User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 45

  1. #11
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    As Charles Darwin published, "The Origin of Species", he wrote that it felt like murdering God.
    No, he did not quite say that. You are misquoting him through paraphrasing.

    He said that keeping his discovery secret, and then sharing it with the world "was like confessing to a murder". I don't think he knew, to be honest, what he believed.

    This is an interesting quote in his own words :

    "What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.""

  2. #12
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus01 View Post
    you cant kill an idea...
    Correct.

    A god is an ideal. An abstract symbol of sublime cultural qualities; something to aspire to. A civilization best reveals itself in what it worships. What it collectively holds as transcendent to its everyday condition.

    Do not idolize men of yore.
    Seek instead what they were looking for.


    Darwin was far more specific. A pen immortalized by unique discovery. Gods are incidental creatures to the humanization of immortality.

  3. #13
    Senior Member kuranes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Posts
    1,065

    Default

    FWIW, I read a passage by Darwin yesterday that showed he was against the concept/claim that is now referred to as "social Darwinism".
    "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
    Reichsfuhrer Herman Goering at the Nuremburg trials.

  4. #14
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Against, morally, or factually?
    we fukin won boys

  5. #15
    Senior Member Darjur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus01 View Post
    you cant kill an idea...
    But idea can be forgotten and discarded.

  6. #16
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    As analogue to murder.
    I choose to let the ignorant ignore and let them be judged by The Lord and punished by His brainchild, Fate!
    we fukin won boys

  7. #17
    Senior Member kuranes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Posts
    1,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Against, morally, or factually?
    If he lived long enough, I doubt that he'd deny the fact that plenty of other people believed in SD. His point was that once one brought "civilization" into the equation, versus strictly "raw nature", then this changed the picture. Perhaps your question refers to how much "raw nature" is or should be reflected in "civilization", or whether egalitarianism is "wrong" etc.
    "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
    Reichsfuhrer Herman Goering at the Nuremburg trials.

  8. #18
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Darwin didn't come out with his theory for a good long time mostly because he was very sensitive to his family and culture. He knew what impact his work would have on the world.

    Contrary to some popular opinion, he never planned to kill God, nor really wanted to. He wasn't a showman like Galileo, who seemed to take pleasure in publicly needling the Church.

    But truth is truth, and Darwin saw patterns, and he couldn't ignore them.
    I think I would have liked Darwin, I can really identify with him.

  9. #19
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryNTP View Post
    I just don't understand creationists. Why does faith require them to believe in the literal text of the bible? I have never thought of religion and science as mutually exclusive. Someone once told me a great analogy of if we took the greatest "scientist" of the 18th century (through time travel of course!) and made them watch Nova for a day and then sent them back to their time; how would they describe what they learned? They would have to put everything in the context of their own understanding at the time.
    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    If you think the theory of evolution kills God you're a fool. All it does is kill the Genesis explanation for the creation of species and the universe around us.

    What's "killing God" is the inability of clergy in all religions to recognize the intellectual growth of humans as a species and treat its members as if they were children who didn't know any better. Most deity centered religions insult the practitioner's intelligence by adhering to antiquated dogma instead of evolving and strengthening its important themes in the first place. For example, what's important in the Bible are the themes and lessons in the stories, not the details of the stories themselves.

    I find Science and Religion to be separate sides of the same coin. They both search for Truth. They both press on and enthrall us because we can see if we press a little harder, if we search a little deeper, we will find more about ourselves and our place in the world.
    Oneof the big problem in the debates is the reduction of options to the two common ones: take Genesis literally, and reject all science that says anything to the contrary, OR, take whatever science says as infallible fact, and just realize that the Bible was mistaken in science fact, yet we can still glean good, moral principles out of it.

    The problem is, to people who take it seriously, if it was wrong about science and history, then its credibility is questionable for everything else.
    Of course, this is the view on the far "scientific" extreme: that it was just an ancient fairytale book, whose purpose was at best to fabricate a basis for morality, and at worse, just a tool to control others through fear with unprovable claims.
    Then there is a more moderate view that says the Bible was not in error, just allegoric. But then again, much of it, which was written in absolute terms, would lose real meaning, and anyone could interpret it in any way (Which is what goes on in the religious world anyway!) If it is just something to glean moral principles out of, then people will be selective about it, and it will again lose any real significance.

    (I believe it was somewhere on this board that someone posted a link to the Youtube video of Bill Maher doing a sketch of Jesus siding with the Prop 8 opponents on the basis that the proponents were being selective in that they no longer obeyed several Old Testament rules such as the kosher laws. However, those were officially declared to be nailed to the Cross; while homosexuality was still spoken negatively of in the New Testament. Though there was a great point that the fervor with which people oppose and condemn other people's morality is based on the OT concept of a theocratic nation, which also ended with the OT, yet they try to hold on to).

    I myself have always struggled with how Genesis could be true, or how much could be symbolic, or based on the limited perspective of the writer and original readers. The same thing actually happens on the other end of the book, with Revelation. Right there, I have recently found that most of the prophecies evangelical Christians claim are future were actually fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple in AD70. We were all thrown off by statements such as "the whole earth" being evangelized, (which has not happened yet), but then ignored or bent/stretched much clearer "time indicators", such as the end coming "shortly", and even before "some of you standing here...taste death", as Christ told his audience. But a close study of OT language will show that "earth" was used to represent the local area, or Israel. "World" was actually "age". This changes everything. So we got hung up on "space", which was actually more relative in definition, but ignored time, which was more absolute, as man can only live but so long.

    So likewise, Genesis would probably also be better explained through this grammatical lense. Now, we would have a better justification for a local flood. Either that, or the fundamentalists need to conclude that the laws of the universe were vastly different back then, if they want their rigid literalism. There's actually a clause in string theory that says that the laws of the universe can change instantly (though the results would generally be cataclysmic as matter breaks apart of reforms. But that would be an idea).
    But they instead insist the laws were the same; God was just interfering with them, even though he no longer seems to do this (and many of these old-liners are sternly against modern charismaticism which claims God is always intervening supernaturally today).

    So that would give us a biblical framework for less than literal interpretations. But too often, the approach of non literalness is just to slap a generic "allegoric interpretation" label on the issue, without any such framework, and it just looks like a cheap attempt to get around the passages that don't make sense to us. so the literalists reject this and keep insisting the literal approach is the only "safe" one. I had fallen into this for years.

    Quote Originally Posted by kuranes View Post
    FWIW, I read a passage by Darwin yesterday that showed he was against the concept/claim that is now referred to as "social Darwinism".
    Makes sense, as the religious conservatives ironically sided with a social-Darwinistic approach to politics (like in their defenses of laissez-faire capitalism).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  10. #20
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Personally, I'm rather comfortable with the fact that God has died and gone to heaven.


    Or maybe hell...
    He always was a pedantic pain in the ass


    I mean I guess it shouldn't have been so gruesome but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do right?
    we fukin won boys

Similar Threads

  1. The Story of God Vol I: Genesis (satirical)
    By sabastious in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-22-2009, 04:06 PM
  2. The Race of Gods
    By Mayflow in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-13-2009, 06:26 PM
  3. Debate on the existence of god
    By nightning in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 12-23-2008, 03:31 PM
  4. The Probability of God
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-27-2008, 12:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO