PDA

View Full Version : Are the Steelers playing a church or a football team?



JAR
01-28-2009, 10:56 AM
There is a lot of religion in football, but the Cards players are taking it to the extreme. Listening to their players being interviewed is like sitting in church on Sunday.

RuthlessBurgher
01-28-2009, 10:59 AM
There is a lot of religion in football, but the Cards players are taking it to the extreme. Listening to their players being interviewed is like sitting in church on Sunday.

The College of Cardinals or the Arizona Cardinals?

http://www.archdioceseofcolombo.com/images/Cardinals1.jpg

_SteeL_CurtaiN_
01-28-2009, 02:56 PM
Some people just have to ram their beliefs in your face, as if they are the only ones who believe. Don't you think God has better things to do than look after football players? If we have to hear Warner and his thank you Jesus one more time I am gonna puke!

Djfan
01-28-2009, 03:01 PM
And posting a hot girl's crotch isn't forcing your beliefs on others?

Let people be themselves.

feltdizz
01-28-2009, 03:14 PM
And posting a hot girl's crotch isn't forcing your beliefs on others?

Let people be themselves.

good one.. I don't see it as forcing your beliefs.. just expressing your own. Now if Warner said he wouldn't do interviews unless the reporter believed in Jesus then we have problems...

great analogy.

I don't mind the girls but I definitely keep the sigs blocked while I'm logged into the work server.

_SteeL_CurtaiN_
01-28-2009, 03:20 PM
And posting a hot girl's crotch isn't forcing your beliefs on others?

Let people be themselves.

I believe that women are hot, sorry. I also believed that rainbow tube socks were kinda gay until I saw that ...

I don't have a problem with people being who they are, I was raised to keep my faith to myself, that everyones faith is a personal and private relationship with god as they define it, not an open book for all to see, that's just me. IMO it is ridiculous to think god had a hand in these players reaching the Super Bowl, whouldn't they want god to help ease the suffering of children across the globe before helping them play a game?

feltdizz
01-28-2009, 03:36 PM
And posting a hot girl's crotch isn't forcing your beliefs on others?

Let people be themselves.

I believe that women are hot, sorry. I also believed that rainbow tube socks were kinda gay until I saw that ...

I don't have a problem with people being who they are, I was raised to keep my faith to myself, that everyones faith is a personal and private relationship with god as they define it, not an open book for all to see, that's just me. IMO it is ridiculous to think god had a hand in these players reaching the Super Bowl, whouldn't they want god to help ease the suffering of children across the globe before helping them play a game?

of course players want hunger to end lol.. but what does that have to do with thanking God for your talent or asking God to help you succeed at your job?

Don't we all pray for wisdom and success regarding our job? You guys have to remember this is more then a game for the players.. it is their job and a lot of peoples livelyhood are on the line. From trainers to foundations....

Jigawatts
01-28-2009, 03:37 PM
I really hope God and Jesus have better things to do than watch football. But even
sometimes they need a break. Maybe father and son get together every year to
watch the big game while downing some bread and wine.

feltdizz
01-28-2009, 03:43 PM
I really hope God and Jesus have better things to do than watch football. But even
sometimes they need a break. Maybe father and son get together every year to
watch the big game while downing some bread and wine.

ask Hines or Willis McGahee about needing God on the filed. I know it is just a game but people are injured for life out on that field.

I don't like when people try to remind us what God thinks is important. I truly believe if it's important to you then it is important to God or the relationship you have with him.

Tell James Harrison it's just a game when he was getting cut and thinking about driving a truck...

Tell our long snapper who was moving couches God doesn't care about this game when he went up to sign his contract.

These guys spend there whole life chasing and catching a dream we all ran after as kids and now we want to tell them to lay off the God talk?

not trying to get dramatic but I know why I love this game. Maybe it's the Pittsburgh in me in.. but football is much more then a game to me.

Unless they stop playing on Sundays because of church I don't really see the problem with it.

One last thing.. wasn't Warner bagging groceries before he went to the Rams? That is enough of a reason to thank God everyday for where he is now...

Jigawatts
01-28-2009, 03:55 PM
I just don't think they need to announce their faith to everyone. I'm catholic but I
don't walk around town thanking God every chance I get because I know some people may
be uncomfortable with that.

Although, I still like saying "Merry Christmas." I don't care how uncomfortable people are
with that. Sucks to "Happy Holidays."

NC Steeler Fan
01-28-2009, 04:05 PM
Well, then, I suppose you guys ain't gonna mind the beefcake
shots I manage to post then, eh?

NO F****** WHINING....

Jigawatts
01-28-2009, 04:11 PM
Well, then, I suppose you guys ain't gonna mind the beefcake
shots I manage to post then, eh?

Sheik doesn't mind. :lol:

RuthlessBurgher
01-28-2009, 04:13 PM
Well, then, I suppose you guys ain't gonna mind the beefcake
shots I manage to post then, eh?

NO F****** WHINING....

As long as your beefcake dude his holding a bible and praising Jesus while doing his Derek Zoolander pose, I'm sure we would all be plenty comfortable with that. :lol:

williar
01-28-2009, 04:47 PM
These guys understand that they are playing violent game that can be taken away from them on any give snap. They acknowledge that it is a privilege and a blessing to be able to have success doing what they love to do. Don't think for one minute that many of our beloved steelers don't share these same beliefs and aren't ashamed acknowledge them publicly (Troy, Ben, Hines, Aaron, Ryan, etc.)

Djfan
01-28-2009, 04:57 PM
If your Catholic faith (or anyone else's whatever faith) says to not mention your beliefs then don't. If your faith says mention your faith, then do. It is what it is. The other people's faith won't change because of your faith's stance on what to say and when.

Just ignore it if you want, but don't expect them to change.

One more thought. If you think that posting images of hot women in hardly any clothes isn't a reflection of your relationshipwith/faith in/whatever of God, then I don't understand. In fact, I don't understand how your faith (or lack of it - which is really a faith stance) doesn't impact every part of a person's life.

I agree with St. Francis who said that we should "At all times, in every way, everywhere we are preach Jesus. And only if necessary use words." Translation? You always are demonstrating your religious views in your actions.

(DJ climbs down off the soapbox.)

feltdizz
01-28-2009, 05:00 PM
If your Catholic faith (or anyone else's whatever faith) says to not mention your beliefs then don't. If your faith says mention your faith, then do. It is what it is. The other people's faith won't change because of your faith's stance on what to say and when.

Just ignore it if you want, but don't expect them to change.

One more thought. If you think that posting images of hot women in hardly any clothes isn't a reflection of your relationshipwith/faith in/whatever of God, then I don't understand. In fact, I don't understand how your faith (or lack of it - which is really a faith stance) doesn't impact every part of a person's life.

I agree with St. Francis who said that we should "At all times, in every way, everywhere we are preach Jesus. And only if necessary use words." Translation? You always are demonstrating your religious views in your actions.

(DJ climbs down off the soapbox.)

I agree... but God made these... :Boobs
we can appreciate God's work now can't we?

Jigawatts
01-28-2009, 05:01 PM
If your Catholic faith (or anyone else's whatever faith) says to not mention your beliefs then don't. If your faith says mention your faith, then do. It is what it is. The other people's faith won't change because of your faith's stance on what to say and when.

Just ignore it if you want, but don't expect them to change.

One more thought. If you think that posting images of hot women in hardly any clothes isn't a reflection of your relationshipwith/faith in/whatever of God, then I don't understand. In fact, I don't understand how your faith (or lack of it - which is really a faith stance) doesn't impact every part of a person's life.

I agree with St. Francis who said that we should "At all times, in every way, everywhere we are preach Jesus. And only if necessary use words." Translation? You always are demonstrating your religious views in your actions.

(DJ climbs down off the soapbox.)

I agree... but God made these... :Boobs
we can appreciate God's work now can't we?

I don't know, I think those were forged by Lucifer. :lol:

RuthlessBurgher
01-28-2009, 05:02 PM
If your Catholic faith (or anyone else's whatever faith) says to not mention your beliefs then don't. If your faith says mention your faith, then do. It is what it is. The other people's faith won't change because of your faith's stance on what to say and when.

Just ignore it if you want, but don't expect them to change.

One more thought. If you think that posting images of hot women in hardly any clothes isn't a reflection of your relationshipwith/faith in/whatever of God, then I don't understand. In fact, I don't understand how your faith (or lack of it - which is really a faith stance) doesn't impact every part of a person's life.

I agree with St. Francis who said that we should "At all times, in every way, everywhere we are preach Jesus. And only if necessary use words." Translation? You always are demonstrating your religious views in your actions.

(DJ climbs down off the soapbox.)

I agree... but God made these... :Boobs
we can appreciate God's work now can't we?

I think some doctor in Beverly Hills is responsible for most of the :Boobs posted on this board. Just sayin'. :wink:

stlrz d
01-28-2009, 05:03 PM
If your Catholic faith (or anyone else's whatever faith) says to not mention your beliefs then don't. If your faith says mention your faith, then do. It is what it is. The other people's faith won't change because of your faith's stance on what to say and when.

Just ignore it if you want, but don't expect them to change.

One more thought. If you think that posting images of hot women in hardly any clothes isn't a reflection of your relationshipwith/faith in/whatever of God, then I don't understand. In fact, I don't understand how your faith (or lack of it - which is really a faith stance) doesn't impact every part of a person's life.

I agree with St. Francis who said that we should "At all times, in every way, everywhere we are preach Jesus. And only if necessary use words." Translation? You always are demonstrating your religious views in your actions.

(DJ climbs down off the soapbox.)

I agree... but God made these... :Boobs
we can appreciate God's work now can't we?

I don't know, I think those were forged by Lucifer. :lol:

I'd like to forge some myself. :twisted:

Chachi
01-28-2009, 06:23 PM
[youtube:370nr0c2]dgCjO51d8jw[/youtube:370nr0c2]

frunko1
01-28-2009, 07:07 PM
I swear I remember seeing that the person in that rainbow socks picture is actually a guy. I can't find the proof anymore. But I am sure someone can find it.

_SteeL_CurtaiN_
01-28-2009, 07:09 PM
I swear I remember seeing that the person in that rainbow socks picture is actually a guy. I can't find the proof anymore. But I am sure someone can find it.

LoL, I sincerley hope not!

There is another labelled Skittles...Taste the rainbow. Just google demotivators

Chadman
01-28-2009, 07:18 PM
Just a question- what if one of the players announced that he worshipped satan in a press conference & expunged the virtues of worshipping the anti-christ...

would you all be ok with that too?

Or what if a player told you all at a press conference that he believed in the Nazi ideals?

Or what if a player openly supported the Taliban's beliefs?

There is a time & place for everything.

People's personal beliefs are just that- personal. A national press conference isn't the place to praise your God unless God himself actually was the coach or a member of the team.

Is it hunky dorey when John Tavolta or Tom Cruise tell you they are from another planet & that they are the 'enlightened'?

frankthetank1
01-28-2009, 07:22 PM
well i think its pretty boring hearing players talk about religion but i dont mind it. as long as someone isnt preaching in an interview or anything. expressing your faith is so different than pushing your faith onto people. i dont see the relation of talking about religion which is a very touchy subject with some and having a sig with a hot girl. is anyone really offended by a picture of a hot girl or guy?

Djfan
01-28-2009, 07:30 PM
well i think its pretty boring hearing players talk about religion but i dont mind it. as long as someone isnt preaching in an interview or anything. expressing your faith is so different than pushing your faith onto people. i dont see the relation of talking about religion which is a very touchy subject with some and having a sig with a hot girl. is anyone really offended by a picture of a hot girl or guy?

I have been, yes. I just figure that this is where you (or whomever it is posting the post) are at. I overlook it.

Where we got the idea that religion is taboo is beyond me.

frankthetank1
01-28-2009, 07:40 PM
well i think its pretty boring hearing players talk about religion but i dont mind it. as long as someone isnt preaching in an interview or anything. expressing your faith is so different than pushing your faith onto people. i dont see the relation of talking about religion which is a very touchy subject with some and having a sig with a hot girl. is anyone really offended by a picture of a hot girl or guy?

I have been, yes. I just figure that this is where you (or whomever it is posting the post) are at. I overlook it.

Where we got the idea that religion is taboo is beyond me.

well nothing offends me at all. religion and politics are just subjects that people fight over and get nasty about. being religious or having opinions about politics is fine its when you dont respect others opinions and their choices thats when there are problems. i dont understand how anyone can be offended over a womens body or a guys body but to each their own i guess

Djfan
01-28-2009, 07:45 PM
well i think its pretty boring hearing players talk about religion but i dont mind it. as long as someone isnt preaching in an interview or anything. expressing your faith is so different than pushing your faith onto people. i dont see the relation of talking about religion which is a very touchy subject with some and having a sig with a hot girl. is anyone really offended by a picture of a hot girl or guy?

I have been, yes. I just figure that this is where you (or whomever it is posting the post) are at. I overlook it.

Where we got the idea that religion is taboo is beyond me.

well nothing offends me at all. religion and politics are just subjects that people fight over and get nasty about. being religious or having opinions about politics is fine its when you dont respect others opinions and their choices thats when there are problems. i dont understand how anyone can be offended over a womens body or a guys body but to each their own i guess

The pics that offended me were on the Trib board. The offense lasted until I scrolled down to the next post in that thread. No biggie. I'm not into lusting, so I don't look to those types of pics really, but they are often very pretty girls. I just want to keep my heart locked onto my wife, who is very good looking, but not as much as she was when we met.

But, I pretty much agree with you.

GO STEELERS!

eniparadoxgma
01-28-2009, 08:09 PM
I have been, yes. I just figure that this is where you (or whomever it is posting the post) are at. I overlook it.

Where we got the idea that religion is taboo is beyond me.

Would you mind explaining the bolded for me? Where exactly is someone "at" if they have a picture of an attractive person in their sig?

Chachi: Best post in the thread.

Chadman: Completely agree.

bostonsteeler
01-28-2009, 08:38 PM
Just a question- what if one of the players announced that he worshipped satan in a press conference & expunged the virtues of worshipping the anti-christ...

would you all be ok with that too?

Or what if a player told you all at a press conference that he believed in the Nazi ideals?

Or what if a player openly supported the Taliban's beliefs?

There is a time & place for everything.

People's personal beliefs are just that- personal. A national press conference isn't the place to praise your God unless God himself actually was the coach or a member of the team.

Is it hunky dorey when John Tavolta or Tom Cruise tell you they are from another planet & that they are the 'enlightened'?


Its their life and if they want to talk about their god, its their prerogative. If you don't want to listen, don't. Every reporter out there *knows* Warner is going to go "JESUS" when spoken to. But they keep going back to hear him say it - *because* they (the reporters) know that there are millions of people who will pay money to hear Warner say anything at all just now.

Your dislike of Warner's expression of his religious beliefs is as much personal belief as his religious belief, and if some agency gets paid to pay reporters to hear you speak and are happy to hear you express said belief repeatedly, you certainly are welcome to go ahead and express it repeatedly too.. :-)

Who pays the piper calls the tune. Here the paying audience is willing to hear Warner warble about Jesus. They wouldn't be willing to hear him talk of Satan. If he risked losing his job if he spoke of Jesus, do you think he'd mention him at every breath?

frankthetank1
01-28-2009, 08:46 PM
Just a question- what if one of the players announced that he worshipped satan in a press conference & expunged the virtues of worshipping the anti-christ...

would you all be ok with that too?

Or what if a player told you all at a press conference that he believed in the Nazi ideals?

Or what if a player openly supported the Taliban's beliefs?

There is a time & place for everything.

People's personal beliefs are just that- personal. A national press conference isn't the place to praise your God unless God himself actually was the coach or a member of the team.

Is it hunky dorey when John Tavolta or Tom Cruise tell you they are from another planet & that they are the 'enlightened'?


Its their life and if they want to talk about their god, its their prerogative. If you don't want to listen, don't. Every reporter out there *knows* Warner is going to go "JESUS" when spoken to. But they keep going back to hear him say it - *because* they (the reporters) know that there are millions of people who will pay money to hear Warner say anything at all just now.

Your dislike of Warner's expression of his religious beliefs is as much personal belief as his religious belief, and if some agency gets paid to pay reporters to hear you speak and are happy to hear you express said belief repeatedly, you certainly are welcome to go ahead and express it repeatedly too.. :-)

Who pays the piper calls the tune. Here the paying audience is willing to hear Warner warble about Jesus. They wouldn't be willing to hear him talk of Satan. If he risked losing his job if he spoke of Jesus, do you think he'd mention him at every breath?

does that mean it is possible that kurt warner is only saying those things because a lot of people want to hear him say it? does anyone else find it odd that kurt warner worked at a grocery store before he was in the nfl. i assume the guy graduated from college so what was he doing working at a grocery store?

stlrz d
01-28-2009, 08:50 PM
Just a question- what if one of the players announced that he worshipped satan in a press conference & expunged the virtues of worshipping the anti-christ...

would you all be ok with that too?

Or what if a player told you all at a press conference that he believed in the Nazi ideals?

Or what if a player openly supported the Taliban's beliefs?

There is a time & place for everything.

People's personal beliefs are just that- personal. A national press conference isn't the place to praise your God unless God himself actually was the coach or a member of the team.

Is it hunky dorey when John Tavolta or Tom Cruise tell you they are from another planet & that they are the 'enlightened'?


Its their life and if they want to talk about their god, its their prerogative. If you don't want to listen, don't. Every reporter out there *knows* Warner is going to go "JESUS" when spoken to. But they keep going back to hear him say it - *because* they (the reporters) know that there are millions of people who will pay money to hear Warner say anything at all just now.

Your dislike of Warner's expression of his religious beliefs is as much personal belief as his religious belief, and if some agency gets paid to pay reporters to hear you speak and are happy to hear you express said belief repeatedly, you certainly are welcome to go ahead and express it repeatedly too.. :-)

Who pays the piper calls the tune. Here the paying audience is willing to hear Warner warble about Jesus. They wouldn't be willing to hear him talk of Satan. If he risked losing his job if he spoke of Jesus, do you think he'd mention him at every breath?

does that mean it is possible that kurt warner is only saying those things because a lot of people want to hear him say it? does anyone else find it odd that kurt warner worked at a grocery store before he was in the nfl. i assume the guy graduated from college so what was he doing working at a grocery store?

He was trying to make it in football and needed a job that allowed for very flexible hours.

bostonsteeler
01-28-2009, 08:50 PM
Just a question- what if one of the players announced that he worshipped satan in a press conference & expunged the virtues of worshipping the anti-christ...

would you all be ok with that too?

Or what if a player told you all at a press conference that he believed in the Nazi ideals?

Or what if a player openly supported the Taliban's beliefs?

There is a time & place for everything.

People's personal beliefs are just that- personal. A national press conference isn't the place to praise your God unless God himself actually was the coach or a member of the team.

Is it hunky dorey when John Tavolta or Tom Cruise tell you they are from another planet & that they are the 'enlightened'?


Its their life and if they want to talk about their god, its their prerogative. If you don't want to listen, don't. Every reporter out there *knows* Warner is going to go "JESUS" when spoken to. But they keep going back to hear him say it - *because* they (the reporters) know that there are millions of people who will pay money to hear Warner say anything at all just now.

Your dislike of Warner's expression of his religious beliefs is as much personal belief as his religious belief, and if some agency gets paid to pay reporters to hear you speak and are happy to hear you express said belief repeatedly, you certainly are welcome to go ahead and express it repeatedly too.. :-)

Who pays the piper calls the tune. Here the paying audience is willing to hear Warner warble about Jesus. They wouldn't be willing to hear him talk of Satan. If he risked losing his job if he spoke of Jesus, do you think he'd mention him at every breath?

does that mean it is possible that kurt warner is only saying those things because a lot of people want to hear him say it? does anyone else find it odd that kurt warner worked at a grocery store before he was in the nfl. i assume the guy graduated from college so what was he doing working at a grocery store?

No, it means that Warner is saying it because people are happy to give him the opportunity to say it to them. If they went away bored the moment he began about Jesus, he wouldn't be saying it to them, would he?

The NFL is riddled with rags-to-riches stories. Our own FWP came up the hard way. James Harrison did too. Jeff Reed has his own dream story. So it goes. There are similar stories in every professional field (not just NFL or sports in general).

Hugh Hefner has his own rags-to-riches story, and his god is sex. He never fails to pander to the sex god when given a chance, and people are happy to hear him talk about that too...

Nothing special about Jesus here.

snarky
01-28-2009, 09:06 PM
In fact, I don't understand how your faith (or lack of it - which is really a faith stance)...

As an atheist, I have to ask, WTH? This is like saying bald is a hair color.

bostonsteeler
01-28-2009, 09:51 PM
In fact, I don't understand how your faith (or lack of it - which is really a faith stance)...

As an atheist, I have to ask, WTH? This is like saying bald is a hair color.

Nope. It's like saying "shaven head" is a hair style. :D

RuthlessBurgher
01-28-2009, 11:55 PM
I was getting sick of Hines Ward worshipping Gatorade as his personal Savior at Media Day. :wink:

Djfan
01-29-2009, 02:36 AM
In fact, I don't understand how your faith (or lack of it - which is really a faith stance)...

As an atheist, I have to ask, WTH? This is like saying bald is a hair color.

Your faith statement is that God doesn't exist. That's what I meant.

BTW, as a math teacher I love your avatar!

frankthetank1
01-29-2009, 09:10 AM
Just a question- what if one of the players announced that he worshipped satan in a press conference & expunged the virtues of worshipping the anti-christ...

would you all be ok with that too?

Or what if a player told you all at a press conference that he believed in the Nazi ideals?

Or what if a player openly supported the Taliban's beliefs?

There is a time & place for everything.

People's personal beliefs are just that- personal. A national press conference isn't the place to praise your God unless God himself actually was the coach or a member of the team.

Is it hunky dorey when John Tavolta or Tom Cruise tell you they are from another planet & that they are the 'enlightened'?


Its their life and if they want to talk about their god, its their prerogative. If you don't want to listen, don't. Every reporter out there *knows* Warner is going to go "JESUS" when spoken to. But they keep going back to hear him say it - *because* they (the reporters) know that there are millions of people who will pay money to hear Warner say anything at all just now.

Your dislike of Warner's expression of his religious beliefs is as much personal belief as his religious belief, and if some agency gets paid to pay reporters to hear you speak and are happy to hear you express said belief repeatedly, you certainly are welcome to go ahead and express it repeatedly too.. :-)

Who pays the piper calls the tune. Here the paying audience is willing to hear Warner warble about Jesus. They wouldn't be willing to hear him talk of Satan. If he risked losing his job if he spoke of Jesus, do you think he'd mention him at every breath?

does that mean it is possible that kurt warner is only saying those things because a lot of people want to hear him say it? does anyone else find it odd that kurt warner worked at a grocery store before he was in the nfl. i assume the guy graduated from college so what was he doing working at a grocery store?

He was trying to make it in football and needed a job that allowed for very flexible hours.

thanks d that makes a lot of sense. i have been wondering about that for a while now

Iron Shiek
01-29-2009, 09:22 AM
Well, then, I suppose you guys ain't gonna mind the beefcake
shots I manage to post then, eh?

Sheik doesn't mind. :lol:
:wft !!!!!!!!!!!

How did I get mixed up in this!!!! Thanks Jiga.... :Hater ..

:lol:

feltdizz
01-29-2009, 09:58 AM
Kurt Warner probably prayed day and night for a shot in the NFL and probably said he would be a servant of God if he did... I see nothing wrong with the God talk.. as long as he doesn't go Reggie White with it.

Reggie White is a good example of a football player who said God all the time and later said he regretted using God's name in vain. He said he went so far with the God talk... and used his name when it wasn't needed. Kinda like product placement.

snarky
01-29-2009, 11:03 PM
Your faith statement is that God doesn't exist. That's what I meant.


OK, but that's not accurate for me nor a large portion of atheists.

Hey, if you are a math teacher, you should see this video. Very cool.

http://www.break.com/index/marble-based-calculator.html

Discipline of Steel
01-30-2009, 02:13 AM
I wonder if the Cardinal fan message boards are full of halleluiahs and god bless yous, kind of like a religious chat room.

I wonder if Kurt Warner is trying to cast this game as a classic matchup of good and evil, with him being the good guy of course...and the Steelers being the ruffian bad guys.

Djfan
01-30-2009, 02:43 AM
Your faith statement is that God doesn't exist. That's what I meant.


OK, but that's not accurate for me nor a large portion of atheists.

Hey, if you are a math teacher, you should see this video. Very cool.

http://www.break.com/index/marble-based-calculator.html

Very cool video!! Thanks. I want one!

As for the accuracy of the statement, I disagree. Just because a person doesn't think they are making a statement about a topic, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are not making such a statement.

A profession of a stance on a deity is a religious stance.

BTW, atheism is the hardest thing to belong to IMO, because the statement that a deity DOESN'T exist is very hard to prove. Atheism doesn't mean that you don't think that there is a god, but a statement that there is no god. The burden of proof for that is very very difficult to substantiate.

eniparadoxgma
01-30-2009, 01:54 PM
Your faith statement is that God doesn't exist. That's what I meant.


OK, but that's not accurate for me nor a large portion of atheists.

Hey, if you are a math teacher, you should see this video. Very cool.

http://www.break.com/index/marble-based-calculator.html

Very cool video!! Thanks. I want one!

As for the accuracy of the statement, I disagree. Just because a person doesn't think they are making a statement about a topic, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are not making such a statement.

A profession of a stance on a deity is a religious stance.

BTW, atheism is the hardest thing to belong to IMO, because the statement that a deity DOESN'T exist is very hard to prove. Atheism doesn't mean that you don't think that there is a god, but a statement that there is no god. The burden of proof for that is very very difficult to substantiate.

I disagree. The belief in an omnipotent, omniscient father figure in the sky is the hardest thing to prove.

Atheists have it easy for the most part. They aren't asserting the existence of some type of divine deity to explain away phenomena for which it is not necessary. The only thing you can say against atheists is that they can't "prove" there isn't some type of supernatural boogie-man in the sky somewhere. So what? I can't prove there isn't some type of floating rubix cube in the Crab Nebula that's sending each and every one of our brains direct orders via long-range telepathy either. Thing is, you can't prove it wrong.

Atheism and agnosticism are the most logical standpoints to have in the age of modern science. There is no assertion of final causes or "miracles" that go against the current paradigm of thought. Do me a favor and reconcile an omnipotent, omniscient creator and the suffering of innocent people in the world (the classical problem of evil). I'm always interested in how people can profess to follow an all-powerful, all-knowing deity that allows (and actually therefore causes) people to suffer.

I prefer Spinoza's brand of pantheism to any particular type of monotheism actually. Why wouldn't omnipotence mean that god is everything? And if so, then how can you attempt to put limits on what it is by saying it's a he, or that it has rules, or etc etc? If a god is all-powerful, then wouldn't it be infinite as well? And if it's infinite then doesn't it become a moot point, in the way that saying everyone is special actually makes the term lose its meaning because therefore everyone is special?

I really have no idea what you mean by "the burden of proof lies with the atheist". You could just mean that agnosticism is a more intellectually responsible response to the topic of religion, but let me tell ya something: Every day the sun comes up where I am. However, I can't prove to you that the sun will come up tomorrow. That occurrence is in the future. By it being in the future, there is the tiniest possibility that some type of celestial calamity will cause the sun to not come up where I am. However, being that I'm pretty certain of it I'm going to go ahead and say it will come up tomorrow.

In the same way, I will tell you with 99.999999999999999999 percent certainty that there is no omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, male, bearded father-figure in the sky that cares about Christians more than Muslims, or Jews more than Buddhists.

The burden of proof lies with people that assert this god-hypothesis to account for things. You're asserting something. Atheists are not. Why would atheists have to prove why they're not offering a hypothesis? The modern intellectual climate is based around verifiable evidence and provable facts.

If, however, you would like to switch gears and go to this all having to do with faith, with no evidence needed, and that it all stands outside the realm of provable hypotheses then we can go that way too.

No big deal to me. However, if people start discussing religion I usually jump in as I have my own opinion on things and don't want to feel left out. :)

Something I find relevant is Bertrand Russell's Teapot analogy:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

feltdizz
01-30-2009, 02:34 PM
At the age of 4 I was playing in the attic and didn't have shoes on and got a splinter...Mom told me not to go up there without shoes so I broke the splinter instead of pulling it out. This caused my body to bleed internally for 30 days straight...couldn't stand up cause my nose would bleed.

no doctor could cure me... I was at Children's hospital in Oakland and I saw things no kid should see and was around a lot of kids who didn't make it cause the doctors had given up...

I'm talking 10 shots a day, painful butterfly shots and countless blood transfusions, they called it WET ITP. My mom said she just gave me to God... let him do what he will...
One day a nurse noticed that same splinter in my foot and pulled it out and I was cured.

I believe in a higher power...

I don't see what good it does acting like I chose to exist.. this place is too complex for it to be left to chance or a monkey or tadpole evolving.

Djfan
01-30-2009, 02:52 PM
Cool posts Enip and Felt.

The proof that God exists is not anything I will ever try to prove. Proof is the area of science, not faith. There is a lot of provable things that faith claims, but faith doesn't need to be confirmed by scientific proof.

The claim that God doesn't exist is almost always a view that is given by lack of proof, so evidence (or lack of it) is the appeal given to justify the belief. So evidence that He doesn't exists is necessary to hold that view, if it is thorough.

Agnosticism is not atheism. It claims that knowledge as to whether there is a god or not is not available in a convincing way, so it/He is unknowable. Atheism claims something much stronger - there is no god.

As for the validity of science, which flavor are you talking about? The views of science are all over the map, and change often. Views on such things as the age of the Earth, evolution, origins of species, plate tectonics, cellular biology, dna structures, extinction, etc, change almost daily, and have different groups within their specialties who hold to different - often conflicting - views. Unfortunately, because of this, saying "science say..." is a bit like saying "someone told me that...".

As for the problem of evil I just don't see where any God takes responsibility for the agency of others. By that I mean that when you or I choose to act in a way contrary to what we both agree is good, is God, any god, obligated to intervene and prevent us? I don't think so. Maybe He is in some cases that we find very offensive? If so, how do we know if that list of those things He should intervene in is the same as our list? If it isn't the same list, and so he doesn't act like we think He should, did He not live up to His required level? Sounds a bit arrogant to me.

The analogy of the ant works here. If an ant looks at my actions and disagrees with them, am I less than what I am (as vastly superior to that ant) because of that? No. The ant is wrong and needs to adjust their view.

I have to admit that your post is great. Respectful regards to you, Sir!

GO STEELERS!!!!

(BTW, I have prayed to the God of the Bible [just trying to be clear on my choice of Gods] for the Steelers to win. Does He have to answer my prayer according to my wishes?)

feltdizz
01-30-2009, 03:08 PM
good post djfan...

I think your point about evil is spot on. We all have that voice that says "this is wrong" or "are you sure about this" I just think some people choose to "ignore' it.

If there was no evil then this would be heaven wouldn't it? I think we are given the ability to choose which is cool...

I also think world hunger and third world atrocities happen to people who are strong enough to go through it. Funny how a person can have no food, shelter but can still laugh...then you have a millionaire who loses everything in the stock market and only has 50K left and they kill themselves...

crazy world.. anyway, Go Steelers and if God likes football he would be a Steeler fan.

Djfan
01-30-2009, 03:14 PM
Any faith I would possible respect would ask me to help those in poverty. I do, and will do more when I can. We live very modestly (renters, old cars, little or no savings, no big vacations, etc.) because we are not the reason we are here. We live in our family like we live for other priorities than most people around us. Helping those with less than us is one way we reflect that priority.

BTW, God is a Steelers fan. He's not dumb, after all!

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn63/hughpam/HaveFaithintheSteelers.jpg

feltdizz
01-30-2009, 03:50 PM
Any faith I would possible respect would ask me to help those in poverty. I do, and will do more when I can. We live very modestly (renters, old cars, little or no savings, no big vacations, etc.) because we are not the reason we are here. We live in our family like we live for other priorities than most people around us. Helping those with less than us is one way we reflect that priority.

BTW, God is a Steelers fan. He's not dumb, after all!

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn63/hughpam/HaveFaithintheSteelers.jpg

When my Grandad was moving around assets and downsizing to put his wife in a home due to sickness he told my mom... If you have it, spend it! They will try to take it at every chance they can!

Jigawatts
01-30-2009, 04:18 PM
I disagree. The belief in an omnipotent, omniscient father figure in the sky is the hardest thing to prove.

Atheists have it easy for the most part. They aren't asserting the existence of some type of divine deity to explain away phenomena for which it is not necessary. The only thing you can say against atheists is that they can't "prove" there isn't some type of supernatural boogie-man in the sky somewhere. So what? I can't prove there isn't some type of floating rubix cube in the Crab Nebula that's sending each and every one of our brains direct orders via long-range telepathy either. Thing is, you can't prove it wrong.

Atheism and agnosticism are the most logical standpoints to have in the age of modern science. There is no assertion of final causes or "miracles" that go against the current paradigm of thought. Do me a favor and reconcile an omnipotent, omniscient creator and the suffering of innocent people in the world (the classical problem of evil). I'm always interested in how people can profess to follow an all-powerful, all-knowing deity that allows (and actually therefore causes) people to suffer.

I prefer Spinoza's brand of pantheism to any particular type of monotheism actually. Why wouldn't omnipotence mean that god is everything? And if so, then how can you attempt to put limits on what it is by saying it's a he, or that it has rules, or etc etc? If a god is all-powerful, then wouldn't it be infinite as well? And if it's infinite then doesn't it become a moot point, in the way that saying everyone is special actually makes the term lose its meaning because therefore everyone is special?

I really have no idea what you mean by "the burden of proof lies with the atheist". You could just mean that agnosticism is a more intellectually responsible response to the topic of religion, but let me tell ya something: Every day the sun comes up where I am. However, I can't prove to you that the sun will come up tomorrow. That occurrence is in the future. By it being in the future, there is the tiniest possibility that some type of celestial calamity will cause the sun to not come up where I am. However, being that I'm pretty certain of it I'm going to go ahead and say it will come up tomorrow.

In the same way, I will tell you with 99.999999999999999999 percent certainty that there is no omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, male, bearded father-figure in the sky that cares about Christians more than Muslims, or Jews more than Buddhists.

The burden of proof lies with people that assert this god-hypothesis to account for things. You're asserting something. Atheists are not. Why would atheists have to prove why they're not offering a hypothesis? The modern intellectual climate is based around verifiable evidence and provable facts.

If, however, you would like to switch gears and go to this all having to do with faith, with no evidence needed, and that it all stands outside the realm of provable hypotheses then we can go that way too.

No big deal to me. However, if people start discussing religion I usually jump in as I have my own opinion on things and don't want to feel left out. :)

Something I find relevant is Bertrand Russell's Teapot analogy:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."


"Are you saying Jesus Christ can't hit a curve ball?"

eniparadoxgma
01-30-2009, 04:29 PM
Hey DJ, Felt. Good to have a civil discussion on this subject. Too many religious discussions boil down to nothing but flaming the other's position.

Anyhow, on the topic of proof I don't think you're getting the Russell's Teapot viewpoint. It disproves the notion that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims such as those of religion. There is no reason for a skeptic to have to disprove any or all claims that are unable to be proven to begin with. The burden of proof must lie with those that make claims for which there is no evidence, not the other way around. If you put the burden of proof on the skeptic, then any and all unverifiable hypotheses become equally relevant.

It's the same thing as saying that there is a flying spaghetti monster that resides underneath the surface of Mars (except that this is possibly verifiable, but this example serves its purpose). At this time we have no way to necessarily prove that this statement isn't true...but it certainly doesn't mean that I'm going to believe it in the absence of proof otherwise. I yield to Occam's Razor on this point.

I do understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism. However, I have my own take on the subject. In my opinion, most atheists and most agnostics are basically the same, except that the agnostics want to cover their asses.

It seems your point against atheists is that they claim for 100% certain that an omnipotent, omniscient deity does not exist...when they can't prove that it doesn't. I understand your point. However, this goes back to my point about the sun coming up tomorrow. We can't prove the sun will definitely rise tomorrow...but I'm close enough to certain to claim it and live as if it will. My point about agnostics covering their asses is that I think they're just making sure to account for that point: That there is no way to be 100% certain. IMO they're like wishy-washy atheists not man enough to nut up on the point lol. Science itself doesn't claim to have 100% irrefutable evidence for all of its laws or claims. They're just working hypotheses, always open to future revision.

About science: There is one thing that underlies all science. That's the scientific method. It's all about empirical evidence, testing, and verifiable facts. The modern paradigm of thought that makes technology and therefore society go is based on it.

If it doesn't follow the scientific method then it isn't science. Final causes, miracles, supernatural events all lie outside of it.

As to the problem of evil, it's one of those things I've had a lot of conversations about, but still am not satisfied by any answers I've been given. When someone/something is omnipotent and omniscient IMO they are responsible for everything that exists and everything that does not exist. I think it's contradictory to state that an omnipotent god could create something that exists beyond its control. If free will is beyond god's control, then he/it is no longer all powerful. How is this reconcilable?

As to the ant analogy, I understand it fine. However, in the same way I can produce the same argument for Allah...for Loki, Thor, Santa Claus, anything really. I perhaps don't understand your point in using it...

eniparadoxgma
01-30-2009, 04:36 PM
good post djfan...

I think your point about evil is spot on. We all have that voice that says "this is wrong" or "are you sure about this" I just think some people choose to "ignore' it.

If there was no evil then this would be heaven wouldn't it? I think we are given the ability to choose which is cool...

I also think world hunger and third world atrocities happen to people who are strong enough to go through it. Funny how a person can have no food, shelter but can still laugh...then you have a millionaire who loses everything in the stock market and only has 50K left and they kill themselves...

crazy world.. anyway, Go Steelers and if God likes football he would be a Steeler fan.

Decided to start quoting posts so I can keep what I'm responding to together lol.

I addressed free will in my last post. About hunger and atrocities I'm not sure if I'm getting your point. Obviously these things also happen to countless people that are not strong enough to go through it...they die. However, I do understand your point about wealth not meaning happiness.


Any faith I would possible respect would ask me to help those in poverty. I do, and will do more when I can. We live very modestly (renters, old cars, little or no savings, no big vacations, etc.) because we are not the reason we are here. We live in our family like we live for other priorities than most people around us. Helping those with less than us is one way we reflect that priority.

BTW, God is a Steelers fan. He's not dumb, after all!

I just don't think religion or a faith is necessary in order to do the right thing (ie help others, etc). I create my own morality and worldview and seem to get along alright. :Cheers

Jiga: I'm saying man created gods, we are responsible for ourselves, existence precedes essence, and that there is no such thing as moral phenomena...only moral interpretations of phenomena...

...and that my god would kick your god's ass in badminton.

(I got the Major League reference btw)

STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELERSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!! :tt2 :tt2 :tt2 :tt2

mshifko
01-30-2009, 05:40 PM
I really hope God and Jesus have better things to do than watch football. But even
sometimes they need a break. Maybe father and son get together every year to
watch the big game while downing some bread and wine.
hahaha...i can see it now

Djfan
01-30-2009, 05:59 PM
Darn Enip! I'm now having insecurities about my God's badmitton skills. Maybe if He was more of an Asian God and not so much Middle Eastern.....

Glad to hear about the good things you do. No doubt we could use more people doing good than we have now.

Go Steelers!!!!!!!

Discipline of Steel
01-30-2009, 07:55 PM
To me, it all depends on your definition of god. I dont buy the bible version, or koran, or that of any other brand of religion. Im a scientist and I only deal in facts. Fact is that our universe exists and we dont know why or how. If you want to call the answer to those two questions god, then I can go along with it. There is just no evidence for any further refining of the definition.

SidSmythe
01-30-2009, 09:11 PM
God doesn't believe in Atheists

Lebsteel
01-30-2009, 09:22 PM
To me, it all depends on your definition of god. I dont buy the bible version, or koran, or that of any other brand of religion. Im a scientist and I only deal in facts. Fact is that our universe exists and we dont know why or how. If you want to call the answer to those two questions god, then I can go along with it. There is just no evidence for any further refining of the definition.

I can agree with your thought that we really don't know why or how the universe exists. There are many incredible mysteries in this universe. Simply doing what we are doing here on this board would have been unheard of 30 years ago. We as humans have to except the fact that we just don't have all the answers and never will.

I choose to believe that there has to be someone or something out there greater than us humans. I believe every human has a time in their life when they feel "there has got to be something more in life." I choose to believe each of us has a soul and that soul lives on after our human body dies. My personal belief is that "something" is the God of the Bible. My life has been much more fulfilling with God than without him. Without getting too "preachy", I believe this God wants each of us to know him. Do I share my faith with others? Absolutely, BUT, I think it is much more effective to share that faith through the way I live my life. I am in no way perfect, just simply forgiven by my faith. I have no problem with Kurt Warner sharing his faith and acknowledging God when he is interviewed. However, I really do not think that God cares who wins the Super Bowl. I personally would not feel comfortable praying for my team to win in any sport. I think what is important is how we conduct ourselves when we win and when we lose. That is where we show our character and I think that is what really matters.

Having said that, on Sunday evening, I will be waving the Terrible Towel like a madman, screaming and yelling for Holmes to "take it to the house" and for our D to crush Warner, Fitz and any other Cardinal. Not to hurt them, but just make them wish they had chosen another line of work. Well, at least for this game. I think we were all made to show our emotions and live our life with passion.
GO STEELERS!! :tt1 :tt2 :tt1 :tt2 :tt1 :tt2

Djfan
01-31-2009, 12:48 AM
Enip,

I hope you don't mind me addressing you this way. I like it because I can pronounce it.

I agree on the cool aspect of this conversation. My high regard for you has skyrockted, higher than Lynn Swann's highest leap.

I don't think Occam's Razor applies here, because that point is moot once the investigation into origins is started, or claims about the truth of origins are made based on these investigative results. (Think we should just ignore the fact that some here have never heard of Occam's razor?).

As for the issue of the teapot, I have not looked at it for a long time (graduated college in '95) but feel invigorated about looking into it again. You'll hear back from me on this one. My initial response is that the personality traits of the teapot make it an non-interactive entity, as opposed to the views of a personal God. But that's just off the top of my head.


About science: There is one thing that underlies all science. That's the scientific method. It's all about empirical evidence, testing, and verifiable facts. The modern paradigm of thought that makes technology and therefore society go is based on it.

Can you show me one, just one, case where this method is used in the case of evolution? If not, then why is it called science and not faith?

I understand your lack of satisfaction with the problem of evil. That's why it's not called the momentary observation of evil. Still, to obligate a deity to be responsible for it is to remove free agency (note: not free will) from humans. This cannot be acceptable to anyone since free agency is not disputed by any rational person with even basic powers of observation.


As to the ant analogy, I understand it fine. However, in the same way I can produce the same argument for Allah...for Loki, Thor, Santa Claus, anything really. I perhaps don't understand your point in using it...

Then I accomplished my goal. I have just made room in the argument for the existence of a deity. I am not arguing for the Christian God right now. Just focusing on the possibility of a god, any god. The point is that just because we don't understand we can't thereby claim permission to disallow. Reality is not confined to my ability to understand it.

Regards to all who read this and respect a few guys who want to talk about a topic usually interrupted and ruined by idiots. Please join in.

bostonsteeler
01-31-2009, 02:16 AM
About science: There is one thing that underlies all science. That's the scientific method. It's all about empirical evidence, testing, and verifiable facts. The modern paradigm of thought that makes technology and therefore society go is based on it.

Can you show me one, just one, case where this method is used in the case of evolution? If not, then why is it called science and not faith?


Its science because it is not blind belief. It has a hypothesis, the hypothesis has verifiable claims, and there is evidence that many of these claims are true.

For instance, more complex animals follow less complex ones -- generally. The fossil record shows that this is the case in each epoch (between mass extinctions).

For instance, "survival of the fittest drives evolution". Your garden variety strep infection is proof of that -- it has "evolved" to be resistant to antibiotics. This doesnt mean that the strep changed, if you read it that way. It means that there were a very very tiny fraction of strep that resisted said antibiotic, and by killing all other strep, the antibiotic itself ensured that the resistant ones now dominated. Classical process of evolution.

For instance "one species may evolve into another". A hard one since the definition of "species" remains fuzzy. Nevertheless, by most standard definitions of "species" speciation has been observed in plants in recent times -- (in some cases this has not been due to evolution, but because of man-made follies, but still).

etc. There's quite a lot of evidence that follows the scientific method here.



I understand your lack of satisfaction with the problem of evil. That's why it's not called the momentary observation of evil. Still, to obligate a deity to be responsible for it is to remove free agency (note: not free will) from humans. This cannot be acceptable to anyone since free agency is not disputed by any rational person with even basic powers of observation.


Does this mean that the diety is only needed to explain origin, but not the running of the universe?
If the deity runs the universe, does it mean it (he/she) has no obligation to keep it running "well"?
How do you align Eric Klebold's free will to pull a trigger with the lack of free will in the death of his victims who had no desire to die and did nothing to trigger or deserve it? In this case does the diety only support the free will of the aggressor?

Evil doesn't happen freely. Someone does it -- and does so freely, but usually the recepient is not free not to receive it. There's no free action here. If one must believe in a diety that sets up situations where the application of free will on the part of one person causes unwanted misery to the other, one must also believe that this diety is not just, kind or gentle.

On the other hand if one claims that the diety lets these situations happen without intervening, then why do we need a diety if we have already agreed that the universe is autonomous?

If, on the third argument, one claims that the diety lets the universe just run and intervenes occasionally, then one must question the capricious selective intervention of the diety. Why was it more important to intervene and save the person whose car was stuck on the railway track, but not intervene and save the truck that overturned while carrying food to starving refugees..

That said, an explanation of "there's no diety -- it all just happens" is also strangely unsatisfactory...

sd steel
01-31-2009, 02:53 AM
Interesting reading gentlemen. It took my mind off of Sunday for a 15 minutes or so. But I have come to some conclusions.

Some guys believe in God, some guys don't, and some guys cover their butts by calling them self agnostics. Guys who argue religion on message boards like to use big words, pull passages from the Bible, and quote philosophers. (None of it makes for good reading, and I would much rather see guys telling each other they are going to Hell, and the other guy saying you will be taking an eternal dirt nap because that's all there is).

You will probably never change anyone's beliefs on a message board, and if you can, I would say the guy who changed his mind didn't have very strong convictions to begin with.

Did I miss anything?

Oh yeah....GO STEELERS!!!

May God or Allah or Buttah or L Ron Hubbard or no one bless them this Sunday!! :tt1

bostonsteeler
01-31-2009, 01:42 PM
Interesting reading gentlemen. It took my mind off of Sunday for a 15 minutes or so. But I have come to some conclusions.

Some guys believe in God, some guys don't, and some guys cover their butts by calling them self agnostics. Guys who argue religion on message boards like to use big words, pull passages from the Bible, and quote philosophers. (None of it makes for good reading, and I would much rather see guys telling each other they are going to Hell, and the other guy saying you will be taking an eternal dirt nap because that's all there is).

You will probably never change anyone's beliefs on a message board, and if you can, I would say the guy who changed his mind didn't have very strong convictions to begin with.

Did I miss anything?

Oh yeah....GO STEELERS!!!

May God or Allah or Buttah or L Ron Hubbard or no one bless them this Sunday!! :tt1

Dude,
Don't kill the thread with sense! :o :D

Go Steelers! :tt2 :tt2 :tt2

sd steel
01-31-2009, 02:46 PM
God doesn't believe in Atheists

But He told me he is on the fence about agnostics.

Djfan
01-31-2009, 04:01 PM
Man, you had me until this:



For instance, "survival of the fittest drives evolution". Your garden variety strep infection is proof of that -- it has "evolved" to be resistant to antibiotics. This doesnt mean that the strep changed, if you read it that way. It means that there were a very very tiny fraction of strep that resisted said antibiotic, and by killing all other strep, the antibiotic itself ensured that the resistant ones now dominated. Classical process of evolution.

For instance "one species may evolve into another". A hard one since the definition of "species" remains fuzzy. Nevertheless, by most standard definitions of "species" speciation has been observed in plants in recent times -- (in some cases this has not been due to evolution, but because of man-made follies, but still).


First, the changes of viruses and bacteria to become more resistant is micro-evolution (adaptation) is not argued. But it is not speciation. All species adapt. None evolve.

Your statement that the definition of species is fuzzy is not science. There is a technical definition of species. It says that a species is one that can breed, producing offspring that can breed. In other words a zebra can breed with a zebra and procude offspring that can produce more zebras. If a zebra and an kangaroo bred and the baby survived, it could not produce offspring. This is seen in mules. They cannot breed. The donkey dad and horsey mom can, but not the cross breed offspring.

This is why adaptation versus speciation is the issue. Adaptation accounts for pigments, builds, lung capacity, etc. But a half species cannot procreate, and often cannot function. (When has a mutation ever been observed to be beneficial? How would a fish with stubby proto-legs outswim the alligator trying to eat it?)




Post subject: Re: Are the Steelers playing a church or a football team? Reply with quote
Djfan wrote:
Quote:
About science: There is one thing that underlies all science. That's the scientific method. It's all about empirical evidence, testing, and verifiable facts. The modern paradigm of thought that makes technology and therefore society go is based on it.


Can you show me one, just one, case where this method is used in the case of evolution? If not, then why is it called science and not faith?


Its science because it is not blind belief. It has a hypothesis, the hypothesis has verifiable claims, and there is evidence that many of these claims are true.

For instance, more complex animals follow less complex ones -- generally. The fossil record shows that this is the case in each epoch (between mass extinctions).

This has been put forward for decades, but not upheld in the fossil record. In one instance the good folks in the New York Museum put the fossilized horses in order by the number of ribs they had, assuming that the fewer ribbed horses were less evolved, and therefore earlier. In fact, this was not what the dating processes showed. (Aging of rocks and fossils itself is very suspect, and depends heavily on circular reasoning, but that might come later). After the recorded ages were disclosed the museum was forced (by their own integrity) to reorganize the display.

In the fossil record, highly advanced organism just show up. Stages are strangely absent. These two quotes might interest you:


"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." (Fossils and Evolution, Dr TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999)

"[There is not] enough evidence from fossil material to take theorising out of the realms of fantasy." New Scientist August 1972 p 259




You asked:

On the other hand if one claims that the diety lets these situations happen without intervening, then why do we need a diety if we have already agreed that the universe is autonomous?

The existence of a creator assumes order. If there is order, there must be out-of-order. So, His given order is our obligation to find out and follow. (BTW, this is the reason I think people really hope there is no God). Some will use their choices to not follow this order. It impacts all others involved. The creator is not responsible for the choices of those who can choose. Those who choose are.

As for the guy on the train track, I have to assume that the ant cannot understand the ways of the human he sees. I'm the ant, God is the human in that illustration. I agree that there are times I wish He would intervene but doesn't. I hope one day to understand this, but don't think it will be on this side of the grave. The very idea of a creator God means that He is far superior to what I can imagine or express. I can leave the "How comes" to Him because of this. If I could understand Him, He would have to be pretty simple or little.

BTW, SD, I got the joke. It made me laugh!

GO STEELERS!!!

bostonsteeler
02-01-2009, 01:13 AM
Man, you had me until this:



For instance, "survival of the fittest drives evolution". Your garden variety strep infection is proof of that -- it has "evolved" to be resistant to antibiotics. This doesnt mean that the strep changed, if you read it that way. It means that there were a very very tiny fraction of strep that resisted said antibiotic, and by killing all other strep, the antibiotic itself ensured that the resistant ones now dominated. Classical process of evolution.

For instance "one species may evolve into another". A hard one since the definition of "species" remains fuzzy. Nevertheless, by most standard definitions of "species" speciation has been observed in plants in recent times -- (in some cases this has not been due to evolution, but because of man-made follies, but still).


First, the changes of viruses and bacteria to become more resistant is micro-evolution (adaptation) is not argued. But it is not speciation. All species adapt. None evolve.

Your statement that the definition of species is fuzzy is not science. There is a technical definition of species. It says that a species is one that can breed, producing offspring that can breed. In other words a zebra can breed with a zebra and procude offspring that can produce more zebras. If a zebra and an kangaroo bred and the baby survived, it could not produce offspring. This is seen in mules. They cannot breed. The donkey dad and horsey mom can, but not the cross breed offspring.

This is why adaptation versus speciation is the issue. Adaptation accounts for pigments, builds, lung capacity, etc. But a half species cannot procreate, and often cannot function. (When has a mutation ever been observed to be beneficial? How would a fish with stubby proto-legs outswim the alligator trying to eat it?)


I used the strep as an example of evolution.
I mentioned plants as an example of speciation. I.e. development of new animal types that cannot breed with previous ones. There are a few examples. Various varieties of primrose and other plants (even cabbage I believe) have actually been observed to have developed in recent times that cannot interbreed with their parents.

Which brings us back to definition of "species". Its a scientific discussion that rages -- of course, any scientific argument is immediately seized by creationists as a proof of falsity of the scientific thought. Its sad.



This has been put forward for decades, but not upheld in the fossil record. In one instance the good folks in the New York Museum put the fossilized horses in order by the number of ribs they had, assuming that the fewer ribbed horses were less evolved, and therefore earlier. In fact, this was not what the dating processes showed. (Aging of rocks and fossils itself is very suspect, and depends heavily on circular reasoning, but that might come later). After the recorded ages were disclosed the museum was forced (by their own integrity) to reorganize the display.

In the fossil record, highly advanced organism just show up. Stages are strangely absent. These two quotes might interest you:

[quote:3q8saw4r]"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." (Fossils and Evolution, Dr TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999)

"[There is not] enough evidence from fossil material to take theorising out of the realms of fantasy." New Scientist August 1972 p 259

[/quote:3q8saw4r]

Does this mean that a magic person from the sky appeared periodically on the earth to add new species?

Or is the entire business of putting a date on fossils bogus -- i.e. have these things just always been lying around and we're randomly associating dates with them?



You asked:
[quote:3q8saw4r]On the other hand if one claims that the diety lets these situations happen without intervening, then why do we need a diety if we have already agreed that the universe is autonomous?

The existence of a creator assumes order. If there is order, there must be out-of-order. So, His given order is our obligation to find out and follow. (BTW, this is the reason I think people really hope there is no God). Some will use their choices to not follow this order. It impacts all others involved. The creator is not responsible for the choices of those who can choose. Those who choose are.
[/quote:3q8saw4r]

You're skipping the question. The creator is not responsible for Klebold's choice to murder his fellow students. But then the creator is apparently also not responsible for Klebold's victims, who were young, healthy, and made absolutely no choice to die that day.

So what exactly is the creator responsible for? If he is not responsible for the choices made by those who do, he then becomes equally unresponsible (is there such a word) for the consequences of the actions of these people on a lot of others who made no choice.

In otherwords, the creator has no responsibility whatsoever. So what exactly is he doing anyway? If all he did was create and let go, why bother to pray to him or whatever?



As for the guy on the train track, I have to assume that the ant cannot understand the ways of the human he sees. I'm the ant, God is the human in that illustration. I agree that there are times I wish He would intervene but doesn't. I hope one day to understand this, but don't think it will be on this side of the grave. The very idea of a creator God means that He is far superior to what I can imagine or express. I can leave the "How comes" to Him because of this. If I could understand Him, He would have to be pretty simple or little.


That's a cop out bro. To say "I believe its god's will, and I'm not smart enough to understand it" is no different from saying "it's evolution; only I'm not smart enough to really understand it", except that in the latter we are getting increasing amounts of evidence to analyze and correct our story. The latter has a way forward; the former is a dead end, corralled entirely by unshakable belief in one's own intellectual inadequacy.

Basically, one approach claims its pointless to try to understand our existence and the universe around us, because it's divinely ordained and cannot be fathomed. The other says we haven't understood it fully, but if we keep trying surely we'll understand a bit more with each passing day.

Whatever!

GO STEELERS!!! :tt2 :tt2

snarky
02-01-2009, 12:56 PM
Can you show me one, just one, case where this method is used in the case of evolution? If not, then why is it called science and not faith?


One conclusion of evolutionary theory is that humans and the other great apes all come from the same evolutionary 'parent'. But there has always been the concern of chromosome count. Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) and all of the other great apes have 48 (24 pairs). So there was a necessary hypotheses that one of the chromosome pairs in humans was the result of fusion of two chromosome pairs at some point in their own evolution.

With the advent of DNA sequencing, this hypothesis finally became testable. If the hypotheses could not be confirmed it would have represented a serious blow to evolutionary theory because man would have appeared 'out of nowhere' on the evolutionary tree.

As it turns out there is clear evidence that human chromosome two is the result of such a fusion. All chromosomes have a region of repetitive DNA near each end that checmically protects the chromosome. Human chromosome 2 has not only telomeres at each end but the genetic remnants of two telomeres in the middle.

Also, when chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q are laid end to end their banding is almost identical to the banding of human chromosome 2.

Finally, all chromosomes have a structure called a centromere which aids in aligning the chromosome pair before cell dvision. When aligning the bandings of the chimp and human chromosomes, the human centromere is in the same location as the centromere on chimp chromosome 2p.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

You also asked at one point if there were any examples of mutations having positive results/impacts. I think the best example of this would be the sickle cell mutation which provides malarial resistance to heterozygotes.


I would also like to point out here that the Darwin's ideas have held up very well over the last 150 years. When darwin proposed evolution as the origin of the species we had very little knowledge of how the body functioned. While Gregor Mendel was a contemproary of Darwin, we would not even begin to understand genetics for another fifty years. The biologicial sciences entered the modern era about a hundred years ago -- with the advent of hard technologies ranging from the microscope to spectroscopy and with the application of probability and statistics research and testing methods have improved greatly.

Comparatively, in Darwin's time humans really didn't know what the sun was. We had no concept of electrons, protons, neutrons. We had not concept of nuclear fusion or fission. And yet, what Darwin proposed has stood up very well. Our understanding of genetics and inheritance is completely consistent with the general principles laid out by Darwin, as are observations by ecologists. So running the whole gambit of biological inquiry from gene to ecosystem Darwin's ideas have withstood 150 years of research and testing (whether directly or indirectly).

That's not to say there hasn't been some modification of what was proposed. But that occurs in all sciences. That is what science is about, developing ideas, testing them, discarding the bad ones and refining the good ones.

snarky
02-01-2009, 12:59 PM
God doesn't believe in Atheists

As an atheist, I agree with this statement.

snarky
02-01-2009, 01:05 PM
You will probably never change anyone's beliefs on a message board


I would settle for people not characterizing what it is that other people believe or why they believe it.

eniparadoxgma
02-01-2009, 01:06 PM
Enip,

I hope you don't mind me addressing you this way. I like it because I can pronounce it.

I agree on the cool aspect of this conversation. My high regard for you has skyrockted, higher than Lynn Swann's highest leap.

Likewise, brother.




I don't think Occam's Razor applies here, because that point is moot once the investigation into origins is started, or claims about the truth of origins are made based on these investigative results. (Think we should just ignore the fact that some here have never heard of Occam's razor?).



I'm not sure how Occam's Razor is ever moot...or what people hearing about it has to do with the conversation. Ya kind of lost me there.


Can you show me one, just one, case where this method is used in the case of evolution? If not, then why is it called science and not faith?


Other people seem to have answered this, but I'll take my turn: The theory of evolution is a theory. However, it's a theory founded on the evidence available and founded on the basis of the scientific method. It's not a random guess or an arbitrary hypothesis. What makes you think Darwin, Dawkins, etc weren't heeding the scientific method? Again, I'm not quite sure of your point here.



I understand your lack of satisfaction with the problem of evil. That's why it's not called the momentary observation of evil. Still, to obligate a deity to be responsible for it is to remove free agency (note: not free will) from humans. This cannot be acceptable to anyone since free agency is not disputed by any rational person with even basic powers of observation.

This is incorrect. For one, many a rational person, even a lot of famous theologians and philosophers, have disputed free agency. It is not as cut and dry as you're making it. For one, the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient deity seems to be difficult to reconcile with free agency, as I previously mentioned. It's the old "Can God create a boulder so large that even he can't lift it?" paradox. If you say no, then how can God be omnipotent? If you say yes...then how can God be omnipotent?

I find it difficult to reconcile the notion of an all-powerful being with the idea that he/she can't control its own creations or subjects. Once there is something that God can't control, he/she/it is no longer omnipotent. That's just the definition of omnipotence: All-powerful. So if you're saying God has no control over human choice or free will then God is no longer all-powerful.

Also, I'm not even getting into the moral/ethical argument. It's another problem to reconcile an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God with suffering in the world.


[quote:2dv0t3m6]As to the ant analogy, I understand it fine. However, in the same way I can produce the same argument for Allah...for Loki, Thor, Santa Claus, anything really. I perhaps don't understand your point in using it...

Then I accomplished my goal. I have just made room in the argument for the existence of a deity. I am not arguing for the Christian God right now. Just focusing on the possibility of a god, any god. The point is that just because we don't understand we can't thereby claim permission to disallow. Reality is not confined to my ability to understand it.[/quote:2dv0t3m6]

I'm really not sure this is relevant.

I can make room in the argument for the existence of a polka-dotted dragon with the head of Mike Holmgren that floats around in the Crab Nebula. This walrusisaur is responsible for the creation of the universe and our galaxy and has a special interest in us humans.

Again, the crux of your point seems to be that if you're not 100% certain of something then you can't disallow it. So I would like to ask you something: Then why don't you worship the walrusisaur I mentioned? You certainly can't disallow it. Being as nothing is 100% certain and/or irrefutable then doesn't everything become equally relevant? Don't we, as humans, every day give more credence to things we're pretty sure are likely to happen than things we don't? If the weatherman says there's a 95% chance of rain tomorrow aren't you more likely to carry an umbrella than if there's a 0% chance?

That's all I see you saying here... That since there's a .00000000000001% possibility for the existence of something that we should not disallow it...but only in regards to the existence of a deity. It just doesn't seem consistent to me, nor does it respond to a lot of my points. Even if you can't deny the existence of a deity irrefutably, you can't deny the existence of much of anything irrefutably. Everything is an interconnected jumble of working hypotheses, always subject to revision.

Also, it never gets into the belief of any particular deity over any other. That's another thing I've never quite understood. Before Jesus, there were many other prophets or religious figures that were killed and resurrected. Mithra, etc. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, and both are influenced by neo-Platonism. There are miracles and supernatural events attributed to the lives of almost all religious founders: Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Laozi, etc etc. Why one religion over others?


Regards to all who read this and respect a few guys who want to talk about a topic usually interrupted and ruined by idiots. Please join in.

x2

eniparadoxgma
02-01-2009, 01:40 PM
Good points, Boston.

I don't think it's all that unsatisfactory anymore. I think it has to do with the intellectual climate in regards to religion and metaphysics. We're born and grow up thinking that if we can ask the question, there should be answers. What if this is just the thing that there are no answers for? "Why are we here/How did we get here?" IMO, just because we can ask the question it doesn't mean there is an answer. The universe/reality is and it doesn't play by our human rules in my viewpoint. We, as humans, like to see everything from our human perspective and take it to the point where we think everything should adhere to our definitions and categories...everything should fit into our paradigm. Well, from my perspective we're just one of many lifeforms on one of many planets in one of many galaxies in the smallish part of the universe that we can observe with our fallible and limited instruments.



Guys who argue religion on message boards like to use big words, pull passages from the Bible, and quote philosophers.

Usually this is the case, but it doesn't seem to be happening here. Agreed?


(None of it makes for good reading, and I would much rather see guys telling each other they are going to Hell, and the other guy saying you will be taking an eternal dirt nap because that's all there is).

You will probably never change anyone's beliefs on a message board, and if you can, I would say the guy who changed his mind didn't have very strong convictions to begin with.

You're entitled to your opinion and I can see your point. However, I enjoy these types of conversations where immediate flaming doesn't occur. It can be interesting to see the different perspectives and viewpoints of others. Believe it or not, there are actually people capable of entertaining the opinions of others without feeling the need to destroy those that conflict with their own, and can sometimes learn something or teach something. I do admit, that it is rare though.

As to your "the guy who changed his mind didn't have very strong convictions to begin with", I'd like to say a couple things.

For one, anyone that isn't open to new ideas and lets their perspective be open to future revision is doomed to stagnate. Time waits for no man and we have no way to know that the future brings. There is a hell of a difference between "not having strong convictions to begin with" and being strong and secure enough in yourself and your opinions to allow for opposing viewpoints and perhaps....just perhaps actually learn something or discover something new.

And since you love philosophers' quotes, here's a couple you might find relevant:

“We should not let ourselves be burned to death for our opinions: we are not sure enough of them for that. But perhaps for the right to have our opinions and to change them.”

and

"The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes. Likewise those spirits who are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be spirits."

:wink:


Snarky: Enjoyed your posts.

Carry on. One thing I can say is that this has helped kill some time before the big game.

STEEEEEEEEEEEELEEEEEEEERRRRRSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!1 111111111111111

:tt2 :tt2 :tt2 :tt2 :tt2 :tt2 :tt2 :tt2 :tt2 :tt2 :tt2

eniparadoxgma
02-02-2009, 08:45 PM
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2284/013009coletoonqd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Fitting thread to put this pic in, no? 8)

Djfan
02-02-2009, 08:57 PM
This has been fun Enip. You rock.

eniparadoxgma
02-03-2009, 12:50 AM
This has been fun Enip. You rock.

Feeling's mutual, mein freund. :Beer

RuthlessBurgher
02-03-2009, 01:57 PM
God doesn't believe in Atheists

Dyslexic atheists don't believe in dog.

http://filesdown.esecure.co.uk/wildlifepark/no_dogs.jpg_06032008-1358-13.jpg

Iron Shiek
02-03-2009, 02:08 PM
God doesn't believe in Atheists

Dyslexic atheists don't believe in dog.

http://filesdown.esecure.co.uk/wildlifepark/no_dogs.jpg_06032008-1358-13.jpg


And with that post...the thread is now closed! :lol: :lol: :lol: What else can be said?

Dog....ha

Discipline of Steel
02-03-2009, 03:04 PM
Last!

eniparadoxgma
02-03-2009, 03:07 PM
God doesn't believe in Atheists

Dyslexic atheists don't believe in dog.

http://filesdown.esecure.co.uk/wildlifepark/no_dogs.jpg_06032008-1358-13.jpg


And with that post...the thread is now closed! :lol: :lol: :lol: What else can be said?

Dog....ha

As an omnivorous pantheist, I realize that it's a god eat god world.