Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

Putting this in my own words, very intelligent people can be indoctrinated into religious ideas at a very young age that can last a lifetime. This is what I believe happened to me, whether I'm "very intelligent" or not. The ideas were placed in my brain at a young age, and they're still there. My religious beliefs sit in isolation from the rest of what I know because they're incompatible with the reality of observation and study.--Percy

Ive been attempting to follow along with you two...I applaud the lengthy posts, however. Addressing Percy, So many questions spring from this basic point! Is Allah the same "Father" whom Jesus prays to(communes with, internally represents, Trinitarianly IS part of, etc) If I recall correctly, jar used to argue that God was the same One for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Tangle and ringo limit this God to a character in the book, arguing that God is fiction. Faith actually has a stronger argument when declaring Allah a fake. I could see an episode of maury now! In the case of 8-year-old Jesus and Mother Mary...*opens envelope*...Joseph, you are NOT the Father!So we have two core beliefs to be challenged.
1) Was the Resurrection Real and is it relevant otherwise?
2) Was the Virgin Birth Real and does it matter?Can the mythos survive as a humanist example or is the supernatural a prerequisite?

Was creation real? Were Adam and Eve real? Was the snake real? Was the flood real? Was the parting of the Red Sea real?I don't know why religious believers bother raising these questions. There's no evidence to answer them, and for many no means of transmission of what happened. For example, if men were inspired by God to write but not told what to write then no man could know how creation occurred and it must be made up.For those who believe in God and believe that religion tells the story of God, the multiplicity of religions says that they cannot all be right. At most one is right. Most likely all are wrong. Figure out whether it's one or none. If it's one then let us know which one and why.--Percy

That is most certainly true of religious rules.But some of the rules of physics require a whole lot more than anything subjective could possible muster to be of any challenge.As for the three of you and the voices, were there mushrooms on the pizza?You know I'm going to say there has to be a rational natural non-spooky answer to that. But you say you lived it so I cannot challenge that except to say there was something in this scenario that you missed.

Well, you ain't no dim bulb. Just look around at your creation here. You're not alone. Most of us still battle the worm.

I do know the difference between proof and evidence. The Gospels are evidence as in any book that is written as being non-fiction. The historical context of the NT also adds context and it is evidence. You are free to reject the evidence but to say it isn't evidence is nonsense.What is in other religious texts is immaterial. I've gone through them and parts of them I agree with, and parts I don't, just as in the Bible. It isn't simply picking out what I like, but it is discerning what I believe to be accurate by the life and message of Jesus. Everyone including you do the same thing even from a deistic or atheistic POV. One thing that different religions agree on is The Golden Rule As you can see in that chart it is fundamental to pretty much every religion. Also, as you can see in the Christian quote it is fundamental to all the law and the prophets, as well as being consistent with my signature which is an OT quote. That is actually the most important thing for religions to agree on, and they do, whether or not their adherents live by it or not. Without the resurrection Jesus was a failed messiah who had been tortured, executed and humiliated. There was no reason or motivation to carry on with the movement. The resurrection changed all of that. However, if you know that the resurrection of Jesus was an impossibility then any explanation, regardless of how far fetched is preferable. I can see where Paul would want to do that as it meant he could live a nice comfortable life mostly being imprisoned and in all probability ultimately being executed.Paul was essentially the first theologian who worked at sorting out just what Jesus' life and message meant to our lives. Look Percy to me it's a discussion. You are just as determined to show that my beliefs are irrational. You seem pretty desperate and determined to convince me and others that I'm wrong. If you want to end the discussion I'm more than happy to comply. Yes, the rise of any religion is evidence and to evaluate the evidence you can look at how it has evolved, and also examine the evidence in light of the historical context in which it evolved. If anyone is interested enough to do that then they can draw their own subjective conclusions. Actually I showed you earlier that the Golden Rule is held in common by virtually all current religions. Certainly humans have disregarded it, but it is still a consistent fundamental belief. I don't think that they were any more astute, or less so for that matter, than they are today. I accept the miraculous as being possible. I don't reject the possibility of miracles that aren't recorded in the Bible. As I believe that at least some of the miraculous accounts in the Bible actually happened I would have no reason to believe that they are the only miracles possible. Frankly, it isn't an issue that concerns me. I have actually done considerable reading on the subject and I am firmly convinced that they saw themselves sitting on Jesus' right and left, in power in Jerusalem. The Kingdom message is that God was establishing His Kingdom, (again as in Daniel 7), in the present and that it is a Kingdom stretching into the next life. It is also consistent with the whole Gospel message. The Jews had the belief that at some point Yahweh would return and lead them as in the Exodus. They were unsure as to how that would look and they had their plans and schemes to do what they could to bring it about. The most obvious answer was the belief of the Pharisees that if they. (pardon the expression), religiously followed all of the laws, that would do the trick. There was also the belief that came from the latter prophets that there would be a man, anointed by God, who would come and lead them against their enemies.Jesus tied these two themes together and viewed that it was His God given vocation to embody both of these themes. He was to be the hoped for messiah as well as embodying Yahweh's return to His people.I don't see the central theme as being about saving souls. The central theme is to establish the Kingdom of all nations of those who followed His message of love, peace, forgiveness etc. A byproduct of that is that when humans take that message into their hearts they are in communion with God, however that plays out in the life beyond this one. How about that, we agree on something. No, it is about believing the evidence or not believing it. I stand by my quoted statement, however I will add that in the resurrection of Jesus is confirmation that God is a god of love, peace and harmony among all nations, and that the notion of a vindictive military style deity, is false.

Hmmm...Interesting. Some how though you seem quite happy to believe that out of who knows what we have within one second from an infinitely small singularity a massive, maybe even infinite universe that by this time was made up of assorted basic particles which themselves were, at least so it appears, dimensionless. Over hundred of thousands of years these particles through who knows how many processes combined to form atoms.Ultimately these atoms combined and formed compounds, were drawn together by gravity, wherever that came from, to form suns and then planets and so on. Then somehow out of these atoms incredibly complex cellular structures formed and gradually formed living material such as plants and then evolved into humans. Somewhere in that evolutionary process we wound up with creatures that had consciousness with an understanding of self and eventually to an understanding that other selves mattered. There is the anthropic principle. The universe has to be very precisely the way it is to support life. The atheist has to believe that this all happened by chance and/or good fortune.I would not be able to come even close to coming up with enough faith to believe that. I have no problem with the history of the universe as explained by modern physics but I do have a massive problem with the idea that out of mindless particles we have sentient life with a concept of morality all driven by endless unguided mindless processes.Frankly I think it takes more than a bang on the head to believe that.As a side note I find the concept of Dawkin's memes interesting. I find it very compatible with the Christian concept of spreading God's love to all. People are impacted when they experience the sacrificial love of others. The hope is that ultimately that meme of sacrificial love will be spread to all and that we will all be one tribe. My point is simply that things for which we have empirical evidence such as entanglement , cells popping in and out of existence etc, are every bit as strange as the idea of resurrection. Energy however is dimensionless, and if that is what everything is made up of then things again aren't at all what they appear. Well, that is assumption, not knowledge. I have been interested in the ideas of Penrose and others who suggest that consciousness is basic to our perception of all that is. I think that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle plays into this. Yes it is speculation but it seems that there is considerable speculation around the issue. In one of my issues of Scientific American it has this headline. "Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter -- An entire universe may be interwoven silently with our own". If we only perceive 4.5% of what exists who knows what else there is about our existence that we don't perceive. Hopefully science will be able to come up with some of the answers but that isn't likely to happen in my life time.

There! You got it!If we can stop right there we can agree and we can then close up EvC and go watch cat videos.Not gonna happen, is it.That's ok. I'm not enthralled with cat videos anyway.We've mentioned Heisenberg in several places now and we both know what it says. But, do you understand why the uncertainty principle says what it says? Do you understand why this thing is seen not as just an annoying little theory but a hard and fast impediment to complete knowledge built into the very fabric of spacetime itself?Do you understand why our theories tell us all this stuff you mentioned above are considerably more than just possible or probable or likely? No belief. None. What do our models tell us and at what confidence level. Set belief aside. Only the facts as revealed to us by the models.Do we need to get into why we have a high level of confidence in models that have never lied to us before? I hope not. I don't want to go down that hole again. Please understand that this singularity word is code for "we've no freaking idea what this thing is". From there you got it right. From this thing we can't understand sprang the whole of the universe, maybe infinite in extent, maybe not, with particles that are easy to understand and manipulate in the math of our models as point particles the true extent of which we still don't completely understand because our technology hasn't taken us there, yet. Not sure I understand "through who knows how many processes". Lots of the really smart people know precisely how many of what processes were needed to accomplish this feat. I know because I read their work and their peers works and having a good comfort level that these folks know their stuff I have thrown it all out because I really don't care how it all happened in excruciating detail anymore, just that it did happen more or less how the smart guys say it did and we have the results. From the effects of matter on spacetime. GR, the curving of spacetime. To our present best understanding, that is what gravity is.I won't quibble about 'formed compounds' since, eventually, the suns that did form and blew up, as in BANG, I mean really BIG BANGS (no, not that one, the one that stars do when they die) like hypernova and bigger, eventually they formed all the rest of the periodic table so that compounds, mostly organic compounds, could be formed.[aside] This universe seems to have a thing for organic compounds since that is what we see most out there in the way of complex molecules floating around all over the cosmos in huge hoards. Like the Mongols coming down off the stepps to plunder and pillage their way across the sky. Or not. I am rather partial to the RNA World hypothesis, myself. It allows, as do most of our present abiogenesis models, for something quite simpler than an incredibly complex cellular structure to happen way sooner than you indicate. Maybe millions++ years before anything that looked anything even close to a most simple pre-proto-cell let alone something "incredibly complex".But, ya, from simple replicators to complex cells in under 200 million years, then maybe a couple billion more years to go from single cell to multi-cell structures (thank you mitochondria) and a couple billion more years to get to Uncle Ugger who kept falling out of his tree then to Uncle Edger who kept falling out of his car. Yup, we got that. And all it took was chemistry. Ok, maybe some empathy that grew stronger in the population as those without so much died out from being too damn ornery to live with, but that's advanced chemistry. Yes, there is. And all that says is if it wasn't this way we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Not really all that helpful, actually, but, hey, if you like it, go with it. Again, no belief. The universe took on the values in the physical constants and the constituents of the stuff that got here by some (as yet) unknown processes. This atheist doubts very much that chance or good fortune had anything to do with it. We may find out some time in the far, far, far future that the universe had no other options. We don't know. Nobody does.Now we as humans up from the muck down from the trees, ya, lots of chance, lots of luck. I think it was Stephen Jay Gould who said (and I do not quote), "If we wind the clock back far enough and let evolution run its course anew humans would probably not be in the picture today." Ya, I know. Let go the faith, let go the need for belief as a crutch to understanding and just follow the facts, the evidence. Let them take you on a stroll down the Sandwalk. The Sandwalk, btw, was a pathway Darwin trekked daily for exercising both body and brain. Well that is what the universe is telling us. Can't alter that. She says what she says. When I was a pre-teen many moons ago my brother hit me in the head with a 2X4. That's the excuse I give for having this big bald spot in the middle of my scalp. Lose the religious overtones and we have agreement. Is it? Like the other particles in the box the photon and the gluon , both spin 1 particles (bosons: energy or force carriers), are treated in the math as point particles. So are the electron and the quarks which, I presume, you would call real stuff since they have mass. In that sense everything in the Standard Model is dimensionless and you and I are not really here.I can almost assure you that I may or may not be here regardless of all my constituent parts being mathematically treated as zero-dimensional point-particles. That's a deep one. I can't address this at the moment. I've been here far too long already. Maybe later. But don't forget the micro-tubules he seems to like so much as a consciousness bridge. That's his key. That has nothing to do with extra dimensions. That is the speculation that since we cannot see, feel, interact with what we are calling dark matter then there just may be entire bodies of the stuff, unseen to us, floating around in our universe forming (loosely) stars, planets, galaxies and like that right along with the stuff we can see.I wouldn't say it's rubbish but until there is some evidence then it is rubbish.Have a good evening, GDR.Edited by AZPaul3, : Ok. I gotta stop this. Enough already.

Yes, I agree that there is empirical evidence for all those things. The point is that it all reeks of having an intelligent root cause.Just take evolution on its own. It is an incredible process that not only has brought about an incredible variety of forms of life, but forms of life involved in creating new life. Does this really sound like a process from mindlessness?As I said, I can't muster up enough faith to believe that.

Good News! You don't need faith, that's what evidence is for.

Well we know the process is mindless because we can see it working and know how it works. We can see how unguided the process is by looking at what it produced and how many times it resulted in extinctions. Maybe god intended dinosaurs as his final product but messed up with the comet? Maybe H.sapiens is just another disposable organism on its way to extinction while god's real hope is yet to come?But your real problem is squaring the mechanism of evolution - a blind thug of a process, requiring death, disease, competition between species and life made possible only by consuming other life - with Jesus' message of love and redemption.It seems to me that it's your god that requires redemption for creating such a vile process in the first place. At least in Faith's story man's fall has human choice, in the real world it's your god that fell from grace by torturing his creation and requiring the created to worship its torturer in order for the torture to stop. If we do not, the torture will get infinitely worse..Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

These other folks have answered quite well so all I can add is ... ya it does. You think your god has miracles? Amazing what chemistry can do on its own in 4 billion years.

...and just why does that chemistry exist? Why do all these natural processes exist? Is it all blind chance or is there an intelligent root cause?

Then why did you keep saying proof where you meant evidence? Who says the gospels are non-fiction? A Tale of Two Cities is also evidence of some things, and it is fiction. Depends upon what part of the NT you're talking about. You know what parts I mean when I say the NT isn't evidence. It's just standard religious myth. All religious texts are bunk, including the Bible, but because the Bible is your baby you just can't see it. There's the cafeteria Anglican again. Most of what you believe has nothing to do with Anglicanism. You're an apologist, not for your own religion but for your flawed methods that have produced your unique concoction. You don't even have a "But my religion is the one, right and true religion" message, but instead a "What I've picked out of various religious texts is the one, right and true religion." On the contrary, it's exactly picking out what you like. This is almost nonsense and is certainly circular. You're using the life and message of Jesus to decide what is true in the NT about the life and message of Jesus. Please, don't be insulting. The evidence driven process I use bears no resemblance to what you're doing. Why didn't you just post the image: It's also true of people in general. I've felt it from inside all my life, and I think this is true of most people. It isn't something anyone has to teach, though hearing it succinctly expressed is helpful. Fundamental to all the law? You mean like these:

• You shall have no other Gods but me.
• You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
• You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
• You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.

You make overly broad claims a lot. The Golden Rule does not belong to religion - it's a human thing. Most people feel it from within, religious or not. You've lost the plot. It was you who failed to mention the resurrection, not me. You mentioned only the crucifixion, and I reminded you about the resurrection. It makes no sense for you to lecture me that the resurrection is a key component of the Jesus myth in response to my reminder to you that the resurrection is a key component of the Jesus myth. Gee, I guess he didn't see it coming. Paul was the theologian who crafted the Jesus story, probably based upon an existing myth invented by the followers of Peter. It's a discussion to both of us, but if you really believe that each of us makes up our own minds (which is what you had said that I was responding to - I quoted it) then why do you care so much that I've made up my own mind differently from you? Well, of course. As a rationalist I oppose irrationality wherever it shows itself. Naturally I have no objection to admitted irrationality (consistent with how I characterize my own religious beliefs), but I do object to irrationality masquerading as rationality. You think you're being rational because you're judging which parts of the Bible are true and which are not. You think you're capturing the wheat and letting the chaff blow away, but none of your choices are underpinned by actual evidence. They're underpinned by what you've decided to call evidence despite that it has no such quality, and you make special pleadings like, "The Jesus story of crucifixion and resurrection must be true because what else could possibly explain the behavior of the apostles?" My expression of perplexity at why you were continuing a discussion about the underpinning of religious belief where you say we all make up our own minds about religion was not any indication about my own feelings about whether the discussion should continue. I oppose irrationality, and obviously I still see a great deal of irrationality in your posts, so by what strange logic would you conclude I might want to end the discussion? "Subjective conclusions?" That's the first time I think I've seen you say that...let me check. Well, way back in Message 419 you did say that "subjective reasoning and intuition are a big part of our conclusions." If you understand that your conclusions are subjective, why are you arguing that they're underpinned by objective evidence? It is part of human nature. Of course principles like it or close to it are part of many human-contrived religions. If you think the people of 2000 years ago were as gullible as the people of today, why do you accept their judgments about miracles? Based upon what objective evidence? You aren't very explicit here. By "miracles that aren't recorded in the Bible" are you referring to miracles described in the scriptures of other religions? I'll await clarification before commenting. Of course it doesn't concern you. Confirmation bias directs your attention away from thinking about the impossibility of miracles and the likelihood of their fabrication and toward things that are more likely to confirm what you already believe. But you're firmly convinced of lots of things that make no sense and are completely unsupported by objective evidence. Why do you think telling me that you're firmly convinced about this would carry any weight? Again, why do you think Zebedee's wife's request isn't about the kingdom of heaven? This is just wishful thinking. The whole gospel (lowercase) message is God's kingdom in heaven. And Jesus had a different message. You're still confusing the Jewish and Christian concepts of messiahship. Jesus was ministering to Jews who had the Jewish concept, and he gave them the Christian concept. You're still trying to perpetuate this gospel misconstrual that Jesus's followers didn't understand his message until after his death. Chapter and verse. Where in the NT does Jesus say he (or anyone) would lead them against their enemies. Let me guess that you're again going to cite verses that clearly don't say what you claim they say. This is a more accurate statement of the message of the gospels than you've given so far, though it still has problems. Salvation is most certainly about saving souls, and salvation is a central theme of the gospels. It isn't a kingdom (lowercase) of all nations but a kingdom of God in heaven. The rest of what you say is fine. Imagine my surprise, since I've said the same thing many times only to have you dispute it, for example in Message 1000 where you said, "Here was Jesus back again and they still thought that now was the time He would 'restore the Kingdom to Israel'. This meant getting the Romans out and having a Jewish theocracy established presumably by military means but they may well have thought that Jesus had something else in mind. However it still would have meant getting rid of the Romans." Actual objective evidence yields no quarter about believing it. Only the unevidenced gives you the option of believing or not. Your added explanation adds nothing to your point, and merely standing by your quoted statement just reeks nolo contendere. Again, if all religions are actually about the same God, then of what possible difference could a resurrection (that is part of only one of the religions) make?--Percy

GDR asks: You have heard about multiverses, yes? Imagine gazillions of them arising every planck time with all kinds of different atomic/subatomic constants. Most will vanish instantly, some will last a while longer and some will last billions of years. The Evolutionary Cosmology, sort of an offshoot of the Anthropomorphic Principle, would argue that we just happen to be in one that has these constants that we observe that create this chemistry.