Disturbing Passage from The Bible

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/11/2007 05:13:47 PM · #651

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

It was a quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail :)

Ah, OK... I've seen it many times but didn't remember that particular quote.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/11/2007 05:45:49 PM · #652

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

If I had time, I would draw a map of the directions this thread has taken. ...or maybe I'll just get a spirograph. :)

spirograph

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
.......the beauty and complexity of such a marvelous creation.......

creation?
Huh?

Yes, I couldn't resist using that word for "thing." : )

Keith Maniac

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

01/11/2007 09:10:37 PM · #653

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by RonB:
There is a BIG difference between reading and experiencing.

This would sum it up for me. :)

Please, do elaborate. We're all ears :)

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/11/2007 09:39:51 PM · #654

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by RonB:
There is a BIG difference between reading and experiencing.

This would sum it up for me. :)

Please, do elaborate. We're all ears :)

If you're all ears, then I don't need to elaborate. Very simply, you can't read with your ears.
You could read about burrs, diphthongs, orinasals, and glottal stops, etc. and how they are formed with the tongue and lips and glottis, etc. but actually HEARING someone pronounce words that contain them conveys much more meaning.

Keith Maniac

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

01/11/2007 10:16:19 PM · #655

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by RonB:
There is a BIG difference between reading and experiencing.

This would sum it up for me. :)

Please, do elaborate. We're all ears :)

If you're all ears, then I don't need to elaborate. Very simply, you can't read with your ears.
You could read about burrs, diphthongs, orinasals, and glottal stops, etc. and how they are formed with the tongue and lips and glottis, etc. but actually HEARING someone pronounce words that contain them conveys much more meaning.

Honestly, I have no idea what that meant. And I'm not being sarcastic.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/11/2007 10:19:40 PM · #656

or as Frank Zappa said: â��Writing about music is like dancing about architecture.â��

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/15/2007 08:17:32 PM · #657

Has anyone read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? - someone mentioned it to me today. Sounds interesting.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/16/2007 12:22:51 AM · #658

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by RonB:
There is a BIG difference between reading and experiencing.

This would sum it up for me. :)

Please, do elaborate. We're all ears :)

If you're all ears, then I don't need to elaborate. Very simply, you can't read with your ears.
You could read about burrs, diphthongs, orinasals, and glottal stops, etc. and how they are formed with the tongue and lips and glottis, etc. but actually HEARING someone pronounce words that contain them conveys much more meaning.

Honestly, I have no idea what that meant. And I'm not being sarcastic.

The elaboration you requested. Burrs, diphthongs, orinasals, and glottal stops describe some of the sounds made when speaking by manipulating the shape of the lips, the degree of opening of the jaw, the placement of the tongue, the constriction of the throat, etc. It's much easier to have a clear understanding of the sounds when actually heard, than it is to read about how they are formed. Namely, there is a big difference between reading about how the sounds are made, and actually hearing ( experiencing ) the sounds.

01/16/2007 09:28:27 AM · #659

Originally posted by jhonan:

Has anyone read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? - someone mentioned it to me today. Sounds interesting.

It is a very well written book and is easy to read. It provides a lot of meat to arguments explored here. It sets out a coherent and (IMO) compelling argument on behalf of rationalism.

01/16/2007 09:39:53 AM · #660

Originally posted by RonB:

Ah, very nice, Paul. The Peregrine Falcon is truly an example of God's marvelous work in creation. The fastest animal in the world - clocked at a speeds well over 200 miles an hour. I can't imagine that evolution wold lead to a species that requires such speed. Surely the Peregrine would survive just as well diving only half that fast. My response, of course, is that God doesn't create mediocre stuff - He wants us to MARVEL at what He creates. And marvel, I do.

If it represents an efficient balance of predatory success and expense of energy within the known laws of physics, its environment and evolutionary history, I would find it hard to believe that it or something like it did not exist.

Mediocrity tends to be left behind in the theory of evolution. I cannot think of any "mediocre" animals - they simply would not last long if a better adaptation came along. Hence the long history traceable through the fossil record of moving and changing animal stock as environments shift.

01/16/2007 09:59:45 AM · #661

Oops - apologies, but I pressed edit instead of quote and changed this (long-ish) response to Ron B. It included the following questions, but I have deleted the rest by accident.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I accept that you may make a declaration and believe it to be accurate, but what you appear to be saying is that other people may look at the same thing with a different view and come up with a different interpretation - but, critically, that their interpretation is not necessarily any more or less correct than yours: it is simply different. Logic dictates that your interpretation is no better than anyone else's (even though, obviously, you believe your specific "colour" to be the correct one).

I am not asking you to say that you don't believe, or that your belief is wrong. I am asking you to acknowledge that, given the unknowability of the subject matter, your belief has no greater access to the actual "colour" than anyone else's belief. While you may be right, so may anyone else who has a belief.

Originally posted by LegalBeagle:

I am asking you to acknowledge that you do not have greater access to some "truth" than anyone else. I am pointing out the existence of alternative beliefs, and asking you to acknowledge that your belief has the same degree of authority as other religious beliefs - no greater authority (except within its own teaching).

Message edited by author 2007-01-19 06:16:04.

01/16/2007 10:14:39 AM · #662

PS - I listened on Saturday to a particularly amusing radio sketch by Mitchell and Webb. I cannot do it justice and paraphrase it here, but it revolved around a person arriving at the pearly gates.

StP: did you have a washing machine?

Person: yes - what's that got to do with it. I have lead a good life, haven't I?

StP: Well, let's just say that it doesn't bode well. Did you own a vehicle with an internal combustion engine?

Person: yes - of course. Everyone does.

StP: That's going to be a problem. I don't think that I can let you in to heaven.

Person: Why - what have I done wrong?

StP: Well, god is rather keen at the moment on the Amish.

Person: What? You mean no electrical items and pulling things around on carts? How was I supposed to know that

StP: If you had read the Mennonite holy books, god's word is all written down there for you.

Person: But how could I have known that they were the word of god?

StP: Well, we thought that the film "Witness" was a pretty good awareness rouser... [etc]

01/16/2007 10:26:36 AM · #663

If there is no God(s), then all life/creations should be explainable, based on a series of understandable sequences. If man is in sole control of his universe, then he should be able to maintain it.

If man was in control of his universe, then he would not need God(s) to explain it's mysteries.

Since man has needed and does need God(s) to explain its mysteries, there must be God(s).

However, some might argue that only the ignorant need God(s) to explain mysteries, while others might argue that those who think they understand all mysteries are the truly ignorant for not believing in God(s).

For me the evidence of God's existence can be found in a sunset view into the Grand Canyon from the westrim or an early fall morning ride through the forests on a twisting road in the upper midwest. I do not know how one could view a spectacular sunset or an awakened new day and not realize the majesty of his majesty.

Photography is much about capturing light. If I can find the light, then I can find the way.

01/16/2007 10:50:10 AM · #664

Originally posted by Flash:

If man is in sole control of his universe, then he should be able to maintain it. If man was in control of his universe, then he would not need God(s) to explain it's mysteries.

I think that your logic puzzle falls down here! I do not control or maintain the universe (although many people probably wish I did - I would be a kind and benevolent god/dictator...). Even if I were in control, I would not need a "god" to explain its mysteries - an enquiring mind, the right tools and some time and money should do it.

If I cannot find out the answer, I don't need to say "god did it", but can instead acknowledge that "I cannot find out and do not know". I don't expect to be able to find out or know *everything*.

Originally posted by Flash:

For me the evidence of God's existence can be found in a sunset view into the Grand Canyon from the westrim or an early fall morning ride through the forests on a twisting road in the upper midwest. I do not know how one could view a spectacular sunset or an awakened new day and not realize the majesty of his majesty.

Photography is much about capturing light. If I can find the light, then I can find the way.

Sounds great - I would love to join you on that ride.

I enjoy marvelling at the beauty of the world we live in - though my rapture would in part be influenced by realisation of how insignificant we are when faced with millions of years of geological history and biological diversity. It is great to find your "place" like that and put everything else into perspective. Truly humbling.

01/16/2007 10:52:24 AM · #665

Originally posted by Flash:

If man was in control of his universe, then he would not need God(s) to explain it's mysteries.

Who says man is in control of his universe? Why is it even "his" universe? Isn't it more likely that we're just along for the ride like every other animal?

01/16/2007 10:59:15 AM · #666

Originally posted by Flash:

For me the evidence of God's existence can be found in a sunset view into the Grand Canyon from the westrim or an early fall morning ride through the forests on a twisting road in the upper midwest.

I am in particular awe of lightning storms, but my personal amazement or lack of undertanding does not in any way prove that Zeus is tossing them down like javelins. Modern science has a more rational explanation for this phenomenon than celestial magic.

01/16/2007 11:04:21 AM · #667

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
For me the evidence of God's existence can be found in a sunset view into the Grand Canyon from the westrim or an early fall morning ride through the forests on a twisting road in the upper midwest.

I am in particular awe of lightning storms, but my personal amazement or lack of undertanding does not in any way prove that Zeus is tossing them down like javelins. Modern science has a more rational explanation for this phenomenon than celestial magic.

I was thinking of this example just yesterday - however, I believe that it is Thor who is the responsible god.

01/16/2007 11:32:27 AM · #668

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I am in particular awe of lightning storms, but my personal amazement or lack of undertanding does not in any way prove that Zeus is tossing them down like javelins.

...I believe that it is Thor who is the responsible god. [/quote]

That depends upon your particular religion. It was Thor in Norse mythology, Jupiter to the Romans, Zeus to the Greeks, and intentional smiting by God in some modern religions. To me, it's a random discharge of static electricity that has built up in a high cloud formation. Awesome yes, magic no.

01/16/2007 11:34:40 AM · #669

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I am in particular awe of lightning storms, but my personal amazement or lack of undertanding does not in any way prove that Zeus is tossing them down like javelins.

...I believe that it is Thor who is the responsible god.

That depends upon your particular religion. It was Thor in Norse mythology, Jupiter to the Romans, Zeus to the Greeks, and intentional smiting by God in some modern religions. To me, it's a random discharge of static electricity that has built up in a high cloud formation. Awesome yes, magic no.

aha - but I *believe* it to be Thor (and will teach this to my children, who will perpetuate the belief). Who in their right mind would believe in Zeus? - it is the hammer that makes Thor so convincing an explanation.

Message edited by author 2007-01-16 11:36:32.

01/16/2007 11:43:10 AM · #670

Originally posted by scalvert:

That depends upon your particular religion. It was Thor in Norse mythology, Jupiter to the Romans, Zeus to the Greeks, and intentional smiting by God in some modern religions.

This reminds me of the character in The DaVinci Code whereby he notes various examples in christianity that bore an origin elsewhere. The study of intermingling religious items is a fascinating topic to me. There was a Professor on PBS a while back that taught along this line. I never had the opportunity to study it much, but hope to at some point.

My belief, is that if one could parse out all the fiction from religious ideology/history, then one could arrive at a basic true essence. An essence that was present in each religion since man's origin. If a similar essence is determinable to be consistent throughout man's hiistory, then a case for God's existence could be made.

Of course, many need no such case, and believe as they will.

01/16/2007 11:49:28 AM · #671

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Flash:
If man is in sole control of his universe, then he should be able to maintain it. If man was in control of his universe, then he would not need God(s) to explain it's mysteries.

I think that your logic puzzle falls down here! I do not control or maintain the universe (although many people probably wish I did - I would be a kind and benevolent god/dictator...). Even if I were in control, I would not need a "god" to explain its mysteries - an enquiring mind, the right tools and some time and money should do it.

Perhaps my statement should be read as: "man has sought throughout his history to explain the unknown via his religion". If man knew all, then he would have no need to have a religion to explain that which he did not know. Therefore, since man does not know all, then there must be a god.

01/16/2007 11:58:07 AM · #672

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
If man was in control of his universe, then he would not need God(s) to explain it's mysteries.

Who says man is in control of his universe? Why is it even "his" universe? Isn't it more likely that we're just along for the ride like every other animal?

I do not believe that man is in control of his universe, however for there to be no God, then he should be.

Regarding the relegation of man to "every other animal", I believe it is too simplistic to say that man just "exists". Some men (some would argue that many men) are driven to find their "Purpose". If existence was the total fulfillment of life's journey, then what drives men to seek more? Greed? Lust? Purity? Man's life on this planet appears to me to be quite different than my observations of the animals in it. I do see similarities (as in pecking orders, procreation, etc) however, there are many more dissimilarities.

01/16/2007 12:04:07 PM · #673

Originally posted by Flash:

My belief, is that if one could parse out all the fiction from religious ideology/history, then one could arrive at a basic true essence. An essence that was present in each religion since man's origin. If a similar essence is determinable to be consistent throughout man's hiistory, then a case for God's existence could be made.

If this were true, we might expect to see some consistency between religions (tending towards that essential truth). However, people disagree on the very fundamentals (such as how many gods are there?).

Originally posted by Flash:

If you are hoping to demonstrate something using logic - this does not work (or, it relegates whatever is represented by the word "god" to the role of "bits of the universe that we do not yet understand"). If you are making a philosophical statement, then I would respectfully disagree.

01/16/2007 12:09:17 PM · #674

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I can assure you it is a philosophical position. Likewise, I already know we likely will be in disagreement. However, that possibility does not preclude me from my posts. Quite the opposite. It encourages it.

;-}