Ficking A. this is actually mature, respectful, mature conversation. are we still on newgrounds?
At 7/1/05 07:23 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:
The Creation movement, I assume, is the creation in 7 days, according to Genesis? While some religious folk accept it as unquestionable fact, I take it more as a metaphor.
Right on about what I mean by the Creation movement, but beyond their dogma, the important part is it's an anti-science movement aimed at swaying public sentiment away from big-bang and evolution with psuedoscientific reasoning. Very dangerous to the intellectual well-being of the lay-public.
If you take it as metaphor, and yet you still consider yourself a theist, what exactly are your literal views on creation?
I'm interested in howabouts these two types of experiments would be conducted. In order to be truly scientifically correct, would not the experiment need to occur in a state of nothingness, currently unachievable in our current universe?
okay, here's a major crux of this whole argument. A creationist asks "how do you reproduce creation? You can't start with your own blank universe can you?"
This would be a macro experiment covering every aspect of the affair, which I admit would be pretty difficult, to use a mildly ironic understatement, so the solution is to undertake micro experiments. I'm not conscious or unlazy enough to dig up and present actual examples (but i asure you they do exist and have been performed), but the general concept is to make a minor prediction based on one hypothesis ("if big bang happened, then this trend in this general field should go in this direction"...research said trend, see how well it followed the prediction.)
I know it may be hard to accept this prediction/assertion method as experiment, but it follows all the requirements of an experiment, and is used in the field when lab experiments are not feasible. These types of experiments have been used to prove the fact of evolution, and i could give general examples to drive the point home if you need.
Yes, I suppose they could. But not originally what the tampon was intended to be used for :)
while not feminist, I hold the belief that "feminine" items such as bras and tampon serve mainly as a separatist device to figuratively emasculate the feminine gender. So yeah, on that level, you could emasculate yourself by being forced to use a tampon.
Just as a human can be 'naturally' trained to have an aversion to physical pain or be 'naturally' cut out from any societal influences, the faith-based populace 'naturally' finds solace in the acknowledgement of God.
at, at, ut, hang on right there. My "naturally" is actually natural, over six million years of human evolution, and i don't remember how many years of organic evolution on the whole, life survives by the attitude i've describe and therefore it is an integral part of being alive. Your "naturally" is actually not "naturally", but about six thousand years of social conditioning. That's like saying people "naturally" buy Nike shoes and eat MacDonald's dogfoodforhumans because TV "naturally" taught them to.
:Maybe some do it for the literal "eternal" rewards (afterlife), but I interpret it as a means of living my life well.
You take a pretty liberal interpretation of your religion, which makes you a little off center of my target here.
:Even currently, I am indulging in one of life's little pleasures: alcohol. Like many things in life, it can be misused, even addicting and damaging, but it doesn't mean it's forbidden to me. The abuse of it, along with the consequential abuse to my body and possibly others, is. I would not be in an earthly bliss were I to drive home hammered one night and kill a family of four. Some things in life require more discretion than others.
I don't really know where you're going with this point other than to further relate the fact that you're drunk. Me too. Drunk=good.
I can honestly see where this comes from, and how it's affecting humanity. You're right about the existance of all those things above-mentioned.
I don't believe they truly reflect what's at the core of each of the big three's religions, however. I view my own personal religion (just faith, I guess...for lack of a better description) as a way to better understand and exercise the core values that religion offers. Basically, to be a good, honorable, happy person. If I can accomplish that much with my life, I'll have lived my "eternal bliss".
"good" and "honorable" are pretty relative terms in a pan-religion context. you could just as easily be a buddhist, an atheist, or a satanist and accomplish the same goals through different means.
Yes, this raises the argument that humanity is capable of much more than merely making it through life without aspirations to acquire something that is currently unobtainable...... like exploring the galaxy or overcoming humanity's nasty habit of wiping out huge factions of itself. But also, it may not be my personal goal to solve these dilemmas and circumstances, but it may be somebody elses. Their goal in life could be identicle to mine (be a good, honorable, happy person), and yet for them to achieve those goals, they would want to invent a form of interstellar travel or delve deeper into the human psyche to better understand how we tick. Their own drive to succeed in this way, devoid of all religion, would still be similar to my goals.
You're getting oddly specific here, and i'm having trouble tracking where this is going, but this paragraph specifically, i think i get what you mean, but it's outside our original realm of discussion.
And then, there are conflicts where I would fight for what I believe in, and what others would deem purely innocent. Who's to say where the line is drawn that shouldn't be crossed? Murder, the death sentence, an abortion, stem-cell research or celibacy? Where to draw the line is where most of the conflicts that plague mankind come from. How can you logically solve this situation? Two ways come to mind, neither of which I would support.
One way would be to not draw a line at all, but instead to weigh positive and negative consequences on a pragmatic scale. Relativism is not the evil pop religion deems it to be.