22/08/2015

Twists and turns.

The root of all evil is ignorance, why do ideals exist? Doesn't it serve a purpose for the many for the few? banking on a hope that there are those who genuinely care for human kind while willing to bring out humane attitudes in people.

What makes any ideal a farce or unimplementable are factors such as time and space. Space to process all the propositions/dreams and allocate needed resources while battling with the backlash of insecure persons who are in power or crave it for their own relevance.



Thorfinn Hobson-Bonning
December 17, 2012 · Sunbury-on-Thames, United Kingdom
Why do *some* creationists dismiss factual evidence which is contradictory to their own beliefs, even when it is presented in front of their very eyes?
Like   Comment
  • James Clarke and 2 others like this.
  • Lew Holzman Why "some" as I think all Creationists dismiss evidence to the contrary or rather there is no evidence in the first place.
    December 17, 2012 at 6:16pm · Like
  • Nicholas Alexander Jabbour Depends on who you consider a creationist, Lew. I believe that God created the universe, but that doesn't meant that I dismiss ideas like evolution and the Big Bang.
    December 17, 2012 at 6:23pm · Unlike · 2
  • Lew Holzman I see Nicholas, my apologies. I think you may be in the minority but I could be wrong.
    December 17, 2012 at 6:24pm · Like
  • Nicholas Alexander Jabbour I wasn't offended. Like I said, it depends on your definition of a creationist. Unless I'm mistaken, there's some debate on what the actual "term" creationist means. Some I've seen use it to mean anyone who believes a supreme being created the universe, but some I've also seen use it to mean specifically people who hold to the "typical" creationist beliefs (literal 6 day creation, no such thing as evolution, etc, etc).
    December 17, 2012 at 6:29pm · Like
  • David Wagle Lew Holzman The Catholic church, the largest Christian denomination, has officially endorsed evolution since the early 1950's. They also hold it as dogma that God is the creator of the Universe. 

    So, numbers wise, the largest identifiable group of peo    ple who specifically endorse God as the creator of the universe also explicitly endorse evolution.

    I think you're trying to reference young-earth creationists, or literal 7-day creationists -- those Christians who demand that Genesis I be read literally (in opposition to the entire history of Jewish and Christian scholarship on the topic). In which case I would contend that they it is not *some* of them who dismiss evidence contrary to their presumed conclusions, it is all of them -- it's a requirement to hold the position because one needs to already have rejected the historical norms of scholarship around the source material in question.
    December 17, 2012 at 6:46pm · Like · 1
  • Lew Holzman However David, do Catholics accept the Big Bang Theory or do they believe that their God was the Big Bang?
    December 17, 2012 at 7:05pm · Like
  • David Wagle Lew I'm not sure what the second part of your question means. But the Catholic church does fully endorse an old Universe and accepts the conclusions of modern science with respect to the physical manifestation of the universe.

    The Vatican has a long h    istory of supporting cosmology and astronomy (dating to before Galileo even). The Vatican Observatory has been responsible for some great science over the years, and the long-time director, a Jesuit priest, has even been awarded the Van Biesbroeck Prize.
    December 17, 2012 at 7:06pm · Like · 1
  • Lew Holzman David...I understand what you are saying (I think) but as scientists generally accept that the Universe, as we know it , was "created" by a "Big Bang" how does a god qua creator fit in here...The "Big Bang" was from a "Universe" already here which was expanded by this "eruption" of matter and energy.
    December 17, 2012 at 7:12pm · Like
  • David Wagle Modern science doesn't posit a necessary already existing universe which generated a big bang. That is well accepted speculation, but because we can't see beyond the singularity, it is speculation and not science per se. There is no testable, falsifiable hypothesis on the table for that belief. The Catholic church accepts that the Universe physically started with a "big bang" x many billions of years ago (what ever x is these days). 

    However, given that it is an official dogma of the Catholic church that properly performed and understood science can not contradict properly performed and understood theology, any such contradictions go into a bin labelled something like "Stuff we haven't figured out how to explain yet, but which we must accept as probably true."
    December 17, 2012 at 7:15pm · Like · 1
  • Lew Holzman Interesting and fairly reasonable on the surface, altho I would say that the "singularity" is a Universe and that the Universe has always existed (in different forms) since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
    December 17, 2012 at 7:22pm · Like
  • David Wagle There's nothing in modern physics that requires a pre-existing universe out of which the big bang happened. Energy and matter can be created provided they balance out to a net zero energy.
    December 17, 2012 at 7:42pm · Like · 2
  • Nicholas Alexander Jabbour Lew, if I'm understanding you correctly, your stance boils down to "if someone believes God had any involvement in creation at all, they're rejecting science." Which is more than a little ridiculous.
    December 17, 2012 at 7:51pm · Like
  • Lew Holzman Not at all or as I see it believing in some fictional omniscient, omnipresent being is ludicrous and quite unnecessary.
    December 17, 2012 at 7:57pm · Like
  • Lew Holzman It's Ok, I know we will never agree and so it goes...
    December 17, 2012 at 7:58pm · Like
  • Alsu Ekinadose Odemwingie what if God used science to create us and whats around us?
    December 17, 2012 at 8:00pm · Like · 3
  • Nicholas Alexander Jabbour @Lew feel free to present me some scientific fact that disproves God's existence.

    @Alsu, that's precisely my belief, and the belief of many others. And yet, so many seem to grasp that.
    December 17, 2012 at 8:29pm · Like · 1
  • Thorfinn Hobson-Bonning Nicholas, it is almost impossible for anybody to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God. Especially if this Elohim is understood to be "consciousness" as so many believe. Lew simply holds a subjective opinion, as do you.
    December 17, 2012 at 8:49pm · Like · 1
  • Nicholas Alexander Jabbour Precisely, Finn. Don't see the need to remind me of something I already know.
    December 17, 2012 at 8:53pm · Like · 1
  • Alsu Ekinadose Odemwingie the answer could probably be they fear taking it as one, as the first law in the testament has been ingrained in everyone to have fear of the "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" repercussions. i feel God has his place as using him everywhere and for everything uses him in Vain to manipulate people to shut up, as science does have its place in our daily lives and one needs not try to make sense but live with where that or who is appropriate. science is used everyday in life and many have mixed feelings "should they drink from the cup or from the ground". no scientist can create matter, no scientist has created matter he only discovered it and then marvels at the chemistry. the religious set of people for along time have persecuted scientists altho they themselves make champagne/wine in their underground chambers lol, i live in a continent where there is a phobia towards God and Science and i look like the devil that uses it when it is appropriate, and mix when i want.
    December 17, 2012 at 8:59pm · Like
  • Alsu Ekinadose Odemwingie there is nothing in Science per se which requires from us the destruction of our fellow man, and there is nothing in Science per se which asks us to look down upon our fellow man. Science does not exhort humans beings to fly jets into buildings or to discriminate because of gender, race and sexual orientation; neither does Science exhort us to squabble over spiritual beliefs .. these are human failings which are promoted by interpretations of religion. The scientific mind rejects out of hand the notion that touching a TV screen as someone broadcasts can lead to the healing of terminal illnesses. Science gave us the knowledge of the atom bomb but Science did not drop it on Hiroshima. ... Hear Abdu'l Baha: " Religion without science is superstition and science without religion is materialism. However, religion must conform with the conclusions of science." Or hear Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama: " If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."...
    December 17, 2012 at 8:59pm · Like · 2
  • Thorfinn Hobson-Bonning High five for the Dalai Lama, WHAT A GUY!
    December 17, 2012 at 9:02pm · Like
  • Thorfinn Hobson-Bonning As i understand the book of Genesis. Lucifer is the bringer of knowledge. God is analogous to an oppressive tyrant.

    If there is truth in the Bible, i will be very scared the day that Heaven reclaims earth, and maybe God is the actual evil disguised as the 'good guy'. 

    What do you think?
    December 17, 2012 at 9:11pm · Like · 1
  • Alsu Ekinadose Odemwingie religious people fear that when man finds God in himself he will turn on the world. the ignorant harbour hate hence they speak of evil and sin to be everything and anything. if they had faith in God they wouldn't fight anyone, they would let God rule men to find him. science to a mind that isnt disciplined is violent. in the name of christianity blood has been shed, science has healed and saved so many. religions for centuries have used weapons developed by scientists to kill, who is the bad guy? who gave the bad guy the opportunity? they both equally at fault for the lack of peace on our planet. whats the way? they should both live and thrive but exist for the good not used with evil intent. they've brought enlightenment to a % of the worlds population, which has separated us from animals. we have to educate the ignorant who use both, not to seek their own agenda to amass riches and leave out wealth.
    December 17, 2012 at 9:39pm · Like
  • Alsu Ekinadose Odemwingie Lucifer is the it that created doubt and pushes the foolish to react rather than use a combination of Faith and Reason.
    December 17, 2012 at 9:43pm · Like
  • Lew Holzman Please don't put words in my mouth: It is not subjective to say that the word "god" has no referent, no meaning and therefore does not need evidence to disprove anymore than one can disprove "oahfsfpah" exists... Thanks...
    December 17, 2012 at 10:12pm · Like
  • Thorfinn Hobson-Bonning Well if there isn't any evidence to prove or disprove the existence of god, then yes, in fact, your opinion is subjective. It is subjective because this is your belief, and because at this current time, your belief cannot be measured scientifically, it has no objective value.
    December 17, 2012 at 10:42pm · Like · 1
  • Alsu Ekinadose Odemwingie Finn beliefs are not supposed to be scientifically measured they are supposed to be felt, like the act of kindness, honour, respect.
    December 17, 2012 at 11:00pm · Like
  • Nicholas Alexander Jabbour I think Finn's issue is that Lew seems to be trying to push his conclusions as objective, when he really can't.
    December 17, 2012 at 11:10pm · Like
  • Alsu Ekinadose Odemwingie common cense isnt common i guess.
    December 17, 2012 at 11:16pm · Like
  • David Wagle Finn Hobson hmm, i'm with you to the last sentence. Subjective experiences do not give warrant for beliefs to anyone but the subject which experienced them. However, they are invaluable data for scientific research on any number of topics, they certainly can be measured scientifically, and they have value to the scientific method. 

    For example, if you go into a doctor's office, you'll be asked to explain the symptoms of your complaint. That is, your subjective experience of what is wrong. Those symptoms are often invaluable in correctly diagnosing the malady. 

    I'll concede "no objective value," but only because I don't believe that anything has objective value. We are all subjects and can not know anything objectively.
    December 17, 2012 at 11:49pm · Like · 2
  • Lew Holzman Again...It is not open to evidence because it is not a real question to begin with but a pseudo question and secondly you are dealing with a nonsensical word since people have these asinine descriptions as one would make up for a myth or fable.
    December 17, 2012 at 11:49pm · Like · 1
  • David Wagle Lew you are welcome to your worldview. However, when people are engaging you civilly in a discussion, must you insult them merely because you disagree with them?
    December 17, 2012 at 11:51pm · Unlike · 2
  • Lew Holzman I am insulting the descriptions given not the people David...if I were going to insult the people I wd have said something about them.
    December 17, 2012 at 11:53pm · Like
  • David Wagle If, btw, you had said something like "it is not open to scientific evidence because it is not a scientific question. The question of divine existence is metaphysical and thus not about physics" Then I'd have no disagreement with you. I agree it's not a question germane to the domain of science. 

    Provided, of course, that you also recognized that plenty of questions which you deal with each and every day are handled as non-scientific, yet meaningful, questions. At which point we can have a nice discourse about what standards of epistemology one applies to various answers, and how those standards are weighted and evaluated by the knower in the practical matter of knowing . . .

    But instead, you just jump right into "oh you silly believers and your asinine nonsensical questions."
    December 17, 2012 at 11:55pm · Unlike · 2
  • Lew Holzman OK, you and I come from very different places and neither of us will convince either ...metaphysics died with Wittgenstein and the Linguistic Analysts and I am not goin g to get into a Philosophical round and round and round discussion...It was my major into a PhD and I tired of the silliness that I was involved with...so I really shouldn't try and get my point across here since ya ain't gonna hear it anyway.
    December 18, 2012 at 12:02am · Like
  • David Wagle Lew I did the graduate school in meaningless degrees thing as well. I'm not unwilling to hear your point. I'm simply unwilling to let veiled insults go by without comment. 

    I'll cop to "metaphysics" being a dated term of art. I'm not claiming to be an Aristotelean wink emoticon
    December 18, 2012 at 12:04am · Like · 1
  • Lew Holzman I guess I can't help the seeping of my distaste for a viewpoint that I see as basically a negative on humanity's progress. If I were to say that I think such belief is a form of delusional thinking that would sound like an insult and probably would be taken as such.
    December 18, 2012 at 12:08am · Like
  • David Wagle The problem is, Lew, as some of your questions up-thread suggest, you don't really understand the viewpoint of a great number of Christians, so how can you judge it to be basically a negative? 

    I'm all for calling out the evangelical fundaholics who e    schew intellectual rigor at every turn for being a real threat to our world. I do that as well. But they hardly represent the end-all and be-all of those who hold theistic beliefs. 

    Do you really think you would find much to disagree with, say, Fr. Michał Heller, a Van Biesbroeck prize winner in astronomy and Jesuit?

    Or myself even -- we've talked quite a bit on here. Do you find me, personally, to be a "negative upon humanity's progress?"
    December 18, 2012 at 12:17am · Unlike · 2
  • Thorfinn Hobson-Bonning I have mixed feelings on religion. I am very critical of the leading religions (especially Christianity) whilst accepting that religion has done good, and the teachings of jesus, for example, are a positive guideline for living. I also believe that the idea of God is a form of escapism and optimism. I am also very fond of, and biased towards, the teachings of buddhism, and enjoy understanding esoteric dogma and history. And whilst i hold my own opinion, i do try to argue other points of view which oppose my own. I do accept the darwinian theory, but i open my mind to spirituality, as i find it beautiful and fascinating.
    December 18, 2012 at 3:06am · Like · 1
  • Aron Madrid Lew, the "big bang theory" was comprised by Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître a Caholic Priest, not Edward Hubble.See Translation
    December 18, 2012 at 12:54pm · Like · 2
  • Aron Madrid Edwin Hubble I meant..
    December 18, 2012 at 1:13pm · Like
  • James Clarke I thought it was a sitcom, Aron
    December 18, 2012 at 1:51pm · Like · 1
  • Aron Madrid I had to google "big bang theory catholic priest" to find the history. "big bang theory" only brings up the sitcom on google unsure emoticon
    December 18, 2012 at 1:55pm · Like · 2

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)