Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 16:42:59 GMT -5
No, Dawkins used "monster" and Dawkins used "milksop"
I was surprised to see the word "milksop" used - in the sense it is contradictory to the "monster" term and is highly offensive. But interestingly - I have not read that term in a book before. Yes, there really is a word "milksop" and not just my local Aussie family lingo.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 30, 2014 16:44:22 GMT -5
I would like to bring the above highlighted remark to the attention of the Board's Admin and register a complaint! I have to state very clearly that I strongly disagree with the remark. In my view Jesse is doing Bert a huge disservice here, bordering on a grave insult. Bert is worthy of a far higher accolade than Jesse is prepared to give him credit for. This type of derogatory behaviour should be not be tolerated! Don't worry Bert, I will stick up for you! Actually in terms of 'interesting' I think Nathan is our resident 'interesting' poster. But I think he needs some new material. I'm tired of all the old stuff and nothing new and/or upcoming. I think Jessie was using "tongue in cheek" in his remark.
Bert isn't that interesting, confused maybe, not interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 16:46:58 GMT -5
Quote - 'I think Jessie was using "tongue in cheek" in his remark. Bert isn't that interesting, confused maybe, not interesting."
Do you find me offensive because I haven't contracted the virulent Dawkins meme?
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Nov 30, 2014 17:00:08 GMT -5
I think Jessie was using "tongue in cheek" in his remark.
Bert isn't that interesting, confused maybe, not interesting.
Ouch!!!! A little mean, don't you think? I would tend to think that we are all 'interesting', including Bert.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 30, 2014 17:02:21 GMT -5
Snow, I have examined the options and for me, they just don't add up. I need a lot more faith to believe in evolution than I do in the Creator God. A lot more. *Like* I grew up hearing my dad say that a few times. Believe me if there would have been a way to argue it us kids would have! But there is no argument... I like the simple condensed thoughts, like the guy who told me about a conversation with other drivers over radios while driving trucks in the Bakken oil field. They were discussing religion, and an atheist started spouting off about there being no God etc. All it took to shut him up was my friend saying, "I never heard of anything good happening from a bomb going off." Pretty much says it all. Oh I know my friend is "ignorant" of the "fact" evolution will conveniently not concern itself with the origin of life question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 17:08:26 GMT -5
Lots of religious people say, "I believe in adaptation but I don't believe in evolution" I think what they mean is that "natural selection" is fine, but the thought that man was created by the same process is offensive. Genesis gives a different account for man. Yes, man is made of clay (natural things, which in itself offended church people until the synthesis of urea) and yes, man is formed like things already existing, but it also says God "breathed the breath of life into the man's nostrils, and the man became a living person" I think that could be a spiritual thing - ie man alone has a soul.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 30, 2014 17:11:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 30, 2014 17:21:02 GMT -5
Was this from Chapter 2 of "The God Delusion"? (I think not) That is what Bert supposedly has been paraphrasing.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 30, 2014 17:37:45 GMT -5
---- A "meme" as I understand it is a virus-like transmittable IDEA. Not sure if you could put your finger on a meme. It is probably a way of looking at a topic. --- Yes, a "meme" can be described: on idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture .
James states: It's an idea, a concept, that is capable of being passed from one mind to another and that produces the motivation that makes you want to pass it on.
Memes are self replicating like genes.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 30, 2014 17:37:53 GMT -5
Why would you want to be something that doesn't deal with facts? You can always change and not believe that what creationists say is true and God's word. There are options and choices. Snow, I have examined the options and for me, they just don't add up. I need a lot more faith to believe in evolution than I do in the Creator God. A lot more. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 30, 2014 17:41:55 GMT -5
I think Jessie was using "tongue in cheek" in his remark.
Bert isn't that interesting, confused maybe, not interesting.
No it wasn't tongue in cheek. Bert operates on a different level from everyone else here. These kinds of discussions are like a lion playing with a mouse for him. I'm surprised more people don't see that. A few things stand out as very impressive, 1) the incredible database of knowledge he has. 2) His ability to engage in meaty conversations like this without getting emotionally involved like others do - that is plain to see. 3) he does original thinking, he doesn't simply parrot ideas. 4) he never comes across as feeling threatened by the conversation or having his posts criticized critiqued. Along with that he doesn't belittle or attack people directly as is so common here - he concentrates on content and ideas. I'm kind of surprised anyone is willing to take him on. He reminds me of my dad, when he talks it's so obvious he's thought it though. So if you disagree you better have your all ducks in a row. I do disagree with Bert about macro evolution, probably because I'm more of a philosopher than a scientist. More accurately a philosopher who's created things - like John Galt in a small way. I don't believe life as we know it created itself - no matter how much time you add to the equation. The helicopter pad Bert built for the workers would have never happened if Bert hadn't done it! Yeah I know there's an evolutionist argument against that idea, they can believe it if they want.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 30, 2014 17:46:13 GMT -5
Was this from Chapter 2 of "The God Delusion"? (I think not) That is what Bert supposedly has been paraphrasing. The first quote was from chapter 2 the other from chapter 7.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 30, 2014 17:46:41 GMT -5
Quote - 'I think Jessie was using "tongue in cheek" in his remark. Bert isn't that interesting, confused maybe, not interesting." Do you find me offensive because I haven't contracted the virulent Dawkins meme? Why would I find you "offensive"? I didn't use the word "offensive". I used the word "confused."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 17:47:59 GMT -5
Snow, I have examined the options and for me, they just don't add up. I need a lot more faith to believe in evolution than I do in the Creator God. A lot more. Why? Having carried out fairly extensive studies into the matter, I am very satisfied that evolution is by a long distance, further from fact than creation. Evolution has proved nothing to me. I do believe in "micro-evolution" or the adaptability of species to suit various environments, conditions etc (after all MAN is a good example of this), but as for the general concept of macro-evolution, every time there is a problem with it the evolution scientists pray to their God to throw a lot more "Time" at it in order to make it "possible!" One major problem is in man's classification of species. The Bible refers to animals, etc reproducing after their "kind." What we regard as "species" may in fact be different to what the Bible means as "kind!"
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 30, 2014 17:48:27 GMT -5
This thread shouldn't be about evolution on its own. It's about Dawkins' book and the existence of God. Evolution of ideas is fine - that "meme" thing is just an hypothesis at this stage, but it has a grainy plausibility. This comes down to what I believe is the "Truth" okay? I believe that most of the ideas presented in the bible are overly and covertly dismissed by most religious people. Dawkins talks about the "milksop" Jesus of the Victorian era, for example - if there's a "meme" floating around here it's that Jesus is the gorgeous hunk of a guy who loves the kids, feeds the hungry, seeks world peace and heals the sick. Period. The Jesus of the bible, warts and all, is bypassed. What are you saying? Jesus Christ Superstar isn't true!! Say it's not so! As far as you reaching the conclusion based on some historical events that do exist in other places other than the bible, that still doesn't make the Hebrew God exist anymore than the Egyptian God Ra. Their history is based on events they attribute to their God/s also. You have to remember that the Hebrews didn't always just worship Yahweh. He came into existence at a later date. There is archaeological evidence that they also worshiped Astarte who was a consort of Baal. That likely was left over from Egyptian influence. They were their Gods of fertility. That is why it was such a difficult fight for the leaders to get the people to just worship Yahweh when they tried to change them over to a 'one god' people. Yahweh had traditionally been their God of war and the other Gods were Gods and Goddesses of fertility which they felt needed to be worshiped for crops to grow etc. Yahweh was not thought to be able to do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 17:53:35 GMT -5
True, the Jews slash Hebrews worshiped other Gods. Much to the chagrin of the God of the Jews. That's covered plenty in the Old Testament.
Re Jesus super-star. Those Jews who were impressed with Jesus for feeding the five thousand wanted to make him a king, by force. When they found him the following day at a synagogue in Capernaum they found a very different different Jesus - full of works, judgment, bearing of the cross -- all that so-called Irvine stuff.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 30, 2014 17:57:36 GMT -5
I think Jessie was using "tongue in cheek" in his remark.
Bert isn't that interesting, confused maybe, not interesting.
No it wasn't tongue in cheek. Bert operates on a different level from everyone else here. These kinds of discussions are like a lion playing with a mouse for him. I'm surprised more people don't see that. A few things stand out as very impressive, 1) the incredible database of knowledge he has. 2) His ability to engage in meaty conversations like this without getting emotionally involved like others do - that is plain to see. 3) he does original thinking, he doesn't simply parrot ideas. 4) he never comes across as feeling threatened by the conversation or having his posts criticized critiqued. Along with that he doesn't belittle or attack people directly as is so common here - he concentrates on content and ideas. I'm kind of surprised anyone is willing to take him on. He reminds me of my dad, when he talks it's so obvious he's thought it though. So if you disagree you better have your all ducks in a row. I do disagree with Bert about macro evolution, probably because I'm more of a philosopher than a scientist. More accurately a philosopher who's created things - like John Galt in a small way. I don't believe life as we know it created itself - no matter how much time you add to the equation. The helicopter pad Bert built for the workers would have never happened if Bert hadn't done it! Yeah I know there's an evolutionist argument against that idea, they can believe it if they want. I do agree with this Jesse. Bert is very intelligent, he has thought a lot of things through and I find him very interesting. But I don't always agree with his conclusions. There are things that he has thought through but used the basis of this thought on their definitely being a Hebrew God named Yahweh. That messes him up sometimes, but for the most part I admire his mind if not always his conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 30, 2014 18:01:03 GMT -5
True, the Jews slash Hebrews worshiped other Gods. Much to the chagrin of the God of the Jews. That's covered plenty in the Old Testament. Re Jesus super-star. Those Jews who were impressed with Jesus for feeding the five thousand wanted to make him a king, by force. When they found him the following day at a synagogue in Capernaum they found a very different different Jesus - full of works, judgment, bearing of the cross -- all that so-called Irvine stuff. Sorry, I should have explained better. The Jesus Christ Superstar comment was regarding the cute guy that played Jesus in the movie. It was just a response to you saying Jesus was a hunk that loved children etc. Yes they worshiped other Gods and the leaders did write that their God Yahweh wasn't happy about it, but my point was this. How do you come to the conclusion that the God Yahweh is anymore authentic than the other Gods they worshiped until it became blasphemy to worship the ones they had always worshiped?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 18:02:15 GMT -5
Ram, this macro vs micro stuff. One Worker used to say words to the effect that a cat couldn't give birth to a dog, everything is "after its own kind." But it depends what that verse means. It's true, and it aint. The Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) evolved from the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) about a hundred years ago. It did happen. That's evolution. But generally, a cat has kittens, not puppies. But each generation of cat is s.l.i.g.h.t.l.y different. (Google new discoveries cat gene) E.v.e.n.t.u.a.l.l.y you will wind up with something that isn't quite "cat" anymore.
I recall one Worker telling me how "stable" the universe was, everything in its place. I was surprised because the universe is incredibly violent (1500 injured last year due to an meteorite!) but yes and no, in a way, he was right, too. The universe is stable ON OUR TIME SCALE.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 30, 2014 18:04:27 GMT -5
Was this from Chapter 2 of "The God Delusion"? (I think not) That is what Bert supposedly has been paraphrasing. I see Dawkins appears to be comparing the "monster of the bible" to the "deist god" he categorizes deists separately from Christians. He refers to the "God of Einstein" and spends a lot of time on Einsteinian religion as opposed to "supernatural gods"; My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein and the other enlightened scientists of the previous section. That is why I needed to get Einsteinian religion out of the way to begin with: it has a proven capacity to confuse.That seems to be what the statement "The deist God is certainly an improvement over the monster of the Bible." is referring to. As if it's the non-educated, non-sophisticated knuckle-dragging peons of the world who suffer from the real God delusion. "Enlightened scientists" appear to be respected more than those poor sub-humans. It would take a lot of time to understand and organize thoughts about this, don't know if I'm willing to do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 18:07:34 GMT -5
Quote - "Sorry, I should have explained better. The Jesus Christ Superstar comment was regarding the cute guy that played Jesus in the movie. It was just a response to you saying Jesus was a hunk that loved children etc.
Yes they worshiped other Gods and the leaders did write that their God Yahweh wasn't happy about it, but my point was this. How do you come to the conclusion that the God Yahweh is anymore authentic than the other Gods they worshiped until it became blasphemy to worship the ones they had always worshiped?"Yes I understand that Jesus Super Star stuff. This is from an earlier threadA point to make. I believe in the Jewish God, or Yahweh. I don't believe in other gods. These gods (and including the Muslim and Mormon versions of Yahweh) are strikingly man-made. At one stage I considered the proposal that seeing how so many gods are man-made, then perhaps ALL gods are man-made. And by "man-made" I mean these alien gods appeal to human reasoning in a way that Yahweh does not. How so? Much of what God and Jesus spoke of is deliberately circumvented by most religious people, and the hole which is left is filled with all sorts of more human-like attributes. Secondly its the power of prophecy. See my thread "Explaining away prophecy" by way of example. Thirdly the fact that this Yahweh is a God of history, for much of what transpired in the bible has been traced to actual places and actual dates (ie Jewish conquest of Palestine, King David, Babylonian captivity, Herod's temple mount etc..) Fourth, the symbolic power of scripture. One European king said he believed in the bible because of the continuance of the Jewish people. The story of the Jews, by way of example, IMO is there as a symbol of God's will, TO THIS DAY: The Jews are given the land of Promise; the Jews are taken into captivity; the Jews return from captivity. The Jews lose their land and even freedom after their rejection of the Messiah. The Jews remain curse "until the time of the Gentiles be complete." So these people and their history "shadow" what the bible states. And fifth (I am sure to think of others later!) the very verses some used to "prove" the bible is fanciful, the six days of Genesis, impress me with their power. Until a few years ago I believed these verses were too way off due to the fact that we believed Earth was not oceanic so early. It turned out that Earth was an oceanic planet for a long, long time, with little or any land at all, not a glowing red ball of magma for billions of years. ie Earth forms 4.7 bya and its oceanic 4.5 bya. Look at this article - its COOL. www.sci-news.com/geology/science-jack-hills-zircon-oldest-known-fragment-earth-01779.htmlCheers!!!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 30, 2014 18:12:54 GMT -5
Quote - 'I think Jessie was using "tongue in cheek" in his remark. Bert isn't that interesting, confused maybe, not interesting." Do you find me offensive because I haven't contracted the virulent Dawkins meme? Why would I find you "offensive"? I didn't use the word "offensive". I used the word "confused."
This is what I mean, DMG you actually used the word "confused" directly about Bert. That is something I don't see Bert ever do - even when others do it to him. And they do, over and over. Bert seems to be immune to those kinds of comments from others, a cut above doing the same thing to others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 18:25:08 GMT -5
Thanks Jesse! Re Einstein. He is the paragon of modern intellectualism. His theory of General Relativity is considered by some to be the greatest intellectual achievement in history. "Not so much the theory, but the thinking of it" as someone put it. Having been held to such high intellectual esteem people tend to hold onto anything he says on any subject. Would you seek Einstein's advice on marriage? www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2133922/Was-Einstein-worlds-worst-husband-Wife-ordered-room-tidy-serve-meals-day--expect-NO-affection--stop-talking-demands-it.htmlSo let's not quote Einstein in Religion - it wasn't his thing. nb if Einstein was a devoted Orthodox Jew would we all rush out and buy a yarmulke (skull cap) and start chanting Hebrew verses? Of course not. And would Dawkins mention Einstein if he was a God believing man? Maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 30, 2014 18:32:41 GMT -5
I'm not exactly sure where Dawkins puts Einstein, "God of Einstein" implies some sort of spirituality. Dawkins further implies that spirituality is more acceptable than that of those who believe in "the monster of the Bible".
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 30, 2014 18:35:26 GMT -5
Why would I find you "offensive"? I didn't use the word "offensive". I used the word "confused."
This is what I mean, DMG you actually used the word "confused" directly about Bert. That is something I don't see Bert ever do - even when others do it to him. And they do, over and over. Bert seems to be immune to those kinds of comments from others, a cut above doing the same thing to others. Jesse, I have usually found you reasonable so I'm going to take a closer look at what Bert has said in the past.
I can't do it right now as I have to get some other things done but I hope to get it done this evening some time.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 30, 2014 18:45:49 GMT -5
True, the Jews slash Hebrews worshiped other Gods.Much to the chagrin of the God of the Jews. That's covered plenty in the Old Testament. If one understands the history of religion & how people developed their gods, you can better understand why the "Jews/Hebrews worshiped other Gods," who & what those gods represented and how the one god meme developed.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 30, 2014 20:18:23 GMT -5
Quote - "Sorry, I should have explained better. The Jesus Christ Superstar comment was regarding the cute guy that played Jesus in the movie. It was just a response to you saying Jesus was a hunk that loved children etc.
Yes they worshiped other Gods and the leaders did write that their God Yahweh wasn't happy about it, but my point was this. How do you come to the conclusion that the God Yahweh is anymore authentic than the other Gods they worshiped until it became blasphemy to worship the ones they had always worshiped?"Yes I understand that Jesus Super Star stuff. This is from an earlier threadA point to make. I believe in the Jewish God, or Yahweh. I don't believe in other gods. These gods (and including the Muslim and Mormon versions of Yahweh) are strikingly man-made. At one stage I considered the proposal that seeing how so many gods are man-made, then perhaps ALL gods are man-made. And by "man-made" I mean these alien gods appeal to human reasoning in a way that Yahweh does not. How so? Much of what God and Jesus spoke of is deliberately circumvented by most religious people, and the hole which is left is filled with all sorts of more human-like attributes. Secondly its the power of prophecy. See my thread "Explaining away prophecy" by way of example. Thirdly the fact that this Yahweh is a God of history, for much of what transpired in the bible has been traced to actual places and actual dates (ie Jewish conquest of Palestine, King David, Babylonian captivity, Herod's temple mount etc..) Fourth, the symbolic power of scripture. One European king said he believed in the bible because of the continuance of the Jewish people. The story of the Jews, by way of example, IMO is there as a symbol of God's will, TO THIS DAY: The Jews are given the land of Promise; the Jews are taken into captivity; the Jews return from captivity. The Jews lose their land and even freedom after their rejection of the Messiah. The Jews remain curse "until the time of the Gentiles be complete." So these people and their history "shadow" what the bible states. And fifth (I am sure to think of others later!) the very verses some used to "prove" the bible is fanciful, the six days of Genesis, impress me with their power. Until a few years ago I believed these verses were too way off due to the fact that we believed Earth was not oceanic so early. It turned out that Earth was an oceanic planet for a long, long time, with little or any land at all, not a glowing red ball of magma for billions of years. ie Earth forms 4.7 bya and its oceanic 4.5 bya. Look at this article - its COOL. www.sci-news.com/geology/science-jack-hills-zircon-oldest-known-fragment-earth-01779.htmlCheers!!! you said something here that caught my attention. You said that "At one stage I considered the proposal that seeing how so many gods are man-made, then perhaps ALL gods are man-made. And by "man-made" I mean these alien gods appeal to human reasoning in a way that Yahweh does not. How so? Much of what God and Jesus spoke of is deliberately circumvented by most religious people, and the hole which is left is filled with all sorts of more human-like attributes." That makes me wonder who you think God and Jesus really are. It sounds as though you have a different idea of what they are in comparison to other people. It is always a good idea to have an accurate understanding of what someone thinks God is before trying to have a conversation about God. For example, my definition of God would not be the God of the Bible. So I am wondering how you define God. Regarding your take on Genesis, I still don't see the verses in Genesis being accurate. In order of creation there are some steps that seem very out of order to me thereby making it quite impossible that they are written with any understanding of the history of the universe. I am currently taking a course called Philosophy and the Sciences that talks about The Big Bang, dark energy and dark matter, and also the possibility of the universe being one of many. Interestingly enough the Hindu religion speaks of this so using your criteria for believing that the God of the bible is the only true God, how does the understanding of multi-verses in the Hindu religion say about it's authenticity? I recognize that its customs are likely alien to you and you resonate better with the God of the bible because it is what you have grown up knowing and it reflects the culture you live in, but it does seem to know things about the world in a similar way you say the Bible does. I don't see how we can choose a God and believe it is the correct one based on it's writings. Hope I'm explaining my question in a way that can be understood. I guess maybe the answer, partially anyway, will be in your answer about who and what your definition of God is to start with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 23:03:56 GMT -5
Firstly the nature of God. We hold that Jesus epitomizes God. He said this himself.
Re Big Bang: the Genesis account could go back so many iterations, ie the Earth was molten rock The earth was a coagulation of particles The earth was a belt of dust The earth was the remnants of a super-nova The earth remnants inside the super-nova formed from hydrogen The hydrogen came from the Big Bang The Big Bang was a singularity in membrane space Membrane space formed from a multi-dimensional.... (whatever)
HOW MANY ITERATIONS ARE THERE IN REALITY? WHAT LEVEL OF EDUCATION WOULD YOU NEED TO GRASP THEM, GIVEN THAT FROM ABOUT THE 1920'S WE STOPPED BEING ABLE TO GRASP THE NATURE OF UNIVERSE (RELATIVITY, QUANTUM ETC..)
IMO the bible just answers one question, "Where did everything we see come from?" and it answers this from a human perspective. Belts of dust, rotating inside an Einsteinian gravitational well, around a new star don't cut it.
I am content with the Hebrew God. This is the God we can call upon to have a personal experience. Hindu gods (all 33,000,000 deities!) are beliefs no different than what the biblical pagans followed. And... Hindu deities are amazingly human, even with beastly forms or multiple arms.
|
|