Hawking his theory

[thestoat]

If you're allowed to re-interpret the work of science then I guess anything goes...

But scientists do this on the basis of new evidence. That is a huge difference. There is no evidence for religion. 1 book is all religion has.

[loCAtek]

n light of no evidence of 'life from death', my mind remains unchanged.

Lo - why do you need evidence of "life from death" to realise atheism is correct, but are happy to believe in god with no evidence?

The evidence of life is all around me, the evidence of my soul is me; life inherently contains spirituality ...or else we wouldn't be self-aware but mechanical automatons.

[loCAtek]

Rebuttal, I recommend the book;

No, I haven't talked about how quickly products reach us. I am talking about how fast technology is advancing. Period.

Once again I recommend the book. Excerpt;

High tech Myth #3 important New Products Arrive Ever Faster

...

The Census bureau confirms that the number of new products intodcued in the United States went up three to four times from 1980 to 1997 for the categories of food, beverages and health and beauty. A sign of increased innovation? Not really --most were simply new formulations, new marketing positioning, or new packaging. Only a tiny fraction was new because of new technology. The per capita rate of patent introduction may actually be dropping. We are seeing a burst of marketing enthusiasm, not of technological innovation. Of the top twenty-five brands of the 1920's (Kodak, Coca Cola, Campbell's, and so on), nineteen were still number one in their category sixty years later. New consumer products, unfortunately, are too often like weak movie sequels.

read more

[Gob]

"Products" are salable commodities Lo, not technological advances. You're mixing yourself up again.

[loCAtek]

If you're allowed to re-interpret the work of science then I guess anything goes...

But scientists do this on the basis of new evidence. That is a huge difference. There is no evidence for religion. 1 book is all religion has.

What? <blink-blink> what?

I assume you're referring to the King James version of the Bible, which by it's title implies there are other versions, meaning more than one.

However, to extrapolate there is more scripture than the Christian Bible(s);

Muslim - Koran, et al

Hindu - Bhagavad Gita, et al

Judaism - Torah, et al

Egyptian - Book of the Dead, et al

Meso Americans - Codexs, et al

And too many more to mention.


It's been said cave drawings of the Neanderthals were prayers or thanks to the gods.



One? LOL

People are writing spiritual texts every day, by virtue this very thread is a spiritual text.

Other than the written word, there's been said, "Look for God in the eyes of the next person you meet."

-namaste

[Sean]

Other than the written word, there's been said, "Look for God in the eyes of the next person you meet."

Just tried that. All I saw was the person I was looking at.

I think it's also worth pointing out that the Koran, Torah and Bibles are all just rehashings of the ancient Egyptian and Pagan belief systems. A good example of this can be found by looking up comparisons between Jesus and Horus.

[Crackpot]

there's similarites between Hitler and shiva. Your point?

[Crackpot]

Claiming religion/spirituality is static is a myth.

Religion stems mainly from one two thousand year old book - no more inputs since. Sounds pretty static to me. Unless you count re-interpretations of said book, but if you are allowed to continuously re-interpret the word of god then I guess anything goes ...

Now you're confusing philosophy and science. At least creationists operate on a pseudo science level.

And since when does age have to deal anything with philosophical truth? Does this mean Islam trumps christianity? it's texts date ~1300 years ago what about Mormanism? (~150) According to you Scientology trumps them all with Dianetics being published only 60 years ago. Not to mention what that does to Plato, Aristotle and Socrates who predate them all.

seriously you can't prove your point by making creationists look scholarly.

[Sean]

there's similarites between Hitler and shiva. Your point?

My point being that although these religious books are different they all draw from the same sources.

Edited to add...

When I gave the examples of Jesus and Horus I wasn't referring to similarities between the two but common elements in their stories, backgrounds etc. There is plenty of evidence out there to suggest that what was written about Jesus was a re-telling of the much older story of Horus.

[Crackpot]

Are you confusing the Judeo-Christian God with Jesus? Divinity or not Jesus likely existed.

[Crackpot]

You want an eerie Jesus similarity look at Baldur.

[Sean]

Sorry CP, I didn't see your replies before I edited...

Jesus did likely exist as a preacher but many of the deeds and stories surrounding him are drawn from elsewhere.
The whole Jesus, Mary, God virgin birth thing was already told with Horus, Isis and Osiris for example.

[thestoat]

We are seeing a burst of marketing enthusiasm, not of technological innovation

That may well be - people often pick the easiest route to wealth. But again, that does not dispute what I said. What we SEE and what is HAPPENING are two different things. We may be SEEing a burst of marketing enthusiasm, but the technological advances are still there - and huge. Lo - don't rely on a single book for your knowledge. There are other books out there

It's been said cave drawings of the Neanderthals were prayers or thanks to the gods.

So you go looking at cave paintings for your inspiration? I have known many christians, but none of them referred to cave paintings, or the koran or any of the other texts. They used the bible. So yes, one. Ok - maybe there are different versions of the bible. But what does that mean? Different versions of the word of god? Ha! Which do you choose? Did he have a single message or lots of different ones depending on whose version of the bible you read?

And as for the other texts you mentioned, they all have similar origins of stories, all stolen from various pagan gods that were around a long time before christianity. Scientists draw inspiration from new evidence that is verifiable (based on the observations of others) and draw new conclusions from that. Imagine if scientists were stuck with a single text from 2000 years ago. We'd still think there were 4 elements and that the earth was flat.

"Look for God in the eyes of the next person you meet."

That is such a woolly statement. You could just as easily substitute "the weather forecast" in place of "God".

seriously you can't prove your point by making creationists look scholarly

Absolutely Crackpot - I'd never do that I met some a while ago and am still completely stunned by their gross stupidity. My point is that drawing on a single text that refers to non verifiable (and in my mind delusional) anecdotes does not, to me, represent a solid foundation on which to base your life. There is very strong evidence most of the stories were stolen from other religions anyway, dates of events massaged to suit local populations, etc. Actually, a creationist, technically, is scholarly, in the same way as someone who knows pixie law is scholarly

And since when does age have to deal anything with philosophical truth

You're right - it doesn't

[Big RR]

I have known many christians, but none of them referred to cave paintings, or the koran or any of the other texts. They used the bible. So yes, one. Ok - maybe there are different versions of the bible.

Stoat--just as there are many versions of the bible, and many spiritually inspired texts, there are many different chridtians. Christianity is one path to spiritual enlightenment, and many religious (christian or not) people will admit (some reluctantly so) that there are others. It's a path built on individual understandings, and not group behavior as some others are. Indeed, in enhancing one's understanding of the nature of the divine, most people, inlcuidning christians, will consult multiple texts. Don't confuse true chrsitinity, with the business of salvation/condemnation for profit/power doled out by ome who claim to be following the path; christinity is based on love and forgiveness, not hate and cndmenation, and the pursuit of knowledge, not ignorance.

[thestoat]

most people, inlcuidning christians, will consult multiple texts

I'm genuinely curious as to which texts. The christians I have known simply spout the bible without any real thought. Which texts exist? Since there hasn't been a "vision" for a couple of thousand years there surely can't be any new information?

christinity is based on love and forgiveness, not hate and cndmenation,

I guess I can't disagree with that - though I have known some very unforgiving christians.

and the pursuit of knowledge, not ignorance.

I don't agree with that. If christians were after the "pursuit of knowledge" they would surely all by very, very worried that there really is no god, having had no actual evidence of his existence. Surely "faith" means the "pursuit of knowledge" is not required.

[Big RR]

Faith is not an invitation to mental vacuousness, but the beginning toward understanding. True, the nature of god cannot be understood scientifically, but that does not mean one shouldn't try to understand and know god better. And the texts of many religions, from the various OT and NT books of the bible to the koran, to the writings of scholars of other religions are all ways to approach this understanding. True, there are many who call themselves christians who choose to parrot biblical verses and leave it at that, but read the writings of older scholars like Thomas Aquinas, or look at the stories of Lewis to get an idea of sifferent approaches. Christianity is not an end unto itself but a path to enlightenment, and that requires pursuit of knowledge and individual understanding.

[thestoat]

But knowledge is "acquaintance with facts". And there are surely no facts associated with god - imho. I understand many, through the ages, have tried to understand their god better, but that in itself doesn't make god exist (except maybe in their heads). When I "pursue knowledge", I look at all available resources (well, ok, in an ideal world I would - time permitting ) and base my understanding on all those inputs. There is a huge body of evidence that suggests god is not required for so many things that have been attributed to him - surely the pursuit of knowledge would turn the pursuee atheist? Or at least have them look strongly at that path?

[Big RR]

There are sceintific pursuits, and there are philosphical ones--among the latter are the pursuit of spiritual truths. In them, the "facts", being things scientifically demonstrable, are few and far between, but the inquiries are still there.

As for god not being required for the things attributed to him, I agree this is the case. But just because god does not cause the sun to orbit the earth (as was once thought) is no reason to presume god doesn't exist. I recalll learning in physics early on about centripetal force--a separate force that pushed an orbiting body into the center of the orbit (and countered centrifugl force); it turned out to be a misunderstanding (and really gravity or another force, not a separate one)and not to exist. But this error in understanding is not a reason to assume centrifugal force, or forces in general, does/do not exist.

[thestoat]

but the inquiries are still there

Inquiries into philosphical truths I can relate to.

But just because god does not cause the sun to orbit the earth (as was once thought) is no reason to presume god doesn't exist

No, indeed. But my point is that it is also no reason to presume god does exist. So much has already been explained without needing his intervention, and as science progresses, more will be explained. The situation has been referred to as "god of the gaps", and those gaps are getting smaller. Life is one of the big things that science cannot adequately explain (at the moment). My feeling is that because science cannot currently explain something, that doesn't mean god gets the credit

[loCAtek]

So, stoat you're taking science on faith then.