Yet another religious rant... - DPChallenge Forums

02/07/2013 01:46:56 PM · #226

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

[Yes, I know Robert. I understand the doublespeak quality to it. It's easy to point out the flaws (the least of which is the "concrete" objection Jeb seems to be raising to the paradoxical view that something happened and didn't happen), but it's hard to point out the solution. The damage to those "left behind" is really done in the splitting of the marriage not in the declaration of annulment. If you suddenly call it "divorce", the same pain is there. If you declare that you can't have either divorce OR annulment the pain exists of either being trapped within your poor choices or not being able to return to the church. Do you catch my point? The situation seems given to pain no matter the solution and to denegrate the church for their proposed solution over the pain it causes seems weak. That's my take anyway. You know I'm not even Catholic. And you probably can guess that one of the reasons I'm not Catholic is along the exact lines of reasoning you give in your last sentence. I only wade into these arguments as a bulwark against unreasoned criticism of the Christian faith. Let the reasoned criticism seep through and may it effect change! But we both know when it comes to religion on DPC Rant reasoned arguments are few and far between.

AAARRRGGGHHH!

Nobody's said anything about any expectation of a painless transition from divorce. That's an extrapolation on your part. When you divorce, you either accept your differences, mistakes, whatever, and it goes reasonably well, or you spend a lot of money, fight the inevitable, and then accept what the divorce master hands down. There is no promise of a painless disposition whatsoever. It's actually in most cases a given. And of course the children will suffer......that *IS* a given. A family breaking up is bound to have a detrimental effect.

Now toss in the fact that according to the parents' church, your birth, baptism, and potentially their entire formative years are declared null and void as an aside to the marriage, and that simply implies by default that the church enables the parent, or parents, to cause this pain, and further muddy the waters by calling into question your life. Yes, the parents are responsible for the damage to the kids' sense of well-being, but the church helps them do it to them, and they have no choice in the matter.

If you decide to marry outside the faith, use contraception, or any sin that'll get you in hot water, that's YOUR choice, and YOUR problem to deal with it. If you suddenly find yourself the product of a marriage officially stated by the church to be non-existent, you have no say in that. Theoretically, you could say your parents are divorced, but that's not the truth according to the church, right? So the church is pretty much in a position of saying that the progeny of an annulled marriage are a non-issue, and there really is no provision for them to be able to claim legitimacy, right?

Granted, this may be a case of talking about when all the planets line up, but seriously, what do you think of it looked at like this?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/07/2013 01:47:22 PM · #227

Originally posted by myqyl:

Originally posted by mike_311:

even though I don't practice religion and enjoy to engage in debate over whether God exists or not or whether the Bible is true.I even enjoy poking fun, but I won't intentionally demean an individual for believing.

as an outsider its easy to say someone is crazy for believing, but you aren't them nor do you understand their upbringing or experiences or thought process that brought them to accept what they do.

Their reason for believing is legitimate, despite your inability to comprehend it.

Thanks for that Mike, but I took no offense. You should see what the conservative Catholics over at Catholic.com call me :) Athiests are a pleasure to deal with after a few months there :)

Glad you take it in the right spirit. :)

As for the reference to mental illness- it's actually the very bit mike said above that I emboldened that leads me to believe this... Often religion isn't a choice, it's a belief forced upon people. Heck, my poor aunt just cries every time religion comes up, because she's convinced that I won't go to heaven, and she loves me, and wants me there, so it just destroys her that I won't be there. Seems a rather cruel thing to do to a person to me.

In truth, that's what this whole thread is really about isn't it? How religion can actually cause great hurt to those who believe? Sometimes that's even because the actual motivations are so transparent and incongruous with the teachings of the church, which is almost certainly the most difficult situation for the believer.

That's why I just am in disbelief, how can you see so many problems with the theory and still accept it? In the approach I prefer, if a theory has even a single demonstrated inconsistency it is declared suspect and inaccurate, then the race is on to figure out why things worked in an unexpected way. That's what I expect, but it seems that the method of the religious is to do the equivalent of the cosmological constant, but claim that they know the constant is right and should be there, because the constant is required.

I just don't see how it's sustainable, it's incredibly baffling, but also somewhat fascinating, given that it actually has been incredibly successful, and has lasted for so long.

Message edited by author 2013-02-07 13:59:16.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

02/07/2013 01:52:27 PM · #228

Jeb. You are getting too frustrated. Let's annul this conversation. ;)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

02/07/2013 01:55:59 PM · #229

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Jeb. You are getting too frustrated. Let's annul this conversation. ;)

Too many posts to go back and hide -- you'll have to settle for aborting it instead ... ;-)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/07/2013 01:58:44 PM · #230

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

My solution? Easy! Let the Catholic Church allow divorce! This whole annulment thing is just a convenient way around a doctrinal roadblock, and it smacks of hypocrisy.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Honestly I think this might be like treating an infestation by burning the house down. Melethia has properly raised the point that the church should be against divorce if it believes in the importance of marriage. I think just throwing the doors open to divorce would have costs that would far outweigh the benefit of solving the special pain of an annulled marriage.

The difference is that the parties involved in the actual decision, the parents and the church have the ability to create the problem for the children with no consideration to their situation. An assurance form someone saying, "Oh, you're still legitimate." when the marriage is by Canonical law non-existent, that assurance wouldn't mean squat.

Put the onus back on the parents and the church......the church made a mistake with this situation that puts the kids of annulled marriages in limbo. They can make it go away with divorce. Either allow it, or go back to divorce being a sin against the sanctity of marriage and not allow it. This way the church doesn't play footsie with its principles leaving the kids hanging out in the breeze.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

02/07/2013 01:59:01 PM · #231

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Jeb. You are getting too frustrated. Let's annul this conversation. ;)

Too many posts to go back and hide -- you'll have to settle for aborting it instead ... ;-)

Nope. I'm just going to prove to Jeb that it can work and consider it to never have happened. Let spacetime rip apart on the audacity of that paradox! I hope nobody has to bear that special pain that comes with having been part of a conversation that now officially never existed. ;)

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/07/2013 01:59:54 PM · #232

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Jeb. You are getting too frustrated. Let's annul this conversation. ;)

You could, but that'll cost you $50 and 3 weeks of your time. Those who participated in this thread will need to be fill out forms to make this thread null and void.

Or I can enact Godwin's law and that'll kill the whole thing.

Hitler was worse.

02/07/2013 02:02:33 PM · #233

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Jeb. You are getting too frustrated. Let's annul this conversation. ;)

Actually......I just got my divorce decree this morning and I'm RARIN' to go! LOL!!!

I'm a single man again.

BTW, our divorce cost $207, and the only issue we had was that I felt that I should give more money than Lisa asked me for to help our daughter at college.

It doesn't have to be ugly.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

02/07/2013 02:03:42 PM · #234

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I hope nobody has to bear that special pain that comes with having been part of a conversation that now officially never existed. ;)

Oh SH*T!!!!

I'm glad I wasn't drinking something! I think I just hurt myself laughing.

At a conversation that doesn't exist?????? WTF?????

Venser

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

02/07/2013 02:04:57 PM · #235

Originally posted by myqyl:

Not trying to influance you here, but can you honestly say that the universe we see today is "most likely" the result of debris landing in lucky places after an explosion? For choas to create order would be an astonomically "unlikely" result. If a tornado sweeps through a trailer park it is extremely unlikely that it will leave the Taj Mahal in it's wake... This being the case, how can you explain an explosion (Big Bang) resulting in a universe as profoundly ordered as the one we live in? Work out the math sometime on the probability of the moon landing in just the right orbit, with just the right mass to keep the earth's axis aligned in a way that allowed life to form. This is one tiny example of literally thousands of extremely unlikely events that had to occur for us to be able to type posts to this forum... And you say that random chance for a huge explosion is "likely" to have done all of this? You are either deluded or very bad at Math...

Your position is one of irreducible complexity. This has been debated many times over, it was even fought in court, and it has lost every time.

Originally posted by myqyl:

For choas to create order would be an astonomically "unlikely" result.

Pulling this one out on its own. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibriumâ��the state of maximum entropy. This assumes you know all other possible states, but you do not. You only see the current state we're in, and assume we are ordered. Over all possible states, we could be the most entropic state.

Message edited by author 2013-02-07 14:07:15.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/07/2013 02:05:18 PM · #236

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Jeb. You are getting too frustrated. Let's annul this conversation. ;)

Originally posted by Nullix:

You could, but that'll cost you $50 and 3 weeks of your time. Those who participated in this thread will need to be fill out forms to make this thread null and void.

If we fill out the form and send Tom the $50, can we say the thread's NULLIXED?

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/07/2013 02:10:10 PM · #237

Originally posted by Cory:

That's why I just am in disbelief, how can you see so many problems with the theory and still accept it? In the approach I prefer, if a theory has even a single demonstrated inconsistency it is declared suspect and inaccurate, then the race is on to figure out why things worked in an unexpected way. That's what I expect, but it seems that the method of the religious is to do the equivalent of the cosmological constant, but claim that they know the constant is right and should be there, because the constant is required.

quite possibly because they WANT to believe, maybe they need to yearn for something greater and can overlook the fallacies than many non-believers can find.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/07/2013 02:21:42 PM · #238

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by myqyl:
Not trying to influance you here, but can you honestly say that the universe we see today is "most likely" the result of debris landing in lucky places after an explosion? For choas to create order would be an astonomically "unlikely" result. If a tornado sweeps through a trailer park it is extremely unlikely that it will leave the Taj Mahal in it's wake... This being the case, how can you explain an explosion (Big Bang) resulting in a universe as profoundly ordered as the one we live in? Work out the math sometime on the probability of the moon landing in just the right orbit, with just the right mass to keep the earth's axis aligned in a way that allowed life to form. This is one tiny example of literally thousands of extremely unlikely events that had to occur for us to be able to type posts to this forum... And you say that random chance for a huge explosion is "likely" to have done all of this? You are either deluded or very bad at Math...
Your position is one of irreducible complexity. This has been debated many times over, it was even fought in court, and it has lost every time.

Originally posted by myqyl:
For choas to create order would be an astonomically "unlikely" result.
Pulling this one out on its own. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibriumâ��the state of maximum entropy. This assumes you know all other possible states, but you do not. You only see the current state we're in, and assume we are ordered. Over all possible states, we could be the most entropic state.

considering the shear size of the universe, that unlikeliness goes away quickly. when yo have infinite conditions, the probability of life is bound to occur somewhere.

I ask what's more unlikely, the conditions being perfect for life in our little corner of this massive universe or God creating an infinitely massive universe and only deciding to put life on it here on earth.

Message edited by author 2013-02-07 14:23:08.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/07/2013 02:24:11 PM · #239

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Cory:

That's why I just am in disbelief, how can you see so many problems with the theory and still accept it? In the approach I prefer, if a theory has even a single demonstrated inconsistency it is declared suspect and inaccurate, then the race is on to figure out why things worked in an unexpected way. That's what I expect, but it seems that the method of the religious is to do the equivalent of the cosmological constant, but claim that they know the constant is right and should be there, because the constant is required.

quite possibly because they WANT to believe, maybe they need to yearn for something greater and can overlook the fallacies than many non-believers can find.

Ok. We are in agreement here. I guess the question then is "is that a good or bad thing?"

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/07/2013 03:18:18 PM · #240

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Cory:

That's why I just am in disbelief, how can you see so many problems with the theory and still accept it? In the approach I prefer, if a theory has even a single demonstrated inconsistency it is declared suspect and inaccurate, then the race is on to figure out why things worked in an unexpected way. That's what I expect, but it seems that the method of the religious is to do the equivalent of the cosmological constant, but claim that they know the constant is right and should be there, because the constant is required.

quite possibly because they WANT to believe, maybe they need to yearn for something greater and can overlook the fallacies than many non-believers can find.

Ok. We are in agreement here. I guess the question then is "is that a good or bad thing?"

i don't think its either. the debate is positive, it keeps one side from getting too far out of control. society will advance on its own course its painful at times but progressiveness happens at its own pace.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/07/2013 04:47:02 PM · #241

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Jeb. You are getting too frustrated. Let's annul this conversation. ;)

Originally posted by Nullix:
You could, but that'll cost you $50 and 3 weeks of your time. Those who participated in this thread will need to be fill out forms to make this thread null and void.

If we fill out the form and send Tom the $50, can we say the thread's NULLIXED?

I thought my invocation of Godwin's law would nix the whole thread, but I'll take the $50 in small bills.

BTW, I found it very refreshing to start to respond to these rant threads; then re-read my post and not actually post it. It gives me some satisfaction of getting it off my chest without making an a$$ of myself (which I've done plenty of times here).

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/07/2013 05:34:29 PM · #242

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by myqyl:
For choas to create order would be an astonomically "unlikely" result.
Pulling this one out on its own. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibriumâ��the state of maximum entropy. This assumes you know all other possible states, but you do not. You only see the current state we're in, and assume we are ordered. Over all possible states, we could be the most entropic state.

I may be misunderstanding your words, but as I read them this is a very incorrect understanding of entropy. Your first statement is correct. For an isolated system entropy is never decreased. All processes within the system increase the entropy over the entire system. We know, by definition, that the universe is not in the most entropic state because we know processes are occurring. If we were in the most entropic state nothing would occur because there would be no useful energy by which to do it (otherwise known as "heat death"). (To quote wiki: Heat death...requires that temperature differences or other process may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy).

Message edited by author 2013-02-07 17:35:13.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

02/07/2013 05:38:52 PM · #243

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by myqyl:
For choas to create order would be an astonomically "unlikely" result.
Pulling this one out on its own. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibriumâ��the state of maximum entropy. This assumes you know all other possible states, but you do not. You only see the current state we're in, and assume we are ordered. Over all possible states, we could be the most entropic state.

I may be misunderstanding your words, but as I read them this is a very incorrect understanding of entropy. Your first statement is correct. For an isolated system entropy is never decreased. All processes within the system increase the entropy over the entire system. We know, by definition, that the universe is not in the most entropic state because we know processes are occurring. If we were in the most entropic state nothing would occur because there would be no useful energy by which to do it (otherwise known as "heat death"). (To quote wiki: Heat death...requires that temperature differences or other process may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy).

You're reading them about like I am. Seems Venser may have been drinking the good stuff.

myqyl

Nikon D3100

02/07/2013 06:55:47 PM · #244

Originally posted by Cory:

We do at least agree on the "Big Bang" (a term originally intended as an insult I might well point out) being more fact than theory, at least up to everything back to a few seconds after the event anyway.. What you may or may not know is that the term explosion is really kinda the wrong idea, but on some level the analogy is ok.

As for all of the silliness about "perfect orbit, perfect sun, perfect etc", you need to remember that it's just perfect for us, and that makes sense, because we evolved here - so it should fit us fairly well... In fact, we are learning that life might not be so picky about where it lives, and theories such as panspermia are perfectly fine theories I think. Given that life is now known to inhabit rocks 3 miles under ground, and is found in the upper atmosphere, and the abilities of some life to tolerate extreme conditions, I don't find the claim at all spurious.

Really, if your decision is based upon 'facts' like these, I would suggest an invigorating course of advanced study in life science and geology.

I don't mind that you're not up to date at all, but it's important that you recognize, for the purposes of this discussion at least, that this has a huge effect upon your stance. In fact, none of the conditions you listed are likely to be required for life, and in fact, we are now starting to find some good evidence that there are plenty of other worlds that should be capable of supporting life similar to ours, in addition to plenty of choices where life might exist but be very much unlike us.

The flaw in your logic can be illustrated thusly:

If a person goes for a drive, and takes random turns for a few days, then looks at a map and decides that it was highly improbable for them to end up where they are, they are both right and wrong - indeed it was unlikely that they would end up where they did, but in the end they would have ended up somewhere, just maybe not there, and would still have been likely to have been busy marveling at how unlikely it was that they ended up where they did.

Effectively, we are a product of chance, that much is true, but the odds are far better than you seem to believe they are. We are not alone - we just haven't gathered the right evidence to demonstrate that fact yet - but the theory seems pretty sound at this point. Much more so than some of the competing theories.

Not as fun to digest as the storybook version though - I suspect that's why religion continues to be more popular than reason. Much like movies are often much more popular than a good book - despite the greater richness of the novel.

Then again, I could be wrong - very wrong perhaps - but I'm just being honest about how I view this, and why the "standard position" on this doesn't really hold up for me. Especially when it's demonstrated to me that even the more intelligent and informed among the lot (yes you), still hold such out of date ideas, and are basing your views upon them.

Does it at all worry you that most of what you just claimed as fact is as up to date as a 1940's automobile? That you now almost certainly, if you wish to maintain that you are honestly considering facts, have to make a serious effort to update yourself on the progress science has made in the last 60 or 70 years in both Geology and Biology, especially Exo-Biology and Astro-Geology? Or will you just dismiss the whole affair as not being worthwhile? I am very genuinely curious as to how you will approach this new information.

I agree with several points and, not suprisingly disagree with several and your conclusions. I am indeed aware that the term Big Bang was originally an insulting dismissal of the the theroy. It was concieved by 3 athiest scientists that devised the solid state theroy because the "Big Bang" implied that there was a moment of creation.

My example of the moon and it's placement and impact on the electo-magnetic fields around the earth that prevent solar radiation from frying the surface of the planet was indeed required for us to be posting on this forum. I never claimed that other life could not have (and most likely has) evolved in other forms on other planets. The evidence we have so far (which is all any scientist worth their weight in salt should base their science on) seems to imply that while life is possible in a greater range of enviornments, it is currently confined to earth in our solar system. I'm intrigued and hopeful of the theroies concerning Titian, but that is yet an unsubstantiated theroy. This would seem to debunk the notion that life is plentiful in the universe. I have little doubt that if it happened here it happened elsewhere, but when considering the requirements for habitible planet in a stable solar system, I personal put the number of such planets far lower then some numbers I've heard bandied about. That point is moot here, since science will need to take a few steps forward to resolve that question.

What we do know is that in the first second of the Big bang (would you prefer we call it the Singularity? I don't want to use a term you find offensive) that 2 simple facts are :

If the expension was slower by 1 part per 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (I think I have this number right, source is Stephen Hawkings) that the Universe would have collapsed on itself LONG before the formation of galaxies. If the expansion had been faster, the matter would never have formed galaxies and the universe would still be a big gas cloud.

and secondly, that "something" happened to the ratio of matter and anti-matter that defies all explanation. And clearly, if it hadn't there would be 0 chance for anything vaguely resembling life as we know it, or could concieve it outside of a really good LSD trip.

As far as your driving analogy, it's missing something... Imagine the person is driving blindfolded... (Right turns imply streets which imply an ordered universe) After several years of driving like this, they take off the blindfold and find themselves on the top of a mountain with a winding one lane road with a cliff on one side and a mountain on the other as the only possible road leading up. Looking down he says "Wow... That was lucky..."

But if it baffles you and you can't understand it, don't let it cost you any sleep... It's how I got here. You're still young and still know everything. There's plenty of time to learn how much you don't know.

Oh! And please tell your Aunt this... The book of Matthew clearly says that on the Day of Judgement, all nations will be gathered before Him and His angles will split everyone into two groups. One going to Heaven, and the other, well, not so much... Many of the folks in the not so much group will be saying Lord lord (obviously Church going believers) why are we over here? there's been a mistake. Jesus will say to them when I was hungry you didn't feed Me, when i was homeless you didn't help Me out... The heaven bound crowd will say (paraphrase here) "We ain't complaining but who are you (Athiests) and why am i in the cool kids group?" and Jesus will say "when I was hungry you fed me (etc...)"...

Yes Scripture says No one will come to the Father except through Me (Jesus), but it never says you have to believe while yer still alive. I'm guessing you're pretty set in your ways but if you die and find yourself standing before Jesus, you'll probably change your mind. Salvation isn't a sure thing for "believers" and it is not unattainable to "non-believers. Even if you don't believe this, it might make your Aunt feel a little better.

God bless

myqyl

Nikon D3100

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

02/07/2013 07:03:30 PM · #245

Originally posted by mike_311:

I never meant to imply that I believe life is restricted only to Earth. I believe in the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter, that being that extra-terra life is possible and in fact probable and that this is in no way in conflict with Scripture.

Sorry if someone thought I meant that. I can't see where i implied it