Noahs Ark housed Dinosaurs in KY Creation Museum

[radical matt]

^ All it takes to start a new Christian sect in America is a resentment and a Bible.

Hehe, funny, that's also all it takes to start most cults.

To start a new Secular sect is easier, all you need is resentment. ^_^

 

[radical matt]

if you actually read my post you would see that while the situation if you think of it logically would not be adventagious to save the person but i already said that an emotional attachment would strengthen them thus this attachment while adventagous in many situations would be counter in a few situations but loving someone is better most of the time but in the situation where it is not you just cant switch it off like you seem to think should happen

You said it was adventagous for people (for the sake of tribal unity and strength) to develop emotional attachments to each other...the assumption here being to other people IN THE TRIBAL CONFEDERATION. Firstly, you didn't say people should make emotional attachments to ENEMY tribes/clans. Secondly, in reality that doesn't happen.

In our societies, people develop emotional attachments to their families and to friends. In SMALL societies (less than 100, maybe up to 250 or so people), where everyone knows essentially everyone else, we build up emotional attachments to other people. In larger societies, we tend not to as much excepting huge disasters (9-11, hurricanes, ect.)

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, but I think a lot of people help others because they believe that it's "right", not because they feel emotionally inclined to do so. But I can see your point that emotion could direct that some too now that you pointed it out. I'm not quite sure what emotion that would be (mercy/compassion, I guess?), but I can see that helping out. I still don't think most people are so ruled by emotion that they act entirely out of that. From childhood we're taught that helping people is "right", not that it's "emotionally acceptable" or "personally adventagous." Give, that doesn't mean those can't be what lead people to help others, but I think it's more likely that it's because we believe it's "right" to do so.

oh and as for me using other peoples ideas I ONLY use MY ideas just because you think its someone else's idea and i am using it i thought of everything i wrote in the examples above by myself

I think you misunderstand, I'm saying that our ideas in general are often repititions of ideas of people before us or regurgitations of what we're taught as children. Some ideas are original, though. I mean, I don't think anyone was taught Quantum Mechanics as a child, for instance. ^_^

just because you are unable to Comprehend it doesn't mean its wrong and if you can but just reject it off hand that is silly

Actually, I was "unable to Comprehend it" because you didn't explain it very well...now that you brought back attention to that point and I've thought about it some, I find that I PARTIALLY agree with it. I'm not going to say it's wrong and I didn't really reject it off-hand, it just wasn't explained all that clearly, which makes it difficult to agree or disagree with it.

even though you like to say that you dont every post of yours is designed to try and tear down arguments

Can you quote me saying that I don't tear down arguments? When have I ever said that?

That aside, a rebuttle is SUPPOSED to be either tearing down arguments, pointing our yours is better, or (preferably) both, showing how the opponent's view is wrong and yours is preferable to that. It's called actively debating...as opposed to passively just listening to what someone says and nodding your head in agreement without actually doing any individual thinking on your own. Pacifism has a place...it isn't really in the arena of ideas. ^_^

and none of them really do

Okay, I'm kinda confused, did you just sub-rebuttle yourself here? Here's a reworded, more clear version of WHAT I THINK you just said:

RM, you say you you don't just tear down arguments, but your posts do just that, tear down arguments...and none of them really do that.

I can see that being a little amusing sarcasm (like "You're trying to spit into the wind, and you aren't even spitting well!"), but I'm not sure that was what you were trying to do. Maybe you can be a little more clear/clarify this? Cause I'm kinda confused here...

you write alot of crap with no point

its all smoke and mirrors with you Get to the point

Do what you accuse me of not doing; read my posts. At the end of my posts, I almost always try to put in a summary to those that got lost somewhere and didn't really read a lot of the post.

Smoke and mirrors? Ha! If you wanna accuse me of anything, accuse me of thinking. ^_^ The reason many of my posts tend to ramble is simple, it's the course of my thinking. Usually it's actually fairly well structured, but not always. Smoke and mirrors? You may not agree with it, but it's reason, rational, logic, and a little imagination and innovation. If you disagree with that, that's fine, just know it's not empty banter, as it seems you think with the "smoke and mirrors" comment.



Oh yeah, and you STILL haven't defined "preconcieved ideas" (YOU accused ME of not actively thinking for myself there...I think...) or justified how you said I "always" do something...though by saying "every post" of mine, you once again made a universal statment about me, and one which if you look at all the stuff I've ever posted, is easily shown to be not true. Thanks. ^_^

 

[star-warrior]

That makes thirty percent of the fifty percent, i.e. ~17% of americans polled think Bush is doing a good job. They must be the hard core creationists.

 

[Nishin]

Nishin, though I agree with you on next to nothing[...]

At least we agree on this, see?

That was a pretty long read and I will need a few days to answer... I will try to synthetize my thoughts the best I can... but I wouldn't count on that too much... lol

Tell me, what through time have people cited as a reason to do good? Well, the "gods" told them to. Karma was a concept that developed later, but still has some basis in a spiritual "thing", some intangible thing that has a strength and consequences.

Hmm what Gods are you talking about?? The Dharmic religons (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism , Sikhism...) are the oldest (ongoing) religions in the world ! For example, Hinduism dates from 1500BC, although some aspects derived from the Vedic religion dates as far back as 2500BC... (Judaism = 1300BC).

As opposed to the monotheist Abrahamic religions (the desert religions, Judaism, Christianism and Islam) where the law derives (supposedly directly) from God, Dharmic religions usually focus more on the balance of nature and the universe, and men's duties to live in harmony with this global system...

It's even been argued that Judaism, Jesus, and therefore Christianity, was influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism ( http://www.suhotraprabhu.com/in2-mec/index.php?p=J040130 )
Meanwhile other religions from the same area were mainly polytheist (Greek and Roman pantheon, nordic mythology, egyptian gods...) and/or animist and in such systems, while humans usually respect divinities, the latter are "just" some sort of cast of beings, superior in might to humans, but with their own sets of defaults and qualities... human morals and ethics derived from these are therefore (to me anyway) more a matter of observation and symbolic, rather than "commandments" or rules/laws derived from the deities themselves...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the concept of life after death and direct accountability to a superior God is much more prominent in Abrahamic religions in which it is therefore logical to attribute/derive morals and ethics systems to God('s will) while in Dharmic religions, it is much more of a human matter, more like a philosophy... which is why I reject your argument that such considerations (life after death) are necessary to a system of morals and ethics: in the karmic retribution system, the part of the human entity being eventually reincarnated (not always the case btw) is nothing like the concept of "soul" developped in ie the Christian religion... there is no identity kept (similarly to an atheist's death) , no memory of past actions, misdeeds can't be "baught back" by good actions or repentence as is the case in Christianity... so while this system is also based on the concept of "transmigration of soul" , I deem it somehow irrelevent in a daily application of morals and ethics. Followers and practicers of Dharmic religions are not obedient to some gods' will, I believe deities there are more like symbols of human traits which are to either praise or fear, in regard to humans' own self-accomplishments and spiritual developments...
It may seem contradictory and require further explanations - which I don't feel like engaging in right now - to you but it is very clear to me, I will try to develop later on...

Maturity and "common sense"? What are these things? I guess I'm genuinely asking you because I'm not sure what type of maturity you're speaking of here (age, experience, wisdom...?)

Yes, exactly, EXPERIENCE (observation and understanding of what results from it) is what I'm talking about.

As far as common sense, what common sense says that you should do right when doing wrong is more beneficial to you?

Maturity and common sense allow you to weigh short term benefits against long term implications.

If you see a person in a burning building or a car, and you are wanted for some crime, then you can stop and help the person (doing what is "right"), but then get arrested when the cops arrive (sorta the Jack Sparrow rescueing Mrs. Swan in the first Pirates of the Caribean movie "One good deed isn't enough to pardon a man," "Aye, but it's apparently enough to condemn him."), or would it make more "sense" for you to simply leave the person to their grisly fate and saunter off, safely escaping the long arm of the law from catching you? Would not "common sense" dictate that you leave? Here, doing what's "right", showing mercy, is not in your best interest, and common sense would dictate you do quite the opposite, would it not? That is, if common sense has any "sense" of self-interest in your case. And there are times in life where doing what's "right" may not be popular or beneficial to you. In such cases, wouldn't "common sense" tell you to instead not do what is right?

It all depends which you find more gratifying when looking in the mirror of your soul, there is indeed self-interest in the process.
You label saving that guy "right", but concepts of right and wrong are fluctuant and are merely cultural values (whatever their origin) ... they can even be altered by a simple shock on the prefrontal (if I'm not wrong) lobe...
To use an extreme example, imagine that guy in the burning building is Osama Bin Laden (or any other wacko on the news), you guess/know saving him will most probably allow him to go on commiting serious misdeeds... what is the right thing to do? Is it a case of granting him the benefice of the doubt and believing in free-will? Or are you taking responsibility yourself in the (long-term) outcome of the event? Do you not consider this at all, leaving the judging to your God?
What I mean is in dealing with such cases,you can't always rely on "simplistic, black or white" system of rules when they engage not only your integrity but possibly have further serious repercussions...
Sure, having general guidelines are a good thing, but too strict a system will inevitably lead to radicalism... or you'll need to compromise... and in this instance, to what extent can one compromise with (supposedly) God's own words?
Definitions of right and wrong vary with time and societies, how then compromise?
That's where I believe experience, understanding, information plays a greater role, allowing you to fully claim responsibility for your acts, rather than relying on some third, conceptual entity...
Your only real and accurate guide here is your own conscience and what you are able to compromise with it.

Anecdotically, if I'm already wanted for a crime, I'm not that good a religious person and will end up in hell in the first place won't I ?
... so why as a believer who already compromised my afterlife prospects should I help that guy?

It makes a statement as to what effects your actions have. In such a concept as this, ripples of your current actions are seen to echo through eternity. Maybe that means nothing to you though, so...

I understand the logic.
The concept of eternity means indeed nothing to me. I'm an agnostic and not much interested in the question...
My actions provide direct gratification (or its opposite).

Here again I'm speaking of the consequences of actions. Actions with little or no consequence are easy to take, most people can live with no consequences to actions, and most people are alright with short term negative consequences, but if you have long term consequences, they make you think a little more.

Yes... that is ... common sense... lol.

Note that this isn't "fear" as many people would lable it, but rather consideration. Rash actions make sense if there are no consequences. It's when we think of what comes down the road (God or no God) that we have to slow down and think things through before acting. The realization here is that, once again, actions echo through eternity, so there's all the more reason to make them good ones. But again, maybe this means nothing to you, so please feel free to disregard.

I agree with the first part... still common sense to me.

Oh, they may have existed before and after the Bible and Jesus, but they would not exist AS THEY DO in our society without Jesus and the Bible.

Yes, probably, this is obvious and very imprecise...truth is no-one knows or can guess what our world would be like today without X, Y or Z ...
I think you misunderstood me too here. I am in no way refuting that the influence of dogmatic religions is greatly responsible for the spreading of moral values in the world today... my point is that such values do not necessarily derive from God. I think religion was only used as a tool, the same way you teach kids moral values by reading them tales (like the Grimm brothers' tales... or like oral traditions of animist societies...), just on a larger scale... that's what religions are to me, imagery, or symbolic systems that our brains may (in some individuals) need to achieve some balance and to construct base for its own functioning... which is somehow not contradicting evolution ... it may just be a construct of our minds to try and guarantee self-preservation of our species. A process which the realization of frees one from an artificial fairy-tale-like moral dependency and confronts him with his own conscience (understanding) and responsibilities (maturity). That to me is the real and only free-will.

Btw, getting slightly off-topic here but I sense the opposition of a linear concept of history (a particularity of Abrahamic religions' principles in which scheme it applies) as opposed to a cyclic (oriental philosophies) or multi-dimensional systems (ie interpretations of quantum physics such as the Copenhagen interpretation and/or Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation where a single action can result in the birth of a variety of different universes...) in light of which traditional religious systems seem more difficult to apply...

It's easy, in the modern day, to say, "Well, of couse helping others is the right thing to do!" But you must realize that this was not always so. YOUR thoughts of what is "right" derive from your society, and your society derives what it believes is "right" from people, mostly philosophers, and THOSE people/philosophers derived what was "right" from the Bible and the words of Jesus. That is, if you live in the Western world or the areas of the world that were significantly influenced by Western thought.
...indeed, that's something that a lot of modern secularists fail to realize; their OWN views were derived from the religions they condemn, moreso still if they are of the "nurture, not nature" school of thought which says you are what you were taught and raised as with no inherent "nature".

And where do Jesus and the Bible derive what is "right" from? That is what I'm trying to discuss.

Are you sure? From where did your notions of "luck" and "misfortune" come into your mind? Where did your idea of "charity" come from? Were you walking one day, saw someone who looked down on their "luck", and just think out of the blue, "Say, why don't I give this person some of my hard earned money?"

My notions of of "luck" and "misfortune" come from my experience and observations ... I was raised in a third world country and witnessed the great differences between the North and the South... and what I realized even more is the total lack of aknowledgment or interest of the North regarding other humans' conditions. Giving to charity somehow helps me deal with my conscience regarding such disparities (and despite the lexical semantics used here, this is not about guilt) ... it is indeed a selfish process... which happens to have positive consequences... so it's a win-win situation.

...or was it more like you have heard of churches doing it all your life, maybe your parents or some friends or some people you respect gave money and their time for the good of others. And where did they get those ideas from? Their parents? Their society? Their church? And where did said parents/society/church get those ideas from?

My parents do indeed give money and time to such causes, out of humanism (for one of them is a hardcore atheist) and sense of brotherhood (the other leans towards animism), I will develop in the next paragraph.

That is to say, from where, in your own words, do you believe the concept of charity arose? We both know it wasn't an original thought TO YOU, it came before your time, and you didn't arrive at it independently either, you got it from someone. Where did they get it from? And where did that person get it from?

I think it dates back to the origins of humans' life where (members of) tribes relied on one-another for the prosperity of the group, when people instinctly knew helping others equates helping yourself. I think it comes from the sense of brotherhood and community.
The same as in many animal groups where food is shared or turns are taken for surveillance and security of the group facing predators...

I guess my point here is that those ideas most likely DO derive from religion AT SOME POINT. Since there was no secular society from which we can trace these ideas, the most logical assumption is that at some point they were entangled with religion (and/or refined by it) in some way. To YOU, in the modern day, it has nothing to do with religion...but where did the idea come from in the past?

I think it's the opposite, I think (this aspect of) religions derive(s) from the observation of these natural, instinctive behaviours. I think religions are just illustrations of natural human traits and attempts at organizing/codyfying what most humans applied naturally.

They can, but not naturally (well, not without physically sleeping with someone of the opposite gender.)

I guess you never heard of artificial insemination Granted it may not be labeled "natural".
Anyhow, as a gay man I can very well fertilize the first female being I meet in the street, and her friend, and the friend of her friend, and so on until I die...
I don't really get where you got that idea that gay men and women don't procreate... the fact that homosexuality, in nowadays' gay rights' society, is easier to live than it was in the past and that a gay man may not want to procreate with a female being by having sexual intercourses does not mean they can not do so ... sure, they are less likely to, but many gay men and women have children and have had them the traditional way... many gay men and women in the past did get engage in the traditional way of life (that is to say, getting married and having kids) and would just leave their real sexuality at the door step, or live it on the side...
Now regarding evolution :

[...]I still believe that TRUE Christianity is more forgiving to homosexuality than Evolution is[...]

Not all theories about evolution deny a use to homosexuality, to mention them again, in the animal kingdom, homosexual behaviours is actually rather frequent and serves different purposes, I'm especially thinking of the Bonobos from Congo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior ).
I suggest reading this : http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html

About humans more specifically, I recall reading about a theory explaining homosexuality's role in evolution by the fact that in early years of human evolution and in tribal societies, if the male in charge of a family was to get killed and not to return from the hunt, his gay brother, who may be free from obligations towards a family of his own (not saying they didn't breed themselves), could replace him as the head of the family and provide for what the household needed (although it is to notice that as indicated in a previous argument of mine, "families" back then were different from our modern religion-shaped versions of it, and I believe the whole tribes somehow behaved like members of the same family, developping much more inter-dependant relationships than we do today...). Following a similar idea another theory hints the gay individual could function as an extra "parent" in a family (providing extra material/financial support to his nephews/nieces, and therefore securing transmission of the familial DNA...) ... it is also believed/observed that male homosexuality in a household also indicates higher female fertility in the same household (don't ask me about the specifics of the process, I think it is due to some gene that causes a mother and most of her daughters to be extremely fertile, while causing some of her sons to be homosexuals. Hopefully, the increased fertility outweighs the homosexuality incidence)...
Saddly, I can't find that precise article, which was much more precise than my recollection of it, right now... or links to the other theories I mentionned... but do check those links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB403.html
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-06/960498851.Ev.r.html
http://www.androphile.org/preview/Library/Articles/
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html

Or consider these quotes I collected from posts in a similar thread on another board:

"Consider the theory that genes for male homosexuality tend to increase in periods when the culture is dominated by gay-intolerant memes that drive homosexuals underground. Once homosexuals have been forced into heterosexual unions, they reproduce the gene for homosexuality, and the genes spread through the population. Once gays reach a critical mass in society, gay-positive memes spread, and homosexuals are able to "come out." However, homosexual unions do not produce offspring, and so the gay population gradually subsides, starting the cycle of intolerance over again. "

"Edward O. Wilson, the father of sociobiology (the discipline from which memetics is derived) has suggested that homosexuality is the result of a purely genetic reproductive pattern in which some males, by demonstrating homosexual behavior, remove themselves from the struggle for mates that is the main source of conflict in primitive societies. By serving as peacemakers, homosexuals allow for their close relatives to produce more offspring. In this way, the homosexuality gene passes on as a recessive gene to the primitive homosexual's nieces and nephews."

You/we need to keep in mind that regarding evolution, one must consider the (survival of the) species as a whole rather than individuals...
And on a last note about evolution and homosexuality, it is still difficult to discuss homosexuality in a purely evolutive frame for we still do not know for sure if it is a heritable trait (in which case, the above statement applies), or not (in which case the discussion about biological evolution is simply irrelevent), or both a genetic and cultural trait (that's my stance)

Hell, such people condemn masturbation as "Onanism". If you read the story of Onan, his sin was greed, he didn't want to provide a male heir for his deceased brother, so he slept with the brother's wife [as the law of the time dictated] but pulled out and jizzed on the ground. He didn't masturbate, he simply was being greedy and wanting all of their father's inheiratance for himself. Greed was his sin...the story itself doesn't even indicate any "manual stimulation" was used. But stupid people use that as an example without ever actually opening their own Bible to read the story.

I guess it does make sense if you consider it as "wasting semence" when in the Christian view, sex serves procreation only.

... gosh... am I only half-way through this post??

In the name of God? When has anyone said that we can go into the middle east because God told us we could? I hear this from a lot of far Left Liberals, but no one with reason actually says that's why we're there. Bush said we were going after WMDs, not that God had devinely delivered a stone tablet telling him to sent our forces there and dictating battle strategy and tactics (though such might have been useful, specially in the post-war aftermath we're in.)
In the name of God? Would you provide a source, please?

"But we need to be alert to the fact that these evil-doers still exist. We haven't seen this kind of barbarism in a long period of time. No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft - fly U.S. aircraft into buildings full of innocent people - and show no remorse. This is a new kind of -- a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html

I assume you do know what a crusade is right? (if not, see below)

"America is called to lead the cause of freedom in the new century....Freedom is not America's gift to the world. It is the Almighty God's gift."
Bush, 2004 elections'acceptance speech.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1779

“I think, in [Bush’s] frame, this is what God has asked him to do,” a close acquaintance told the New York Times. “It offers him enormous clarity.” According to this acquaintance, Bush believes “he has encountered his reason for being, a conviction informed and shaped by the president’s own strain of Christianity,” the Times reported. [NYT, Sept. 22, 2001]
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/092501a.html

"We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history. May He guide us now"
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Giroux0804.htm

In fact, it's secularism that can be used more readily than religion to justify it, and once again, how is religion being used to justify it? Which religion? Sources/quotes please? I would like to see you quote some actual people (not far right nut jobs) who have said that we should step on whoever we can to get what we want "in the NAAAAME of the LOARD!" (misspellings intentional, think southern Baptist accent.)

Is the pope considered actual people or far right nut job?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

From the Torah (yes, I know it's Old Testament... that new/old testament just illustrating my point that even to religious people, their God's alleged words and commands of right/wrong seem pretty disposable... not a great proof of integrity if you ask me...):

"You shall destroy all the peoples ... showing them no pity." (7: 16)

"... All the people present there shall serve you as forced labour." (20:12)

"... You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town -- all its spoil -- and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the LORD your God gives you." (20:14-15)

"... You shall not let a soul remain alive." (20:17)

I had quotes from various Imams too, supposedly quoting the Qu'ran, but since far right nut jobs don't count... (they are not religious people? Do you doubt most are actually convinced of being in the right?)

Good. Now ask yourself WHY. As I said above, the English language has descende from a long line of languages, do you think your "common sense" has not derived from a long line of "common senses"? Are you prepared to say that at NO time was that line influenced by either religion or Jesus? Now be careful...you should know as well as I that such a statement would be false. Given, this doesn't mean that the idea originated or was influenced in positive ways by religion, but you should at least acknowledge that your idea of "common sense", what is "common sense to (you)", likely derives from the teachings of religion.

Same as I asked above, where do you think these "religious" ideas come from in the first place? From some men's thinking/brains? Or from God (talking to them)?
That's my question.

[...]But in any of those cases, it is STILL a religion that influenced your thoughts, and that's WHY what "Jesus allegedly said" IS "common sense" to you (after all, I think Bhudda had similar thoughts to those of Christ. Two men in different places and different times arriving at similar conclusions...I wonder if theirs derived from something else or if they were original thoughts from their own minds...of course, societies develop slowly over time, so ideas do to, but could they have done so as they did without religion as we know it from our past...?)

Just a precision I evoked at the beginning of the reply... Bhudda (as in Siddhārtha Gautama that is) lived a few hundreds years before JC, between 400 and 500 years before...
So as to know who influenced who, if influence there is, it's clearly from Bhuddism to Christianity... As for Siddhārtha Gautama's path to enlightment, it is important to notice that during his early years and prior to his departur from his golden cage to meet his people he was kept away from religious teachings and influence.
Interestingly enough, Christians tried to seize Bhudda's story for themselves through the legend of Barlaam and Josaphat (the latter being Siddhārtha Gautama ) having the young prince converting to Christianity in that rewriting of the story and seemingly as an attempt to appropriate Bhudda's legacy for themselves... hmmm

Again, there's no purly secular nation that we can use as a historical benchmark here, so I guess this is something that we can only debate about. My position is that religion, if not the originator of the ideal, was at least a key agent in spreading it. Would you agree with that?

I agree with the last statement... and I always have.
I thought we were discussing the originator...

Indeed, that's why I placed the qualifier on there. However, if there are other options which I do not see...perhaps you could present a few here? ^_^ After all, I'd rather something to do other than live in constant "sin" or kill myself.

Well I can at least present mine: carpe diem, but in accordance with my own morals.

Definition, please? I'll probably look it up on Wiki after I post here, but a definition in your own words would be nice. ^_^

If I'm to use my own words, I'll use images instead: think Star-wars, think Lord of the Ring, think Bush's axis of evil...
More accurately, manichaeism is a persian dualistic religion from the 3rd (?) century that sees the world and humanity as a constant battlefield opposing light and darkness.

Once again, as you pointed out, that doesn't mean that spiritual religions have a monopoly on such ideas, but it should be noted that what secularism attempts to do is that the SAME morals that spiritual based religons have, and simply "reason" them out with some form of rational that can remove God/spiritual existance from the equation. Hm...let me see if I can think of an analogy...okay;

I understand what you're saying and do not disagree with this process... I don't believe secularism can or should take spirituality away from people to replace it with cold science or something, but I think religion must not interfere with politics or scientific understanding of what we are.
If, secularism attempts to get rid of religion (divisive) and replace it with morals and ethic rules based on humans and reason, I see it as a fair return on things (I don't believe "religious morals" are words from Gods), and an opportunity for human-kind to not only free itself from blackmail-like moral dependency but also access a higher level of responsibility and maturity.
I do not believe it will result in an increase or decrease in violence or wars, because these are in human nature, it will just remove hypocrisy from the equation indeed, when we have to face the consequences of our acts for what they are, and not pretend they were dictated by some superior invisible entity...

Well, this depends on how you look at it. What if our "need" for a belief is actually a result of our consciousness sensing (through some type of sense other than our five physical senses) that something else exists, and our subconscious mind then trying to translate that sense to our conscious mind? The strongest reason I believe that spiritual things exist is a semi-sixth sense that I have when I'm in some places or doing some things. The best way I can describe it is a cold or warm feeling that permiates my being (it isn't limited to my skin touch receptors, so there is no mistake for that.) What could be the cause of such a feeling? Well, it could be nothing at all, it could be some odd feeling of my touch senses misinturpreted by my brain, there are lots of explanations. It could, however, also be a sense of something else which my five cardinal senses do not cover, a "sixth" sense, as it were.
Of course, many people claim such things, and you can formulate any number of reasons to explain it, such as something like I was raised to believe that I had such a sense, though that isn't true, and also doesn't explain dreams I have where I see the future. ^_^ Such things indicate to me that there may very well be "something" going on which isn't easily explainable by science (I'd like to see someone perform telekenisis someday, you know, just to see if I can spot the wires. ^_^) Wasn't something I was "made" to believe (and to my knowledge the "sense" came about of its own accord without any prodding from anyone), so for now it's simply a mystery to me. Maybe it's some of my cells reacting to the electro-magnetic field of the Earth in some areas and at times when I just happened to be doing some associated action which tripped the wires in my nervous system to produce such a result. ...but that seems a bit of a stretch to me. As for how trustworthy my report can be (since it's only a personal experience on my part), that just depends on your estimation of my character. Have I not shown myself to have at least some semblence of logic, rational, reason, science, and trustworthiness? If I have, than it should be given that my "experiences" are real (at least to me), and if there's an explanation entirely physical that explains it, so be it, and if not...

I have had premonitory dreams in the past myself, I particularly recall one that occured while being awake, more like a vision although I did not "see" but "felt" something rather... so no, I do not reject spiritual things and have no reason to doubt of your own experience...
As I mentioned above I'm an agnostic ... and I take the chance to precise this, in response to RandomAccess' "cause they're not sure one way or the other" comment above:
I do not have the precise official definition of agnosticism in mind right now, but this is not how I view it. As an agnostic, it is not that I can't choose a way, it's rather that I do not want to (thus I am indeed making a thought choice).
See, I don't think we will ever know what happens (or not) once we die, until we get there. And that there is an after-life or not can not be proven, well it hasn't so far anyway, so my stance is to simply not care about it and to just wait and see. I think we have sufficient issues to deal with in this earthly existence to be preoccupied with something we can only, at best, have "faith" in... just seems a waste of tim to me. As to the opposite (aka pretending there is nothing, the atheists' position), well it's just the same, there is no proof (granted proving something's lack of existence/reality is harder that proving the opposite) and actual science can't explain everything.
Anyhow, the fact that I have myself experienced things labeled spiritual/supernatural/whatever that has no logical/scientifical explanation today does not mean it will never have one, it is no "proof" consistant enough for me to develop faith over...

...didn't I say as much? Haven't I said that, by a truly secular belief founded expressly in Evolution, you should only HELP someone else IF (this being a reason) doing so will help you (either them helping you when you have need of it or you trusting, entirely on good faith, that they won't "step on you" when they next have the chance to do so.) The idea is that if they can't EVER hurt you OR help you, you have no need to help them, and, in fact, if hurting them will get you what you want, you should do it. Why give "as little as a penny a day" to a starving kid in Africa? They aren't ever going to be in a position to "step on you" nor will they be able to "help you in return".

Your idea, to be applied and verified, necessitates cognition of the future as a pre-requisite. Because if you do not know in advance whether an act will turn fruitful to you, the best choice you have is to actually take the chance ( nothing ventured, nothing gained)

By a purly secular-evolutionary viewpoint, you have no reason to help them, and it's only expending your resources to do so in a venture that has a VERY low chance of bring returns to you.

Self-gratification can be appreciated by many as a sufficient "reward" for a "good" action.

Alright, good, most people simply believe in it as faith.
[...]
Uhm, just out of curiosity, what DO you know of Evolution? That is, what proof/evidence for it convinces you that it is correct? I know far to many people who will tell me it's true (and they truly do believe this), but they don't actually have any evidence to support it, they "believe" it on "faith" because they were taught it was true.

The evidences that convinces me that evolution is undeniable (as opposed to creationism) are various... where to even start?? ... humans' appendix and coccyx bone (although the role of those has recently been re-evaluated) ... the fact that embryos, prior to the 6th week of pregnancy, and despite already being bearer of XX or XY chromosomes, possess indifferenciated genital glands and both Wolff and Müller canals that will turn into male or female genitals according to proteins and hormones (when creationism shouldn't allow that)... male mammals' nipples ... DNA mutations, which we witness everyday (think viruses, ie HIV) ... human exploitation of evolution (artificial selection, leading to our domesticated plants and animals, as opposed to creationism's immutability)... common DNA found in different species indicating common ancestors... dinosaurs (to echo the very title of this thead) ... etc etc

And to conclude this too long post:

^ All it takes to start a new Christian sect in America is a resentment and a Bible.

Well that's how Christianity started out... as a sect, they (the first christians) would recognize themselves by the use of a fish symbol drawn on their walls and are therefore also known as the sect of the fish.
ICHTYS (greek for fish) -> I iesus (Jesus), Ch christos (Christ), TH theou (God), Y hyios (Son), S soter (savior)

 

[opinterph]

Btw, getting slightly off-topic here but I sense the opposition of a linear concept of history (a particularity of Abrahamic religions' principles in which scheme it applies) as opposed to a cyclic (oriental philosophies) or multi-dimensional systems (ie interpretations of quantum physics such as the Copenhagen interpretation and/or Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation where a single action can result in the birth of a variety of different universes...) in light of which traditional religious systems seem more difficult to apply...

Wow.


Nishin, I was going to add a “post comment” to congratulate and thank you for sharing this wonderful exposition. Instead, I have decided to do so in the context of a public comment. I consider your post to be one of the richest concentrations of intellectual output I’ve ever seen expressed on JUB. It includes a plethora of concepts and ideas – it is relaxed – it is gentle, and it is certainly thought-provoking. Perhaps it may also be appropriate to acknowledge that you are responding to a poster whose writing style somehow reminds me of Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground (most particularly the first chapter of that publication ). I do not currently have the time or enterprise to match your relatively comprehensive approach to all the tensions involved; however, I would like to comment on one particular item …


I have recently revisited the concept of a so-called “gay gene” and the dilemma such a theory imposes upon an evolutionary explanation for this particular trait – which is undeniably exhibited by a relatively large minority within our species. It seems that many gay people endorse the possibility of a gay gene in order to refute allegations of “culpability” as that may relate to their personal sexual preference. Adopting such a position also seems to represent an important component in what has become a popular renunciation of the notion that people have a capacity to “choose” their sexuality – or that our sexuality may include gradients of mixed desires. Additionally, as a somewhat contrarian side note, I think this general pattern of seemingly convenient logic is incorrectly cited by some individuals (in the GLBT community) as a primary basis for their determination to reject any notion of God.


Meanwhile, the scientific “problem” which arises from our entertainment of the concept of a gay gene is the fact that it is quite frankly impossible to sustain that argument without establishing some mechanism whereby gay individuals also participate in the propagation of our species. If gay men rarely father children (e.g. their genes are not passed along to successive generations of the species) AND being gay is the result of random genetic mutation, then the trait should eventually disappear. Random mutation occurs too infrequently to explain the relatively abundant percentage of men exhibiting the gay trait. I was thus rather enchanted by the evidentiary ideas promoted in your post relating to this concept. Please allow me to enthusiastically reiterate my congratulations to you for what I consider to be a magnificently enlightening exposition.

A banana is one of the wonders of the world. You could say that of any living object, and I could stop there. But I won't. A banana is a fruit, shaped by natural selection to be palatable, hence eaten and its seeds dispersed. But the bananas we eat are seedless. Artificial breeding has enhanced nature's means (palatability) while eliminating nature's end (seed dispersal). It's a metaphor for much that is special about humans. [Link]

 

[White Eagle]

Teacher, may I go to the restroom?

Quite an interesting read. Thanks

 

[radical matt]

Notes from Underground (Russian: Записки из подполья, Zapìski iz pòdpol'ja, also translated in English as Notes from the Underground or Letters from the Underworld) (1864) is a short novel by Fyodor Dostoevsky. It is considered the world's first existentialist novel. It presents itself as an excerpt from the rambling memoirs of a bitter, isolated, unnamed narrator (generally referred to by critics as the Underground Man) who is a retired civil servant living in St. Petersburg.

Come now, I'm neither bitter nor retired, never been to St. Petersburg...though in quite a few ways I suppose I may be isolated and in the end quite unnamed. ^_^

Hm, and does this make me an existentialist by association? ^_^ I dunno, in the (possible) years between now and my death, I may end up being one in the end, I dunno. The capacity to question 20+ years of teachings has to count for something...I can tell ya one thing, it isn't easy. ^_^ I still like the quote pair; "God is dead." -Nietzsche ... "Nietzsche is dead." -God Not sure why, that was just always amusing to me for some reason. In the end, timeless ideas are quite difficult to kill, and they tend to outlive those that would see their deaths...though which ideas are truly the timeless ones and which are much more "mortal"...




Nishin:

It seems we agree on quite a bit more than I would have thought...and nice use of the Simpsons' intro. ^_^


Let's see...I'm going to have to re-read your post, although I disagree with relatively little of it to actually rebuttle. I mean, for example, you seem to think (or at least are open to the idea) that ethics and morals began with tribal human societies, societies which in time embraced religion, and that these values were incorporated into the various religions of the people, which then spread across large regions of the world and have us were we're at today (what with people trying to dump the religion but keep the core values intrinsic to it.) I simply said that religion was the carrier of these beliefs (and that it could have been its origin, though I don't want to be to solid in saying so, similar to how Evolution tends to deal with the change in existing life while setting aside the pesky question of the origin of life itself; the first living things, which Evolution does not deal with - - Evolution is the process by which life is altered and evolves, NOT the process by which life came into being.) As it is, I don't see these views as necessarily incompatible. What religion added is simply the duration of the actions (that is, your actions will persist [or the memory/judgement of them will] through all eternity rather than just until the end of your human life an the lives of people that would afterwords historically praise or condemn you for them.)


And you may very well be right. Evolutionists tend to say that religion, historically, had a place. It gave people hope in times they might have fallen into depression (and suicides tend to hurt the survival of a species) and gave them a more stringent, strong-armed reason to do what was evolutionary beneficial to them anyway (that is to say, if GOD says not to sleep with your mother, then you shouldn't...but this is really because Evolution "needs" you to sleep with non-family members to increase the gene pool and have less danger of inbread genetic weaknesses...I'm assuming you already know the genetic stuff dealing with redundancy being the reason we're not supposed to inbreed. ^_^), and so on and so forth. That is, religion was useful for the time it was in, when humans were more superstitious and didn't have science and philosophy to aid them in understanding things and in coming up with ethics on their own. Of course, where that leaves religion today...


As for the spirituality stuff, yeah, I just haven't figured it out. I'm not saying it can't be scientifically explained, I'm simply saying I've seen no science that really well can explain it...sort of. I mean, if I see the future in my dreams, two simple possibilities to me are that A) I can have a soul that somehow resinates with my future self and allows the transmition of images across time. The reason for the ressonance (or whatever...) and why it catches me in my sleep at that point I have no guesses for, though. Or perhaps B) time, as another dimension (such as the xyzt Metric of Relativity) may have multiple dimensions, just as space does. In such a universe, it's possible for images to be transmitted through time using some alternate carrier (which option A simply called a "soul") that traverses this extra dimensionality of time (this being the more "scientific" of the two explanations)...but then there are those astral plane projector people and lucid dreamers that might be able to offer other explanations as well if you know any of them (or there are any here) that could be asked. ^_^ Oh yes, and option B would be an example of "we don't have the science yet, but science may be able to explain it someday." Kinda like Picard said to Data (I think it was) once; to less technologically advanced people, things like transporters, lasers, and interstelar travel could seem like magic. Indeed, guns shooting "thunder" must have been rather mystical to tribal peoples in Africa and the Americas when Europans first visited those lands. So yes, I agree, there may be a scientific explantion pending, but...

...and this is something that REALLY bothers me. Why is it that we so segregate science from the supernatural? I mean, instead of trying to find "chi" or instead of looking into pretemporal visions/dreams, precongition, telekenisis, telepathy, magics, ect, instead of looking at them scientifically and trying to decipher them, secularists say we should just ignore them, they're fairy tails and lies and don't exist. There is this show that was on the Sci-Fi channel called Ghost Hunters. That show freaked me out a couple times (sometimes they did find things they could not explain), but to me that was cool. It's these guys that go to places reported to be haunted, set up cameras, video and audio recording equipment, and electromagnetic sensors and stake out the place for a night using pretty sofisticated scientific equipment to try and catch sighting (or sound) from ghosts. And sometimes they find things that are pretty compelling. A good next step would be science trying to then EXPLAIN the things that are found.

...but by and large, we don't do this. Secularists would ignore such stuff as fabricated and hoaxes. To me, this is closed minded and irrational. If we are going to rely on science to be the last word on the universe to us, to explain EVERYTHING so we can once and for all cast away the notion of a God or spirituality, than that means that nothing should be "outside" the realm of scientific investigation, neither the sacred nor the paranormal. Secularists should jump at the chance to investigate the paranormal and then have hard scientific measurements to go over and attempt to explain, thus showing that science has applications to what traditionally people have deamed outside its realm. So...why they instead stick their fingers in their ears and then their heads into the sand, all the while repeating "there are no ghosts, there is no god..." is quite beyond me. Maybe there is no spoon, but until you try to bend it, how can you hope to understand that? If you instead hastily lock it in a safe out of fear of what this spoon represents, than you will never understand the underlying reality that governs its existance (or lack thereof.)


Let's see, what else...oh yes, the Pope would be considered a religious fellow, I would think. ^_^ And I also love articles from "A close acquaintance". I mean, after all, we all have such close friends who would be more than willing to say something that would make us look foolish to thousands of people...and not reveal their name such that OTHER news agencies could ask them to varify what they said, right? ^_^

As for Bush, as some people have said, his motivations may not be as high as they would claim to be (and as I said before, religion has been used throughout history by the corrupt in order to achieve their own ends.) But, since I asked for examples and you were providing them in response to that request, I shouldn't be mean about it, should I? Instead I will acknowledge that you found some (although not ALL of them I agree are valid, you have a couple, namely the ones from Bush himself, which support your claim, so bravo.)


Hm...ah, self-gratification may be a "reward" for action to some people, but I'd rather do what is right because it is right to do so than do it for the sake of simply feeling better about myself. After all, if I can't feel good about myself unless I give $xx a month to some charity, than I really have other problems I should attend to to correct that self-loathing before worrying about giving money to others, I would think.



And I think I'll close about here with this:

The evidences that convinces me that evolution is undeniable (as opposed to creationism) are various... where to even start?? ... humans' appendix and coccyx bone (although the role of those has recently been re-evaluated) ...

Do you mean the concept of vestigal organs? I'd like to say RIGHT OFF that I don't really agree with that idea much. Even if Evolution was true, vestigal organs shouldn't exist, or only in VERY limited circomstances and quickly dissappear from the species. If Evolution is true, than these organs would simply change with the species' evolution into a new organ, or be incorporated by another organ. If the organ truly had NO function, it would quickly vanish from the species because that it requires more energy to make this useless organ that would be better spent elsewhere (that is, the organ is evolutionarily disadventagous.) I also believe that, as you said of the dream thing above, just because science has not advanced to give a function of this organ does not mean that there isn't one (and, indeed, many alleged "vestigal" organs that in the past didn't seem to have a use have been found to not only have uses, but often rather important ones.)

the fact that embryos, prior to the 6th week of pregnancy, and despite already being bearer of XX or XY chromosomes, possess indifferenciated genital glands and both Wolff and Müller canals that will turn into male or female genitals according to proteins and hormones (when creationism shouldn't allow that)...

I'm not quite sure I see that either. Creationism doesn't necessitate only one genital or the other be present, at least not until the time of birth (and considering that there are individuals born with both sexual organs, apparently this would be covered as one of the "natural" outcomes of birth, and thus not disallowed by Creationism [or Evolution, for that matter.]) That is, I don't think I agree with you that Creationism should't allow that to occur.

male mammals' nipples ...

Okay, you got me here. I once heard a good reason for this; "So they don't look funny in bathing suits." ^_^ Realistically though, yeah, I don't see why males have them. For that matter, I'm not sure why, Evolutionarily speaking, males would have them. I mean, it seems to be, as in the case of vestigal organs, a useless waste of energy to make a differentiated cell and organ when it has no need to exist. At present to explain this (and this would hold for both Evolution and Creationism), I'd have to say that they may have some reason we are not yet aware of.

DNA mutations, which we witness everyday (think viruses, ie HIV) ...

...are caused, quite often, by radiation, including solar radiation, and, indeed, astrophysics/astrobiologists think that in times where the Earth, or the solar system as a whole, are in certain parts of their orbit about the Sun/Milky Way, there may be incidences of areas with much higher levels of radiated energy (heat, visible, UV, x, and gamma...as well as Radio waves, though they don't do much...), and that during such periods/in such areas, increased mutations occur. Now then, keep in mind, FAR more mutations are undesireable than are beneficial, so whether this supports Evolution (mutations being useful for evolution to occur) or Creationism (created beings were made to be able to withstand hardship/harsh circomstances, including malicious mutations) I won't say, to me it could be used either way.

DNA mutations are a required mechanism of Evolution, but they aren't disallowed as a (detrimental) thing from the standpoint of the Creationist (after all, this is a "fallen" world.)

human exploitation of evolution (artificial selection, leading to our domesticated plants and animals, as opposed to creationism's immutability)...

Hold please; is this Evolution, or Natural Sellection? The two are not one and the same. Natural Sellection is different percentages of existing genetic traits being expressed, Evolution is the formation and rise of NEW genetic traits (and possibly, though not necessarily, the deletion of old ones.) And again, this doesn't violate Creationism. Controled breeding of corn plants to make bigger and better corn doesn't involve Evolution if all the genetics for the bigger and better corn were already in the gene pool and simply awaiting the proper mixing, nor does this oppose Creationism outright, now does it?


-snip- I'm moving one to the back of the line, because to me it's by far the most interesting...well, sorta.

dinosaurs (to echo the very title of this thead) ... etc etc

Why do dinosaurs prove/support Evolution or oppose Creationism? I mean, there's nothing in Creationism that says they couldn't have been created and then died out at some later time (prior to, during, or after [shortly or later] the flood, for example.) And Evolution doesn't anywhere necessitate that large, reptilian species MUST evolve on any planet where Evolution is taking place. I mean, what about the dinosaurs existing at one time and now being extinct is in conflict with Creation or somehow greatly supports Evolution (in favor of/as opposed to Creationism)?

common DNA found in different species indicating common ancestors...

Okay, this one I find intersting, but not for the reason most people do. Evolution does NOT, by necessity, require common ancestors. It's an intersting thing most people assume but that the theory doesn't require...just as Evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life, only in changes once life ALREADY existed on the Earth. A lot of people don't get that either, Evolution does NOT state how life began, and, indeed, how life began is a mystery to Evolutionists. Anyone that says that Evolution tells of the origin of life simply does not undersand the theory or hasn't very well looked into it (and, in fact, this is one of the ways in which Evolution and the belief in God CAN actually co-exist, once such variation being Theastic Evolution.)

But more to the point, what I find intersting is NOT the idea of common ancestry, but rather UNcommon ancestry. (Sorry, I just coined the term myself I think, but whatever.) What this is is how different allels (you know what they are, right? If you don't, ask and I'll tell ya...basically the place on the chromosome where a specific gene is...more or less.) can code for VERY SIMILAR structures. An example might be that, say, a dolphin's fins are coded for in the same place on the chromosome that a human's arms are coded for (in humans), but that in non-mamilian fish, the allels that code for their fins are in different places or on entirely different chromosomes.

It's actually in this way that evolutionists think that whales come from a lineage that once moved onto land and then back into the oceans. My dolphin/human/fish example was a hypothetical one I just made up, but that's the basic way it works (and that actually may be true rather than hypothetical, but for my part I just made it up. ^_^) But see, to ME, this supports Evolution more than Creationism.

Okay, so I don't think like normal people, but here's the way I see it:

Similar genes coding for similar things:
Most people; Evolution, this is evidence of common ancestry
Me; Creationism, if it's beneficial for one thing in a given environment, it will be beneficial for others that were also "created" to exist in that environment

Different genes coding for similar things:
Most people; Not sure, Evolution probably, seperate ancestry...wait, how does this support Evolution...?
Me; Evolution. I would think Creation more likely to copy the "most useful" genes rather than make unnecessary variations...though this could also be Creation, but...


So yeah, to me, what many people use as an evidence for Evolution is just as fitting to Creation, it's the one that most people ignore that I think is more evidence for Evolution (which makes me scratch my head and wonder why people ignore it...)


But I'm digressing and I'm sure I've beaten that horse far enough that it's not only dead but likely becoming fossilized. ^_^ But yes, I conceed this one to you; to me this is an evidence in support of Evolution...don't mistake me, though. I don't think this is enough to say that Evolution is undenyable, but I do think this is compelling evidence (in fact, the only evidences of Evolution that I find really compelling are the genetic ones, really...)

But I still don't like that there don't seem to be any cases of signifcant macro-evolution (micro, yes, macro, no.) Other than "speciation", which to me is contrary to Evolution, actually, there aren't really cases of some species becoming a new species. Given, there are SOOOOO many cases of Natural Sellection that it's sometimes easy to mistake cases of Natural Sellection as cases of species Evolution, I haven't seen any really conclusive cases of one species simply no longer being that species (that is, a bird species evolving into a dinosaur one or a flies evolving into a trees, ect.) Of course, Evolution conveniently explains that away as saying the process takes exhuberent amounts of time...but that does seem a little too convenient for my tastes in lieu of more supporting evidence.



I did say, did I not, that I'm still out on Evolution/Creationism? At present, I hold neither one to be true. What I find odd is that whenever I say this, Evolution supporters and Secularists attack me as if I had just recited Genesis chapter 1 to them and told them it was true. When I say I disagree with Evolution, I mean exactly that and no more. By disagreeing with Evolution, I am NOT saying that I agree with Creationism. I may consider Creationism an "alternative" or "competing" theory (well, hypothesis is a better word, actually...for both of them in my mind, though most people like calling Evolution a theory instead...), but that doesn't mean I believe it's true as of this point in time. I am of an open mind, I'll look at both of them and take my time in deciding which one I agree with more. That's what I tend to do in life, I have all the time in the world, no reason to rush to a rash decision with only weak supporing evidence when I can take more time and build a case to convince myself more thoroughly. ^_^



Ahem, anyway...so yeah, that last one I agree is a good evidence in favor of Evolution. I don't really see any of the others as being pro-Evolution (or, at least, I don't see them as being opposed to Creationism in the way that you do.)

In Repetition, Kierkegaard's literary character Young Man laments:

How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it, why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into the ranks as if I had been bought by a peddling shanghaier of human beings? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called actuality? Why should I be involved? Isn't it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the manager—I have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom shall I make my complaint? [2]

(from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism)

Gee, after reading more about it, I likely would be an existentialist...I'm not sure I entirely like that. If I truly have choice in the matter, than I can choose to do anything in life, including NOT being an existentialist, and which would also include moving to a state absent from it (life), if for no reason other than dissent and youthful rebellion. Hehe...yup, that does sound oddly like me. ^_^

I'm going to have to read the rest of that article tomorrow after I've had some sleep.


Crap, I said I was going to end and then went on quite a ways...sorry for the false hope. ^_^;

 

[snapcat]

Well, now how many of y'all really thought we'd go all week without a sex scandal?

From the AP ...

The man who plays Adam in a video aired at a Bible-based creationist museum has led a different life outside the Garden of Eden, flaunting his sexual exploits online and modeling for a clothing line that promotes free love.


After learning about his activities Thursday, the Creation Museum in Kentucky pulled the 40-second video in which he appears.


"We are currently investigating the veracity of these serious claims of his participation in projects that don't align with the biblical standards and moral code upon which the ministry was founded," Answers for Genesis spokesman Mark Looy said in a written statement.

The actor, Eric Linden, owns a graphic Web site called Bedroom Acrobat, where he has been pictured, smiling alongside a drag queen, in a T-shirt brandishing the site's sexually suggestive logo. The Web site, which has a network of members, allows users to post explicit stories and photos.


He also sells clothing for SFX International, whose initials appear on clothing to spell "SEX" from afar. It promotes "free love,""pleasure" and "thrillz."


Linden, a graphic designer, model and actor who grew up in Columbus, said he is no longer affiliated with the Bedroom Acrobat site, and had handed the domain name off to somebody. Ownership records available through the NetworkSolutions database show Linden registered the site 18 months ago.


He also said he no longer posts to the site.


Linden said he is very proud to play Adam. "But just because I'm Adam on the screen, that doesn't mean I'm Adam off the screen," he said. "What I do shouldn't have anything to do with who they think Adam is."



The clip he appears in is one of 55 featured on tours of the museum, near Cincinnati in Petersburg, Ky. The museum tells the Bible's version of Earth's history — the planet was created in a single week just a few thousand years ago.


The museum pulled the clip after learning about his online activities from The Associated Press.


Linden, who now lives in Los Angeles, said his modeling work for the clothing line is just one of the many jobs that make up his career. He said he has great respect for the founders of the Creation Museum and their vision.


"For the Creation Museum, I did what I did as an actor. It doesn't necessarily mean I believe in evolution or a believe in creation," Linden said. "I'm hired to get a point across. On the flip side, if I was hired to play a murderer, that doesn't mean I'd go out and kill somebody. It's make-believe."

is it me, or do sex scandals seem to embroil the religious right more and more these days?

 

[darcey]

Why people who claim they are "religious" insist upon limiting the Creator puzzles me. The stories of creation in the bible & evolution don't conflict. Water, to land/air, to mankind marching hand-in-hand. I just wish that money would have been used to "feed the hungry, cloth the naked, tend the sick, & help those in prison (but not Paris)", but that would've required them to follow the bilbe's teaching instead of just "preachin' to us. lol

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Wow! This thread has become nutsville. Delivery us, Oh Lord, from this.

 

[iman]

So this is how the conversations go in that back table at Applebees!

 

[opinterph]

So this is how the conversations go in that back table at Applebees!

ENTRANCE NOT FOR EVERYBODY

 

[Nishin]

Wow.


Nishin, I was going to add a “post comment” to congratulate and thank you for sharing this wonderful exposition. Instead, I have decided to do so in the context of a public comment. [...]

Oh my ... I think you're exaggerating a little My post was quite unecesseraly long and repetitive, mostly because of my inability at synthesis and limited command of english which often doesn't allow me to be as accurate as I wish... not mentioning the probable approximations and inexactitudes... that I mentioned different topics really is to Matt's credit, since I was merely offering my pov in replies to the notions he introduced...
This said, I'm glad it gave you the opportunity to express this very interesting observation :

I have recently revisited the concept of a so-called “gay gene” and the dilemma such a theory imposes upon an evolutionary explanation for this particular trait – which is undeniably exhibited by a relatively large minority within our species. It seems that many gay people endorse the possibility of a gay gene in order to refute allegations of “culpability” as that may relate to their personal sexual preference.

It sounds rather plausible to think so... although it never occured to me that the refutation part was the reason for endorsing such possibilty rather then a possible consequence... but guilt is a mighty social drive, so you're right that some may see here an opportunity to short-circuit it using this means.
Now I don't really believe in the all-genetic myself but since everything is probably, to some extent, influenced by phenotype, I certainly don't rule it out... but we still know so little about sexuality that I find it a bit hasty to make assumptions... could be one gene, could be complex interplay of multiple genes, could be hormones exposure, could be genetic predispositions activated/reinforced by environnmental factors, could be combinations of several of the aforementionned depending on the individual etc etc ... the spectrum of possibilities is so wide, I for myself will wait and see... which does not prevent me from being seduced by various ideas and theories...

Adopting such a position also seems to represent an important component in what has become a popular renunciation of the notion that people have a capacity to “choose” their sexuality – or that our sexuality may include gradients of mixed desires. Additionally, as a somewhat contrarian side note, I think this general pattern of seemingly convenient logic is incorrectly cited by some individuals (in the GLBT community) as a primary basis for their determination to reject any notion of God.

It would be interesting to know the percentage of theists and atheists within the gay community, and the GLBT community as compared to the general population (anyone heard of such studies?) ... I'm indeed under the impression the number of atheists is higher within our community but could it just be that we hear of them more often/vividly than from other atheists within other minorities when religion issues are so frequently at the core/in conflict with what they represent? ... sexuality being such an important part of one's life and identity... I can see where the passion is coming from... of course I also fail to see how the idea of a gay gene is contradictory to the concept of a superior being/force (which is definitly not the same thing as the observation of rules issued from man-made books and/or their interpretations...)

Meanwhile, the scientific “problem” which arises from our entertainment of the concept of a gay gene is the fact that it is quite frankly impossible to sustain that argument without establishing some mechanism whereby gay individuals also participate in the propagation of our species. If gay men rarely father children (e.g. their genes are not passed along to successive generations of the species) AND being gay is the result of random genetic mutation, then the trait should eventually disappear. Random mutation occurs too infrequently to explain the relatively abundant percentage of men exhibiting the gay trait. I was thus rather enchanted by the evidentiary ideas promoted in your post relating to this concept. Please allow me to enthusiastically reiterate my congratulations to you for what I consider to be a magnificently enlightening exposition.

In regards to evolution, I must say I was seduced by the super-fertility theory the most... once again I guess we'll have to wait and see...
I feel here compelled to mention that I have very limited knowledge in genetics, biology, or pretty much any other scientific discipline, just a natural curiousity and desire to learn a bit more about the world I live in in every aspect of it I encounter...
All these theories are obviously not mine and my ability to grasp them and their implications is somehow relative to the "reader-friendliness" allowed by the author and place I read them from (mainly, scientific vulgarization magazines and online boards) ... so once again, I really don't need any congratulation for only and simplistically repeating what I read elsewhere Although I'm glad if it indeed contributes to intellectual emulation and results in everyone (myself largely included) learning some new things.

 

[Nishin]

[...]Consider this article: http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/62163.html Therefore, there is an origin to the Golden Rule that can have a scientific explanation as well as a sociological explanation regarding humanity's communal living throughout history. You further point out that good upbringing is also relevant, which can be done without believing in a religious explanation.

Thank you a lot for this link !!! This is extremely interesting !

 

[Nishin]

It seems we agree on quite a bit more than I would have thought...

I was suprised to notice that it seems to be the case ... although I think there is one thing none of us or anyone here bothered to introduce, which is a regretable (and definitly n00bish) mistake for being the base of any (serious) debate : TERMINOLOGY, offering a definition of the terms debated upon.
I think much of our disagreement comes from the fact that we may have not been talking about the same thing...

So to try and correct this mistake, I now wish it to be made clear what the notions/concepts at hand here are.

This debate, as I understand is about Evolution "vs" Creationism.

Evolution.
I think everybody has a pretty clear idea of what it is and don't feel like wasting time on it... and since you liked the Simpson intro, here's another one that will illustrate the idea of Evolution faster than a long paragraph:



So now to the point of some other website:

Creationism.
I'm under the impression we use different definition of it. So to make sure, I checked a couple sources to read about it (wiki, merriam-webser, britannica...) and it seems to me to be the most widely spread definition that Creationism refers to the belief that the universe and all of its content was created by God out of nothing, and more specifically according to the time-line decribed in the Genesis. (Sources label this more specifically Biblical creationism).
Different types of creationisms exist, introducing variations in the interpretation of biblical texts (or I would guess, their implication), but it seems this is what is the most often referred to when talking about creationism.

Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the broad types listed below. As a matter of popular belief and characterizations by the media, most people labeled "creationists" are those who object to specific parts of science for religious reasons; however many (if not most) people who believe in a divine act of creation do not categorically reject those parts of science.

Besides, the article quoted in the opening post of the thread makes it clear what is the type of creationism we're talking about here:

The Christian creators of the sprawling museum, unveiled at the weekend, hope to draw as many as 500,000 people each year to their state-of-the-art project, which depicts the Bible's first book, Genesis, as literal truth.
While the $US27 million ($A33 million) museum near Cincinnati has drawn snickers from media and condemnation from US scientists, those who believe God created the heavens and the Earth in six days about 6000 years ago say their views are finally being represented.
[...]
Here exhibits show that the Grand Canyon took just days to form during Noah's flood, dinosaurs co-existed with humans and had a place on Noah's Ark, and Cain married his sister to people the earth, among other Biblical wonders.

So that's the definition of creationism I used in my thinking here.
A problematic definition indeed for it by itself contradicts its use here in determining Earth's age : ie if the 7 days mentionned in Genesis1 are translated from God's days to humans' days (1 day for God = 1000 years for men) ; If they are indeed humans' days, then God is a liar for he told Adam and Eve they would die by the end of the day they eat the forbidden fruit (but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.).

It should also help you understand my stance and why I see the points I made earlier being opposed to Creationism, for example in the following instances:

Creationism doesn't necessitate only one genital or the other be present, at least not until the time of birth (and considering that there are individuals born with both sexual organs, apparently this would be covered as one of the "natural" outcomes of birth, and thus not disallowed by Creationism [or Evolution, for that matter.]) That is, I don't think I agree with you that Creationism should't allow that to occur.

The reason why this, in my book, is an argument against creationism is because in Genesis 2, it is clearly stated that man precedes woman, the latter being actually issued from the former. This seems inconsistent with the scientifical reality that embryos are neutral bodies. Well this is not exactly correct, their sex is determined at the time of conception (by the presence of an Y or X chromosome) but they possess indifferentiated organs that can turn into either male or female organs... and that's the part that causes me to deem it against the creationist concept, in the way that If (a supposedly perfect) God creates men (and their sex is determined by their genes), there should be no room for gonads that can potentially grow into sex organs opposite to those commanded by the Y or X chromosome... IMO there should be one definite set of organs already determined... why would a perfect God allow incidences related to genetic and anatomical sex differenciation to happen? Men shouldn't have a vestigial uterus (utriculus masculinus) and women shouldn't have a prostate (Sken’s duct).
I appreciate that this may not be received as equally convincing against creationism to many, but it seems to me inconsistent with logical assumptions I make out of the (biblical) creationism concept.

I apply the same logic to the following :

Do you mean the concept of vestigal organs? I'd like to say RIGHT OFF that I don't really agree with that idea much. Even if Evolution was true, vestigal organs shouldn't exist, or only in VERY limited circomstances and quickly dissappear from the species. If Evolution is true, than these organs would simply change with the species' evolution into a new organ, or be incorporated by another organ. If the organ truly had NO function, it would quickly vanish from the species because that it requires more energy to make this useless organ that would be better spent elsewhere (that is, the organ is evolutionarily disadventagous.) I also believe that, as you said of the dream thing above, just because science has not advanced to give a function of this organ does not mean that there isn't one (and, indeed, many alleged "vestigal" organs that in the past didn't seem to have a use have been found to not only have uses, but often rather important ones.)

Yes, vestigial organs are what I was talking about, although I didn't pick appropriate examples for a use for them has been researched and found...
If a perfect God created men after him, there should be no room for useless organs.
In regards to evolution, I would tend to partly agree with your statement, except maybe for the "quickly" adjective which calls for a definition... BUT I'm not convinced by your argument that such organs, that became useless, should completely vanish, as it would also require energy to achieve, unless they are directly written off the genetic coding from the start, which might (negatively) affect/influence other parts of the genome... ?
Anyhow, this is too complex an issue for me to treat and debate at my level of knowledge and understanding and I guess I better move on to another point.

Hold please; is this Evolution, or Natural Sellection? The two are not one and the same. Natural Sellection is different percentages of existing genetic traits being expressed, Evolution is the formation and rise of NEW genetic traits (and possibly, though not necessarily, the deletion of old ones.) And again, this doesn't violate Creationism. Controled breeding of corn plants to make bigger and better corn doesn't involve Evolution if all the genetics for the bigger and better corn were already in the gene pool and simply awaiting the proper mixing, nor does this oppose Creationism outright, now does it?

You may be right that this does not necessarily contradicts creationism... however, in my understanding, it provides the following argument against it:
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food:
Now, granted men were supposedly immortal back then (before the forbidden fruit episode that is), what sort of perfect God would provide food that requires decades or centuries of improving not to cause diarrhea on a daily basis??
Or is it that only the flora within the garden of Eden, which humanity was expelled from, was readily edible?? ... nah it reads all the earth ...

Why do dinosaurs prove/support Evolution or oppose Creationism? I mean, there's nothing in Creationism that says they couldn't have been created and then died out at some later time (prior to, during, or after [shortly or later] the flood, for example.) And Evolution doesn't anywhere necessitate that large, reptilian species MUST evolve on any planet where Evolution is taking place. I mean, what about the dinosaurs existing at one time and now being extinct is in conflict with Creation or somehow greatly supports Evolution (in favor of/as opposed to Creationism)?

Dinosaurs oppose Creationism for they simply are never mentionned in the bible. Of course, not all species and animals are actually named in the book... BUT, please consider the following quote, still from the Genesis:
And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
It would seem God intended for humans to be at the top of every living creature on earth. Which is to say at the top of the food-chain... and while it seems correct to assume so nowadays, thanks to our modern weaponery and technology making us the ultimate predators, it seems very unlikely in a more primitive context/environnment, especially if you add competition from super-predators such as the famous T. rex ...
Besides, there is no evidence that men and dinosaurs ever were contemporary... carbon dating has already been mentionned...


OK I'm being really irritated right now because it's just been the second time that, for some unknown reason, Firefox crashed on me while writing this post and I had to rewrite paragraphs (recovery option not working) ... I'm going to finish answering this quickly and be off to bed <_<

But I still don't like that there don't seem to be any cases of signifcant macro-evolution (micro, yes, macro, no.) Other than "speciation", which to me is contrary to Evolution, actually, there aren't really cases of some species becoming a new species. Given, there are SOOOOO many cases of Natural Sellection that it's sometimes easy to mistake cases of Natural Sellection as cases of species Evolution, I haven't seen any really conclusive cases of one species simply no longer being that species (that is, a bird species evolving into a dinosaur one or a flies evolving into a trees, ect.) Of course, Evolution conveniently explains that away as saying the process takes exhuberent amounts of time...but that does seem a little too convenient for my tastes in lieu of more supporting evidence.

I wonder how you come to the conclusion that speciation is contrary to Evolution instead of an argument in its favor Would you care to develop??
Speciation, as used by biologists, is macro-evolution, which is what creationists reject about evolution. And as far as speciation is concerned, cases have been observed ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html ).
Why do creationists accept micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution? That makes no sense at all... what would prevent changes at the "micro" level from resulting in changes at the "macro' level??
Besides, studies of fossils prove that macro-evolution occured (transitional forms).
As about time-frames involved, which you seem to label a convenient excuse for evolutionists... it only makes sense to me... they don't seem all that exuberant at all if you consider that environment also varies extremely slowly (except of course in case of sudden cahnges due to volcanic eruptions, or meteorites or things like that...)
Another point being that speciation requires separation of a population from another for it to evolve on its own and allow comparison... there are not all that many scenarii available to allow such isolation these days when the new ultimate predator (aka MAN) is spread all over the place...

And to conclude, back to the "morals" debate.

Hm...ah, self-gratification may be a "reward" for action to some people, but I'd rather do what is right because it is right to do so than do it for the sake of simply feeling better about myself. After all, if I can't feel good about myself unless I give $xx a month to some charity, than I really have other problems I should attend to to correct that self-loathing before worrying about giving money to others, I would think.

How is it different? Doesn't doing something "right" make you feel a "good person" and make you feel good that you are a "good person"?
As for for the second part of your argumentation, this is black or white thinking again: who said I can't feel good about myself unless blablabla ? Why do you bring self-loathing in the equation at all?
... I wish you'd consider that one may already feel satisfied enough about himself but wouldn't refuse EXTRA self-gratification. I do not need to give to charities to feel good, but if doing so provides additional gratification, why shouldn't I take the opportunity?

 

[_AJ_]

You said it was adventagous for people (for the sake of tribal unity and strength) to develop emotional attachments to each other...the assumption here being to other people IN THE TRIBAL CONFEDERATION. Firstly, you didn't say people should make emotional attachments to ENEMY tribes/clans. Secondly, in reality that doesn't happen.

In our societies, people develop emotional attachments to their families and to friends. In SMALL societies (less than 100, maybe up to 250 or so people), where everyone knows essentially everyone else, we build up emotional attachments to other people. In larger societies, we tend not to as much excepting huge disasters (9-11, hurricanes, ect.)

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, but I think a lot of people help others because they believe that it's "right", not because they feel emotionally inclined to do so. But I can see your point that emotion could direct that some too now that you pointed it out. I'm not quite sure what emotion that would be (mercy/compassion, I guess?), but I can see that helping out. I still don't think most people are so ruled by emotion that they act entirely out of that. From childhood we're taught that helping people is "right", not that it's "emotionally acceptable" or "personally adventagous." Give, that doesn't mean those can't be what lead people to help others, but I think it's more likely that it's because we believe it's "right" to do so.




I think you misunderstand, I'm saying that our ideas in general are often repititions of ideas of people before us or regurgitations of what we're taught as children. Some ideas are original, though. I mean, I don't think anyone was taught Quantum Mechanics as a child, for instance. ^_^




Actually, I was "unable to Comprehend it" because you didn't explain it very well...now that you brought back attention to that point and I've thought about it some, I find that I PARTIALLY agree with it. I'm not going to say it's wrong and I didn't really reject it off-hand, it just wasn't explained all that clearly, which makes it difficult to agree or disagree with it.




Can you quote me saying that I don't tear down arguments? When have I ever said that?

That aside, a rebuttle is SUPPOSED to be either tearing down arguments, pointing our yours is better, or (preferably) both, showing how the opponent's view is wrong and yours is preferable to that. It's called actively debating...as opposed to passively just listening to what someone says and nodding your head in agreement without actually doing any individual thinking on your own. Pacifism has a place...it isn't really in the arena of ideas. ^_^




Okay, I'm kinda confused, did you just sub-rebuttle yourself here? Here's a reworded, more clear version of WHAT I THINK you just said:

RM, you say you you don't just tear down arguments, but your posts do just that, tear down arguments...and none of them really do that.

I can see that being a little amusing sarcasm (like "You're trying to spit into the wind, and you aren't even spitting well!"), but I'm not sure that was what you were trying to do. Maybe you can be a little more clear/clarify this? Cause I'm kinda confused here...




Do what you accuse me of not doing; read my posts. At the end of my posts, I almost always try to put in a summary to those that got lost somewhere and didn't really read a lot of the post.

Smoke and mirrors? Ha! If you wanna accuse me of anything, accuse me of thinking. ^_^ The reason many of my posts tend to ramble is simple, it's the course of my thinking. Usually it's actually fairly well structured, but not always. Smoke and mirrors? You may not agree with it, but it's reason, rational, logic, and a little imagination and innovation. If you disagree with that, that's fine, just know it's not empty banter, as it seems you think with the "smoke and mirrors" comment.



Oh yeah, and you STILL haven't defined "preconcieved ideas" (YOU accused ME of not actively thinking for myself there...I think...) or justified how you said I "always" do something...though by saying "every post" of mine, you once again made a universal statment about me, and one which if you look at all the stuff I've ever posted, is easily shown to be not true. Thanks. ^_^

So what i got from that is you agree with me and make NO points which are contradictory

since it was so long it was hard to follow it like all of your posts that was the first thing i learnt at uni filling assignments and reports with unneeded bloat confuses the reader and makes facts hard to find.

ALL of your posts are too long and that is true
and alot of them run around in circles which cause me to miss the point i still dont know what your really talking about because of this

here is a challenge 100 words to get your point across trust me it will be much better

 

[Kulindahr]

What?

Ignoring science in favor of crackpot mythologies?

That NEVER happens.

If by "crackpot mythology" you mean a historically recent unfounded personal opinion of the chronology of the Bible, that's a good dichotomy.
But if you mean what the Bible itself actually says on the subject of the age of Creation... well, it stands with science against these freakoids.

 

[Kulindahr]

The U.S. is filled with idiots who buy into this crap... read a book that promotes canniblism, vampirsm, slavery and prostitution, and yet feels homosexuality and science is the great evils of the world....

Which book would that be?

 

[Kulindahr]

^ All it takes to start a new Christian sect in America is a resentment and a Bible.

And five people to sign the same statement of beliefs you affirm, IIRC the IRS rules.

 

[Kulindahr]

Some thoughts from along the way:

Evolution promotes only limited community and altruism; consider the concept of the selfish gene.

Genesis is often accused of, but has never been convicted of, teaching a "young universe" (because it doesn't).

Anyone who wants to debate the age of the universe according to Genesis had better not only read it in the original, but have a serious grounding in the worldview(s) of the people(s) back then, and a good grasp of the types of literature involved (and available).

If the universe is only 10,000 years old, God is a liar -- and a poor one.

If we had a time machine, Bishop Ussher should be snatched up and sent back to 4004 B.C. to get a look at what was really happening that fine spring morning.

"Yom" in ancient Hebrew loses a LOT in translation to "day" in English, and picks up some baggage as well.

If the Ark held all those dinosaurs, too, Harry Potter's people must have had a hand in it.

If I ever get to Kentucky again, I'd much rather frolic naked in some bluegrass than go to that "museum".