Lusty Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 khunsanuk said:Hi, "So yes the bible at this point in time is just as good of a resource as most the the journals out there." On what points has the bible been correct as far as the origins of life on this planet? Any evidence? Sanuk! Well the book of Revelations says that the end of the world will start in a land between two rivers. Messopotamia now known as Iraq is flanked between the rivers Euphrates and the Indus and Iran in next door ? The angels carrying the poisonous cups refered to in Revelations could well be nuke missiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Big Bang and the evolution are both confirmed by many facts I wouldn't use the word confirmed. Look at Flashermac's post about the book of genesis and big bang theory being similar. Both "theories" show that man has a compulsion to explain the origins of the world. The compulsion does not come from the rational part of a person's brain. It comes from the more primitive part of the psyche and that is why creation stories are so bizarre including current theory. The bible story (one example of hundreds of creation stories) was accepted by the greatest minds in the world for thousands of years. They would look around and see God's hand (or energy) in everything they observed. Thomas Aquinas developed complex theorems that "proved" the existence of God and they are too complicated for most people today to understand me included. Today we have physicists to explain our origins. They look around and see "energy" as the driving force behind all matter and develop complex theories to prove it. Its no surprise that the science and religous theories are similar because our subconscious is designed to think that way. And WYD pointed out scientific cosmology as being suspect. In the old days we identified evil forces in the universe and called them demons or satan. Now, there are massively destructive "armageddon" type forces roving the universe. They lurk at the center of each galaxy. We call them black holes and these things are very sinister. If you encountered one your existence would be annihilated and in fact the entire world would be annihilated. An even more interesting thing about black holes is that they are viewed as an integral part of how galaxies are held together. At the center of each galaxy is a giant black hole and the galaxy would fly apart without it. By comparison an endless number of religions state evil is essential and integral to existence right along with good. Without the evil black holes galaxies could not exist as we know them. Black holes are destructive and essential at the same time. Yin and yang. Shiva. Yahwe. Our brains are built to view things this way. Another big piece of excitement for scientists nowadays is that there is a unified theory that will soon be discovered. It will tie together all the physical sciences and basically be the ultimate explanation of the universe. This idea of there being an ultimate truth is nothing new. Humans have been religious since at least the beginning of recorded history. Not sure why scientists want to call this unified theory ?science?. It?s obvious that unified theory will simply replace religion with another religion. But at least the new theory will satisfy our compulsion to have these explanations. OK so the scientist types out there say that we are only observing physical phenomena and making logical inferences. They say there are no good and evil connotations to what they are doing, just pure logic. So when they describe a black hole its just a physical object. This is where scientists are failing to recognize the importance of the nature of the observer. A black hole is a theory to explain what astronomers observe. There is a lot of room for the subconscious to inject its ideas into the development of these theories. A black hole sounds very much like an evil destructive force. So when one scientist postulates a black hole, it is very easy for other scientists to go along with it. Because we are prone to believe in destructive forces (i.e. demons). One could just as easily say that it is a demon at the center of the galaxy. We are also prone to believe in creation which is a very human idea. We look around and we absolutely MUST explain how everything got here (in the beginning there was nothing, then an extraordinary force beyond human comprehension suddenly created the universe and that boys and girls is how everything you see got here). And then we actually believe the explanation that our subconscious forced us to come up with. The influence of the subconscious part of the brain exercises a huge influence over our perception of things. This is even more true for those people who believe they are purely logical because they are not even aware of what is driving their ?rational? theories. There is no such thing as being purely logical. Scientists are not recognizing that the rational part of their brain, which is only a small part of it and recently acquired in evolutionary terms, is not independent from the rest of the brain which developed over hundreds of millions of years. We will always be finding facts that ?support? our subconscious compulsion to explain creation. If scientists want to discover ultimate truths about creation they better first figure out what are the basic constructs of the creation story archetype that already exist in the human brain. -- Fuck that was a long post. Sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 As you already know the truth it's no use discussing it more. :: Sancta simpl... - must stop there it's against the rules to write more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Main thing is that people are going to believe what they want to. Some take Genesis literally, others symbolically. Some believe in a big bang that started everything off, others don't but have no alternative answer. p.s. I have a friend who has a degree in theology. He tells me that he and most of his colleagues were more or less agnostic. They studied theology seeking answers. They are still looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Hi Mac, there are 2 creation stories in genesis - 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-2:25. A priest told me there's a third different creation story somewhere else in the bible but I don't remember where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 >>As you already know the truth<< Everything I post is a lie including this post :: Furthermore, although a truth may be established by reason, its contrary ought to be believed as true as a matter of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiceMan Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 "man has a compulsion to explain the origins of the world. The compulsion does not come from the rational part of a person's brain. It comes from the more primitive part of the psyche and that is why creation stories are so bizarre including current theory." The complulsion to understand the origin of the world may come from a primitive part of the psyche but it is just a survival mechanism in action. An animal that understands its environment has an evolutionary advantage. The best method of understanding the world is to use reason. Reason allows us to select ideas that predict what will happen in the world. Ideas that are incompatible with the observed reality must be discarded. The genesis stories were a scientific theory until the 19th century when the discovery of fossils meant the "theory" had to be discarded. A theory that is incompatible with the observed reality is no longer a theory, it is just religious dogma. "Thomas Aquinas developed complex theorems that "proved" the existence of God and they are too complicated for most people today to understand me included." The theories that "prove" the existance of god have been shown to be flawed. "Its no surprise that the science and religous theories are similar because our subconscious is designed to think that way." Relligious dogma is not a theory. To be a theory it has to make predictions that are testable. To say that black holes are destructive and sinister is emotional, not rational. Black holes may offer worm hole short cuts to other parts of the universe (or other universes) or time travel to the past. Ultimately black holes may provide an escape route from the heat death of the universe. Black holes are certainly not sinister to me. "Another big piece of excitement for scientists nowadays is that there is a unified theory that will soon be discovered. It will tie together all the physical sciences and basically be the ultimate explanation of the universe. This idea of there being an ultimate truth is nothing new. Humans have been religious since at least the beginning of recorded history. Not sure why scientists want to call this unified theory ?science?." It is called science because it makes predictions that are testable (or will be testable next year when the new collider at CERN is ready); predictions of new particles like the Higgs Boson. "It?s obvious that unified theory will simply replace religion with another religion." A unified theory will replace the current theories of quantum physics and relativity. The new theory will be testable and thrown out if any observations disagree with it. The unified theory will not be based on any dogma. It will simply assume there exists a state, called false; and another state that is not false (called true). From these assumptions it is possible to derive the whole of mathematics. The unified theory will be expressed as mathematical equations so it really will be a theory of everything. It will predict the existance of black holes as being a necessary consequence of the theory. "A black hole sounds very much like an evil destructive force. So when one scientist postulates a black hole, it is very easy for other scientists to go along with it. Because we are prone to believe in destructive forces (i.e. demons)." No. Astronomers believed in black holes because the general theory of relativity predicted them. And sure enough the first black hole was detected by its X-ray emissions in the 1970's. This gives credence to the theory. With every test a theory passes it becomes stronger. "We will always be finding facts that 'support' our subconscious compulsion to explain creation." Our subconscious can be overridden by our rational conscious minds that seek to understand the world. Using reason and the scientific method we can understand the world. We are lucky that we live in a time when a theory of everything may be just around the corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiceMan Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Pat_Pong_Proselytizer said:Everything I post is a lie including this post :: Logically, your post is not a post, it is a meta-post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Some people believe they know the truth so strongly that they want to force all others to follow that truth - "their truth". That's fundamentalism, it doesn't matter if it's christian, muslim, communstic or anyone else - all must be opposed. The correct way is to accept that you don't know the truth and try to find out - science, logic and intelligence are tools for that. Democracy and human rights can't exist under a fundamentalistic rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chillers Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Some people believe they know the truth so strongly that they want to force all others to follow that truth - "their truth". Indeed. Thomas Aquinas, whose infantile ramblings have been mentioned in this thread had no problem condemning all non believers to death. One does though have to accept a few basic axiomatic truths if one's life is to be led rationally. I have no problem for example saying that "rationalism" and "logic" (the ideal of logic that is) are both fundamental truths that cannot, and should not be debated. Could it just be that political and religious fundamentalism are easy and science is too friggin hard? With fundamentalism you have all your ideals and facts nicely bundled up in an easy to understand package. Plus with religious fundamentalism you also get a comfy after life. What do you get with science? moral ambiguity, transient facts, and a huge amount of time dedicated to reading, debating, experimenting, observing, and wrestling with your own flawed intellect. But yes, it is right. :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.