Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 8,201-8,250 of 12,463

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Psalm 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed..."

Because the NIV is the ONLY correct bible, right Shannon?

[Shanna]

What explanation do you want, it's fairly self explanatory in the context of the conversation?

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "And Satyrs....

13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. "



Had a problem finding the above since the book of the Bible wasn't mentioned. So, I copied and pasted into Google.

Guess what I found?

Well, I found various sites that discuss the different versions of the Bible. The sites claim the King James version uses these words. (By the way, the above is from Isaiah.)

I have a NKJ version and an NIV version. Neither uses this language. I'm not in the mood to trust these sites and will have to look in a KJV at a bookstore in order to be sure.

If these contentions are correct, I have a question.

Are these words used before the KJV?

Are unicorns in the Torah?

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "And Satyrs....

13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

1..."
Unicorns in the Torah?
http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-...

http://www.zootorah.com/VirtualTour/o...

[Shanna]

And sorry forgot the Isaiah in that quote.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_are_u...

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "Because the NIV is the ONLY correct bible, right Shannon? "

No, Shanna. That isn't what I meant, nor does it make sense to throw that out there given who I am and what I stand for. That's the Bible I had at hand. If you keep reading, you'll see I went on a scavenger hunt, for information and Bibles.

One of the things the non-believers here have suggested we do is not to trust, especially blindly, what others say without proof. Correct?

So, I went on a hunt.

No, it's not self-explanatory, based on the conversation or not. You posted those cites without giving your source. KJV. You said Bible; I grabbed mine. Not accurate information. However, as I attempted to find the truth, I found what I posted.

I'll look these things up in an actual Bible, KJV.

I still ask whether or not unicorns, etc... are in the Torah. That's an important question, given the fact that the Torah came first.

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Because the NIV is the ONLY correct bible, right Shannon? "

No, Shanna. That isn't what I meant, nor does it make sense to throw that out there given who I am and what I stand for...."

I know, it's not you, but you did jump in say it was inaccurate based on the bible you have, while perfectly aware that there are thousands of versions...
And it is, even if you don't want it to be, self expanatory. It's copied verbatim from my bible so perfectly accurate and a mainstream bible not obscure one, even if I forgot to reference it properly, distracted by arguing children, sorry.
From what I gather Unicorn is a translation of the hebrew Re'em Or Reem or Re em, a one horned kosher mammal (incidentally I found the modern use of the word Re'em refers to the oryx)

[Drew]

It's so funny how none of the translations of the Bible can agree just like none of the religions can agree. Several versions say a unicorn, several say wild ox, some say buffalo, and one even said rhinoceros. I guess unicorns are in the Bible, depending on which version you use, roflmao.

[Drew]

I find it so funny that I mentioned unicorns off-hand not realizing that they are actually in some Bibles, that kills me.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "I know, it's not you, but you did jump in say it was inaccurate based on the bible you have, while perfectly aware that there are thousands of versions...
And it is, even if you don't want it to be, self expanatory, and it's copied verbatim from my bible so perfectly accurate"

It never, in a million years, occurred to me that the KJV would mention unicorns and the NIV would mention wild oxen ... despite knowing there are many versions of the Bible. However, regarding that, I don't think there are thousands of versions of the Bible. I did cite my source and accurately reported what I found when I found it.

[Shanna]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
English ones only, so all the languages...

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "Unicorns in the Torah?
http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-...

http://www.zootorah.com/VirtualTour/o... "

I looked at both.

The first states ...

"Question: What does the Talmud tell us about unicorns?

Answer: Thank you for your excellent question. There are several references in the Talmud and other Torah literature that may be interpreted as unicorns."

The rabbi discusses one horned mammals. Not sure that's the same as saying unicorns are in the Torah. Are there other one horned mammals? Rhinos, for example. (However, I'm game for believing in unicorns. Why not? I'm just not going to say unicorns are in the Torah.)

Regarding the second, ... From my reading, the word "unicorn" isn't mentioned. The Torah, it seems, mentions a one horned and two horned mammal. The post links this animal to an extinct ox or the "Arabian oryx" ... a type of antelope.

Therefore, it seems unicorns aren't in the Torah. One horned mammals, that can be "interpreted" as unicorns are mentioned.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
English ones only, so all the languages..."

Not sure this list equates to thousands ... and ... there's a difference between versions and translations. The KJV and NIV versions of the Bible, for example, are translated into other languages. I don't think those translations are considered to be different versions, just translations.

[Travis]

Mahz wrote: "Lol drew ok 'not clever' whatever you say :)
Magical creature huh? God?
He ain't magical! he creates miracles, he doesn't have a wand and wizards hat!"

Does have a long beard though. Just like a wizard.

[Travis]

Drew wrote: "Mahz wrote: "So your not right either?
Confused?"

I have no religious beliefs, so I am right."

Drew, I think you may be arguing theology with a 12 year old.
Might be best to just say 'I know you are, but what am I?' and move on.

[Travis]

Shanna wrote: "Unicorns in the bible

Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Psalm 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be ..."

Did not know that about the unicorns and satyrs.
How come you only get the boring parts of the bible in sunday school?

So, are the mentions of dragons where creationists get their ideas about there being dinosaurs in the garden of Eden?

[Drew]

Travis wrote: "Drew wrote: "Mahz wrote: "So your not right either?
Confused?"

I have no religious beliefs, so I am right."

Drew, I think you may be arguing theology with a 12 year old.
Might be best to just say..."

Should I give her a pass just because of age, I think not, she wants to debate so I debate with her. Obviously I'm taking it easier on her than I normally would but I won't assume that because she is young that she can't handle it. Wouldn't that be similar to be a sexist?

[[deleted user]]

Drew wrote: "Should I give her a pass just because of age, I think not, she wants to debate so I debate with her. "

You've changed your mind, then?

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
English ones only, so all the languages..."

Not sure this list equates to thousands ... and ... there's a difference ..."
Difference between translations and versions, while we're debating unicorns vs Re'em vs Bull vs wild oxen vs rhinoceros really?

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "Difference between translations and versions, while we're debating unicorns vs Re'em vs Bull vs wild oxen vs rhinoceros really? "

Another thing I've learned from some non-believers here. We must be very particular regarding word choice and the definitions of said words.

But, you're right.

It's more important to discuss the fact that some have assumed references to a one horned mammal in the Torah were references to unicorns.

As I said, though, I'm open to all sorts of things. Maybe there were unicorns, and we've just not discovered any remains as of yet. Unicorns. Yeti. Giant Squid.

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Difference between translations and versions, while we're debating unicorns vs Re'em vs Bull vs wild oxen vs rhinoceros really? "

Another thing I've learned from some non-believers ..."

Now giant squid they're real, what constitutes a kraken I don't know...

http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=156

The article even states there is a COLOSSAL Squid... I no longer go in the water at the beach, figure (especially in Australia with White Pointers, blue ring octopus, stingrays, blue bottles, man-o-wars) they (sea creatures) can't eat, sting or just bite me if I'm dry land... :D

And I'm more than willing to accept the hypothesis that rhino's, oryx or some other antelope type creature was mythologised in to a unicorn, Narwhal horns were sold in medieval times as unicorn horns. Don't know where I stand on yetis so lets say I'm yeti agnostic... :)
None of which detract from the fact that a mainstream bible presents unicorns as real.

[Mahz]

Travis wrote: "Mahz wrote: "Lol drew ok 'not clever' whatever you say :)
Magical creature huh? God?
He ain't magical! he creates miracles, he doesn't have a wand and wizards hat!"

Does have a long beard though. ..."

That's what people think not me!
As I already said get on with your life and believe what you want to believe, because everyone wants to be right, because some people I guess can't handle some stuff!

There are proofs around the world, but I guess if you want to look for something, you need to actually look, and not just believe what you see every time!

[Gary]

Mahz wrote: "Umm Gary? Not everyone believes that science was before religion, it's actually the opposite! :/ "

You are quite right. However, I didn't say science I said the world. Religion is a human invention in order to give an explanation for reality, science is a human invention to actually gain knowledge about reality after many religions tried different explanations.

Science did not exist before religion, but what science has discovered did.

Meanwhile 90% of modern religions are younger than recorded history, so if we would not survive without those religions then we would not be here now. Evidence tells us that life has existed far longer than the time we have had the ability to communicate ideas like religion, yet we still survived.

Religion is not one thing, it is many different things, often conflicting and mutually exclusive. We have lost more religions than exist now, so why should the rest be any more vital?

Meanwhile the consequences of a loss of science is right in front of your eyes.

[Gary]

Mahz wrote: "Because, just like you, in every human nature, everyone wants to be right!"

Yes but some people want to be right because they have actually done the work to find the right answer, others want their preferred answer to be right and others to agree. That is the difference between science and religion.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "You're talking to a teacher who makes peanuts, quasi-pun intended, is childless, and lives in a tiny apartment and drives a car that gets good gas mileage. ;)"

Heh, I wish I made as much as a teacher, but I don't begrudge them their pay since they/you have to deal with other people's kids. I work at a school but I don't have to look after the little... I do have a child but I don't own a car, and I live in a tiny apartment (though mine is a tiny UK apartment, I understand the US has different ideas of what rates as small living spaces!) :-)

However, both of us in simple terms of the electricity and fuel we consume, in the products we buy and the food we eat, is still probably worth ten to a hundred times what a person in the undeveloped world does! In a way we only have a limited amount we can effect this as the corporations and businesses that profit by selling us this stuff find it cheaper to fly food around the world than to buy it locally. :-)

Ironic aside I have heard that in some countries the local staple food quinoa is now so prized by ethical vegetarians in the first world that it's price has shot up so much that the locals now find it cheaper to buy in western junk food.

Shannon wrote: "I can grasp the idea behind what you're saying, though I've not equated births, etc... to colonization. Obviously, there are differences between the two, big ones."

I suppose it comes down to where you slice it. After all what is colonization but claiming space to live. Doing it "here" or "there" only matters if you start to claim "rights" to a certain place or other. That becomes subjective and an unavoidable value judgement straight away.

Take for example the idea of cloning a Neanderthal. The latest hypothesis for them dying out is simply because homo sapiens were less specialised to the cold forests of Europe so when climate change triggered warming and deforestation which meant that the homo sapiens style of hunting would work better than Neanderthal ambush hunting. Yet they were definitely stronger and potentially more intelligent. Would it be unethical not to resurrect them if it became possible and return the lands that we colonised from Africa?

At some point we all make an arbitrary decision on the value of life. I find things like "ethical vegetarianism" particularly hypocritical as it has at it's core a distinction based on a value judgement that plant life forms can be considered prey, while animal life forms are considered not. Why? Because animals are more like us. A more clear case of prejudice I cannot imagine. Some go as far as "fruitarians" who only eat things that have evolved to specifically be eaten. However the adaptation of birthrates and fertility amongst prey animals like rabbits and cattle are a similar adaptation to predation as fruit. Some say that "plants don't suffer" yet we don't know that at all, all we know is we can understand animal suffering because they are more similar to us. (Which is why some people are happy to eat fish but not meat because "fish don't feel")

Shannon wrote: "It just makes me cringe. We're not responsible for the world we have. What right do we have to go to another world and, possibly, have a detrimental impact there. It just seems wrong to me. But, ... that's me. I'm guessing I might be in the minority (pun not intended) on this one."

In which case the people remain here and have a detrimental impact here?

Personally, I am more inclined to draw the line at a sufficiently established sentience. I do value some life above others, but I am consciously aware that this is at some level an arbitrary choice. So I would count the forced colonisation of another country wrong, or the destruction of creatures with a chance of a similar level of self awareness, such as dolphins and whales, wrong. Not because they are like me, but because of the demonstrable complexity of their brains which indicates that they may have a consciousness even if it is nothing like our consciousness.

That's the problem with real ethics, sometimes there isn't a clear right and wrong, no matter what some people would like to believe. We don't have a divine right to occupy the Earth let alone another planet, but does that mean that we should not exist?

Shannon wrote: "Regarding your ideas, ... I think you should write a Sci-fi novel with this as your plot. Truly. I'd actually appreciate the idea better in the pages of a book. Further, the reading of such a book, in and of itself, could change people's choices and actions ... here."

Thank you :-) though I'm not sure I can do such a plot justice, and I believe it's already been done.

I haven't read it myself but http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/77... the trilogy Red Mars/Green Mars/Blue Mars deals with the colonisation and terraforming of Mars and apparently also contrasts it with the increasing ecological and social collapse on Earth.

Shannon wrote: "If we could prove, yes, prove, that the planet was truly sterile, no living organisms whatsoever, I might be more comfortable with the idea. But, I seem to remember your telling us science can't prove things, 100% prove them. Hope I'm remember that correctly."

Yes, absolutely. However this doesn't just apply to alien worlds. Some scientists have hypothesised the idea that there could be "shadow biospheres" here on Earth. Lifeforms that are so alien and hard to comprehend that we don't even recognise them as life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_b... There is I understand a kind of poorly understood form of "brick rot" that seems to be a chemical reaction but some have suggested that it could be life. There could also be kinds of life not yet detected. We cannot prove 100% that every step you take, every breath you draw, every blink of an eye, you do not annihilate entire civilisations.

This is why we try to prove things "beyond reasonable doubt". The moon and other places are "beyond reasonable doubt" free of conscious life and are "beyond reasonable doubt" sterile. Without this cut off point then your only choices would be to be paralysed with inaction or be ethically dishonest and ignore the minute possibility that you could be massacring every moment.

Shannon wrote: "And, within this discussion, you mentioned classifying life can be very difficult. Given that, I'm still leaning toward anti-colonization. "

On a different tack then, and going back to the previous conversation, what is the purpose of life then? (In your opinion). The bible tells people to "go forth and multiply" which is the basic process of colonisation, be it colonising the next field or colonising the next star. We were discussing "purpose" within and without so in your opinion is our "purpose" to propagate? Is it wrong to propagate? Obviously we need to consider the consequences of our decision to propagate be it another apartment in our city or to another nation in the world, but once we have considered the consequences of doing it, do we not also need to consider the consequences of not doing it? If we have no right to propagate to another world, do we have no right to propagate to this one?

Again I realise this may be a little (insert your favourite supernatural badguy)'s advocate. :-)

[Mohsen]

I truly don't think it would matter. Humans will find a way to find differences and blame it on an ideology. Whether it was religion or science.

What I really want is to live in a world with no humans. Sounds more peaceful.

[Mohsen]

I truly don't think it would matter. Humans will find a way to find differences and blame it on an ideology. Whether it was religion or science.

What I really want is to live in a world with no humans. Sounds more peaceful.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Yes, absolutely. However this doesn't just apply to alien worlds. Some scientists have hypothesised the idea that there could be "shadow biospheres" here on Earth. Lifeforms that are so alien and hard to comprehend that we don't even recognise them as life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_b... There is I understand a kind of poorly understood form of "brick rot" that seems to be a chemical reaction but some have suggested that it could be life. There could also be kinds of life not yet detected. We cannot prove 100% that every step you take, every breath you draw, every blink of an eye, you do not annihilate entire civilisations.

This is why we try to prove things "beyond reasonable doubt". The moon and other places are "beyond reasonable doubt" free of conscious life and are "beyond reasonable doubt" sterile. Without this cut off point then your only choices would be to be paralysed with inaction or be ethically dishonest and ignore the minute possibility that you could be massacring every moment."

Thanks for the info. I'd not heard about this. Interesting....

Regarding the difference between "massacring" life, unknowingly, here or on another planet, .... It would make me sad if it happened anywhere. The one thing we can say about its happening here is that we were born here. Does that make it right for us to "massacre" life? No. But, if that life exists, even though we can't see it and identify it, and we also exist, it would be "natural" for that to happen here. If we were to go elsewhere and that were to happen, well, it would be new and different and not part of the natural ... cycle ... of that planet.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "On a different tack then, and going back to the previous conversation, what is the purpose of life then? (In your opinion). The bible tells people to "go forth and multiply" which is the basic process of colonisation, be it colonising the next field or colonising the next star. We were discussing "purpose" within and without so in your opinion is our "purpose" to propagate? Is it wrong to propagate? Obviously we need to consider the consequences of our decision to propagate be it another apartment in our city or to another nation in the world, but once we have considered the consequences of doing it, do we not also need to consider the consequences of not doing it? If we have no right to propagate to another world, do we have no right to propagate to this one?"

In answer to your question, I don't know. Not really.

My first thought ... would there be a different purpose for different life forms? Might there be a different purpose for different life forms within the same species? Talking about human beings, could different people have a different purpose? Or, does all life have to have one purpose?

Yes, I know the Bible says, "Go forth and multiply." If that is the purpose of our lives, I led a purposeless life. My entire life, up to this point and past today, is a failure, if that's the purpose of life.

I took a college English class once that delved into the Bible and this particular passage. We read different views and discussed this at length. There's a view that this sentiment is very, specific to a certain culture. Other peoples would have a different perspective.

And, as I've mentioned, while I believe in "God" and pray, etc..., I don't believe the Bible or any holy book written by a man, is the divine word of God. I don't have a problem with men, in general, but I know men can be and are fallible and bias.

I've always thought, since I was little, that we were here for multiple reasons. To learn. To leave this world a better place. I don't exactly know why I developed these thoughts, but I remember always thinking them. Would dolphins be here to learn a lesson? To leave the world a better place? I don't know.

[Gary]

Mohsen wrote: "I truly don't think it would matter. Humans will find a way to find differences and blame it on an ideology. Whether it was religion or science."

Religion is an ideology (as is political ideologies like capitalism or democratism), science is a methodology, not an ideology.

Sadly enough though, you may be right. Several ideologies have been based on (usually deeply flawed) interpretations of science, but it's important to note that they weren't science.

Mohsen wrote: "What I really want is to live in a world with no humans. Sounds more peaceful.

:-D

Why, what species are you? :-)

[Mohsen]

Gary wrote: "Mohsen wrote: "I truly don't think it would matter. Humans will find a way to find differences and blame it on an ideology. Whether it was religion or science."

Religion is an ideology (as is poli..."

Exactly!! Sorry for not being able to express my opinion so clearly! :) English isn't my best language :)

and Exactly. Fighting, war, murder, destruction, it's built in us, humans! Even I in my last comment wanted all other humans to vanish!!

Fix the humans, and you'll fix the ideas! :)

PS: Thanks for replying! :)

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "You're talking to a teacher who makes peanuts, quasi-pun intended, is childless, and lives in a tiny apartment and drives a car that gets good gas mileage. ;)"

Heh, I wish I made a..."

I never got that: if god wants us to go out and mulitply, then why did he design the rest of the universe to kill us?

If we are supposed to stay here on earth, isn't the rest of the universe a huge waste of space?

Either the instruction booklet is missing a page or they might want to rename 'intelligent design', it seems like we, once again, have two conflicting ideas being presented to us.

Though, wouldn't the 'multiply' thing be god's ok to go ahead with cloning?

[Travis]

Mohsen wrote: "I truly don't think it would matter. Humans will find a way to find differences and blame it on an ideology. Whether it was religion or science.

What I really want is to live in a world with no h..."

It would be...until the zombies or 'damned dirty apes!' showed up.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "No. But, if that life exists, even though we can't see it and identify it, and we also exist, it would be "natural" for that to happen here. If we were to go elsewhere and that were to happen, well, it would be new and different and not part of the natural ... cycle ... of that planet."

Interesting. However, does that mean that we should not have colonised Australia? I don't think we know how your ancestors colonised North America before the Vikings or Europeans arrived, but would it make a difference whether they walked their across "natural" ice or land bridges, or whether they used "unnatural" means such as boats to cross the water?

(Again just putting the idea up for conversation, not to say you're wrong.)

If we have the capacity in our legs to walk to colonise a new area, is that more natural that using our hands to hold driftwood to get to an area we could not otherwise reach? Is that then less natural than using those hands to fashion a boat, or a starship?

"Natural" is a value judgement. Saying that is "within" it's nature and that is without. However surely everything we can do is therefore within our nature otherwise we would be incapable of doing it?

There are obvious problems with using "what is natural" as a reason. After all it's the same psuedo-argument that has been used against homosexuals for centuries, and is still used despite being proven to be natural to many species, may have a natural genetic component and may have behavioural advantages that we have never realised thanks to our western cultures "unnatural" denial of the existence of this nature in some.

(I realise you are definitely not one of the people who condone such prejudice, but it was the most obvious issue with the "natural" counterpoint that came to mind.)

Shannon wrote: "In answer to your question, I don't know. Not really. "

A good answer and the beginning of wisdom :-) I quite agree that I don't know either, but that makes it something worthy of discussion, especially between people of different worldviews.

Shannon wrote: "Or, does all life have to have one purpose?"

All good questions. What the question really is I feel is "does the universe have a purpose" which is the standard conflict between religion and non-religion. A higher power that deliberately created a universe in such a way that deliberately created us would logically be more likely to have a purpose than not. Whereas a universe without such an entity would be one in which different life forms would have different purposes. This comes down to my discussion about intrinsic vs extrinsic purpose covered before.

It's also covered well here too in a reply to the Templeton foundation's question "Does the Universe have a purpose" by Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson. It's not world shaking stuff, but I really like Dr Tyson :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pL5vz...

Shannon wrote: "Yes, I know the Bible says, "Go forth and multiply." If that is the purpose of our lives, I led a purposeless life. My entire life, up to this point and past today, is a failure, if that's the purpose of life."

This seems to be the reasoning behind a lot of religious guilt over sex. From "Onanism" to homosexuality to contraception the idea of sex without the chance of procreation has been viewed as immoral. Yet it appears to me to be a failure of imagination and understanding.

For a start "going forth and multiplying" as simply being sex and pregnancy not only is over simplified but relegates men to sperm donors and women to incubators. In actual fact the process of going forth and multiplying also involves the protection and education of children rather than simply "spawning" them?

Which would mean your life's purpose would be overflowing?

This has other factors. Science suggests that sex amongst humans in particular serves a far greater function than mere procreation. The act itself helps create strong pair bonds that helps keep people together in unions that support the raising of children. The same pair bonding impulse can explain why homosexuality and other sexual identities exist.

I find it incredibly ironic that the religious viewpoint always seems to treat humans as more bestial and base than science does. It is well known that a healthy sex life can be very important to the stability of a couple and a family, yet why do we artificially limit it to only one specific arrangement claiming that some feelings are natural and others aren't?

Shannon wrote: "There's a view that this sentiment is very, specific to a certain culture."

I agree. The sentiment does seem to also stem from the cultural prejudices of a very patriarchal society inherited to the west via the Judean-Christian tradition. Which is of course why the religion itself contains so much patriarchal and misogynistic imagery. (The inherent sinfulness of women and "Our Heavenly Father" which kind of undermines the importance of a Mother.)

Shannon wrote: "And, as I've mentioned, while I believe in "God" and pray, etc..., I don't believe the Bible or any holy book written by a man, is the divine word of God. I don't have a problem with men, in general, but I know men can be and are fallible and bias."

I know, hence the discussion points above are not meant to be any sort of attack on your personal beliefs, they are musings on our modern culture.

Shannon wrote: "I've always thought, since I was little, that we were here for multiple reasons. To learn. To leave this world a better place. I don't exactly know why I developed these thoughts, but I remember always thinking them. Would dolphins be here to learn a lesson? To leave the world a better place? I don't know. "

You see I agree with this. I sought out meaning and purpose for a long time, and I realise now how miserable it can make you, and I have seen directly how that need has been used and abused by others. But all this came from an expectation that purpose was extrinsic and would be given to me as a directive.

What I came to realise is that an extrinsic purpose can never work anyway. After all if god popped down and said you're hear to do "x" the next obvious question to ask is "why?" this then leaves us waiting for another extrinsic answer or to be told 'just do it'. In the end even if god told you a good reason, it would still be up to you to decide to obey or not! Therefore even the supposed extrinsic purpose is really intrinsic in nature.

A long time after losing my faith I came to an understanding that if we find our own purpose then life has the meaning that no-one outside can provide. Even a willing soldier, servant or even slave finds the purpose to serve what they see to be important. Therefore the meaning of life would be to find your own meaning, and that meaning will be reflected back to you in the purpose you serve in society.

Therefore, how noble to be the teacher, the soldier, the doctor etc. who choose to serve and protect others as we would want society to serve and protect us?

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Difference between translations and versions, while we're debating unicorns vs Re'em vs Bull vs wild oxen vs rhinoceros really? "

Another thing I've learned from some non-believers ..."

We have reached the point where we are using cryptozoology to defend the bible?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Interesting. However, does that mean that we should not have colonised Australia?"

Not up on the history of Australia, I'm afraid. In order to find an answer, I'd ask a few questions.

Did native people already exist in Australia? (Yes, right?)

Did England colonize Australia in order to get rid of a "problem" within the English culture? To rid themselves of criminals and "undesirable" people? That's what we're taught here, at least.

Did the native people who already lived in Australia face negative consequences as a result of colonization?

Does the need or desire to explore on the part of one people and culture outweigh the rights of others?

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "No. But, if that life exists, even though we can't see it and identify it, and we also exist, it would be "natural" for that to happen here. If we were to go elsewhere and that were..."

The whole debate about 'natural' seems odd to me. We are part of nature, so wouldn't that make things we do 'natural'?

The phrase 'against nature' is equally strange, as nature doesn't have much in the way of rules. Stay alive, bring some new versions of 'fill in animal name here' into the world seems to be it.

The entire idea of there being rules to the natural world ( or as I like to call it 'the world') is something we thought up, as that whole eat or be eaten, struggle to survive and get dinner is a bit on the scary side.
There is no evidence of a purpose to the world, or the natural order anywhere in the world besides when a bunch of humans get some free time.

We are the only species that seems aware that we we do has an impact and can actually alter stuff about the world around us, which is a big deal but the whole natural/unnatural is otherwise as much a human construct as religion.

Feel like I'm starting to ramble a bit, so I'll move on.

[Gary]

Mohsen wrote: "Exactly!! Sorry for not being able to express my opinion so clearly! :) English isn't my best language :)"

No problem Mohsen, it is good to hear from you and no need to apologise, you can write better English than I can write any other language! I also appreciate hearing from people who do not speak English as I am a proponent of the hypothesis that language effects the way we think more deeply than people realise so conversing with people who have different native languages is very illuminating.

Mohsen wrote: "Exactly. Fighting, war, murder, destruction, it's built in us, humans! Even I in my last comment wanted all other humans to vanish!!

Fix the humans, and you'll fix the ideas! :)

PS: Thanks for replying! :) "

There are statistical indications that as western society has become more secular, violence has declined. It is important to remember that correlation does not necessarily mean causation but for me it is a source of hope. I think most conflicts can be resolved if people are willing to discard personal ideology for independent evidence.

And thank you for the polite reply :-)

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: ""Natural" is a value judgement. "

No. I didn't mean it in this way. Perhaps I picked the wrong word.

My intent was ... if we were to go to Mars, it would not be ... what? ... natural to that environment/planet. Is there a better word to pick for what I'm trying to say? If we went to a planet that has existed for thousands, millions, trillions of years and take bacteria, viruses, etc... that have never existed on that planet and aren't part of the nature of that planet, it's not natural to the plant. Not value judgment. Talking what is ...

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "My intent was ... if we were to go to Mars, it would not be ... what? ... natural to that environment/planet. Is there a better word to pick for what I'm trying to say? If we went to a planet that has existed for thousands, millions, trillions of years and take bacteria, viruses, etc... that have never existed on that planet and aren't part of the nature of that planet, it's not natural to the plant. Not value judgment. Talking what is ... "

I get that, my point was that this "natural" division is somewhat arbitrary. After all, certain life is not natural to different parts of the world, until life finds a way to spread there. You could say that life is natural to our solar system as it exists on one world and there is a finite chance that life on Earth could have been blasted off and landed on other worlds naturally. Also if our ability to learn and discover is natural then our ability to reach other worlds would be as natural as a plant casting its seeds on the wind.

Essentially I am saying that the definition "natural" is highly subjective.

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "My intent was ... if we were to go to Mars, it would not be ... what? ... natural to that environment/planet. Is there a better word to pick for what I'm trying to say? If we went t..."

We do seem to be drifting towards a point where 'natural' is becoming as vague and unhelpful a term as 'religion'.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Essentially I am saying that the definition "natural" is highly subjective. "

What word should we use? You guys are the science guys. Feeling I'm in the realm of science on this one. Suggestions. Should I go with native?

Yes, things exist on some places here and not others. They spread.

We have something like this here. Over the last 10 or more years, we've had problems in some of our lakes, in Vermont. Zebra muscles have come here and are spreading, but there's something else ... I think. They're not native to this area, not sure where they come from. But, they're an invasive species or have become so. When they hit our lakes they grow, out of control, and wipe out native species that have always been here. People consider this to be a very, very bad thing. Vermont's scientists and politicians. There are constant warnings and, I think, there are even laws people need to obey. Those with motor boats (not me) have to clean something when they go from lake to lake to stop the spread. Some lakes have it and some don't.

This is what I'm talking about. I can say "native" or something else if you have an idea. And, this is my concern regarding colonization. One species paying a price for the other. Further, again, I'm not the science person, but .... I'm guessing here, but ... if a non-native species is introduced to an environment that its never existed in before and it's an invasive species or becomes one and destroys native species, very, very bad things could happen. Couldn't that throw off the entire area, eco-system?

[Mohsen]

Gary wrote: "Mohsen wrote: "Exactly!! Sorry for not being able to express my opinion so clearly! :) English isn't my best language :)"

No problem Mohsen, it is good to hear from you and no need to apologise, y..."

I am surprised at that as well!! haha!!
I don't think language has a hand in the way people think. Now I'm an Arab Muslim, and yes, sir. I consider myself an agnostic person. and because I know Islam and I know that it's a religion of the desert! Probably quite aggressive and violent in someways. Muslims will admit to that proudly!!

And again, personally I believe that violence is a part of man, and specially in a rough environment like the desert being a rough religion makes sense!!

I'm digressing. But anyways, what I'm trying to say is that we need to stop trying to see if the world is better without neither! At some point religion supported science!! and science supported religion!

People no matter what they believe in will seek violence.

Btw, you're awesome! :P
I never talked this much in English, I slightly feel proud of myself!!

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Yes it does. "Why did you murder Bob?" is there a point to defending yourself from this accusation if Bob isn't dead?

Questions often contain assumptions, sometimes hidden, that make answering them correctly almost impossible without explaining why the question is wrong.

It is also a favourite apologist trick to ask a rhetorical question which contains assumptions.

Not a good analogy.

Gary wrote: .So I, as a person with years of study of cosmology, try to explain to you why the assumptions were wrong, and you accuse me of deception because you think the answer is too complex?

Yes more or less, you are correct. I would understand if you as a person with years of study of cosmology, wanted to add more information or elaborate on the answer. But you dismiss it completely.

Gary wrote: You seem to have years of study on many scientific or religious subjects and that is not a criticism, more an observation. The problem I have with that is, all that knowledge has to have it’s limitations and people with less knowledge on those subjects will take what you say as gospel, which I do most of the time; but on occasions in the past you have not been correct and it is those occasions where you gloss over the issue or deflect from the issue.

When I watch a TV programme and there are four experts from the scientific world taking question from the general public, basic questions maybe, and they have to give a one or two sentence answer due to time restrictions, and one says to one another, as did happened with the ‘speed of light question; “this question is more in your field of expertise so I will let you answer it,“ two things occur to me. One, I will take the answer as more or less correct even though I understand that a two sentence answer may not do the question justice. Two, I have read another scientific ‘hypothesis’ that may contradict that answer. Are both answers wrong or are both correct. My understanding is the answer is correct if it fit’s the theory.

Gary wrote: Citation needed.

This is what puzzles me about your knowledge. You are the expert but you want a reference to what I am referring to. As a non expert but as someone who has an interest; another hypothesis/theory is the bubble theory, which seems to make some sort of sense and would fit into the ‘edge of the universe’ reference Prof. Cox was suggesting.

Gary wrote: Ok so now you know better than Einstein & Hawking? The "Theory" that proves you wrong is called the "General Theory of Relativity" and though incomplete it is still regarded as one of the pillars of modern Physics.

……. although incomplete?…. and that is the paradox of science. It’s deemed right until it is proven not to be so; a bit like religion. ‘We’ should not question, that is the job of science.

And when the General Theory of Relativity, one of the pillars of modern Physics is held in esteem….. along comes ’dark energy’ to put a cat among the pigeons.


Gary wrote: .There is a wide consensus on relativity. It is used in the calculations for GPS in mobile phones, missiles and navigation systems across the world.

That did not answer the question.

Gary wrote: You repeatedly sniff at the works of science from climatology through evolution to physics and imply that if it doesn't make sense to you then it's just a guess.

Where I come from that’s called having a different opinion, you seem to see it as not agreeing with Gary.

Gary wrote: .As for sounding "superior", I am not the one refuting the work of tens of thousands of hard working scientists, including some renowned as geniuses of their time,

Have I really done all that?

Anyway if science does not occasionally refute others work, we would still think the earth was flat.

Gary wrote: Again it's the question that is wrong which is why you don't understand why your answer is wrong because you are assuming that Professor Cox and others are also using Euclidean space, they are not.

He gave the answer to the question. If you like and to simplify things; think of me as the messenger. You are disputing his reply to the question.

[Debbie]

God gave the scientists the ability to use their mind. but that is just my opinion. So without God the scientists wouldnt have their inquisitive minds. So why cant we have both?

[Travis]

Debbie wrote: "God gave the scientists the ability to use their mind. but that is just my opinion. So without God the scientists wouldnt have their inquisitive minds. So why cant we have both?"

We can, we just shouldn't be treating them as equals or two sides of the same coin or teaching both in schools.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Essentially I am saying that the definition "natural" is highly subjective. "

What word should we use? You guys are the science guys. Feeling I'm in the realm of science on this one..."


I think using 'native to...' and specific examples would be better, as even talking about Mars, we are talking about a natural place.

Heck, if you are feeling fancy you could say 'indigenous'.

[Shanna]

Travis wrote: "We have reached the point where we are using cryptozoology to defend the bible?"

Nope just a little sidetrack.... :)

Though it is interesting in an amusing way...

http://www.bibleufo.com/crypto.htm
http://www.christianforums.com/t7554234/
http://theparanormalpastor.blogspot.c...

[Robert]

I would rather live in a world without science. I believe all things come from the almighty and eventually we would find science.Also I have found in my readings and studies that as we become more knowledgable and enlightened, that the line between God and science is becoming smaller and smaller. Like Debbie said above this is just my opinion. As I read the debates above and the passion that is being expressed I can't help think that the reality is no one knows the real answer.

[Suzette]

I believe that religion originally helped humans live in a society. Living in groups is impossible without rules and having "big brother" watching every decision makes it more likely that individuals will stay in line. At this point, and I realize billions of people disagree, religion causes much more problems than it helps. I could definitely do without religion. Having rules that were decided upon when people still thought the earth was flat that still guide people today is ludicrous. Religions explained things that were unexplainable without science but now we have science and it's obvious that both versions aren't possible. If people were okay with being religious and letting everyone else decide for themselves without trying to push their ideologies on to the rest of the planet it wouldn't irk me so much. But they aren't. Therein lies the rub.