User Tag List

View Poll Results: What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?

Voters
131. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm an atheist

    36 27.48%
  • I'm agnostic

    25 19.08%
  • Buddhism

    6 4.58%
  • Hinduism

    1 0.76%
  • Islam

    2 1.53%
  • Christianity

    39 29.77%
  • Other

    22 16.79%
First 11192021222331 Last

Results 201 to 210 of 590

  1. #201
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamain View Post
    What is Fact?
    • Natural Selection - YES (micro evolution)
    • Textbook examples of “evolution in action” are
    illustrating natural selection or “Micro-evolution” only
    Charles Darwin gave us natural selection in his book Origin of Species. And the sequencing of the genome shows that natural selection is true.

    The sequencing of the genome puts all life, with digital accuracy, on the tree of life.

    Sequencing the genome shows exactly what relationship you and I have with a banana, because we all share the same DNA, and all DNA is connected - bananas, elephants, bacteria, jamain and Mole.

    You and I are one with all life on Earth, for about four and a half billion years.

  2. #202
    Senior Member riva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Charles Darwin gave us natural selection in his book Origin of Species. And the sequencing of the genome shows that natural selection is true.

    The sequencing of the genome puts all life, with digital accuracy, on the tree of life.

    Sequencing the genome shows exactly what relationship you and I have with a banana, because we all share the same DNA, and all DNA is connected - bananas, elephants, bacteria, jamain and Mole.

    You and I are one with all life on Earth, for about four and a half billion years.
    If all life on earth has DNA could it not be a sign of god's signature in us?
    .

  3. #203
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by riva View Post
    If all life on earth has DNA could it not be a sign of god's signature in us?
    I've seen books on that topic, on the other hand I tend to think God is transcendent of things such as that, if its possible to know it then its not God if you know what I mean and it should be so, there has to always be something other and unfathomable or mankind will become mad and believe they are God.

  4. #204
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by riva View Post
    If all life on earth has DNA could it not be a sign of god's signature in us?
    That's the magical solution.
    It is also explained by a mutating replicating programming through which we can track back evolutionary lineage.

    Why do we need to look for a signature? Mod staff here are more direct about our existence than god is. You don't have to "guess" that we exist simply because stuff changes and disappears. If we never said anything to you, you would likely end up assuming eventually the entire site was automated. And if people are this way, you'd think an interactive loving deity would be even more interested in being explicit rather than people having to guess whether certain smudges that could easily be explained by natural means would be some kind of fingerprint. Otherwise he's just the man behind the curtain who you never see and never know directly.

    Typically the arguments are all circumstantial in regards to "guessing" why god can't really do better than smudges that we want to label as fingerprints.

    [And yeah, I'm being devil's advocate, but these questions have to be asked if any "faith" we have is to be placed in context appropriately.]

    I had a friend once who I would argue with about these things, although at the time we were both "believers" of some kind or another, and she said that even if it were shown to her that dinosaur bones were appropriately dated and all that jazz to "prove" evolution, she said she would still continue to believe in the tenets of her faith. While this might seem silly to some, what I appreciated it about was her acceptance that the facts were against her, and that she was choosing to believe anyway SOLELY on faith rather than trying to manipulate evidence to somehow support her.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft
    Likes Passacaglia liked this post

  5. #205
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    That's the magical solution.
    It is also explained by a mutating replicating programming through which we can track back evolutionary lineage.

    Why do we need to look for a signature? Mod staff here are more direct about our existence than god is. You don't have to "guess" that we exist simply because stuff changes and disappears. If we never said anything to you, you would likely end up assuming eventually the entire site was automated. And if people are this way, you'd think an interactive loving deity would be even more interested in being explicit rather than people having to guess whether certain smudges that could easily be explained by natural means would be some kind of fingerprint. Otherwise he's just the man behind the curtain who you never see and never know directly.

    Typically the arguments are all circumstantial in regards to "guessing" why god can't really do better than smudges that we want to label as fingerprints.

    [And yeah, I'm being devil's advocate, but these questions have to be asked if any "faith" we have is to be placed in context appropriately.]

    I had a friend once who I would argue with about these things, although at the time we were both "believers" of some kind or another, and she said that even if it were shown to her that dinosaur bones were appropriately dated and all that jazz to "prove" evolution, she said she would still continue to believe in the tenets of her faith. While this might seem silly to some, what I appreciated it about was her acceptance that the facts were against her, and that she was choosing to believe anyway SOLELY on faith rather than trying to manipulate evidence to somehow support her.
    All those debates are political in origin anyway and a throwback to church control over society. Notice how almost no other religions have frets about evidence interfering with faith, or figuring out what the true and right answer is. We don't see people fighting over Izanagi and such for example even though Shinto is still pretty big today.

    We don't see people going "Izanagi and Izanami couldn't have created the land because the continental plates prove otherwise" and somebody else going "Yeah well science is a trick and I'm going to believe this anyway!" Why not? Because they have no need to validate the religion. It doesn't matter because they're not trying to control politics, e.g. what gets taught in schools. That level of social control seems to be unique to the Abarahamic religions and the reason it is like that stems from social control and state influence. The church can't let itself be questioned if it's telling you what to do.

  6. #206
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    All those debates are political in origin anyway and a throwback to church control over society. Notice how almost no other religions have frets about evidence interfering with faith, or figuring out what the true and right answer is. We don't see people fighting over Izanagi and such for example even though Shinto is still pretty big today.

    We don't see people going "Izanagi and Izanami couldn't have created the land because the continental plates prove otherwise" and somebody else going "Yeah well science is a trick and I'm going to believe this anyway!" Why not? Because they have no need to validate the religion. It doesn't matter because they're not trying to control politics, e.g. what gets taught in schools. That level of social control seems to be unique to the Abarahamic religions and the reason it is like that stems from social control and state influence. The church can't let itself be questioned if it's telling you what to do.
    All of which requires that you accept the premise that the church (what church?) is totalitarian, authoritarian and the "baddy" of the piece.

    Surely that is a ridiculous oversimplification?

    If the western world or the part of the world in which the abrahamic religions are rooted has supposedly been the most socially controlled, which I highly doubt, it has also been one of he most socially contested and socially challenged or usurped in history.

    And how have the challlengers in every instance sought to usurp their enemies in the establishment? By attacking the narratives which sustain them, challenging the orthodoxy and changing the script, that's how.

    Shinto, if I recall properly, is the state religion, it was adopted by the emperors and was in contest or conflict for a long time with Taoism which thought it was superstition, and I think that Taoism was appointed state religion for a time too or maybe it was confucianism.

    The conflict in that part of the world was between taoism and confucianism, one believing man was perfect in a state of nature, uncorrupted by artifice, the other believing that man was corrupt in a state of nature and requiring instruction in the way of the upright, just and good man. Which is a sort of perennial debate globally echoed by Roseau, Voltaire and their conservative detractors as late as the modern political revolutions.

    The literal truth of doctrines such as the genesis story I would suggest is a legacy of the solo scriptural and biblical literalism doctrines adopted in opposition to traditionalism by the protestant opposition to the church during the reformation. Far from it being an overarching authoritarian and monolith church insisting upon it, it was the pretenders who thought asserting their own orthodoxy and dogma contra the establishment they could raise enough support to drive the establishment to extinction. Dont take my word for it though, check out The Discourse on Free Will by Erasmus and Luther from continuum classics for a first hand account.

  7. #207
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    All of which requires that you accept the premise that the church (what church?) is totalitarian, authoritarian and the "baddy" of the piece.

    Surely that is a ridiculous oversimplification?

    If the western world or the part of the world in which the abrahamic religions are rooted has supposedly been the most socially controlled, which I highly doubt, it has also been one of he most socially contested and socially challenged or usurped in history.

    And how have the challlengers in every instance sought to usurp their enemies in the establishment? By attacking the narratives which sustain them, challenging the orthodoxy and changing the script, that's how.

    Shinto, if I recall properly, is the state religion, it was adopted by the emperors and was in contest or conflict for a long time with Taoism which thought it was superstition, and I think that Taoism was appointed state religion for a time too or maybe it was confucianism.

    The conflict in that part of the world was between taoism and confucianism, one believing man was perfect in a state of nature, uncorrupted by artifice, the other believing that man was corrupt in a state of nature and requiring instruction in the way of the upright, just and good man. Which is a sort of perennial debate globally echoed by Roseau, Voltaire and their conservative detractors as late as the modern political revolutions.

    The literal truth of doctrines such as the genesis story I would suggest is a legacy of the solo scriptural and biblical literalism doctrines adopted in opposition to traditionalism by the protestant opposition to the church during the reformation. Far from it being an overarching authoritarian and monolith church insisting upon it, it was the pretenders who thought asserting their own orthodoxy and dogma contra the establishment they could raise enough support to drive the establishment to extinction. Dont take my word for it though, check out The Discourse on Free Will by Erasmus and Luther from continuum classics for a first hand account.
    I might add that another issue is people jumping in to defend.

    This isn't an oversimplification. If you paid attention and notice, I said I was talking about a phenomenon caused by a throwback to another period. This so happens to be a time when the church was in fact totalitarian.

    The church itself no longer has that kind of power. What I'm saying is the habit to debate and be defensive is a remnant of that nearly absolute power the church once had. This is the after effect of generations of dogma and social training. The church is no longer cracking the whip but people still jump out of habit.

  8. #208
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    All of which requires that you accept the premise that the church (what church?) is totalitarian, authoritarian and the "baddy" of the piece.

    Surely that is a ridiculous oversimplification?
    Honestly, it doesn't seem less simplified than preaching the "homosexual agenda" out to eradicate the innocent forces of heteronormality. There's a lot of casting in extremes of both sides going on in these discussions, and I'd like to see it minimized on both ends.

    Now, realistically in the United States, Christianity was installed as the cultural religion for years and developed its own particular flavor here. (Christianity does this, one reason why it has been so successful in so many settings -- it adapts to its surroundings even while still being recognizable as some flavor of Christianity.) The dominance of that faith is not surprising, considering the religious makeup of the earliest European colonists to the US and the reasons they came here. That framework for parsing the world, being the established faith, filtered its way into political decisions and cultural mindset (influencing not just our own internal affairs but how we interacted with the rest of the world) as per our particular flavor of the faith.

    What we've been seeing here over the last fifty years or so has been a dismantling of that particular perspective as the dominant one, to a more diverse outlook (cultural infusion began in the 60's/70's, at least noticeably to the populace?); and we're basically experiencing a lot of social upheaval as various groups jockey for position. For those who adhere to the old views, it can be a disturbing time as the culture is changing and their perspective is no longer inherently dominant, so they must find a balance for themselves just as the minorities have been forced to do for years. Eventually it will settle; but right now, there's a lot of turbulence as each group's influence is being readjusted.

    The literal truth of doctrines such as the genesis story I would suggest is a legacy of the solo scriptural and biblical literalism doctrines adopted in opposition to traditionalism by the protestant opposition to the church during the reformation. Far from it being an overarching authoritarian and monolith church insisting upon it, it was the pretenders who thought asserting their own orthodoxy and dogma contra the establishment they could raise enough support to drive the establishment to extinction. Dont take my word for it though, check out The Discourse on Free Will by Erasmus and Luther from continuum classics for a first hand account.
    Yeah, I see where you're going with that. I think a lack of historical context can result in a lot of overgeneralization of where particular views originated from. It's kind of like dispensationalism ("Left Behind" is a clear offspring), which some associate with "Christianity" harkening back to the New Testament but is really an offshoot of thought that entered the US around 1850-1860, I think. Very very recent. Christianity in the US over a period of two hundred years is not necessarily reflective of the Church over the last 2000.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #209
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    I might add that another issue is people jumping in to defend.

    This isn't an oversimplification. If you paid attention and notice, I said I was talking about a phenomenon caused by a throwback to another period. This so happens to be a time when the church was in fact totalitarian.

    The church itself no longer has that kind of power. What I'm saying is the habit to debate and be defensive is a remnant of that nearly absolute power the church once had. This is the after effect of generations of dogma and social training. The church is no longer cracking the whip but people still jump out of habit.
    Leaping in to defend? I wasnt being defensive, I was providing you with a counter point and alternative, new, fresh information to the cliche you were peddling but your content with it so, I suppose, that's alright, it works for you.

    Some day you might have second thoughts about it and decide to learn the truth instead.

    I dont believe the church was totalitarian then or now or any time, that's centuries of different opponents propaganda heaped up and taken for fact, you could as easily say that the UN is monolithic and totalitarian, which is patently false, the UN contains the communists and the fascists, China and the US etc. but I'm sure you get the analogy.
    Likes Rambling liked this post

  10. #210
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Leaping in to defend? I wasnt being defensive, I was providing you with a counter point and alternative, new, fresh information to the cliche you were peddling but your content with it so, I suppose, that's alright, it works for you.

    Some day you might have second thoughts about it and decide to learn the truth instead.

    I dont believe the church was totalitarian then or now or any time, that's centuries of different opponents propaganda heaped up and taken for fact, you could as easily say that the UN is monolithic and totalitarian, which is patently false, the UN contains the communists and the fascists, China and the US etc. but I'm sure you get the analogy.
    Why was it so important for you to do this then?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 05-04-2016, 05:39 AM
  2. Replies: 99
    Last Post: 04-05-2016, 08:17 AM
  3. What magazines do you subscribe to and why?
    By fidelia in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 01:01 PM
  4. [ENTP] ENTPs, how often do you cry, [if ever] and why?
    By Spry in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 11:06 AM
  5. What direction do you see the USA going in, and where would you like it to go?
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 01:09 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