Ben Carson - Big Bang and Evolution

[Michelle]

Those dominated by religion and socially conservative values I might add.

Those damn liberal progressive have a lot to answer for

Br Cornelius

Is that supposed to be a dig? You do know I'm an atheist and socially liberal, right? If you are looking for a high five for insulting people you won't get it from me either.

Sorry to be a buzz kill.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Michelle

[Gummug]

read again, natural law reveals an intelligence. I bet Einstein understood the definition of intelligence.

Full Definition of INTELLIGENCE (merriam webster)

1

a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind

c : mental acuteness : shrewdness

2

a : an intelligent entity; especially : angel

b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>

3

: the act of understanding : comprehension

4

a : information, news

b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information

5

: the ability to perform computer functions

I think I remember reading that Einstein also believed in the Jesus of the Gospels. Also, didn't he say "I don't believe God plays dice with the universe"? (Paraphrase) I haven't read all the posts yet so I hope I am not duplicating anyone's thoughts.

If I get called on this I may have to overcome my laziness. Dang dang dang dang...

[Frank Merton]

Says anyone with a brain. Fact is there were rights before there were governments. Which proves my point. Not gonna argue with y'all again about this. It is so obvious that anyone that doesn't know this simply doesn't want to. I can lead you to water but I can't make you think.

It seems to me you've bought into a myth, and a rather pernicious one at that, since anyone can claim they were born with "rights." How about I claim I was born the right to own you as a slave? (Note: slave owners did claim such rights).

[Frank Merton]

I think I remember reading that Einstein also believed in the Jesus of the Gospels. Also, didn't he say "I don't believe God plays dice with the universe"? (Paraphrase) I haven't read all the posts yet so I hope I am not duplicating anyone's thoughts.

If I get called on this I may have to overcome my laziness. Dang dang dang dang...

Did he really? I find that astonishing, and since the other quote about God playing dice has been misused so badly out of context, I suspect this also applies to Einstein's views on Jesus.

[Gummug]

Did he really? I find that astonishing, and since the other quote about God playing dice has been misused so badly out of context, I suspect this also applies to Einstein's views on Jesus.

Darn it Frank now I'm going to have to do some research. I hope I can find the time tomorrow.

[ShadowSot]

I think I remember reading that Einstein also believed in the Jesus of the Gospels. Also, didn't he say "I don't believe God plays dice with the universe"? (Paraphrase) I haven't read all the posts yet so I hope I am not duplicating anyone's thoughts.

If I get called on this I may have to overcome my laziness. Dang dang dang dang...

He believed that there was a historical Jesus, not that he was the son of god though.

His God doesn't play dice was in reference to quantum mechanics, similar to Hawking's "knowing the mind of god" statement.

[Frank Merton]

Sometimes (more in the early parts of this century than now) scientists who have no particular belief or who even are atheists, will refer to "God" in the sense of "the universe," or "the laws of physics" ("law"in this sense is also a misnomer and passing out of scientific use).

I perceive Einstein as a kindly man not particularly interested in harming the beliefs of others, and tending to smile and not contradict the true believers he occasionally was confronted by. In his day many scholars questioned the "historical Jesus," but we can presume he went along with general opinions, not being expert on the subject. I am aware that he did on at least one occasion make it clear that he was not a Christian, but a Jew by descent, not practicing. His religion seems to have been admiration of Spinoza and derived largely from him.

[Yamato]

Eh? I said that science is not soley the domain of atheists.

That's a statement, not a refutation

Theists and atheists can both do good science.

I agree!

Religious science is a different thing from simply science.

Not sure what religious science is or how it's different.

But I also agree the US is de facto Christian. The general population was profoundly religious 250 years ago, whatever the Founders said. Yet science progressed all the while.

[Yamato]

which is a philosophical and not a religious principle.

It's both. It's a philosophy that Jesus embodied. You know that. You can have your little point, I'm not sure what difference it makes.

[Yamato]

I think absolutely we have moved on since we don't stone adulterers or homosexuals, we don't keep slaves as a matter of course, we don't kill all the males of defeated enemies, we don't cut off peoples hands for stealing, we don't burn witches anymore, we don't crucify apostates and we don't leave deformed children out to die.

I think we have made plenty of moral progress in the real world - rather than the imagined one where the Golden Rule was anything other than a nice idea.

Br Cornelius

Don't kid yourself. We stone bad guys with much bigger stones. And for lamer reasons than ever. Those olden day stonings were community oriented. People lived nearby you and could theoretically molest your children or rob your house or rape your wife or cast a spell on you, etc. Now the people we kill cast a spell on us from thousands of miles away and we're so dandered up to go kill them because the Golden Rule is just a nice idea.

[Frank Merton]

Don't kid yourself. We stone bad guys with much bigger stones. And for lamer reasons than ever. Those olden day stonings were community oriented. People lived nearby you and could theoretically molest your children or rob your house or rape your wife or cast a spell on you, etc. Now the people we kill cast a spell on us from thousands of miles away and we're so dandered up to go kill them because the Golden Rule is just a nice idea.

You don't address his list of things where mankind has progressed. All yo do is point out that technology has dangers.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Don't kid yourself. We stone bad guys with much bigger stones. And for lamer reasons than ever. Those olden day stonings were community oriented. People lived nearby you and could theoretically molest your children or rob your house or rape your wife or cast a spell on you, etc. Now the people we kill cast a spell on us from thousands of miles away and we're so dandered up to go kill them because the Golden Rule is just a nice idea.

I think slaughtering every living male of a concurred country fairly much trumps that anyway so your point is weak at best.

It is undoubtedly true in a empirical sense that we live safer and more secure lives than at any time in history - because of moral progress coupled with technological advances.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

It's both. It's a philosophy that Jesus embodied. You know that. You can have your little point, I'm not sure what difference it makes.

Jesus might have embodied it (or at least that is what was recorded about him), the idea itself is about 500 years older.

Edited September 26, 2015 by questionmark

[ShadowSot]

That's a statement, not a refutation

I agree!

Not sure what religious science is or how it's different.

But I also agree the US is de facto Christian. The general population was profoundly religious 250 years ago, whatever the Founders said. Yet science progressed all the while.

I'm really struggling to see where you are trying to take this. You stated tell that to atheists, they think differently. I am an atheist. By being an atheist who does not think religiosity is not innately tied to your ability to do science I refute your claim that atheists think it is.

That is pretty simple.

[RavenHawk]

if there was a god we would all know it

Everyone should know but that's not how it works. That's the point about faith. But even if nobody "knew" GOD didn't exist, he still does.

and would not have to rely on the likes of carson and hickabee nor a pope in rome to tell us.

You don't need someone else to tell you. You should be able to know without anybody else's help. I don't know what kind of delusion you are under to not be able to tell?

there is not god, just gullible humans who let old men tell them to obey.

It's more than gullibility. It's faith. Knowing the unknown. Call it having an innate understanding or just the GOD gene, it exists and the nature of it can only be sensed but never measured. You have either denied its existence or you really can't tell it's there. Until you do, you really have no right in insulting those that do know. Isn't that fair?

[Leo Krupe]

[snip]

You don't need someone else to tell you. You should be able to know without anybody else's help. I don't know what kind of delusion you are under to not be able to tell?

[snip]

Then why are there missionaries and door-to-door proseletyzers and televangelists trying to convert other people?

[Yamato]

He believed that there was a historical Jesus, not that he was the son of god though.

His God doesn't play dice was in reference to quantum mechanics, similar to Hawking's "knowing the mind of god" statement.

Repeatedly referring to something that doesn't exist wouldn't be good science.

I'm really struggling to see where you are trying to take this. You stated tell that to atheists, they think differently. I am an atheist. By being an atheist who does not think religiosity is not innately tied to your ability to do science I refute your claim that atheists think it is.

That is pretty simple.

But Atheists do think it is. It's pretty simple to see that. They explain how they think differently every day on the Religion board. I've asked for you to explain the difference between religious science and simply science and I haven't gotten an answer and I still have no idea what you're talking about. But you keep claiming you're refuting me. I'm a Christian and I don't believe that the world is 6,000 years old. But I can't refute that Christians believe that by appealing to myself. Or in Noah's Ark. Or the Ark of the Covenant. Or the plagues and the Exodus out of Egypt for which there is no heiroglyphical record in Egypt. The big difference between one class of thinkers and the other is the evidence. And Atheists as a group can't seem to shut up about that.

Therefore, when you're caught believing in things that aren't empirically based, that is not science, but that is the painfully repeated difference between atheists and the religious. As a Christian, I believe in things that ARE empirically proven to be true; however, that cannot refute the statement that Christians believe in things that aren't. The classic line of attack is on faith itself.

[ShadowSot]

Repeatedly referring to something that doesn't exist wouldn't be good science.

But Atheists do think it is. It's pretty simple to see that. They explain how they think differently every day on the Religion board. I've asked for you to explain the difference between religious science and simply science and I haven't gotten an answer and I still have no idea what you're talking about. But you keep claiming you're refuting me. I'm a Christian and I don't believe that the world is 6,000 years old. But I can't refute that Christians believe that by appealing to myself. Or in Noah's Ark. Or the Ark of the Covenant. Or the plagues and the Exodus out of Egypt for which there is no heiroglyphical record in Egypt. The big difference between one class of thinkers and the other is the evidence. And Atheists as a group can't seem to shut up about that.

Therefore, when you're caught believing in things that aren't empirically based, that is not science, but that is the painfully repeated difference between atheists and the religious. As a Christian, I believe in things that ARE empirically proven to be true; however, that cannot refute the statement that Christians believe in things that aren't. The classic line of attack is on faith itself.

Great. I never said you did or had to believe in Noahs Ark, or young earth or whatever. Most people who believe in evolution, for example, are Christians.

Religiouse science would be something like Creation research, people who assume a religious based conclusion and work backwords to try to prove their religious belief.

You are saying atheists are "x".

I am saying that I am an atheist, and I am not "x".

Therefore your claim about atheists is at best over generalized.

Unless you are claiming to know what I think, in which case you can just keep arguing with the me that exists in your head.

EDIT:

Referring to things that don't exist in a scientific paper is bad science. Using poetic imagery while writing a book is simply good literature.

Edited September 26, 2015 by ShadowSot

[Yamato]

Great. I never said you did or had to believe in Noahs Ark, or young earth or whatever. Most people who believe in evolution, for example, are Christians.

Religiouse science would be something like Creation research, people who assume a religious based conclusion and work backwords to try to prove their religious belief.

You are saying atheists are "x".

I am saying that I am an atheist, and I am not "x".

Therefore your claim about atheists is at best over generalized.

So by appealing to yourself it's auto-proof and you can refute me. Appealing to yourself is fallacious enough, thinking that it qualifies as proof in an anonymous discussion like this on the internet went too far. You'd have to at least explain why you're an atheist to even get close to "refuting" something. I think after we dissect your explanation the very difference in thinking I just explained will emerge.

Unless you are claiming to know what I think, in which case you can just keep arguing with the me that exists in your head.

I don't even know you're an atheist.

Referring to things that don't exist in a scientific paper is bad science. Using poetic imagery while writing a book is simply good literature.

Good explanatory literature that doesn't digress into atheistic denial.

[ShadowSot]

As I told you I am am atheist, and as I have frequently posted here as an atheist you can be sure I am an atheist.

And as you have claimed all atheists are x while I am not x, your claim is wrong.

I never said anything about Christians being creationists or whatever, you did. You seem to have an idea of what you believe atheists believe about Christians.

There are many scientists who are Christians that I respect, a couple I admire. I do not see religious belief as an innate barrier to a scientific mindset.

Clearly I don't agree with your imaginings.

But since you claim to know my mind, keep arguing with your mental concept of me in your own head.

As for the written word, a science book written in strict prose with no poetic imagery is a pretty dull read. Which is why I prefer Hawking or Sagan over Brian Greene.

[Gummug]

For Frank and Shadowsot and anyone else who might be interested, if this source is to be trusted, this clarifies A. Einstein's position on religion and Christianity. (I haven't vetted the source 'cuz I'm an ignoramus when it comes to that!

http://www.godandsci...s/einstein.html

edited to add: Btw, if you read the full article, imo it is excellent!

Edited September 26, 2015 by Gummug

[RavenHawk]

Then why are there missionaries and door-to-door proseletyzers and televangelists trying to convert other people?

Knowing GOD exists is not a matter of conversion. Knowing GOD has nothing to do with religion. But I do tend to agree that there are con men that prey on this lack of understading of this innate intelligence. Now I think that this act is seen by many to be disingenuous and people become disheartened and tune out. For the real deal, missionaries help people understand what this "sense of GOD" means. Of course, they will add their spin to it. If you understand that is what they are doing, you can still seek GOD at your own pace.

[RavenHawk]

It seems your useage of the terms hasnt promulgated to the regular or philosophical dictionaries.

Does it have to? It's not my fault that such dictionaries aren't keeping up with the times. I believe I have been clear on my usage. But tell you what. You tell me the term that you like for the definition I've described and I'll start using it, then we can stop wasting time.

There is some varianve in deistic beliefs, but at the same time deistic by itself does not hold god, Jesus, and the Bile being prime.

Never said it did. But I do believe that the Bible holds the clearest explanation.

And I work in a machine shop, out of fifteen to twenty people maybe three or four could be considered real engineers. Most are simply capable of maintenance and repair.

Being real engineers wasn't the point. If we are created in the image of our Creator, then our unending desire to tinker came from GOD. Understanding that makes it very hard to believe that he doesn't tweak things. Even mechanics must do regular preventative maintenance.

[questionmark]

For Frank and Shadowsot and anyone else who might be interested, if this source is to be trusted, this clarifies A. Einstein's position on religion and Christianity. (I haven't vetted the source 'cuz I'm an ignoramus when it comes to that!

http://www.godandsci...s/einstein.html

edited to add: Btw, if you read the full article, imo it is excellent!

Quite interesting the reference to Spinoza's God... because that comes down to: God is Nature and Nature is God. Not a guy who meddles in your affairs or you can have a talk with.

But I guess the guy who wrote that article was more interested that Spinoza converted to Catholicism, ... which from what history we know was more due to social pressures and because the Jews kicked him out of their congregation and being without one made you irreputable (even in tolerant Holland). But what he wrote after that surely does not reflect the ideas of a guy who suddenly started to believe in an imaginary friend.

So, that statement by Einstein comes down to: I am using a diplomatic formulation to tell you your imaginary friend does not exist.

Edited September 27, 2015 by questionmark

[ShadowSot]

Does it have to? It's not my fault that such dictionaries aren't keeping up with the times. I believe I have been clear on my usage. But tell you what. You tell me the term that you like for the definition I've described and I'll start using it, then we can stop wasting time.

Never said it did. But I do believe that the Bible holds the clearest explanation.

Being real engineers wasn't the point. If we are created in the image of our Creator, then our unending desire to tinker came from GOD. Understanding that makes it very hard to believe that he doesn't tweak things. Even mechanics must do regular preventative maintenance.

Actually I would be interested to see where deist is defined as someone who believes in god and the Bible and Jesus and that god actively takes a role in the world. That is pretty much the opposite of the terms usage in every instance I can find.

Why?

Some people tinker, others do not. Some are sadists, others are not. Are they also in gofs image?