your religion, but I (and many others) draw the line when it comes to teaching Christianity in public schools via Intelligent Design.
BTW - Other religions have come about after the birth and death of Jesus. Islam, with over a billion followers, is far from a cult.
Quote:
And what’s silly is, how can you be so absolutely certain that what you have not seen, that is what existed before you, really existed at all?
Endquote.
By that logic it would also include Jesus then? So why is Christianity any more believable than anything else we haven’t seen ourselves?
“It has not been proven that the earth existed before humans, this is a belief based on data.”
What is proof but experimental data confirming a notion?
A very interesting conception of the ability of scientific observation. The great thing about our not being at the genesis of the solar system or, indeed, the known universe, is that we didn’t have to be. The rigors of astronomical observation and analysis has yielded a set of highly sophisticated models that match sets of phenomena that we observe in the solar system today. Models are one thing, of course, and we can’t say definitively that models of the past are completely accurate beyond all doubt, but that statement is somewhat of a sham considering the necessity of “animal faith” in all things that one would give his trust.
Even if I see a keyboard before me, one may doubt that it is there, or that “I” am touching it, or that a keyboard even exists, or that which I am touching is, in fact, a “keyboard.” (as it is merely a mental construct) All that is quite good, but beside the point. Given the basic metaphysical assumptions that humankind accepts as true, our models of very specific astronomical phenomena (star systems, galaxies, etc: ) are ironclad to a high degree, but only through the rigors of dutiful observation and analysis, which goes through tons of errors and corrections. Some of what we say is probably very incorrect. It doesn’t discredit the overall theories.
And if one should ridicule the scientist’s use of his “animal faith” in the basic metaphysical assumptions people must make in order to give credence to all scientific thought, then one ought to notice the animal faith inherent in his own particular beliefs. I don’t believe that this is an argument to say that two such systems are both totally equal and equally meritable either.
Your egregious overuse of the comma makes the baby pasta cry.
Religion in its beginnings was a science. The ancient peoples didn’t know what the sun and moon were so they decided they were gods. Then someone discovered the planets, hey more gods. Then we learned some more. Early Christians didn’t know the effects of droughts, you know water dries up, amphibians have no where to go but the land, they die insects breed heavily now that they have dead amphibians to eat, red tides happen, sandstorms, etc. Religion tells us these are all miracles.
Without science these are all miracles, similar to Helios riding his fiery chariot across the sky everyday. (Who would have thought the ancient Greeks wouldn’t understand hydrogen and helium reactions at the plasma state?) High altitude cerebral edema can cause hallucinations but I am sure what Moses saw was an actual burning bush from God. Science can explain many of the wrong beliefs that our ancestors had.
Religion taught us that the world was flat, that it was the center of the universe. It taught us that the sun, moon, planets, etc. revolved around it. Galileo took a telescope and some basic math and explained that religion was wrong, and was excommunicated for it. Science shows us that we have an appendix and a tailbone neither of which we need. It shows us that whales have bones and joints for rear legs, but no rear legs (anymore).
To suggest that evolution hasn’t been proven is only to suggest that you don’t know the definition of the term ‘scientific theory’. Religion suggests that facts are arguable and the beliefs are beyond question. With that in mind, know that I am not trying to change your beliefs, merely mocking you and your silly rituals. Do you think anyone comes to this page to seek truth? If so than you have more naivety than I originally gave you credit for.
This aggression against what we see and observe comes across as quite desperate and sad. These sorts cannot stand and look squarely in the face of reality, as a “man.” They want reality to be “fair” to their…”manmade” fantasies. But reality isn’t fair. Be a man. Have some balls, and look at it square on. It won’t kill you. They told you it would, but they lied to you.
I linked to this from Boingboing.
I must correct Granpa Caligua on a point. I am Jewish and can tell you that Judaism does not focus on belief but on action. Judaism is not just Christianity without Christ. It is actually a very distinct religion with a different set of beliefs. Is it perfect? No. Is it consistent? Hardly. But it is not a beta version of Protestant Christianity either.
Judaism is very hazy on the subject of the afterlife. For the simple reason that no one has ever told us if an afterlife exists or not and if it does, what it is like. Many rabbis and Jewish scholars believe that there is some form of life after death but there is very little agreement on what it is like. Many Jewish theologians argue that there is no hell even for the very evil because the concept of constant suffering is immoral. Others believe that those not ready for the afterlife are sent back to try again.
The most important thing in Judaism is to be a good person in this world. We are supposed to act with kindness and compassion to our fellow humans and study Tenakh. If heaven exists one enters it by doing good deeds and being a kind and gentle human being.
I don’t care whether people believe in God or not. I myself am an apathetic agnostic. I just like people to get the facts straight.
“I have struggled all my life with a tormented and joyless relationship with God. Faith and lack of faith, punishment, grace, and rejection, all were real to me, all were imperative. My prayers stank of anguish, entreaty, trust, loathing, and despair. God spoke, God said nothing. . . . No one is safe from religious ideas and confessional phenomena. . . . We can fall victim to them when we least expect it. It’s like Mao’s flu, or being struck by lightning. . . . You were born without purpose, you live without meaning, and living is its own meaning. When you die, you are extinguished. From being you will be transformed to non-being. A god does not necessarily dwell among our capricious atoms.”
– Ingmar Bergman, The Magic Lantern, an autobiography (1987), cited in Who’s Who in Hell, edited by Warren Allen Smith
Fact is that Christians stood against the round earth theory and the solar system model to the point of burning its proponents.
Now most Christians support round earth but have replaced it with evolution as their martyr cause.
They will be shown wrong again and have to bend their beliefs, again, to fit reality or they will parish as a religion.
And as for the “what if we are right” statements, Ive though about this alot and heres my answer: If you are right then i will feel just like you would feel if Tom Cruise is right. As far as I’m concerned, odds are the same for both.
I wish this guy would push MY science. That sounds hot.
“Truth, and Freedom”?
That’s quite strong from an intolerant freeper freak whos moral standards lies not too far from the Taleban and the Sharia laws of Iran. thios is USA: A land of Sharia. I saw it already 17 years ago in Kansas. Now, I can’t even think of how bad it’s become now. And we can al thank the iliterate freeper freaks for that.
As a christian: How would you describe these two: Freedom, and Truth. Because christianity has never endorsed either. Your church has never been right about anything. So do not tell us about right or wrong.
Thanks
M