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.
It's just my opinion, but I think Jesus was a typical shaman, who just happened to have been written about and remembered. I am not trying to minimize what he was, because I think shamans have real powers and knowledge of the spirit worlds.
My recent second look at the Kabbalah has convinced me He was a very advanced Jewish Mystic.
People used to have more common sense than they do now, at least in certain things. Not that common sense is so great, but it's better than not having any.
One thing that caused a big loss of common sense was the idea that our world, the universe, all the life on our planet, our own selves, etc., happened only on the "physical" level, and was not driven by higher levels of intelligence.
Yes, the flaw in using 'common sense' was avoided by using rational methods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
That idea became popular after Darwin had gathered evidence that more complex life evolved from simpler life. Then in mid 20th century, Darwin's idea was combined with discoveries in genetics, and cemented into what was called "neo-Darwinism."
Neo-D was taken as gospel and not questioned, because it finally made atheism a respectable scientific theory.
No, it was questioned, and it was not accepted because of atheism, it was accepted because of the evidence for it. That is why religious people accept evolution, because of the evidence. But do continue to build your straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
No one could be incredulous and ask "But wait, how was all the complex machinery of life created by random changes and natural selection?" You could not ask that, because the atheists could always provide convoluted explanations as "proof."
And there it is, making the obvious into something mystery, presenting the evidence accepted by believers as well as convoluted. The answer to 'how was all the complex machinery of life created by random changes and natural selection' is through random changes and natural selection, and can be explained in the science section.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
So now, ever since, our society has been divided between:
A. Atheists who were convinced by neo-D (called by other names now, but you know what I mean).
B. Those who deny evolution theory altogether.
C. Those who believe the universe is intelligent and naturally creates life.
D. Those who don't know and don't care.
And E, which is the same as A, but with religious people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
I think group D is by far the largest group. But at this forum, there are probably a lot of As, and maybe some Cs.
I am definitely in group C, have studied this question all my life. To me, it starts with common sense, but there are good scientific reasons as well.
Considering your need to straw man evolution, I am not sure you understand science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
I have argued extensively with group A atheists. They get angry, and no one ever wins the argument.
But just sayin', here it is.
Yes, your method of asserting things and denying the science you do not like would make people who know what they are talking about angry.
But the main question is, if you believe the universe is intelligent and naturally creates life, how does the universe just know things; what is it's brain made of; or if it does not have a brain, how does that idea work; where does it store it's knowledge?
You did not just know things, you learnt them, or discovered them. How did the universe (or the ultimate source) just know things? And how do you know this?
I'd point to B. I've studied evolution and found it faulty simply because there is nothing in DNA to learn or grow or advance. DNA has no way of advancing or progressing. It only replicates what is there before. It can certainly mutate / distort (such as by radiation) and lose information (2nd law of thermodynamics), but it can't learn or advance. It doesn't matter how much time you throw at it. If the process is not there, no amount of time will change that or make it magically happen. I know people won't agree here, and I don't care. I can't overlook that fault in the very foundation of the theory of evolution. It takes faith that the evolution process could take place since there is no proven evidence, and we can't watch or experience the process taking place.
The flaws in your arguments can be explained in the science section.
OK... Put me down for C and the first half of D. I believe life is too complex and sophisticated to be a purely random event with no intelligence behind it. I don't know what the source of this intelligence is (or was) but I DO care and hope someday to know either in worldly life or a post-life if it exists...
My problem with this is you are comparing how life is now (too complex and sophisticated) with how it was then.
I'm a B because I know God .... I look at the body parts of even people and the brain and the complex liver organ and don't believe that the mindless nature could have come up with that
For one thing, when supernatural things happen I don't try to deny them or explain them away. I know that "supernatural" events are actually "natural," in a conscious universe.
I also can experience universal love, and don't have to depend on other humans to make me feel worthwhile or to have a sense of belonging. When people let me down, my world doesn't fall apart.
I get guidance when I need it, as long as I ask sincerely. If I didn't believe, I probably wouldn't ever ask.
People used to have more common sense than they do now, at least in certain things. Not that common sense is so great, but it's better than not having any.
One thing that caused a big loss of common sense was the idea that our world, the universe, all the life on our planet, our own selves, etc., happened only on the "physical" level, and was not driven by higher levels of intelligence.
That idea became popular after Darwin had gathered evidence that more complex life evolved from simpler life. Then in mid 20th century, Darwin's idea was combined with discoveries in genetics, and cemented into what was called "neo-Darwinism."
Neo-D was taken as gospel and not questioned, because it finally made atheism a respectable scientific theory. No one could be incredulous and ask "But wait, how was all the complex machinery of life created by random changes and natural selection?" You could not ask that, because the atheists could always provide convoluted explanations as "proof."
So now, ever since, our society has been divided between:
A. Atheists who were convinced by neo-D (called by other names now, but you know what I mean).
B. Those who deny evolution theory altogether.
C. Those who believe the universe is intelligent and naturally creates life.
D. Those who don't know and don't care.
I think group D is by far the largest group. But at this forum, there are probably a lot of As, and maybe some Cs.
I am definitely in group C, have studied this question all my life. To me, it starts with common sense, but there are good scientific reasons as well. I have argued extensively with group A atheists. They get angry, and no one ever wins the argument.
But just sayin', here it is.
this is mixing up a lot of ideas. To me, it also misses what is happening.
I would say use commonsense and think about
1-daity (as most use the word). The word "god " can have so many meanings that I don't even use it really.
2-something more (any number of things) alive, rebirth, unity, whatever.
3-nothing more. Like we humans are the "top" and more isolated than "paired" to the structure we seeing. However we word it.
4-I don't have to say anything because you are making the claim.
what one is the most logical and why? How does it compare to the othewrs? when is the one we choose more reliable"?
It depends on what we mean by the universe being intelligent. I think it's an infinitely complex information system.
bingo ...
Everything we know demonstrates that. Every new discovery proves that thinking "we are a subset set of information exchange within a larger more complex information exchange" is so far more reliable than the not agreeing with its almost a joke.
That why, I believe, people are using the dogma looking "I don't have to say anything." or "thats a strawman" because its so clear, that one would need a large about of information to disprove it.
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.
