pagan?

[olllllo]

I'm being a bit disingenuous.

My point is, I don't know. My not knowing is not the basis for a social movement, a moral code to be applied to others or a political agenda.

If prostylizing ones beliefs is a central tenent, requirement or condition of ones belief system then there is bound to be conflict.

Below is a naturally caued phenomena.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8993287

 

[Desert_Sky]

PAGAN

People Against Goodness And Niceness



pop quiz, which 1980s flick did that come from?

 

[Evan!]

I never understood dogmatic athiest. Sounds like faith to me. I'm agnostic, untill I see proof either way I'm gonna ride the fence. (By proof I mean if God deposits a million dollars in my account)

What do you define as "dogmatic" atheism? To me, dogmatic atheism is the absolute belief that, regardless of evidence/proof/facts/reality, there can be no god. This, of course, is faith just as religion is. However, I've never met anyone like this. Even the most famous atheist of our time, Richard Dawkins, has stated in no uncertain terms that if he were shown proof of God's existence and it could be scientifically vetted, he'd drop atheism without reservation.

Dogmatic atheism is indeed faith, but one can say "sure, it's possible that god exists, but it's so improbable as to not be worth my time to entertain the idea", and still be an atheist. Just as I am an atheist regarding Zeus and Medusa and Allah and Neptune, I am an atheist regarding the christian god. To me, if you really want to get technical, I'm an agnostic in principle, simply because I refuse to 100% rule out the possibility of an intelligent creator. But the probability of said existence, versus the mountains of evidence supporting the evolutionary theory, is so ridiculously small that I just don't see any point in worrying about it, or even worrying about calling myself an atheist. I'm an atheist, until someone can prove me wrong. You and I are probably the same in this, I just don't have the same problems with calling myself atheistic. It's got a stigma, sure, but I'm tired of worrying about it. And yes, there is a difference between an atheist who is open to being proven wrong, and a dogmatic atheist. Unfortunately, theists often confuse the former for the latter...either accidentally or purposefully. They see their beliefs in black and white, and so everyone else must do the same. It's just unfortunate, and it's why atheism has such a stigma attached to it in this culture. Meanwhile, I have yet to meet a single atheist who, if presented with real tangible evidence of the existence of an intelligent creator, would refuse it on grounds of dogmatic certainty that god does not and cannot exist. I have yet to meet someone like this.

 

[olllllo]

PAGAN

People Against Goodness And Niceness



pop quiz, which 1980s flick did that come from?

PCU? 10chars.

 

[cweston]

It appears that, over human history, the vast majority of person and cultures have believed that there was more* than the material universe, and that the realm of the non-material was the realm of God, the sacred, etc. That doesn't make it right or prove that there is a God, but the vast majority of folks to walk the earth have experienced the world that way.

(*William James's generic term for the divine is "The More.")

Each culture has had a slightly different take on this based on all of the forces that shaped their conception of the universe and reality.

I think the biggest reason that doubt about the existence of the sacred seems to have increased in our society is that, since the enlightenment, we have had radically altered cultural views about the universe and reality, but have attempted to plug older views about the sacred into that equation.

For a kindof bizarre analogy: if all of your thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions about beer came from the realm of post-prohibition pre-micro/craft movement American commercial brewing, then homebrewing would seem like a really silly thing to do. Just go buy a 30 pack of Bud!

 

[Evan!]

If you were walking through the woods and came across a bunch of rocks that were perfectly balanced one on top another, you’d have to assume that someone stacked them there. There is just no way that it could occur randomly. The universe as we know it – and especially the plant we live on, is MUCH more balanced than a simple stack of rocks, so the logical conclusion is that it was designed to be that way.

Unfortunately, this rather simplistic "finding a watch in the woods" example (which is unfortunately overused and misstated by many creationists) is proven false by mountains of evidence in favor of the theory of evolution. I won't requote Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" for you, but you should read it for an alternative "logical" answer to your design question.

You see, our problem as a species is that we only live for, at most, 100 years, so we are unable, without really straining our minds, to realize that what seems impossible to us in our small-time-scale-oriented minds gets much more possible when the timescale stretches to tens of billions of years.

Let me offer up the best example of the divide that your "stack of rocks in the woods" example illustrates:

Imagine a hill. On one side of the hill, it's a sheer cliff to the top. The creationist walks up to the bottom of the cliff, sees someone at the top, and says "they must have had some help to get up that high." What the creationist doesn't realize is that, on the other side of the hill, it's a very gradual slope that even an infant, if given enough time, could climb on his own.

In other words, you're only seeing the end product of billions of years of random mutations being naturally selected, and so, given that our short time scale that we live in, you assume that it must be intelligently designed. But what you fail to see is that, behind that complex finished product, there are billions of years and millions of generations and mutations. Each generation was a stepping stone to the next, and the next, and the next.

Therefore, yes, if you found a stack of rocks in the woods, you'd infer that it had a designer. But what if you found out that the rocks were actually a living, reproducing thing, with something called "DNA" that carried from one generation to the next?

What the watch/stack of rocks argument fails to acknowledge is that living things are not the same as machines. A building cannot reproduce itself and carry on its DNA to another generation. A wristwatch cannot have babies who carry their traits. A stack of rocks cannot get it on with another stack of rocks and have little infant stacks of rocks who grow up and have more stacks of rocks. This is why the argument for design falls apart when you dissect it: because, in living things, we know for a fact that there is a vehicle to carry traits - called "genes" - from a living thing to its offspring. We know this. And we also know for a fact that we've had billions of years to improve and evolve with each generation, relative to our environment. Are there "gaps" in the evolutionary timeline? Of course. But if you discovered the writings of shakespeare and there were certain verses missing, would you toss them in the trash because there weren't 100% complete?

Anyway, just had to respond to the ol' stack of rocks argument.

[/rant]

 

[Desert_Sky]

PCU? 10chars.

holy sh*& my bad

people against goodness and normalcy, sorry been a while




heres a hint Sgt. Joe Friday

 

[Chairman Cheyco]

PAGAN

People Against Goodness And Niceness



pop quiz, which 1980s flick did that come from?

Dragnet with, Dan Akroyd and Tom Hanks.

It was also Goodness and Normalcy I believe.

 

[olllllo]

Does it feel libre to not have the weight of thread closure around your neck, Cheyco?

 

[user 4295]

I have been sitting here attempting to write a reasoned response with regard to my faith in my savior Jesus Christ, but then I realized, I don't have to. There is nothing any of you could say that would shake my faith, nor is there anything I could say that would influence any of you.

The fact is, you can't argue faith. If you could, and I managed to convince someone of my beliefs through the strengths of my arguments, then they would be just as easily convinced of another way of thinking by a better argument.

 

[olllllo]

I have been sitting here attempting to write a reasoned response with regard to my faith in my savior Jesus Christ, but then I realized, I don't have to. There is nothing any of you could say that would shake my faith, nor is there anything I could say that would influence any of you.

The fact is, you can't argue faith. If you could, and I managed to convince someone of my beliefs through the strengths of my arguments, then they would be just as easily convinced of another way of thinking by a better argument.

Thank you for not trying, I guess.

 

[olllllo]

John. That wasn't intended to be rude. I think you nailed the nature of faith.

 

[Nexus555]

Agnostic here. I believe everyone has the right to believe in whatever religion/philosophy they chose, however respecting other peoples idea is essential.

I have many Christian friends, agnostic friends and atheist friends. I am totally open to them and they to me. It's pretty wonderful actually. Usually on the weekend I'll be hanging out with me and my fincance (agnostic) a friend of mine who helped me brew (atheist) and my cousin (christian.) Pretty fun, and there is never an argument. Why can't we all just get a long!

Anyways have a home brew.

 

[cweston]

The fact is, you can't argue faith. If you could, and I managed to convince someone of my beliefs through the strengths of my arguments, then they would be just as easily convinced of another way of thinking by a better argument.

I guess there's some truth in that. I guess I see it a little differently: I think a lot of people have dismissed the idea of God becuase they can't accept some particular orthodoxy about God. Like tasting Hoegaarden and deciding based on that that you don't like Belgian beers. Maybe you won't like any Belgian beers, but it's quite a leap of logic based on that one interpretation of the style.

If you study church history, for example, you see that even within the Christian faith, there has always been a huge diversity of opinion about almost everything, and attitudes change over time.

 

[rdwj]

Unfortunately, this rather simplistic "finding a watch in the woods" example (which is unfortunately overused and misstated by many creationists) is proven false by mountains of evidence in favor of the theory of evolution. I won't requote Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" for you, but you should read it for an alternative "logical" answer to your design question.

You see, our problem as a species is that we only live for, at most, 100 years, so we are unable, without really straining our minds, to realize that what seems impossible to us in our small-time-scale-oriented minds gets much more possible when the timescale stretches to tens of billions of years.

Let me offer up the best example of the divide that your "stack of rocks in the woods" example illustrates:

Imagine a hill. On one side of the hill, it's a sheer cliff to the top. The creationist walks up to the bottom of the cliff, sees someone at the top, and says "they must have had some help to get up that high." What the creationist doesn't realize is that, on the other side of the hill, it's a very gradual slope that even an infant, if given enough time, could climb on his own.

In other words, you're only seeing the end product of billions of years of random mutations being naturally selected, and so, given that our short time scale that we live in, you assume that it must be intelligently designed. But what you fail to see is that, behind that complex finished product, there are billions of years and millions of generations and mutations. Each generation was a stepping stone to the next, and the next, and the next.

Therefore, yes, if you found a stack of rocks in the woods, you'd infer that it had a designer. But what if you found out that the rocks were actually a living, reproducing thing, with something called "DNA" that carried from one generation to the next?

What the watch/stack of rocks argument fails to acknowledge is that living things are not the same as machines. A building cannot reproduce itself and carry on its DNA to another generation. A wristwatch cannot have babies who carry their traits. A stack of rocks cannot get it on with another stack of rocks and have little infant stacks of rocks who grow up and have more stacks of rocks. This is why the argument for design falls apart when you dissect it: because, in living things, we know for a fact that there is a vehicle to carry traits - called "genes" - from a living thing to its offspring. We know this. And we also know for a fact that we've had billions of years to improve and evolve with each generation, relative to our environment. Are there "gaps" in the evolutionary timeline? Of course. But if you discovered the writings of shakespeare and there were certain verses missing, would you toss them in the trash because there weren't 100% complete?

Anyway, just had to respond to the ol' stack of rocks argument.

[/rant]

The problem lies in the fact that those that believe in creation don't believe that the time span you're using as the basis of your argument is accurate. There is scientific evidence that suggests a young earth as well - things like from the earth's young magnetic field, young moon evidences, population growth rates and present rates of continent erosion.

So, the millions and millions of years thing doesn't completely add up and isn't the solid bedrock of scinetific truth that you seem to think it is.

 

[Brewing Clamper]

From what I've read, the earth was actually "manufatured" to the specifications that show biz mice provided to the planet building company. Right?

 

[Nexus555]

The problem lies in the fact that those that believe in creation don't believe that the time span you're using as the basis of your argument is accurate. There is scientific evidence that suggests a young earth as well - things like from the earth's young magnetic field, young moon evidences, population growth rates and present rates of continent erosion.

So, the millions and millions of years thing doesn't completely add up and isn't the solid bedrock of scinetific truth that you seem to think it is.

If we look at the Grand Canyon, we see the remains of where the river once flowed through. Unsuprisingly, we see the river is not too far from the canyons. We see water carvings on the side of the canyon. Just using a common sensical thought we know that rivers can cut through rocks and do, but we know it takes a long time. Now while we do not have a video caption of the river 1,000,000 years ago, we can have a very fair assumption that the river did in fact carve it, hence the water etchings and the fact the river is carved in it's current place in that area.

Like other things. We look at the continents on the map. We see the puzzle shapes that they have. South American looks like it can fit perfectly into Africa, and hundreds of other examples. It's a pretty fair assessment to say that these things were once connected, and most likely took a long time to be at there present location. We at least know in the last 600 years that Colombus had to sail to get to North America.

Another thing is dinosaurs. While in China there are some drawings of dragons (all being very similar) and maybe a small reference in the bible, beyond that there is no good evidence that man witness these creatures. Obviously if they were around at the time of man, they most likely wouldn't be extinct (due to their size, we would have most likely been the prey.) Also, we'd have at least more records of their existance.

Another strange thing is finding giant shark teeth, whale bones and other marine fossils in South Dakota. In our 600 or so years on the American islands, and the native americans countless years, there are no records that show support of an ocean existing in south dakota. The fossils found are from ancient sea creatures that are found elsewhere in the ocean.

Now obviously a God could have place all these things so suspeciously around the planet (plant fossils, geographical puzzle like shapes, dinosaur fossils, etc) however according to the Christain religion, this would contradict that God is not deceitful. It would be pretty messed up if the christian God purposely placed these artifacts on the planet, just to question his existance even more.

 

[homebrewer_99]

I have been sitting here attempting to write a reasoned response with regard to my faith in my savior Jesus Christ, but then I realized, I don't have to. There is nothing any of you could say that would shake my faith, nor is there anything I could say that would influence any of you.

The fact is, you can't argue faith. If you could, and I managed to convince someone of my beliefs through the strengths of my arguments, then they would be just as easily convinced of another way of thinking by a better argument.

You are correct in what you say, but this thread isn't about converting someone, etc.

I, too, am glad there have been no arguments...

 

[rdwj]

From what I've read, the earth was actually "manufatured" to the specifications that show biz mice provided to the planet building company. Right?

Love that... what do we call it - book, radio show, movie??

 

[rdwj]

If we look at the Grand Canyon, we see the remains of where the river once flowed through. Unsuprisingly, we see the river is not too far from the canyons. We see water carvings on the side of the canyon. Just using a common sensical thought we know that rivers can cut through rocks and do, but we know it takes a long time. Now while we do not have a video caption of the river 1,000,000 years ago, we can have a very fair assumption that the river did in fact carve it, hence the water etchings and the fact the river is carved in it's current place in that area.

Other explanations might be a world wide flood with massive amounts of water cutting that rock.

Another thing is dinosaurs. While in China there are some drawings of dragons (all being very similar) and maybe a small reference in the bible, beyond that there is no good evidence that man witness these creatures. Obviously if they were around at the time of man, they most likely wouldn't be extinct (due to their size, we would have most likely been the prey.) Also, we'd have at least more records of their existance.

Dragon sightings are well documented in Englands history. Many are even recoded...

The giant reptile at Bures in Suffolk, for example, is known to us from a chronicle of the year 1405:

'Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, to the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep.'

After an unsuccessful attempt by local archers to kill the beast, due to its impenetrable hide:

'...in order to destroy him, all the country people around were summoned. But when the dragon saw that he was again to be assailed with arrows, he fled into a marsh or mere and there hid himself among the long reeds, and was no more to be seen.'

And in another excerpt:

The early Britons, have the earliest account of reptilian monsters, one of whom killed and devoured king Morvidus (Morydd) in 336 BC. We are told in the account translated for us by Geoffrey of Monmouth, that the monster 'gulped down the body of Morvidus as a big fish swallows a little one.' Geoffrey described the animal as a Belua.

Dinasaurs are also mentioned on the bible on several occasions.

Sience also agrees that they were killed off quickly - again by the flood. That's the reason we've found actual frozen specimens. They were caused by the rapid freezing of the polar caps when the water canopy about the earth collapsed (flood)

Another strange thing is finding giant shark teeth, whale bones and other marine fossils in South Dakota. In our 600 or so years on the American islands, and the native americans countless years, there are no records that show support of an ocean existing in south dakota. The fossils found are from ancient sea creatures that are found elsewhere in the ocean.

Flood? Seems to me like they could have swam there.

 

[Nexus555]

If there was a flood, I don't see how this flood would carve river shaped rocks. It would just settle on top of the existing rocks, and then evaporate/receed back into it's original position. Also if the flood caused the carving of the grand canyon, it seems that other regions highly populated with rocks would have had a similar effect.

Another thing about the flood, it's strange that the whole earth was covered in such deep water, where did this water go? Even if you melted the ice caps, you still wouldn't have enough water to cover all of the land on earth. Where did this water go? Conservation of mass and energy tells us that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Obviously this massive increase of water molecules would still be present today.

Also, those few very old and skeptical claims of reptiles doesn't justified the countless fossils found, not to mention the much different plant life that existed at the dinosaur times. What happened to all of these plants, reptiles and even dragon flies with 5 foot wingspans? Surely not ALL of the giagantic creatures and plants could of been extinct within a mere 10,000 years.

Thanks!!

 

[TxBrew]

Please don't turn this great Pagan/FSM thread into a Christian history debate. It's going to go South real quick and then it will be closed.

 

[Ize]

I agree 100% Tx.

From what I've read, the earth was actually "manufatured" to the specifications that show biz mice provided to the planet building company. Right?

Right.

There are even those that believe that long ago someone discovered the nature of the Universe and it was immediately replaced with something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

I am firmly convinced this has indeed happened.

Ize

 

[homebrewer_99]

I remember reading a story during the 1800s in the American west where people encountered what we would call a Pteradactyl today.

I always found that fascinating!

 

[Klainmeister]

Hey Cweston, thanks for the Borg quotes. I just took his final class he was teaching at Oregon State. Philosophy 411 - Jesus as a Historical Figure.

Rather amazing actually, i really enjoy his views on Christianity and other forms of the sacred. It was a shame though because coming off the high of that class i had to have a meeting with my SWMBO's father who is a preacher and reminded me why i left the church so early. Exclusion doesn't seem like a very good way to spread the word of God to me.

 

[Caplan]

I remember reading a story during the 1800s

You're not that old Bill......

 

[Nexus555]

It's all good. The thing is no matter what aspect of anything you'll have a religious side and a non religious aspect as well. Therefore arguing and debating will never lead us anywhere. At the end of the day it's what you feel is right.

And a matter of fact, even though I'm agonstic, I've read the bible and love the poetry. I also like reading about Jesus, Buddha, etc. Whether or not they are divine (well Budda definitely isn't because he told his followers not to worship him, he is not a God) , I do not know and cannot say, but I can say that they had very good ways of thinking and excellent role models for humanity. Also, if you read about Buddhism a little bit, you'd fine that Jesus and Buddha said almost the identicial way of thinking.

 

[cweston]

Hey Cweston, thanks for the Borg quotes. I just took his final class he was teaching at Oregon State. Philosophy 411 - Jesus as a Historical Figure.

Rather amazing actually, i really enjoy his views on Christianity and other forms of the sacred. It was a shame though because coming off the high of that class i had to have a meeting with my SWMBO's father who is a preacher and reminded me why i left the church so early. Exclusion doesn't seem like a very good way to spread the word of God to me.

Grim LOL.

I'm a big fan of his books--in fact, I'm leading a study group on The Heart of Christianity at my church currently.

Just remember not all churches are like your FIL's :cross:

 

[TxBrew]

It's all good. The thing is no matter what aspect of anything you'll have a religious side and a non religious aspect as well. Therefore arguing and debating will never lead us anywhere. At the end of the day it's what you feel is right.

And a matter of fact, even though I'm agonstic, I've read the bible and love the poetry. I also like reading about Jesus, Buddha, etc. Whether or not they are devine, I do not know and cannot say, but I can say that they had very good ways of thinking and excellent role models for humanity.

Religion/Spirtual threads don't have to be a debate, they can be a discussion and from other's ideas and beliefs you can have new concepts and ideas to dwell on yourself if your still open to the subject and haven't formed a wall against new thought about it.

 

[homebrewer_99]

You're not that old Bill......

It wasn't during a cattle drive...honest!!

 

[chthonik]

I call myself a pagan (rather than a witch or Wiccan because I don't really fit into either category), I just started homebrewing with my friends, and I can't wait to use some homebrew in a ritual. What could be more powerful than a delicious beer you labored over yourself?

 

[olllllo]

What could be more powerful than a delicious beer you labored over yourself?

Create a new thread, "I spawned offspring in my beer... is it ruined????"

 

[XELA]

I call myself a pagan (rather than a witch or Wiccan because I don't really fit into either category), I just started homebrewing with my friends, and I can't wait to use some homebrew in a ritual. What could be more powerful than a delicious beer you labored over yourself?

homebrew and rituals, sounds like a good mix

i think beer magic would work, like making potions.. enchanting the hops

 

[delboy]

The one thing i can't understand about modern day christianity is the inability of some to see that the bible is allegorical and NOT LITERAL, my advice, run from anyone who states that it is, cause you will most likely be in the company of a mentalist.
Who really believes that the world is just over a couple of thousand years old .
Any intelligent god fearing folks i've know accept that the world has been knocking about a good a few years and evolution does exist, but thats the way god created the earth (evolution and all) and that the book is a set of storys/parables to outline moral guidelines to the peoples of that particular age.
For the educated people of today to make that leap of understanding does not IMO undermine their faith in any way.