"Channeling hatred" my ass. Palin ain't a hater, and being a conservative Christian doesn't automatically make her one. Very obviously, the hatin' is coming from the opposition, and directed AT her, not from her.

I for one would be HAPPY to see Palin run for president in her own rite.

Sarah Palin RULEZ!!!

Winston:

Check this article out and learn how to do political humor.

Winston's article might be amusing if it were less meanspirited and stuck to amusing truths instead of divisive deceptions.

Dave

palin's pretty damn funny all by her damn self. of course, at this point, she's political poison, so it would take some doing for al's (admittedly silly) wish to come true.

Winston - Unlike the others, I liked your article. I guess there are some others who don't understand the danger inherent in religious extremism (which includes Ms. Palin's apparent beliefs).

Personally, I'm pretty sure she'll run for president in '12, if her spite for anyone who challenges her authority is any indication. I for one HOPE she does...because there is NO WAY that she'll win, and all she will do is split the Republicans further into two camps - one of the hard right extremists, and the other of moderate Republicans who will see her for the danger that she truly is.

fun with palin and paint.

I guess there are some others who don't understand the danger inherent in religious extremism

I understand the danger inherent in the practice of ALL religions. Most of the horrors perpetrated on humans throughout history have been at the hands of clerics of mainstream religions such as Roman Catholicism and Islam.

Not really Clav. Most of the greatest horrors have been perpetrated by the very tiny minority of atheist far left dictators: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Hitler was questionably atheist and the leader of the National Socialists. That covers 4 or 5 of the greates genocides of all times and by far the largest in numbers.

Everyone has a belief system, some come from a big man in the sky, others believe they somehow logically divined the truth from with in themselves. In both cases, people believe what society has told them, religious and secular values and what is 'right' has changed over time often leaving death and destruction in it's wake.

The problem is not the source of the belief system or, in most cases, even what is believed it is the degree of fanaticism and the faith someone has in their beliefs. I do see self righteousness and blind faith in 'rightness' among some in the church, but I also see it in many posters on this site both right and left.

Unfortunately, fanatics and the self delusional tend to be more aggressive, more driven, and more purposeful than those of us that know we don't have all the answers. In a debate the wise moderates realize that there are indeed two ways of looking at it, and perhaps, waver in their position. The fanatic assumes that anyone who disagrees is simply evil or driven by negative forces (racism, 'the devil', power, greed, jealousy, etc) and continues unabated in their preaching.

Doug,

Granted that the modern day numbers of the dead are greater than those in previous centuries, but that's merely a function of technology and communications advances, especially in the twentieth century.

For sheer malevolence, nothing beats killing and laying waste in the name of god. Religion-sponsored killing has endured for centuries (The various Catholic Inquisitions alone lasted from the twelfth through the beginning of the 19th centuries), and some specific events have lasted centuries, while the ogres you mention were relatively short-lived, even though more efficient, thanks to technology.

And much religion-sponsored killing endures even today.

Imagine how pervasive and enduring it would be if there really were a god spurring religionists on.

Well now, I don't think someone being killed cares whether it's because of better available technology or sheer malevolence. I was only speaking in terms defined by objective reality, you're now talking in beliefs where no amount of 'logic' can prevail. You believe religion is inherently evil because of x, y, and z but there is no control group, no way of knowing what world we would live in without it. Religion, much like government, seems to be simply a reflection of a culture and I see them being 'bad' in the same way.

In any case, religion is dying. Science wounded it and government is all too eager to reabsorb it's 'evil' twin.

I thought Winston's article had some very funny moments, clever at times. But as he/she wound it down, it became a too mean.

The best way to show the right how mean-spirited and vicious they are is to be less so. They call it liberalism, I call it compassion.

Other than that, it was pretty good. As was said by the zingster, Palin is a cutup in her own right, so you don't want to overdo it.

Dave (#3) and Dawn (#11 ) - I read back through my piece to see if I was truly "mean-spirited." I don't normally think of myself that way, but I know that attempts at humor can lead one astray - going for the laugh at the expense of truth or sensitivity to the feelings of others. The only really mean-spirited moment I could find was the first paragraph of the second page. I would be interested to know what else in the piece anyone found to be mean-spirited.

Satire, at least as I define it, takes things to the extreme to extrapolate humor from an otherwise tragic or dangerous situation. My concern, as I was writing this piece, was that it was difficult to exaggerate some of the bitter divisiveness that we witnessed in the recently concluded election cycle.

Glenn's (#5) second paragraph sums up pretty well the opinion that led me to write this piece. Palin has demonstrated an extremely well developed ability to unite the evangelicals within the Republican party and to divide the party by driving more moderate members and independents into the arms of the Democrats. That is our best hope for keeping the Social Darwinists who masquerade as Compassionate Conservatives from regaining control of our government any time soon.

I'm not quite as confident as Glenn that she will lose. If she can avoid getting back in the ring with Katie Couric, or spends the next two or three years cramming for the test, developing at least a superficial knowledge of Supreme Court rulings or memorizing the names of a few newspapers or magazines, she could do better that I would like to think possible.

I have a lot of faith in our country's ability to survive bad leadership. I think that good presidents are extremely rare and our politicians, as a general rule, are a very unimpressive group. On the other hand, I would be truly distressed to find our plutocracy (bad as it is) replaced by a theocracy.

As noted in the comments above, a lot of harm has been done in the name of religion. It is equally true (as noted above) that numerous examples of man's inhumanity to man can be cited where religion does not play a role. Competition for resources and the lure of raw, naked power over others often provide the motive. The combination of charisma and psychosis in a single individual is often a formula for disaster. We should also acknowledge that a great deal of good has been done by people who were (and are) inspired by religious belief.

I have a deep and abiding disgust for the scorched earth type of campaigning that has come to dominate election cycles in our country. I have a great hunger for sincere, well-intentioned discussion and debate about the best courses of action for us to take in addressing the problems we face as a nation.

I enjoy making people laugh. This piece was only my second attempt at doing so in writing. (A very difficult undertaking in my opinion.) While things can get a bit nasty at times here in the blogosphere, there are also moments when the discussion is positive and enlightening. I appreciate the fact that at least a couple of the comments above indicated that I had amused the reader. I hope that I did not go too far in contributing to nastiness in my attempt at humor.

Winston, I thought it worked as a satire, but those who didn't find it funny may have found it striking to close to home. It's completely different than the link Clavos gives, so there's nothing to learn there other than it's funny when it's about "them" and not "us."

Oh, it was good, don't get me wrong. It's just that now that Palin has become the patron saint of all things wrong with the GOP, those folks are particularly "sensitive" and having been on the other end of things in 2004, I guess I am trying hard to dig deep and find some compassion for these misguided and depressed folks.

Overall, it wasn't any more mean-spirited than the Governor herself.

If the GOP is serious in 2012, Palin's chances of being nominated are 10 to 1 against. If they just want to offer up a warm sacrifice, the odds against her getting nominated would be maybe 5 to 1.

If she were nominated, she would lose by such a margin, she would set the party back another 5 years. Winking and tossing red meat to admirers isn't party leadership and wearing clothes well and reading speeches is not a comprehensive political philosophy.

Her fans' puppy love aside, she divides Republicans as much as she unites Democrats.

*** #8
Doug,

Hitler's, Stalin's, etc. crimes were not done in the name of spreading atheism. Christianity's and other religions' crimes were and are done in the name of their faith and gods. And Hitler was not a "far left dictator" as you imply.

I hear that Bristol Palin's fetus is already being touted as a potential GOP presidential nominee in 2048.

Lee - Stalin was deliberately spreading atheism, as well as exploiting his opportunity to kill those he didn't like. Actually, you could say the same thing about the Crusades - they were as much about pillage as about religion. Bottom line, people are scum.

Dread - The fetus has comparable national experience to Obama and Palin.

I'm on board with Sarah Palin for 2012. My comment is that I feel people are going to have a hard time with the Primary because, Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, Jindal are all well liked and extemely knowledgeable and if will be very hard for people to decide who to vote for.
By 2012, everyone is going to be praying for a change and we hope to get corruption out of the White House. I'm really worried for all of us for the next 4 years.

Baronius:

Obama hasn't even been inaugurated yet and some people have already decided that his presidency is a failure and are discussing his replacement.

Introducing Gestational Tundra Barbie as a possible candidate to steer the country back on the right track following Vivienne Jolie-Pitt's disastrous 2045-49 administration seems almost as reasonable.

For sheer waste consider the Crusades - they for the most part were due to religious zeal. Consider the side effects - the Plauge, political unrest and so on. Those kinds of side effects have to be considered part of the whole.

Further, Marxism should be considered a fanatical belief system, as the actions and motivations were much the same, and it was treated the same during it's height of power.

So, religious persecution has done more than secular.

Palin's been poisoned as a serious candidate on the national stage. Never mind that she didn't ban any books, vetoed a law banning gay marraiges and rights to gay couples, cut out un-necessary (luxury) spending in the Governor's office, and put corrupt officials out of office or in jail, what everyone obsesses on is that she's got the wrong religion, and took the hundered-fifty-grand the GOP offered her for a clothing budget, and clothed her family. Even "Troopergate" turned out to be a red-herring: she was cleared of all wrongdoing on november 3rd.

Finally, she's associated with McCain's failure, and former McCain staffers are trying to lay the blame for that failure on her-and why not? it's not like she's got big-money-backers who'll be offended, after all, she's a one term governor of a tiny in population state, cut off from the real centres of American power in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York.

Baronius:

Atheism isn't a belief system that can be spread or imposed by anyone's efforts.

It is a reasoned LACK of belief, and NOT systematic at all. How do you convert others with that?

Atheists' conclusions are reached by using available evidence and logic, not by faith, beliefs or force--Stalin's or anyone elses. Their conclusions can be altered by additional facts, but not by the spread of pro or con political opinions or religious dogma.

jamminsue, no, for sheer waste--sheer waste of time that is--consider CONSIDERING and debating the relative evils of Communism and Christianity. I once participated in such a BC discussion, which, at 666 comments, threatened to topple over and crush us all.

There are decent people who are atheists and some decent socialists and Communists motivated by misguided altruism. There are decent evangelical Christians (now, who WERE those folks who spearheaded the abolitionist movement?) and decent Catholics who shelter the poor and neglected, and also those who have given themselves to efforts to put the United States government in charge of sanctifying the marriage bed which God has already pronounced holy.

I'm optimistic that there are a few from each camp who have the grace to accept and give help that will serve to smooth out a little of the rough edges. It's just my opinion, that purpose is best served by gentle humor.

I'm all for satire, but I see it as more effective for exposing the errors of out and out rotters, individuals, rather than entire classes of people.

Winston, you've written so many great articles in the past that I really can't say that this one was my favorite.

Winston,

Re-read what Clavos wrote in comment #2.

As for Sarah Palin, she reminds me of a friend I made in law school many years ago. She's a good and decent lady, and on a personl level, I liked what I saw. On her own turf, she knows what she is doing. Beyond that turf, well....

But, scum that Obama might be, he can run rings around Sister Sarah intellectually. At this point, she's better off being a kick-ass governor than attempting to step onto your national stage to be made a fool of by her own lack of knowledge.

C-shop - "Even "Troopergate" turned out to be a red-herring: she was cleared of all wrongdoing on november 3rd." IIRC, there were TWO committees investigating Palin. One was a bipartisan Alaskan congressional committee, and the other was directed by Palin to investigate herself.

Guess which one FOUND wrongdoing on her part (the very day she declared she'd been found innocent by that panel), and which one found her completely blameless?

As with all my claims, I'll provide references on demand...and apologize profusely and hang my head in shame if I can't back up what I say.

If Palin runs in '12, then it's because GOD will have "shown her the way".

At least that's her belief.

THIS is from the same one who told students that our forces in Iraq are there 'on a task from God'.

Y'know, I'm STRONGLY Christian...and if God decides someone's gonna do something, then that someone will be successful...which obviates the error in Palin's belief, and in Bush's belief that 'God told him' to invade Iraq.

Yet another example of religion being used as an excuse for power....

I wonder that G-d has time for all that nonsense. I mean, when She and I were having lunch the other day, She was so busy texting and and taking calls She could hardly finish her meal. I, frankly, heard nothing during the whole conversation about Sarah Palin, although we didn't discuss her specifically. I was trying to get Her to talk about Afghanistan and commit to a position on Palestine. And we never did get around to what Her final thoughts were on the latest re the bailout.

Winston,

It's rather creepy when all of the mean ideas that are articulated by this party are streamed out all at once.

I find it interesting that the most staunch Republicans on this site don't recognize them. That that is what is being said in those rah rah speeches that they say speak to the REAL America. Scary.

RE #27:

It'll be fascinating to see if God tells Palin, Huckabee, and Romney all the same thing or if they'll be getting different messages.

Lee - isn't it obvious? They'll have a conference call with Palin's African witch doctor, Huckabee's anti-anything-but-straightenizer robot, and a polymarital Mormon bishop.

I thought only little girls had lunches/teas/conversations with their imaginary friends, Lisa?

My little niece used to have some very colorful imaginary friends, but being the progeny of an atheist family, none were gods.

Now that she's ten and a "young lady," (her words) she's moved on to real people.

Oh, dear, Clav. Don't recognize blasphemous sarcasm anymore? And I had such high hopes for you, I did. I certainly recognize joshing, as my old Dad used to call it, I do!

"Don't recognize blasphemous sarcasm anymore?

Right back atcha, Warren.

Yours was not sarcasm. It was gentle joshing. As I pointed out.

THIS is from the same one who told students that our forces in Iraq are there 'on a task from God'.

Glenn, that's a blatant misrepresentation of what she said, and you ought to know better.

Dave

#36 Dave, taking people out of context is a time-honoured tradition in Politics, just like invoking god is a time-honoured tradition in war.

The belt buckle motto of the german army after Bismark was "Gott Mit Uns", an invocation to the almighty imaginary friend most people believe in. Telling soldiers "God is with you", that "You are doing the Lord's work", and "God is on our side" are cliches (in various languages) likely going back to the first time a group of man-apes took on another group of man-apes with rocks and sticks over a watering hole.

Read some of Roosevelt's speeches during the Second World War, or the speeches given by Wilson in the first, or the rhetoric of the Spanish-American war, War between the States, war with Mexico, war for Texan Independence, 1812, or the Revolution. God is always invoked by both sides. EVERY TIME.

What I find humourous, is that Glenn and his friends manage to find this offensive, rather than simply banal.

C-shop and Dave -

Why do I find Palin's quote offensive, and why do I feel justified? Easy. I take my Christianity quite seriously.

IMO, a REAL Christian would NEVER make such a statement unless that is precisely what that Christian believed. A Christian doesn't make off-the-cuff throwaway remarks concerning what is and what is not God's will. A Christian has reverent fear of God and everything that has to do with God.

Every time one invokes the Name of God or claims what is or is not His will, one had better be completely sober and solemnly serious about it.

That, sirs, is why I feel no compunction about exposing what I strongly feel to be hypocrisy on Palin's part...and on the part of everyone who has ever made such statements in a manner unworthy unto our Almighty God.

Both of you are probably feeling a cynical bile rising right now. If you want to turn this into a religious discussion I'm happy to do so, for I'm stronger on religion than on any other subject. I think it's best, though, to keep our focus on politics, on the purpose of this section of BC.

Go on then, as talking seriously about Palin is about as worthwhile as watching a tree grow, albeit less pleasant, I'll bite.

This is meant as a fairly serious question rather than simply taking a cheap shot. I could understand somebody being an admirer of Jesus Christ (setting aside any questions as to his actual existence or not) but don't get why any genuinely intelligent or even mildly curious person could actually believe in the existence of gods?

5...4...3...2...1

Re #36:

Dave, Why don't you tell us precisely what she does believe about God and his will for her and the world, including her beliefs about the Almighty's views on science, education, human freedom, and constitutional government?

Every self-centered utterance she makes(those that are half-way coherent anyway) indicates a mind preoccupied with being on a mission from God.

Chris #39 -

You asked - so please be patient.

I really try to base my beliefs on fact, rather than base facts on my belief. I've been a member of the Church since the early 90's, and I'll spare you the doctrine that keeps me strong therein (unless you ask for it, in which I'll happily help you find it).

But one of my major goals in life is to be a published writer (just like a million other nobodies, I know). Last year I was perusing some of the most recent quantum physics research and I found something very interesting.

Before you read any further, go get some coffee. You'll need it.

Ever hear of the double-slit experiment? You probably have, but if you haven't I'll explain. That's the one where a light is shone through a slit, and then through another two slits. The light that comes out of the two slits should be only two bars of light...but there are four bars of light that shine through.

That's one of the major proofs espoused by those who support something called the "Many Worlds Interpretation", or MWI for short. Before you dismiss this out of hand, be aware that Stephen Hawking also supports this theory.

MWI holds that when a quantum particle changes state, it changes not just to one other state...but to every other possible state, thus explaining the double-slit experiment above. We can see the results of one new state of the particle, but every other state is each in its own new reality. In other words, every time a quantum particle changes state, it changes state in to every other possible state, and a new reality branches from each of those states...and this would hold true for every quantum particle in this universe and every other reality which obeys the laws of quantum physics

Which would mean that not only would a new reality be created in every quantum moment for every new quantum state for every quantum particle in the universe...and for every possible combination of possible quantum states for every quantum particle in the universe.

Hey - I'm NOT making this stuff up, mind you!

To put it in simpler terms, the explosion of new realities in every single moment of quantum time under MWI would be to the Big Bang as the Big Bang is to a single electron.

You can visualize it like this: the trunk of a tree is the original reality. Each time a quantum particle changes state, a number of branches begin, this number of branches equal to the number of possible states...and a new set of branches comes from each branch, each discrete moment in quantum time.

It's possible for us to know what is in the past. Quantum particles can be entangled across time, so we can theoretically access information from further down the trunk of the tree of reality...but if we accessed information from quantum particles entangled with particles from a future branch, we could never know if that branch is the one where we - you and I - would recognize as 'our reality'.

If MWI is right, then it is almost certain that in some reality, you ARE the world's dictator-for-life, and in another one you're a beggar, and in another one you're...well, use your imagination, for the possibilities really are infinity minus one (but of course there is NO guarantee that any of those possibilities actually exist).

Okay - follow me so far?

Now what could all this possibly have to do with religion? Easy. If every quantum particle MUST change state into EVERY possible new state, then the process is PREDETERMINED in every sense of the word...and that would mean that everything in every reality is predetermined.

And predetermination by a higher power has long been the province of God.

Take two aspirin and reply in the morning.

P.S. Before you get the notion that since all is predetermined, that we no longer have a choice in our actions, I mulled over that one too for some time...and came to realize that while "I" will end up on every possible branch downstream from "me" on the tree of realities, I can, by choice and force of effort, can choose which downstream branch that I wind up on.

Hey - you asked for it. Careful what you ask for....

Glenn, so basically your belief in the existence of gods is based on a theoretical statistical possibility? Convincing stuff, sign me up!

"And predetermination by a higher power has long been the province of God."

Glenn, with this statement, you move from the science of theoretical physics to the untestable realm of metaphysics.

You don't believe in your religion because of light particles. Better to just express your faith and address your doubts.

Glenn, where did you see that description of the double-slit experiment? Or have you tried it yourself?

The double-slit experiment that I'm aware of creates not four bands of light, but an alternating pattern of light and dark bands, and is the classic demonstration of the wave nature of light.

Furthermore, if the photons change to every possible state, logically in this experiment we would not see only four bands of light, but rather a diffuse glow.

(I'm rather hoping Duane will tootle along at some point to contribute his usual commonsense scientific assessment to the discussion.)

I think were GC is going with this (and quantum physics) is that how the quantum packets of light behave appears to be predicated upon whether they are observed or not. When observed light behaved as descrete particles. Take away the observation and the light flowed like water, and ceased behaving as matter.

The conclusion that is being arrived at is that the fundimental building block of the universe isn't matter but consciousness. And so everything has conciousness but in varying degrees of complexity. And matter cannot exist without consciousness. Ergo, god... or some such creating force.

Christopher, why don't you write an article on religion and post it in the Culture section?

Rose already has completed such an article. Much like his opinion of God, the article doesn't exist.

Matthew, hilarious. I actually "LOL"-ed.

*chuckle*

Many's the time I saw some nut-job fundamentalist trying to use science to 'prove' God, and I'd always laugh about it.

Now I'M in the same position...so I'd better learn to laugh at myself, huh? That should teach me a lesson about mocking others....

For all the naysayers, I challenge you to disprove MWI...and if you can't, then all of existence on every reality is predetermined. Google it, do the research, and think objectively for yourselves.

It's not as if I trust my eternal soul to Stephen Hawking - I certainly don't! I have faith for my own reasons - and Christopher asked me to (in so many words) 'prove' God exists. I couldn't prove He exists...but I presented what may very well be His footprints....

Prove MWI wrong, and then let's talk.

That WAS funny, Suss!

Glenn,

It seems contradictory to claim that God predetermines(that is foreordains)"everything in every reality" but that you can, by your choice and force of effort, choose the reality that you want. How do you and God work that out?

And, if the theory of MWI as you have stated it, turns out by observation and experimentation to be demostrably factual, wouldn't it work just as well or maybe better with a natural rather a supernatural explanation?

Baronius, here's your article: There are no gods, despite the efforts of a bunch of manipulative con men to take advantage of a bunch of well intentioned but vulnerable to superstition people.

Suss, I think you should stick to writing about American Rugby.

Clavos, you think? Occasionally.

Glenn, that wasn't a remotely coherent explanation of either science or your belief in the existence of a deity. Please ignore the muppets who can't actually hold an online conversation and have another go...

Chris - Yeah, I've got a pretty good idea of what your article would be. You make that same argument a lot. It just doesn't really belong in the Politics section.

Chris,

How would you know?

#39 Put gently, Glenn...

Bullshit. You claim it's because you hate "Hypocrisy", but the truth is, you hate Sarah Palin, and you've hated her since she was first revealed as McCain's number-two. If you hated "Religious Hypocrisy" where's the venom for Joe "Devout Catholic-except when it's not convenient" Biden? I Get that she's not your brand of christian, Glenn. Perhaps if I were entrapped and enraptured with belief in the one, specific, all-powerful imaginary friend I could have more sympathy for views relating to percieved heresies, but you're flaying the wrong fish-unless god's willing to step in with a signed affidavit supporting your view on what is, and isn't christian, (which, come to think of it, might be questionable in itself-supposedly Hell got all the Lawyers...) You're basically trying to rend someone you don't even know for saying something in a soundbite you don't happen to think is "christian" because it's in support of a war you, Glenn, oppose.

And people tell me Fundies can't separate god from State...

Cannon, it's not that fundies can't separate God from State, it's that they didn't know that there was a difference, and are fighting to keep the heathens from taking away the fact that state and church are one entity.

There's a coherent sentence in there somewhere, you just have to look for it.

Apologies, guys, I'm a bit wiped out and probably not thinking, or posting clearly tonight. I'm off to bed.

Glenn,

Having read your various posts on the matter here, I'm not going to argue religion with you. Suffice it to to say that you are a believer, and man enough to admit when you are wrong; a trait I've not seen in certain non-believers whose names need not be mentioned here.

Like you, I believe in G-d, and like you I believe that science and religion work convergently, rather than in opposition to each other.

I frankly do not think you can use science to prove G-d's existence. The limitations that we have as humans, the blinkers we all have, prevent that.

But, I would also suggest to you that you can prove the concept of "free will" on a molecular level.

The book, "The Truth of the Bible Code", also known as "Cracking the Bible Code", by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, deals with this, explaining the behavior of molecules, and how they do not act in a fashion that would indicate "predestination".

In recommending this book to you, I'm not pushing the beliefs that I have respecting equal letter skip messages encoded in the Torah. That is an entirely separate issue. Although that is the main topic of the book, it has a rich series of appendices that give a very different view of the convergence of religion and science from the kind usually seen. The last chapter or penultimate chapter of Dr. Satinover's book deals with the molecular behavior I described. This book is not the easiest read, but the appendices alone make it well worth buying.

I leave which Christian you choose to condemn - or not condemn - to you. This is your bailiwick, not mine. I had hoped that Sarah Palin, even though many of her beliefs are anti-thetical to mine, was a person who could be made to understand my political message with respect to Israel, or more precisely the political message that those with whom I agree carry. But she proved an inept campaigner, and incapable of combatting Mr. Obama. And truly, the race was between her and Mr. Obama, even though McCain topped the Republican ticket.

And that race is over.

Now we all get to live - or die - with the consequences.

Ruvy, there is one irrefutable fact. Our star is too small to have produced heavy metals like lead, Iron and gold etc. when it formed. The resulting debris cloud that formed the planets wouldn't have them either. The only way they could've been present when earth was formed was by the supernova explosion of a star that held this real estate where we live now billions of years ago.

Only then could the heavy metals such as iron could've formed in the intense gravity of the collapse of the previous star.

So let's say God destroyed the previous star in favor of the one we had now, because the one we have now would hold and support life better.

Why later did he flood our planet to wipe out his "inconceivable considering he's god) mistakes to start over, instead of just blowing it up Sodom and Gamorah style and starting over a 3rd? or 4th? time?

Ruvy, your logic gets more and more twisted, it's like blaming car accidents on Chistians because the vast majority of people who are involved in them are christian.

the vast majority of bank robbers are probably christian too, but that's no excuse to blame them...

Baronius: my two lines words in #53 are everything I would care to say on the subject. Who needs an article in any section of this site to say that?

You clearly are happy to wallow in your mystical obscurantism but I much prefer to bathe in the light of knowledge.

Clavos: Trust me, having read every single one of your comments here, I know you pretty well. Grumpy old man is your preferred style of expression...

Jet, come to this posting with a clear mind a strong cup of coffee, not to mention a magnifying glass. You'll need all three. And don't tell me to provide the Cliff Notes version, either. This IS the Cliff Notes version.

My understanding of cosmology, chemistry or geology is not good enough to debate your assertions about a supernova being a prior tenant in this region of the galaxy. Let it simply stand that a supernova is not the only possibility for the production of heavy elements in the solar system. There may have been other disturbing factors. Absent evidence of a supernova, the assertion of one in the neighborhood is tenuous.

Therefore assumptions that are built upon that assertion, i.e. - God destroyed the previous star in favor of the one we have now, because the one we have now would hold and support life better - are equally tenuous.

But that is not the real question you are tossing out, is it?

We do not know the actual events that occurred with respect to the Flood. A careful reading of the Hebrew can indicate that the Flood was only in the Middle East, and could have been coincident with the overflow of the Atlantic into the Mediterranean when the last ice age finally came to an end. There are enough Flood "myths" world wide to indicate that one did occur, but the devil is always in the details.

Then there is the matter of the tevá, the ark. Its measurements in the standard cubits that we believe to have been in use do not make sense. One would need a far larger boat to accomplish the purpose sought, even only for animals in the Middle East (the largest of which would have been camels [2], horses [2], cave bears [2] and lions [2]). There are other problems with the amót (cubits) in the story of the Flood, but I don't want to give you a headache - yet.

Then there is the issue of the destruction of S'dóm and Amorá (Sodom and Gomorrah). The ground near the Dead Sea was high in radioactivity even before the Dimona nuclear plant was built. Why?

Events occurred around the Dead Sea which are not clear, and which indicate a far more careful reading of the texts (not the so-called Higher Criticism garbage) is required, along with a very careful look at the original stories other than the Torah of events in the region. For this, you need to look at the stories of the Sumerians.

Jet, you speculate into G-d's motives without a clear mirror of the events described in the Torah. Speculating with a clear mirror is bad enough (something you criticize me of), but with an unclear mirror? Let me illustrate just looking at a few lines in the Torah itself.

Genesis 1:1 With Wisdom G-d created the heavens and the earth.

This is a general statement, giving a basic background into how G-d accomplished the ex-nihilo task of creating the universe. The translation "in the beginning" is just plain wrong - the word b'reshít is not a grammatical fit in Hebrew and ought to be b'rishoná. The term Wisdom is drawn from one of the very few other places where reshít occurs in the Bible, and how it is translated and understood - Wisdom or Prime Cause.

Genesis 1:2 v'ha'áretz hayitá tóhu v'bóhu v'Hóshekh 'al p'nei ha't'húm v'rúaH elohí-m m'raHéfet 'al p'nei ha'máyim

I go to the Hebrew here because many translations can be pulled out of these words. In normal use, ha'áretz means "the land". But there is no land yet! So to translate this as "and the land" is a mistranslation.

tóhu v'bóhu is generally used in Hebrew to indicate Chaos, complete and absolute disorder in things. (the other term commonly used, balagán, is from Russian, and just means a ballsup, terribly common among a disorganized people like Israelis). Could tóhu v'bóhu mean the absolute disorder of electrons jumping around like madmen just seconds after the Big Bang? This seems to be the most promising way to look at all of this.

Finally, we get "and the Divine Spirit (or a Divine Wind) hovered above the surface of the waters", which is the basic translation of v'rúaH elohí-m m'raHéfet 'al p'nei ha'máyim. Water? That's hydrogen and oxygen. You don't get to oxygen on the periodic table until you get to helium. It's heavier. Whatever this actually means, water formed billions of years after the chaos immediately following the Big Bang! So, in one single sentence, the Torah has spanned bilions of years. Mind you, this is within the sentence itself.

Genesis 1:3 And G-d said 'let there be light', and there was light.

This event could (according to Kabbalists, m'kubalím) have occurred as long as 30 billion years ago, before the Big Bang itself, 15 billion years later. On the other hand, not all scholars agree with this. The Kabbalistic interpretation I suggest is counter-intuitive to the seeming natural order of events, one after another, and could also refer to the creation of photons (which presumably would have been a near immediate result of the Big Bang).

This is just the first three lines of the Torah stripped of all the Bible thumping lieralism that "people who can draw their moral lessons in no other way" use. Do you wonder why Maimonides, the greatest Jewish rabbi who ever lived, called the Creation "a story cloaked in parables"?

Now, you have my permission to have a headache from all this. And I haven't even attempted to answer you!

Ruvy, the sun uses helium to make other elements by smashing them together using gravity. Heavy metals need either a very massive star, or the intense gravity well of a collapsing star just before it explodes in a supernova.

Our sun is too small and once it does die in about 5 billion years, it'll probably throw off its extra mass and rather than explode, it'll expand and then contract into a dwarf star and eventually fizzle.

Ruvy, trust me I already know that you give people headaches without even answering their questions.

It's been a given for some time.

Jet,

You assert that there was a supernova here prior to the sun, and suggest that the proof is found in the gold wedding bands my wife and I wear. I'm not inclined to argue, being somewhat less educated in cosmology than you are. But I've never seen this assertion before, and would like to ask a friend of mine who is an amateur astronomer.

He could search the literature faster than I possibly could, or ask friends of his.

What I did say is that there may be other events that occurred that caused this kind of disturbance in the solar system that would create heavy elements. There may be more than one way to skin a cat.

Of course, if you are right, you have the basis for one kick-ass article on cosmology.

Chris,

I don't think that most ministers of the gospel are con men. Most believe. There are multitudes however, of jerks. There are also a lot of nut cases who align themselves with a deity in order to claim the ultimate mandate. Which brings to mind the British monarch. They have basically said that they are cool because god said they are and you guys have to feed them and their progeny for all eternity. I haven't seen your rants about them. Did I miss that piece?

Faith comes from human beings understanding that there has to be a prime mover and that not everything is quantifiable; that reductionism doesn't work. There are factors that cause a massive change in the progression or expected evolution of things that create the unimaginable. They see that to be the hand of a designer. Then there is the spiritual element that cant be quantifiable. When you experience it, you just know.

Off course you don't believe. But don't knock it simply because you don't get it. Live and let live.

An explanation of the double-slit experiment is in Wikipedia here

As usual in so many scientific experiments, the results often modify the underlying theory, and often lead to variations on the original, suggesting that one be judicious in drawing conclusions based on experimental results.

Jet,

Why later did He flood our planet to wipe out His (inconceivable considering he's G-d) mistakes to start over, instead of just blowing it up Sodom and Gamorah style and starting over a 3rd? or 4th? time?

You were a seminary student, Jet? You don't know the answer to this? Even a dumb Jew who knows virtually nothing, like me, can tell you.

Genesis 6:5 - "And G-d saw that the evil of man was great in the land and every product of his thoughts were only evil all day."

So He decided to rid the planet of people and their contamination, leaving fish to survive. Why destroy everything, in other words, when fish could evolve into something better? Or, if the idea that only the Middle East was to be destroyed (discussed above in comment #65), the surviving Children of Cain could possibly do a better job of it, in spite of the bad example Cain had set?

Recreating an entire planet from nothing just might not have been in G-d's plan.

You just called yourself a dumb Jew, and you're bitching about how everyone treats you?

Jet,

If I remember right, you were a sculptor or an artist of a similar nature. If something doesn't necessarily come out right, would you out of hand destroy it, or conserve what you could, and fix what needed to be fixed, using such tools as you deemed necessary?

Okay "dumb Jew" God created the world, he didn't need to put anyone on a boat, he could've waved his mighty hand and divorced the earth of all that he dispised, saving all that was good,

WITHOUT REQUIRING A HANDMADE BOAT, and the hassle of collecting everything two-by-two.

And how did we know other men didn't make their own boats and survived the flood?

The proof is they didn't need a damned boat, since god was watching over them.

...or was that something that god couldn't do?

God didn't need tools to fix the earth or the people on it Ruvy.

Soooooo... what you're admitting is that almighty god created something that was flawed... not perfect... needed repair?

See the problem with your "Explanations" are that they wander off on other tangents hoping the reader won't notice you've skirted the original and VERY BASIC issue.

God can only creat perfect things, not flawed things...

He is god isn't he

Did someone in central casting not pick the right one to play God.

Charlton Heston wasn't born yet?

I haven't been to sleep yet and it's past 9AM here.

Jet,

G-d didn't need tools to fix the earth or the people on it Ruvy.

You're right, of course. But reading between the lines, what I see is that....

you're mad at G-d, and all these questions are just another way of shaking your fist at Him.

This is good. If you shake your fist in rage at G-d, at least you do believe in Him - and my wife points out that at least you are getting that anger out, too.

Just a thought from your friends in Samaria.

Shabbat Shalom,
Ruvy & Adina

ha! that was good stuff.

Whooo - I knew there'd be people snorting in derision at my post, but I didn't think they'd start throwing things at each other....

Chris - "I couldn't prove He exists...but I presented what may very well be His footprints...." That's the pertinent statement. EVERYthing came from SOMEthing. If MWI is right - and if you want to argue that it isn't, then go tell Hawking why it ain't - then all is predetermined...but on a scale we never dreamt. Could there be a non-religious reason for MWI's predetermination? Sure. But religion's been telling us for thousands of years about predetermination, and science indicated that predetermination was a crock...until MWI came along. Like I said - not proof of God's existence...but possible metaphorical footprints that He left behind.

Ruvy - The Church of which I am a member believes that much within the Bible is parable or metaphor, particularly Revelation. I agree with you about the level of metaphor in Genesis as well. The six days of creation, the flood, and much else HAD to be metaphor...for in the physical world these would have been impossible.

C-shop - I don't hate Sarah Palin, nor do I condemn her. I say she's a hypocrite, but when it comes to condemnation...let me quote Obama: "That's above my paygrade." If you ask a member of the Church whether someone is saved or not, in every case we will tell you that we don't know. Paul tells us that he may judge those within the Church, but he cannot judge those outside the Church.

Don't ever accuse me of hating anyone. I do not hate. That, sir, is only your ASSUMPTION. I might grow very angry, even enraged, out of control, even murderous if it concerned heinous crimes or dangers against my family...but 'hate'? No. I do not hate. To me, true hate leads one to cause pain simply for the sake of causing pain.

You could say there are a few I despise for what they have done...but even that wouldn't include Palin. More than anything else I recognize her hypocrisy, the danger she presents to America, the Constitution, and freedom, and her own lack of self-awareness. She neither knows her own level of ignorance nor understands why there should be any concern by herself or others about her ignorance.

That in and of itself, C-shop, should alarm you greatly.

This is an interesting bit from a scientist by the name of Russell Peters. Rather than bickering over the details he takes a more pragmatic view. Although meditation does not seem adaptable to my Western mind I see his point quite clearly.


Science and Spirituality


Both science and spirituality are the search for truth. One is the search for the truths of the physical world; the other the search for the truth of the nature of consciousness. As such there is no conflict between them.

For the same reason, there is currently little meeting between the two either. The current scientifc paradigm does not include consciousness or mind as a fundamental reality, but seeks to explain everything in physical terms. Western science has now looked out to the edges of the Universe, back in time to the beginning of creation, and down into the sub-atomic structure of matter; and it finds no place, nor need, for God. But this is because it has not yet included the inner realm of mind in its scope. When science explores mind as fully as it has explored space, time and matter, it will create a new worldview„one that includes spirituality.

Spirituality, on the other hand, is often very unscientific in its approach to self-liberation. People believe things simply because someone has said it or written it. But this is hardly the best way to arrive at truth. The Buddha warned against this 2,500 years ago when he said "Do not believe anything because I have told you it is so. Only believe it when you have tested it for yourself." In this respect spiritual growth can, and should, be very scientific. We can form a hypothesis -- that certain meditation practices enhance awareness, for example -- set up a personal experiment in meditation practice, and see what the results are. This is important not only to make sure that we do not deceive ourselves, but also to ensure that our spiritual progress is as rapid as possible. And rapid spiritual growth is something the world today needs very badly

Apologies in advance for the mild "conflict" but I think this

Both science and spirituality are the search for truth. One is the search for the truths of the physical world; the other the search for the truth of the nature of consciousness. As such there is no conflict between them.

Which brings us back to my post #62 and 63, a paltry few paragraphs-not a 2000 sermon Chris.

Oh... and two paragraphs in 66 as well... sorry

agree with you about the level of metaphor in Genesis as well. The six days of creation, the flood, and much else HAD to be metaphor...for in the physical world these would have been impossible.

Don't confuse yourself over what I wrote, Glenn.

No normative rabbi (I'm not talking about "conservative", "reform" or "reconstructionist" rabbis) will ever say that the Bible is mere metaphor. He will state that a given portion, the Creation Story in Genesis, is cloaked in parable - but never will you hear any rabbi say that the Bible is mere metaphor. Looking forward, you will see "Six Days" - six ages of verying lengths that bring you to the point where a neshamá a spirit that communicates with G-d, is put into a man. Looking backwards, you will be counting 15 billion years to the Big Bang from the day that the neshamá had been implanted in a man.

These numbers are not "me too" numbers that rabbis have adopted from scientists - they were found centuries before the boys in the lab coats started trying to figure up the age of the universe.

The length of lunation - the average time it takes for the moon to go round the earth - an average that scientists cannot reasonably estimate without the aid of a computer - was discovered long ago encoded in the Torah and was used by the High Priest to declare a new moon when witnesses could not be found. I want to emphasize this point. The Levites who served as "ministers" to the Children of Israel were NOT astronomers. They were not naming stars like the Arabs later did. They were priests who looked in the scroll for the data - and who passed the data down orally, from father to son.

There was a flood - there is physical evidence of one in addition to many "myths" of one throughout the world. The question I raise is the length of the amót, the cubits, mentioned in the Torah with respect to how high the water went, and how large the boat was. The Sumerians have a Flood tale that tallies in many ways with our own, and indicates that the so-called Sumerian "gods" were not gods at all, but people with very advanced technology.

The Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt is truth. Archeological evidence has been found of an Egyprian prime minister or vizier who saved Egypt from a famine, and who lived 110 years. Evidence has been found in the Egyptian Book of Kings of an Egyptian pharoah, Pepi II, who ruled for 94 years. The Midrash states that the pharaoh who ruled Egypt and who enslaved the Israelites ruled for 94 years. Evidence has been found in the Egyptian Book of Kings of this pharaoh's son, who was a midget. The Midrash states that Moses was able to step on the pharaoh from whom he demanded the freedom of his fellow Israelites. There was no ruler of Egypt after this midget mentioned for about 400 years except for a queen who succeeded the midget.

Women were not supposed to rule Egypt at all.

As evidence accretes, it becomes clearer and clearer that the Torah is not mere metaphor at all.

But some deluded souls will not hear of this at all. De Nial does not flow merely in Egypt. It is a river of stupidity and blindness found world wide.

Chris - I've been reading a little Aristotle recently. I think it'd help you to understand what we're talking about. The idea is that any study, any science, is the development of a set of rules which characterize that field correctly. Above any such set of rules has to be a set of rules which organizes those sets correctly. That top set of rules is the field of philosophy. Philosophy allows one to integrate sciences. Indeed, the definition of the word "science" is beyond the scope of any science; the task falls to philosophers.

An integrated philosophy may be theistic, atheistic, or agnostic. The only requirement is that it must be consistent. Glenn and Ruvy each have their own theistic philosophies which are compatible with science (as you or I would define the term). The fact that your philosophy sees theism as an intrusion, or a contradiction to science, doesn't change the fact that their philosophies don't.

Your error isn't in religion or science, but in philosophy. You've prejudged religion and science to be contradictory, and (rightly) no amount of religion or science can change that view. But you don't need to understand data of religion or science. You need to understand philosophy better.

(This is so hard. If I understood philosophy better, I could explain it adequately. If I understood theoretical physics, I could approach the questions posed by Glenn and Ruvy. Really, this is more a response to Rose's comment, which does a good but not perfect job of addressing religion and science. I think Rose needs to take one step further back.)

Chris, you'd recognize the irrationality in the following statement:

"Faith can and eventually will come to understand and explain everything."

Yet you make the exact same irrational statement about science:

"A scientific or rational approach can and eventually will come to understand and explain everything."

I think it's because you lack the philosophical framework that would allow you to catch such wild assertions.

A lot of people seem confused about Religion and Science-not just Religionists, but also those who try to replace it with Science.

Science asks "What is it, how does it work?"

Religion asks "What is right, what is wrong?"

you can't scientifically determine what is morally right-science doesn't work that way. Science can tell you how your brain works, but it can't tell you what you SHOULD be thinking, see?

Further, once you get to the point you can't observe, science is pretty much paralyzed.

1. Observe the Phenomena
2. Make Hypothesis
3. Test Hypothesis
4. Peer Review (with testing)
5. Process of Elimination-it fails the test, the hypothesis is wrong.
6. Repeat for Verification.

You can't test a hypothesis if you can't observe the test.

The Hierarchy of what is verified scientifically is generally classed as followed:

1. Hypothesis-an informed guess that is untested.
2. Theory-an Hypothesis that has managed to pass through testing, verification, peer review, and verification.
3. "Law" a Theory that influences other Theories, is reliable, has been tested, verified, retested, reviewed, reverified, and then verified in a previously thought unrelated experiment. (Gravitation is an example of this, as are the equations controlling electromagnetic interactions, as well as basic thermodynamics.)

The existence or non-existence of a god, much less the god of the Abrahamite religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Satanism) can not be tested, it can not be peer reviewed, it can not be retested, it can not be observed reliably using scientific means, methods, or techniques.

This does not mean it/he/she/whatever does not exist, it simply means that scientifically, one can neither prove, nor disprove, said deity's existence in a scientific manner...but then, that's not the job of Science anyway.

The job of science is to tell us how something works, what it's made out of, and what it does. what it's "FOR" is not a job for science, it's the job of philosophy or religion- methods that do not require scientific rigour, but instead require Faith and inward examination.

Since most scholars agree that Exodus was written some time between 1500BC and 400BC, and that the Turin Kings List (which presumably is the 'Book of Kings' referred to) probably dates from the reign of Rameses II in the 12th century BC, and that the authors of the former lived in the territory of the latter, why is it surprising that the two documents have a degree of correlation?

Cannonshop,

Agreeing with you almost 100% - except that science and religion have the same basic sources of wisdom at base, and while they do different tasks, they can be convergent where appropriate.

It is certainly not the job of science to attempt to prove the Divinity. What can be proven is events in history.

Baronius, fascinating but one major flaw. Philosophy is not a science so everything you wrote is false.

Religion and science aren't contradictory for the same reason, religion is false too. I note that you switched in faith for religion too, which kind of proves my point. you aren't thinking logically, you're presumably trying to find a way to defend your own "faith".

I'm taking a break now but I'll be back later tonight to see what else, if anything, you've got.

Cannon - Great. Great stuff. The way I learned it is that science deals with the natural, and religion deals with the supernatural. Natural being defined as that which almost always happens. Nature is the repeatable or verifiable. Super-nature is by definition unverifiable by science, because it can't be repeated.

I do think there's too much emphasis on the differences between religion and science, though. I've been banging my head against the concept of teleology recently, which if I understand it correctly could significantly break down those barriers. Then there's the matter of Scholastic philosophy, which teaches that all means of knowing the truth must point to the same truth, since truth cannot be contradictory. Also, as I stated earlier, within philosophy, there can be integration between the philosophies of religion and of science.

There's so much to this. The more you look into it, the more maddening Christopher's simplistic approach is.

Chris, in that last comment, I wasn't trying to write past you. I guess I didn't refresh my page for an hour. That being said, philosophy isn't a science, but science can't exist without a philosophical structure. Science becomes just a random collection of facts. Aristotle points to this when he labels philosophy as "first philosophy" and science as "second philosophy". Science requires a unifying structure.

I have to side with Baronius on this one. There's a reason why science was once known as 'natural philosophy'.

Science - or at any rate the scientific method - is philosophy. It is, just like any other philosophical discipline, a way of looking at and making sense of the universe. What differentiates it from the likes of Bergson, Leibniz, (some) Aristotle, Plato and other cobblers is that in science we seem to have finally hit on a philosophy which actually works, eschews cloud cuckoo land and delivers practical results.

Cannonshop, I don't accept your setup about the questions science and religion ask, so once again, the argument doesn't stand up.

As far as I'm aware of the monotheistic position, what is right and wrong is spelled out in the dogma and there is precious little questioning going on. After all, a questioning approach is always going to undermine the dogma.

Furthermore, there is no need for religion to be involved in addressing the issues of right and wrong.

Science isn't the whole of rationality, it's simply a tool or process for understanding whatever is being examined or researched.

I don't believe I've said that science should be used to prove the existence of gods, but the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of any kind whatsoever that they do indeed exist - unless you buy into the dogma in the first place and believe it uncritically. You call that faith but I see it as a big lie.

It is absolutely not the role of religion or philosophy to tell us what something is for. That, as always, is a human judgement call.

Baronius, it's just so predictable that you would chime in support of Cannonshop argument, but your thinking is obviously distorted by the preconceptions you bring to the subject.

As I believe I've told you before, I've no objection in principle to believing in the existence of gods or even worshipping them if that is what they require. On the other had, short of performing some mind-bending assault on reason, I can't find anything in any of your arguments to support that case. Just because you were taught something doesn't mean it is true.

There is no supernatural, so once again, there is no role for religion, except as a force for ignorance and manipulation.

Having looked it up, I can see why you would be attracted to teleology, but I can't see any basis for it being anything more than an interesting but ultimately false concept that is perilously close to the, to my mind, discredited notion of intellignet design.

You can try and persuade yourself that my approach is simplistic all you want but it is just another self-serving argument in support of your already made up mind.

Equally, you can try and hang onto some philosophical framework all you want, but philosophy is absolutely not a science, so it is yet another self serving and circular argument in support of your dogma.

I can't find any meaning in your statement that "science can't exist without a philosophical structure". Of course it can, science is simply trying to explain the universe we live in.

Philosophy is just a bunch of waffle and opinion based on absolutely nothing, rather like your religion, which is presumably why you are trying so hard to elevate it.

Christopher,


You are missing the possibility that there may be an experience out there that you may not have been privy to yet. It may be possible that we human beings possess a sense that can't as of yet be quantified, which links us to whatever universal element that is out there. Because you have not discovered that within yourself doesn't mean that it doesn't or can't exist. You may be missing out on the most powerful possession or capability that our species has.

However, the dogma that is spewed by so many would cause one to think that religion is for dummies. Reading the hate that is expressed by Ruvy and then having him say that his religion is the support for his bitter, and hateful expressions, would cause anyone to roll their eyes. Yes people do use religion as a tool to make them feel better than others. It's used as something to rally around. It is used as a social club. It is used as a legitimizer. Every kook claims to have a word from the divine. But don't we do that with every possession? Cars don't just represent the utility that they provide. Neither do our, homes, clothing, or even our bodies. We use what we have to make ourselves seem better than others, or to fit in to a particular "club". We can't however dismiss the usefulness of any either of this things simply because they are used for purposes other than their basic function.

Christopher Rose

"A scientific or rational approach can and eventually will come to understand and explain everything."


It depends on what you mean by that. If you are saying that at some point we would be able to make models which could predict what will happen, I would have to disagree. That would be the only way to explain everything. If you are saying that we will be able to understand HOW everything happens, you may be right. But that still doesn't speak to the WHY. Those who have a certain spiritual sensibility are intrigued by that notion. Science can't answer that unless god (that which intended the universe to be) gives an interview.

"Having looked it up, I can see why you would be attracted to teleology, but I can't see any basis for it being anything more than an interesting but ultimately false concept that is perilously close to the, to my mind, discredited notion of intellignet design."

Here is a list of prominent scientists who do not think the notion of intelligent design has been "discredited". They may not all be fully on board, but they are at least properly respectful of the scientific justification for the theory. They are, however, unanimous in their skepticism for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

The necessity of publishing a list like this seems to demonstrate a willful, ideologically biased disruption of free and open scientific inquiry.

My take, is that it is an impressive list, but I dunno, maybe they are all just "young earth bible thumpers".

#97 Dan, "Prominent Scientists" can sign off on all kinds of things-and still be wrong. "Argument from Authority" doesn't really prove much.

#94 Chris, your argument is as emotionally based as any argument I'd get from a fundie. You're using absolutes you can't conclusively test, or prove, to condemn people you barely even know, including most of the "Faithful" who post here. Unless you can somehow pop up with experimental evidence proving that:

1. The universe spontaneously and without outside agency or control manifested itself

2. there is no such thing as something we can't measure, weigh, or test with the current technology or existing theoretical technologies.

Your argument is absolutely faith-based, and unscientific.

There are six words-they're the most important words in science:

"I don't know, Let's find out."

In your very, very, long post, you make assertions indicating you've already rejected the first half ("I don't know"), and you appear condescending and contemptful toward those who may, in some way, be pursuing the second half of the key six words: "Let's Find Out".

Atheism, Chris, is every bit as much a RELIGION as Christianity, Satanism, Buddhism, Islam, and Shinto. It relies and insists on unproveable absolute statements and supports itself with its own dogma of faith-based assertions to prevent questioning.

When I make reference (in mocking tones) to people's belief in "Their Omnipotent Imaginary Friend", it's non-serious. When cornered, I'll state the same thing I know for certain I CAN prove- "I don't Know, Let's find out."

There is a difference between blind acceptance and Faith... but is there a differnce between blind Faith and acceptance?

look, "god," as you know him, does no exist. it's true. think about it.

you cannot know god.

you don't understand things the same way he does.

your understanding of god, if he exists, is just as false as an atheist's.

anything you try to say is "god's will," or "god's way," or "god" is not god, but your idea of that will or way or god.

you've confused things.

you. don't. know. shit.

and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you can understand humanity.

we--humans--are all the same. if god exists, he is quite different. you can't think, even in your heart of hearts, that you understand anything different. you are not god, so you do not know what god is.

just live a good life. that's all there is. beyond that, leave it up to chance--which is the true "god," because that's what you're hoping for.

#99 There may be. All faith is, in the end, reliant on trust. Trusting that something without clear evidence is true. "blind" faith requires a kind of Absolute trust-trust even in the face of circustances and evidence to the contrary. To have "Blind" faith, one must, by some definitions, be willing to believe in something so strongly, that prove-able contrary evidence is not merely disregarded, but actively rejected as it does not fit the paradigm of belief.

Acceptance, on the other hand, is more or less a condition in which one finds an answer, and stops questioning. Not rejecting new, contrary data, but more or less not seeking it either. Acceptance is more passive than Blind Faith, in my opinion, as it does not require constant justifications, nor active defense. It simply is.

Zedd,

Reading the hate that is expressed by Ruvy and then having him say that his religion is the support for his bitter, and hateful expressions, would cause anyone to roll their eyes.

O Zulu warrior princess.

I don't need "religion" to state unequivocally that western "civilization" is sluiced through and through with genocide, racism and Jew-hatred. A history book can tell me that.

I don't need "religion" to state that Barack Obama is a deceitful liar. Evidence of his own actions and of what he feels he needs to hide proves that.

I don't need "religion" to state that the only difference between Hamas and the PLO is that Hamas wants to kill and then loot, and the PLO wants to loot first, and then kill. Their behavior proves this.

I do not need "religion" to demomnstrate that the Arab terrorists here think like savages and lie through their teeth to stupid naïve fools like you. Both their savage behavior and your blindness to their savage behavior in your comments prove my assertions.

I don't need "religion" to state unequivocably that the British, particularly Lord Curzon and Winston Churchill, sabotaged the Mandate in Palestine, and sabotaged the sovereign rights of the Jewish People here, rights that arose in international law, purposely distorting the trust given to Britain and violating the Mandate; finally doing an act of perfidy that the British people shall be judged for before the Almighty, shutting the doors of the only real refuge the Jewish people had - the Land of Israel.

I do not need "religion" to prove to me that the leaders of the land I live in are bought out traitors, bought out largely by the American government. Their cowardly and suicidal behavior, consistently acting in YOUR interests rather than ours, proves this.

I do not need "religion" to tell me that the land of your birth is going to hell in a handbasket, soon to be turned over to a thug and rapist. I do not need "religion" to tell me that the land you have adopted as your home is going to hell in a handbasket, its last bits of wealth looted by thieves in the White House and their banking friends. It's all in the news.

I need religion to demonstrate none of this. It's all painfully evident from what I read on-line. My religion is the support for none of this. I see bitter truths and I tell you them. That you want to plug your ears or roll your eyes tells me more about you than me.

So what support does my religion afford me? It reminds me always before Whom I stand; it reminds me that I'm expected to uphold certain laws and commandments; and to remember them when I arise, when I travel on the road, to teach them to my children, and to ponder them; it reminds me that no matter how much you distort my words, I cannot afford to hate you; it reminds me to hold you to the standard of the Laws of Noah, rather than the laws that I am held to; it reminds me that I am held accountable to the G-d of Israel for my deeds and for my words, and that none of either are forgotten by the G-d Who guards Israel, and Who neither slumbers nor sleeps. My religion reminds me always to seek the World of Truth, and not to be seduced by the World of Lies.

In return, I get the spine and determination to continue to speak truth, and to tell someone like you to go try and wield your spear of hatred and lies on someone else. I could be condescending and say I feel sorry for you. But the truth is that I don't give a damn.

To the rest of you reading comment #102:

I'd prefer to write and communicate like a gentleman. But if I'm characterized as Zedd has chosen to characterize me, I'll respond in kind.

Golly gosh, where to start with this lot!

Zedd, I'm not missing any theoretical possibility at all, but it simply isn't possible to have a meaningful discussion about what may be, unless you are simply looking to have a speculative conversation. In that case, I postulate that you are entirely a figment of my alter ego's imagination. Go to the back of the mystical class!

Dan, just because not all scientists are committed to following a rational approach doesn't undermine it. There are many scientists who are actually actively trying to have their cake and eat it too.

There is no scientific justification for the "theory" of intelligent design unless you buy into the already unsupported notion of a creator to start with. Please join Zedd at the back of the class...

Cannonshop, you attempt to paint my argument as emotionally based, as a prelude to undermining it, but you are simply leaping to that characterisation with no basis in the words I wrote.

I am absolutely committed to the let's find out approach but that doesn't mean every mad cap theory has to be treated with respect.

Your assertion that atheism is "every bit as much a RELIGION as Christianity, Satanism, Buddhism, Islam, and Shinto" is just the standard waffle trotted out by every sad faithist that desperately seeks to add a scrap of intelligence to cover their ignorance and superstition.

Until such time as the basic claim of faithists, that there actually is a god or gods is supported, everything else they have to say lacks any credibility at all.

Your follow up remark "It relies and insists on unproveable absolute statements and supports itself with its own dogma of faith-based assertions to prevent questioning" is simply, sorry but I can't find a better word, bullshit.

I would respond to Ruvy's propaganda and self-serving waffle but the ship of reason and respect for others has long since left his mental harbour so there is no point.

Chris,

Ah, so you are saying that it is you who doesn't believe that "it" doesn't exist. You are not saying that you KNOW that there is no such thing. In other words, you don't know that "it" does exist. Perhaps you should behave as one who doesn't know.

I am not a "religious" person; not ritualistic; don't think I know God. I do believe in God and that there is a big picture, to state it lazily. I feel connected to "that big picture" and am in awe of it's magnitude (can't explain it). I don't believe that the way that we have filled in the gaps- our awareness of the divine and what His plans are for us- makes much sense (most organized religion). I think we get bits and pieces of it right but off course make up most of it to feel important and to get attention. I think there is some truth to even some of the most fundamentalist ideas but we let ego take over and the message is lost in the drama. Had I not had some personal spiritual experiences, I would be rolling my eyes along with you. Actually I roll my eyes quite a bit, even upon reading some of the responses on this thread. Unfortunately or fortunately (depending how you look at it) I was blessed to experience the amazing and cant help but to believe. I sort of hate it because I loose cool points. Religious people are often really shallow thinkers. Most of the time they come across as needy. God however has graced me by allowing me to see his hand. I am humbled and full because of it. I am grateful and hope to live out my purpose while experiencing the abundance of the joy that is in store for me.

Doesn't make sense. I know....

God however has graced me by allowing me to see his hand.

and here it is.

Ruvy,


You are not hurting anyone directly by being the way you are. Yes your venom has a residual effect much like ones carbon footprint does on the environment, but overall, you are mad all by yourself. Your bitterness and rehashing only cheats you. No matter how angry you get or how much your stomach turns, it's only you who feels it. The world goes on. People dance, laugh, sing, fall in love, die, give birth, despite the level of your fervor.

You see Jews were made up. A group of people just decided to stay together and call themselves a group at some point in history. There is nothing mystical about it. You are not a monolith. You are multitudes of individuals with different personalities. Some good, some bad, some lazy, some industrious. You talk of Jews helping in the civil rights struggle as if you and all people of Jewish decent get points for that. Those were good people. Good individuals. You and your mean self don't get points for their deeds because they were of the Jewish faith. They were individuals who were brave and did the right thing when it was hard to do so. They have nothing to do with you or Netanyahu or anyone else. You don't get points for their sacrifices. You know that there are Jews in this country who don't agree with Israel's policy against the Palestinians. There are Jews in Israel who are against that policy. Are they Jew haters? No. They don't agree with the current politics not "Jewness". There is no Jewish way of thinking. There is no Jewish political party or ideology. By limiting who and what the Jewish people are you feed into the sick ideas of there being some big Jewish agenda.

Your meanness and venom has nothing to do with religion. It has nothing to do with your people. It's just you. You choose it. It feeds you and you have no identity outside of it. You are scared to let it go, like all radicals.

" Dan, "Prominent Scientists" can sign off on all kinds of things-and still be wrong. "Argument from Authority" doesn't really prove much."

Depends on what the point of argument is. If you're arguing that "Argument from Authority" does exist, then an extensive list of authority does the trick.

"There is a difference between blind acceptance and Faith... but is there a differnce between blind Faith and acceptance?"

Word order?

"There is no scientific justification for the "theory" of intelligent design unless you buy into the already unsupported notion of a creator to start with. Please join Zedd at the back of the class..."

Not necessary. I won't be attending your...um, "class".

Unless you are ignorant of the basics of ID theory, (significant possibility), you would know that ID doesn't rely on any specific creator. The question is easily side stepped in much the same way that a Darwiniac would counter the question of how matter such as primordial soup, planets, and atmosphere, spontaniously appeared: "we'll get back to ya on that"

The significance of a list of prominent authority, like the one I provided, is that it puts to lie the false claim by Atheist/Evolutionists that
ID is only a kind of desperate grasp whose sole supporters are religous extremist antagonists.

It's this incredulous over-reach by Atheist/Evolutionists that demonstrates to the reasoned observer their real motive: fear.

Just to tie this in to the original topic, It's also an incredulous over-reach by "anonymous" (red flag) Sarah Palin detractors that extremely bodacious Sarah believes Africa is only a Country.

Anybody buyin' that?

Zing

I thought you didn't do capital letters? Were you healed????? See.

Despite my agnosticism/atheism, I can find substantial evidence for the theory or unintelligent design. The evidence manifests itself daily.

Dan(Miller)

zedd,
nah, i wasn't healed. the no capital letters thing is out of pure laziness. i quoted you, and out of that same laziness, i didn't change your capitalization. of course, out of forgetfulness, i forgot to put your words in quotes. maybe because i was too excited to test out the hyperlink, which is also something i'm usually too lazy to bother with.

so, NO, i am not healed. of course, it doesn't both me, so i don't really care.

nihilism is cool...

110-indeed so Dan

clavos is cooler... than cool... or maybe he doesn't know what nihilism is... or assumes too much... or has a bug bite he can't scratch... at least he's not bald... but his pants are too tight... and his socks don't match...

Zing,

Nope you were healed. I insist. I am bringing over multitudes to place candles and pictures of the Virgin Mary on your lawn. Perhaps you should cut out your hand print on toast. Toast always gets the masses hyped for some reason. You could charge. Simply (dramatically) brush the curtain away from your front window and place your hand on it at unpredictable intervals. You'll have them swooning.

I'm making the announcement tonight!

On a brighter note, I misspell and submit comments that are sometimes jumbled up because I'm too lazy to seriously edit. I'll change a sentence but forget to delete all of the part of what I was changing so it comes out all crazy. I should be embarrassed when I read my comments and sometimes I really am but my laziness overtakes me. The embarrassment is not enough to make me be more careful. Sad really. Not really.

Run for the hills zing!

yesssss, zedd! bring them!

oh, of course, i have no lawn. nor could they see me from my "front" window... which would that be? the one that looks onto my lonely courtyard? or the one in the room i never go in unless called?

i do have bread! but no toaster... sigh...

your followers will be mighty disappointed. also, tell them that this area is rather dangerous. there are many criminals about...

errrrrrrrrr. Maybe some other time Buddy, ole Pal, Nice zing....

Zedd, no, I am saying that there is nothing to suggest that a god does exist so there probably isn't. The fact that there is no evidence also means that your belief that there is a god is either fantasy or wishful thinking.

I too feel connected to, to use your phrase, the big picture and am in a certain degree of awe of it. Where we differ is that you are content to make up stuff - the existence of a god - whereas I am content not to.

It is perfectly possible and even reasonable to experience spirituality but, again, no deity is needed for that to be so.

You are right though in saying that your statements don't make sense. As such, I see little point in taking them seriously...

zingzing - ouch! That still hurts. We were robbed