Shaken Atheism: A Look at the Fine-Tuned Universe

[+Hammerclaw]

14 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And the sad part is these stories aren't even original to the Hebrews, they're ripped off from older cultures and reworked to fit an Hebraic agenda. It's simultaneously laughable and pathetic IMO. 

cormac

They were, indeed in part the natural extension of various cultural complexes, from Egypt, stretching through the Levant to the Fertile Crescent, Asia Minor and Persia, that came before them and contributed to them. Judaism did not arise in a vacuum.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Hammerclaw

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

They were, indeed, the natural extension of various cultural complexes, from Egypt, stretching through the Levant to the Fertile Crescent, Asia Minor and Persia, that came before them. Judaism did not arise in a vacuum.

Something of which fundamentalists can't comprehend apparently. 

cormac

[+Hammerclaw]

3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Something of which fundamentalists can't comprehend apparently. 

cormac

Religion is neither history nor is it science. Its ephemeral foundation is that of Faith.

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

Religion is neither history nor is it science. Its ephemeral foundation is that of Faith.

At some point though it should have to accept reality. 

cormac

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, cormac mac airt said:

At some point though it should have to accept reality. 

cormac

Religion creates its own reality and the basic tenets of all Nicene branches of Christianity were first laid down by the Roman Catholic Church 1,700 years ago.

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

Religion creates its own reality and the basic tenets of all Nicene branches of Christianity were first laid down by the Roman Catholic Church 1,700 years ago.

That's a depressing way of looking at it. Essentially lying to oneself and others is acceptable in that regard. 

cormac

[+Hammerclaw]

14 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

That's a depressing way of looking at it. Essentially lying to oneself and others is acceptable in that regard. 

cormac

Within the separate reality that is religion, there is no lie. The religious have Faith in the ultimate truth of what they Believe. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Hammerclaw

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

3 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

The bible, particularly the King James Version, have very poetic language that I enjoy employing in my day to day conversations wherever relevant. And here, it is most assuredly relevant. "I have many arguments against 'science falsely so called.' But I have no arguments against true and unbiased observations of the natural world and its principles."  

Ah, so the problem is that you use a 1611 Bible, but don't know the history of modern English.

Regardless, the un-cherrypicked KJV clearly shows that the science it mentions refers to ancient religious preaching:

6:20-21a O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

The 'science" in the verse concerns religious propositions that have already been preached at the time the letter was composed (estimated at 100-150 CE). "Science" as we understand it was non-existent in ancient times, and was just coming into recognizable form in 1611. It wouldn't be widely called science in English for another century to century and a half.

Science did exist in those days (see links below). Paul's admonishment to Timothy is very relevant today. It doesn't matter what the source may be, that which leads men and women away from God is the very thing he is speaking of. There are people who were once believers.. But who, as you brought out in the next verse, "professing" confidence in science, "have erred concerning the faith." Many professing to have "knowledge" contrary to the knowledge of God, have left the faith and gone on to dwell in strange places.   

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;” 1Tim4:1.

https://www.worldhistory.org/Roman_Science/

https://www.britannica.com/science/history-of-science/Science-in-Rome-and-Christianity

Edited September 20, 2023 by ReadTheGreatControversyEGW

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

4 hours ago, joc said:

Scientifically we have found no homo sapien remains from the dinosaur era.

Can you prove that?

Quote

Scientifically we know that an asteroid 65 million years ago was responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs.

Can you prove that also? Provide the scientific evidence. No one can prove that an asteroid 65 millions years ago destroyed the dinosaurs. 

[cormac mac airt]

9 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Can you prove that?

Can you prove that also? Provide the scientific evidence. No one can prove that an asteroid 65 millions years ago destroyed the dinosaurs. 

Can you prove the opposite? Science has already shown its verifiable evidence, what is yours? 
 

cormac

Edited September 20, 2023 by cormac mac airt

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

4 hours ago, joc said:

The view of the actual world is backed up by a plethora of scientific evidence.

That's what they say. But it is not true. If it contradicts the view of a Creator, we have met the lie. All I see over and over from you/others and things I've read elsewhere are godless explanations attached to phenomenons of the natural world. The atheistic narrative is one way to look at those findings. But it is not the only way. And the rest is a bunch of false science like abiogensis and the big bang theory. 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

4 hours ago, joc said:

7 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Exactly 

If The majestic being had no beginning then how did it come to be and where did its intelligence originate?

He didn't come to be. He always was and is and always will be. Nor did His intelligence originate at any time. 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

4 hours ago, joc said:

As I have already stated, your view of the world only fits in the context of the bible.

My view of the world fits the world perfectly. It just doesn't fit with atheists. That's all.  

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

That's what they say. But it is not true. If it contradicts the view of a Creator, we have met the lie. All I see over and over from you/others and things I've read elsewhere are godless explanations attached to phenomenons of the natural world. The atheistic narrative is one way to look at those findings. But it is not the only way. And the rest is a bunch of false science like abiogensis and the big bang theory. 

You know nothing about the Biblical god Yahweh other than what’s written in a set of books written by wandering desert shepherds and goat-herders. The Hebrews themselves knew Yahweh originally as nothing special beyond being a “son of El” and that didn’t change for over 500 years. And it still took a few centuries before He was believed to be everyone’s God, everyone who believed in Him anyway. 
 

cormac

[XenoFish]

26 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

My view of the world fits the world perfectly. It just doesn't fit with atheists. That's all.  

Did you ever think that no one cares about your world view? Since apparently there are no takers.

[psyche101]

31 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

My view of the world fits the world perfectly. It just doesn't fit with atheists. That's all.  

That's not a perfect fit then is it. 

[psyche101]

On 9/18/2023 at 8:42 PM, Arbenol said:

Thanks. I don't disagree with anything you've written there. 

Wegener certainly deserves credit for the idea but, like you say, he proposed no mechanism. He also didn't propose plate tectonic theory. He called it continental drift and did not conceive of landmasses being "rafted' by ocean floors. I don't consider rejections of his idea at the time to be an example of what I was talking about. The resistance to the new paradigm continued well into the 1960s and also 1970s. The point that Oreskes makes (so much better than I could) is that a significant number of eminent geologists remained entrenched in their incorrect views and never accepted the theory, notwithstanding the fact that it was universally accepted by the majority. Harold Jeffreys is a good example of one of these scientists who never accepted the reality of PT theory, and still didn't when he died in 1989.

I hope you don't misunderstand me. I have complete confidence in the scientific method. For me, the example I gave is a perfect illustration of the beauty of science and how it succeeds independent of human foibles and biases.

 

I think we're very much on the same page. 

I just caution against broad statements as those such as read and will are bound to misinterpret such a situation into some twisted religious ideal to attempt to invalidate science. It's why I mentioned lord Kelvin. He's the usual go to for that argument. 

[cormac mac airt]

30 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

My view of the world fits the world perfectly. It just doesn't fit with atheists. That's all.  

One could believe in Zeus, Thor, Amon-Re, Manannán mac Lir or any number of other deities and be just as valid in their beliefs as you are. Yours is nothing special in the grand scheme of things. 
 

cormac

[Antigonos]

47 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

My view of the world fits MY world perfectly.  

Fixed it.

Live in whatever delusion fantasy you choose. Nobody outside your circle of likeminded drones gives a ****. 

Maybe since you’re in a public forum, and not a church, try having actual conversations with people and giving them the respect of actually listening to what they have to say.

But keep your inane ignorant preaching to yourself. Nobody is interested and you’re being defiantly disrespectful of everyone here, because you have been here long enough to know better by now.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Antigonos

[+joc]

46 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

My view of the world fits the world perfectly. It just doesn't fit with atheists. That's all.  

Does it fit with Muslims?  Jews?  Buddhists? Krishna?  

[Kenemet]

On 9/17/2023 at 11:55 PM, Hammerclaw said:

When the old dogs are entrenched in academia, it can take a while, especially when it's theory versus theory. It took half a century before plate tectonics to be widely accepted. Longer than that for Clovis First to be shaken off its pedestal. 

There's been quite a culture shift since 1960, though, along with a huge shift in information access... and let's not forget technology.  New ideas are often supported by technologies that didn't exist 40 years ago... compare the 60 years to accept continental drift with the very short timeframe for string theory.

[+joc]

51 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

He didn't come to be. He always was and is and always will be. Nor did His intelligence originate at any time. 

So...if I don't worship him is he going to torment me in hell fire forever and ever?

[psyche101]

19 minutes ago, joc said:

So...if I don't worship him is he going to torment me in hell fire forever and ever?

There was a great episode of Penn and Teller BS. They made tinfoil hats with lightning rods on them and walked around the studio cursing god to see what would happen. 

They are still doing shows. 

[+joc]

25 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

But keep your inane ignorant preaching to yourself. Nobody is interested and you’re being defiantly disrespectful of everyone here, because you have been here long enough to know better by now.

 That's the only reason she is here.

[+joc]

1 hour ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

That's what they say. But it is not true. If it contradicts the view of a Creator, we have met the lie. All I see over and over from you/others and things I've read elsewhere are godless explanations attached to phenomenons of the natural world. The atheistic narrative is one way to look at those findings. But it is not the only way. And the rest is a bunch of false science like abiogensis and the big bang theory. 

but wait...you quoted the Big Bang theory in your effort to 'splain creation...you are a hypocrite lady!