Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and seven other institutions have unearthed skeletal fossils of a human ancestor believed to have lived about 4.5 million years ago. The fossils, described in this week's Nature (Jan. 20), will help scientists piece together the mysterious transformation of primitive chimp-like hominids into more human forms.
I'm not getting pulled into this again. I said everything I needed to in the other thread, which you are welcome to read through again.
You know, you could ask me any question about the Bible. And I could give you a simple (YES) or (NO,) or (TRUE) or (FALSE) answer. Or at least, explain my position. Yet, you cannot even confirm the words of a believer in Evolution? Your response, or lack of response shows me the weakness of your arguement for evolution. If you can't be up front with what you believe, then your really wasting all of our time here.
Campbell, do you know what trolling means? Look at your last few posts. That ground has been covered ad infinitum.
I may not be up on the meaning of trolling, but I sure know when someone is trying to avoid answering a question. Usually, I hear that ground has been covered crap, when someone can't answer a direct question. Looks like you and Lamplight have something in common.
You know, you could ask me any question about the Bible. And I could give you a simple (YES) or (NO,) or (TRUE) or (FALSE) answer. Or at least, explain my position. Yet, you cannot even confirm the words of a believer in Evolution? Your response, or lack of response shows me the weakness of your arguement for evolution. If you can't be up front with what you believe, then your really wasting all of our time here.
We all answered your question countless times in the other thread, and you completely ignored every single response that didn't line up with what you've already made up your mind to believe. You've completely ignored the evidence presented in this thread showing that Henry Gee himself did not intend his words the way you're interpreting them, exactly as you did numerous times in the other thread. So yes, it is a waste of time. That's one thing we can agree on.
ana One: (from the glorious Wiki link...)
"Religious naturalism, like most religions, is concerned about the meaning of life, but it is equally interested in living daily life in a rational, happy way. An alternative, more human-centric approach, is to look at it as answering the question: "What is the meaning of one's life and does it have a purpose?". Religious naturalism attempts to amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics. As such, it is an objectivity with religious emotional feelings and the aesthetic insights supplied by art, music and literature."
In it's attempt to "amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective... blah blah blah" (as in selectively ignore the parts that contradict what spiritualists need to believe) it fails on all rational levels, because how can you deny such things as well proven as gravity just because they re-define ancient historical events? You can't deny gravity in favor of some God, unless of course you're truly delusional.
That little saying about "In science if the facts don't fit the theory, change the theory. In religion, if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts"... never truer than here.
but now, that's as good a definition of religious naturalism, which seeks to ignore many of the factual observations into a nice warm "acceptance" of some invented mythology, as there is.
ana Two
Tom Campbell said:
Quote:
I may not be up on the meaning of trolling, but I sure know when someone is trying to avoid answering a question. Usually, I hear that ground has been covered crap, when someone can't answer a direct question.
But then, he himself goes on to erroneously reference Henry Gee, taking what Henry said completelyout of context, again trying to refute Evolution's existence and proofs based on our expanding, actually more-encompassing understanding of it, which is based on the relentless increase in knowledge that honest science brings. such as:
He ignores current unambiguous DNA lineage tracing as "assumptive and biased". Keeping it up (why not?), he then assures us of several conflicting alternate explanations and locations up on barren, eroded and ice-swept Ararat, providing us with links "showing" cages, ramps, deck levels, all obviously drawn in on top of a collection of the most out-of-focus photos any of us have EVER seen...
And then, it's vegan T-rexs and Hiber-eggs, all the stuff of irrational make-up science* (I'll call it IMUS!), with absolutely no reference to any of it in his bible. He admits to making it up to try to convince the more rational among us.
What'cha gonna do, Tom, when the level of truth rises above your nostrils?.
"Religious naturalism, like most religions, is concerned about the meaning of life, but it is equally interested in living daily life in a rational, happy way. An alternative, more human-centric approach, is to look at it as answering the question: "What is the meaning of one's life and does it have a purpose?". Religious naturalism attempts to amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics. As such, it is an objectivity with religious emotional feelings and the aesthetic insights supplied by art, music and literature."
In it's attempt to "amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective... blah blah blah" (as in selectively ignore the parts that contradict what spiritualists need to believe)
"need for belief"? Everyone needs to believe something, only spiritual/religious people at least admit as much. A anti-theist might believe, say, that his wife will be faithful to him, even though there is no evidence to support that she will not cheat, or that they will survive another year, when people die as a result of random occurances all the time.
Quote:
it fails on all rational levels, because how can you deny such things as well proven as gravity just because they re-define ancient historical events?
ohh, what are you saying? A theistic Naturalist believes in gravity because it exist, that is the point of the whole thing...
Quote:
You can't deny gravity in favor of some God, unless of course you're truly delusional.
Who created gravity? god, in the sense of being a creative urge/power/force/being.
Quote:
That little saying about "In science if the facts don't fit the theory, change the theory. In religion, if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts"... never truer than here.
What? That makes about as much sense as calling Barack Obama a white supremacist. The point of Natural Theism is that the rules of nature are, essentially, set in stone and god intended them that way and everything that happens in nature happens in accordance with the laws of nature that god wrote. Just like in Mario Brothers, the fact that King Koopa killed Mario on the fourth level does not mean that the game didn't have a designer, but instead, it had a designer that intended the game to have those rules, the fact that the laws of nature exist in their rigid form does not prove that the laws of nature did not have a writer, but only that the writer intended them to be rigid.
Quote:
but now, that's as good a definition of religious naturalism, which seeks to ignore many of the factual observations into a nice warm "acceptance" of some invented mythology, as there is.
This is the one thing that many anti-theist do not get: The Myths were not intended to be taken literally and many believers do not take them literally, as most Natural Theist. Allagory? Symbolism? Do these things mean anything? The Myth is there to teach a lesson, not showcase a literal truth.
This is the problem with some hard science folks reading scripture. All the time, they read it like it's a chemistry text book. Aside from the fact that no scripture is ever as boring as a chemistry text book, there is the issue of it not being literal, like a text book. An acid and a base make a neutral: this is stated in the text book, and it is literally true.
Adam and Eve left the garden of eden forever: This is stated in the Myth, and it means, amongst many interpretations, that the human social unit (symbolized by the couple, Adam and Eve) left the bliss of pre-sentient existince (the Eden) and even of hunter-gather society (the garden) and were forced to "till the Earth", i.e., the start of agriculture and civilization. The result was the hardship which is all from the fruit of knowledge, i.e., our own sentience and leaving the world of animals for something more.
So, when looked at metaphorically, we see that there is no reason why the Bible is not incompatible with a Naturalist world view.
As Joseph Campbell ( a man who knew allot more about religion than any anti-theist I ever heard of) once said:
"Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble."
However, hard science heads, like Dawkins and all the rest, are not taught to look at any book metaphorically but instead look at things like a text book, i.e., right the left, everything is all laid out, nice and simple, and there is no personal interpretation (an acid and a base make a neutral, no matter what the read may think)
Scripture is different: it is filled with allagory, metaphor, symbolism, etc and has so much room for each reader to take something different away from it. They are not meant to be read in the same fashion.
Scripture is different: it is filled with allagory, metaphor, symbolism, etc and has so much room for each reader to take something different away from it. They are not meant to be read in the same fashion.
There are many devout Christians who would disagree with you. They take their holy text as the literal Word of God and regard taking it any other way as unthinkable. I enjoy Joseph Campbell as well; he was a very wise man.
There are many devout Christians who would disagree with you. They take their holy text as the literal Word of God and regard taking it any other way as unthinkable.
Only the literalist. Many Christians from groups like the quakers, the United Church of Christ, etc are not literalist and understand that allot of it is metaphor and allagory that is not meant to be understood in a narrow, literal context but rather as a learning tool that teaches a lesson through metaphor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ana One, ana Two....
"need for belief"? Everyone needs to believe something, only spiritual/religious people at least admit as much. A anti-theist might believe, say, that his wife will be faithful to him, even though there is no evidence to support that she will not cheat, or that they will survive another year, when people die as a result of random occurances all the time. 
