Predatory Subprime Pioneer, Still On Obama Team

[Bandit]

I don't claim to know exactly what God is. Mabey he is the energy mass, mabey he is the creator of the energy mass. But no one has answered yet, where that "gigantic mass of energy that exploded and condensed into all matter" came from.

that is awesome & honest post. that is more the way I see it without making any absolute dogma but leaving room for both answers & error.

I already said, the mass, the explosion, the energy, the god, the atom is all the same thing.


what are your thoughts on the single atom theory & the universe expanding?

[JollyGG]

As I look back on my last post I want to make one thing clear. In different post I speak of the beliefs my religion (The Roman Catholic Church) believes. In other posts I speak of my personal beliefs (intelligent design, the origins of the universe).

They are not one and the same. As I mentioned I don't believe that every answer in life is "either, or" I believe that I can be a complex person searching for answers to a variety of questions in life and that all of those answers don't have to come from one source.

I fully and completely believe in my faith. I find that my religion give me a path to connect to my god, it gives me a platform to teach my children values, it give me a sense of community, access to the wisdom of those wiser and more learned than me, it gives me a sense of peace and comfort to perform the same rites I have as a child, it connects me to god, it connects me to people all over the world who believe the same fundamental truths I do. It connects me to my past (parents, grandparents, on back), it connects me to my future, it connects me to my children's future. It allows we to join a community of believers, it allows me to unburden my soul to others, it allows me to express my love and appreciation for the lord, it allows me access to a beautiful history of faith. It allows me to build an understanding of God not possible in any one person's lifetime. I believe in the teaching of the Catholic Church and what it stand for.

My beliefs in the creation of man, the world and the universe are still forming (as I said the jury is still out on evolution). However, while none of the beliefs I have mentioned are contrary to the church I want other's to understand that they are not endorsed by the church either.

I mentioned someone else having some serious miscomprehensions about my religion. I believe that that is in part because people like me don't always make it clear where their church's doctrine ends and their personal beliefs begin. So I wanted to make that distinction clear. I will try to refer to my church when I mention church teachings and only to myself when I mention personally held beliefs.

[WhatMoney]

Asking where the original energy or dense ball of mass (giant black hole?), floating in infinite empty space originally came from, before it exploded in the "Big Bang", is a not a question that can ever be answered. It is a philosophical question with no answer. That does not make it a religious question - you think God had the universe in his shirt pocket, stuck a fuse in it, and blew it up creating the billions and billions of stars we share? That was some cherry bomb. Hope God didn't get his fingers blown off. Now if God was the dense ball of mass, then natural processes caused him to explode (these we understand), and he had no control over it. He's pretty much widely dispersed by now - and seems to have a problem keeping it together.

You're not sure about evolution? And you are a scientist? The earth is pretty darned old, as this timeline shows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

It took a very very long time for any life to form at all on earth, and another very very long time for life to become anything but bacteria and algae. You are apparently concerned about the relatively fast development of life forms in the last 500 Million years, the Cambrian era. But the geological fossil record shows evolution to be orderly most of the time. Many events can occur to modify DNA once life has started. The scope of evolution does not require an intelligent designer. Although who knows whether the Martians migrated here and jump started us all? We are looking for ancient signs of life on Mars right now. So far, just frozen water though.

I am also a scientist - degrees in engineering and physics (PhD), and have done research in nuclear physics, those subatomic particles in the nucleas of all atoms, among many other things. Nothing but elegant rules so far to explain the interactions. We really do have a good understanding of matter and it's interactions here in physics. Obviously the biological sciences are behind the physical sciences, but it will catch up.

Look at that U-tube link I provided. Francis Crick was trying to find the religion gene in human DNA, that gives humans the natural propensity to invent religions in their brain and then blindly follow them. Once we can isolate and correct these DNA religion chains we can start curing those religious fundamentalists. Science is wonderful!

And why do animals not seem to require religion? Could it be that they have learned to live peacefully without destroying each other? Is the religion DNA gene an evolutionary adaptation in humans so we all don't kill each other? If so, it's been a mild failure.

[Bandit]

oh man...this is the best thread ever

from obama, cheating lenders, to god, to religion to evolution.

maybe we should ask obama what the obamicism answer is.
after all he is the topic of attack & candidate worship.
i mean he claims christian though viewed by muslims as a muslim due to fathers lineage...which could require a head chopping if a head honcho finds out he denies the allah god for the son of a god.

messy.

so what does Oba say?

[Bandit]

I am also a scientist - degrees in engineering and physics (PhD), and have done research in nuclear physics, those subatomic particles in the nucleas of all atoms, among many other things. Nothing but elegant rules so far to explain the interactions. We really do have a good understanding of matter and it's interactions here in physics. Obviously the biological sciences are behind the physical sciences, but it will catch up.

And why do animals not seem to require religion? Could it be that they have learned to live peacefully without destroying each other? Is the religion DNA gene an evolutionary adaptation in humans so we all don't kill each other? If so, it's been a mild failure.

so how do the atoms actually stick together, the binding agent? there seems to be none as in, it just is.

& yes the animals do not seem to need religion but maybe some of them do have a religion, we just dont know.

i hope we dont evolve back to cannibalism. yummy!

[JollyGG]

WhatMoney we will just have to agree to disagree.

I haven't once said that I think you should belive in God. I just think that Science is a poor substitue or excuse.

If logic and reason and your own gut tells you that there is nothing more. Well fine.

However, since I never told you that you had to belive my beliefs. You don't need to disprove the existance of God any more than I need to prove the existance of God to you.

I just don't belive that science is either a reason or a substitue for a belief in God. I also don't belive that God and Science have to be mutually exclusive.

[epiphany]

I prefer not knowing. I don't know if there is a God or if there isn't. I tend to doubt it but would like to be wrong.

However, I do prefer not believing in a God who is going to punish me later on down the road because I am not 100 percent sure that he/she exists.

I don't get organized religion on any level in any denomination. And I don't get the arguments. Seriously, and this will probably piss the more religious of you off, but no one can prove anything (sorry, but any documentation we have was written far after any facts, and can't be trusted).

I just don't get the belief wars because I don't think anyone is right or wrong. I don't think we know what is right or wrong. And it shouldn't matter or get anyone all worked up because someone else believes differently than they do.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but there should be no personal stake on winning such an argument. God should tell you that, if he/she exists.

This has been a very interesting thread due to the sheer emotional nature of it.

ep

[WhatMoney]

WhatMoney we will just have to agree to disagree.

I haven't once said that I think you should belive in God. I just think that Science is a poor substitue or excuse.

If you recall, you asked me some rather general questions about the origin of life and evolution, and then said as a scientist you had your doubts about these theories.

I then replied to your questions with the generally scientifically accepted view of these subjects, which I see you do not agree with. You are free to disagree with mainstream science if you find religious explanations more suitable. Religion is generally reserved for those questions which cannot be conclusively proven: Why are we here? How did we get here? What happens when I die? Is there a God? What does he look like? Is my religion truer than your religion? The religious answers are often simple and childish in nature, and require no proof, only faith. They provide comfort to those that need an easy answer. Hence religion is here to stay.

Science requires proof by repeated scientific experiments and observation. Anything else is just opinion and unproven theories.

[Bandit]

I prefer not knowing. I don't know if there is a God or if there isn't. I tend to doubt it but would like to be wrong.

However, I do prefer not believing in a God who is going to punish me later on down the road because I am not 100 percent sure that he/she exists.

I don't get organized religion on any level in any denomination. And I don't get the arguments. Seriously, and this will probably piss the more religious of you off, but no one can prove anything (sorry, but any documentation we have was written far after any facts, and can't be trusted).

I just don't get the belief wars because I don't think anyone is right or wrong. I don't think we know what is right or wrong. And it shouldn't matter or get anyone all worked up because someone else believes differently than they do.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but there should be no personal stake on winning such an argument. God should tell you that, if he/she exists.

This has been a very interesting thread due to the sheer emotional nature of it.

ep

Interesting reply. We are a lot the same. I dont know if I prefer not knowing but it does not bother me not knowing.

you have to remember that certain lines have told the people from birth that you MUST do this, this & this, then they repeat all this stuff in creeds & Hymns for years, well for centuries & ...., yet they never actually question any of it, which is why when you go to question it, it never adds up & they can't explain the logic & you figure it was nothing more than someone blowing there hot air opinions about some sacred writ.

but like you mentioned they are also raised in fear, that is if they ever change what we say you have to believe, then you get punished by the god with fire & he will pour boiling water down your throat forever. so the children end up believing whatever the preacher says without ever questioning anything, kind of like a santa clause but santa is way nicer than the god.

It should not matter, but we just came from 1900 years of bloody wars on the christian side & as you see it is continuing into the muslim & jews.

that is why I hate religion because the love they claim is never there in the reality & is found far & few between.

I would think these gods (thoughts upstairs)would make one thing clear so that there would be no question about their attributes & character yet people always fight over what god says & since they disagree there must be many gods they listen to in order to be so different & confusing, though I am sure much of it is just thoughts blinking upstairs of what others say about their god.. .

Other than legalism through hierachy...well...just think millions used to bow to Ceaser because they were told to believe he was the god & they believed it until the people wised up.

I enjoyed your sincere reply, epiphany.

[JollyGG]

If you recall, you asked me some rather general questions about the origin of life and evolution, and then said as a scientist you had your doubts about these theories.

I then replied to your questions with the generally scientifically accepted view of these subjects, which I see you do not agree with. You are free to disagree with mainstream science if you find religious explanations more suitable. Religion is generally reserved for those questions which cannot be conclusively proven: Why are we here? How did we get here? What happens when I die? Is there a God? What does he look like? Is my religion truer than your religion? The religious answers are often simple and childish in nature, and require no proof, only faith. They provide comfort to those that need an easy answer. Hence religion is here to stay.

Science requires proof by repeated scientific experiments and observation. Anything else is just opinion and unproven theories.

Actually, I asked some general questions that do not currently have concrete answers. The scientific experiment has yet to undergo repeated scientific experimentation or adequate observation because those conditions are difficult or impossible to reproduce.

I have also seen long held theories blown to bits when new information is discovered, a new piece of the puzzle is discovered, or new scientific advance allow us to look at a question differently.

Science does not have all the answers at this time. Maybe some day it will.

I choose what to take on blind faith just as you have. You put your faith in scientific theories. I put mine elsewhere.

I also don't believe that just because certain theories are correct means that they are complete.

If we already had all the answer, then I guess both of us would have to find a new career, because scientists would be unnecessary.

In the future if you want to continue this discussion refrain from the thinly veiled insults. I have so far been told that my carreer is a soft science and yours is more complete and valid and have been told that I am simple and childish. Save the insults for someone else.

[JollyGG]

I would also like to add that I have not said that I "disagree with mainstream science" explanations. I simply said that I am not sure on some of them.

For example evolution:
There are gaps in the fossil records that make it impossible to prove this theory. Do to the way our earth has changed over time these gaps will probably always remain. Does that mean that evolution is incorrect - No. Does that mean that evolution isn't the most likely explanation - No. However, am I completely convinced that evolution explains the existence of all life - No. If the missing data were found, would I believe it - Absolutely.
After all I firmly believe that natural selection occurs. I believe that man has changed and evolved with time. I have the fossil records to show me that this is true. Did man evolve from primates? Well the fossil records would indicate that this is a possibility, but are missing key steps in the process. So while I find it likely, It is by no means a given in my mind. Did modern Man evolve from a single celled organism in some primordial sludge. I got to be honest. It's a possibility to me, but is by no means a given. Or at least not without some help.

Do I need to believe in evolution, or creationism? To tell you the truth to me it's not that essential. I can look at what is out there, objectively analyze it, look at the strengths and limitations and let it end there. I am actually comfortable with not knowing. But, I admit I don't have the answer.

I don't have a problem with not having all the answers. I don't think anyone does. I don't believe science has all the answers. I don't believe that religion has all the answers. I believe that the search for answers is part of what makes us human, but I can also be okay with a few uncertainties in our world. I can also take some things on faith. To me that is not lacking or childish. It just is.

So when I say that science doesn't have all the answers. I am not discounting the answers it offers. I just have seen to many perfectly good theories disproved and I understand the insane number of variable that go into any scientific analysis.

It just bothers me when people throw science out there like it is the anti religion, or the proof that god doesn't exist. Science can tell me how cell combine to form our bodies, but it can't tell us where our personalities, minds or souls (use what word you prefer) come from. The big bang theory explains the existance of the universe but doesn't tell us how the big bang originated.

Science is not the enemy of religion (though I admit religion has at times been the enemy of science due to fears and misunderstandings).

Science and Religion can both be right. (After all the catholic church actually accepts the big bang theory).

I don't have to choose reason or faith. I can have both.

[Bandit]

For example evolution:
There are gaps in the fossil records that make it impossible to prove this theory.

what i found with a lot of that is some scientists treat their theories just like religious dogma. evolution has not been proven & has many flaws but like the religious, they see enough to create a belief.

I feel a lot of this stuff will never be proven one way or the other & humans are kind of reaching constantly for what they dont know & cant explain. That is not a bad thing as long as we realize what we are doing.

now I dont care one way or the other HOW or WHY, because at my age of circles & unanswered doggie doodoo, I dont see that many answers. Think of how long it took from the astrologers of 3000 years ago just to get to our telescopes of today. Have we really advanced or is it just an illusion of advancing....same in medicine.

I liked your one post where you mentioned, it only taking one thing to debunk years of theories, because it is true.

Science and Religion can both be right.

agreed. AND...and can both be wrong.

[JRScott]

that is a typical reply I would expect from someone who is RCC or LDS.

What they actually believe is not of my concern. All of those beliefs existed in the first to 3rd century.

you would know that is started as greece philosophy long before the RCC. & that there is no explanation on how it got to the celts & it WAS NOT by way of the RCC.

I figured you were just like the others when you have some nerve saying the celts & druids are not christians. ah but that is exactly why the RCC tried to kill them, if only they could get to them.

so what is your excuse for the gnostics? & all the gnostic writings?
what is your excuse for the jewish christians?
what is your excuse for the paulines?

the nazarines & ebionites all existed before the RCC so for you to say they are not christian based on a different belief is typical but does not warrant your two religion theory.

all of whom existed before & during the RCC.

oh that is right. THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS BECAUSE YOU SAY SO.

I am not going to keep telling you something because I feel you have some kind of religious agenda to make it look like your religion is some great thing & everyone else is below you, typical of RCC, JW, LDS, SDA, you all have that in common.

...or the RCC or LDS are the only right religions & everyone else is wrong because you say the splintered.

all you are doing is making it look like there were only two beliefs/religions when all those other beliefs (you call splinter)were always there from the start.
you simply cannot acknowledge them as valid christian beliefs on their own without attributing them to some other group because you know they all disagree with your religion.

i am not concerned about the beliefs or the dogma details. the point is there were many many other beliefs beside the two you keep declaring as first & ONLY. so you will have to deal with that sooner or later.

Pauline Christianity was not even a term until the 20th century, and it was used to differentiate what scholars believed were different chains of thought in the ancient church. Generally it refers to those that place a greater emphasis on the teachings of Paul than the Gospels.

Gnosticism is much like your example of Christian Druids....not really Christians. The central belief of Gnosticism is that we are divine souls trapped in a material world by an imperfect god, the demiurge. It was a popular religion in the second and third centuries AD in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern areas. A few claim it comes from the first century but there is little evidence of that and no written records from the Gnostic tradition survive from that time. It is a Dualistic system not a monotheistic system. Most Gnostics were converted to Islam when it arose in the 7th century though a few communities survived.

And though some have associated the Ebionites with the Nazarenes there is no evidence that they were the same group. The Ebionites sought to follow both Christian and Jewish law and were influenced by the Catholic Church (or Simply The Church at that time), the Nazarenes followed only Jewish law.

All of these did not exist before the rise of Christianity or the Catholic church. The Nazarenes did but the are a Jewish sect not a Christian one. While it is unclear whether Gnostism existed beforehand the elements that have Christian elements were clearly not added until after the rise of Catholicism.

The first use of the Catholic Church that survives is from 107 AD, however it is clear from the writings it appears in the Church existed before that and was commonly just called The Church, Catholic was added to help distinguish it from other such groups in the latter part of the first century or early 2nd century.

Ebionites don't appear in written records until the mid 2nd century around the late 130s early 140s I think.

Gnostic records appear slightly later on the scene than Ebionites. Some have claimed they were repressed before that but we have no real evidence of that and no documentation to support such a claim.

Jewish Christians are generally those individuals who emphasis Christianity while Messianic Jews emphasize Judaism. Messianic Jews religion is a religion where evangelical Christian teachings are grafted onto Jewish teachings. They consider themselves Jewish though. Jewish Christians comprise mostly of individuals who have converted to some form of Christianity, either Protestant or Catholicism usually. (In essence all early members of the church were Jewish Christians since almost all of them were Jewish Converts)

There is little point in answering the rest of your post, you claim that I have an agenda, but perhaps you do as well. I sense that mostly you seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing, or as some say debating and thus no real purpose will arise from it.

[Bandit]

Gnosticism is much like your example of Christian Druids....not really Christians.

I disagree. They are not the same at all! Two completely different types of christian. Two completely different locations. They claimed to be christians, where do you get off telling them they are not?
Furthermore, they still exist today!...& they did not come from the RCC or LDS.

Pauline Christianity was not even a term until the 20th century

what difference does it make when the term is used? you build this monopoly against everyone who disagrees with your religion & then say they are not christian.
when in fact there were numerous letters written by this guy to specific groups in the first century. they were NOT CATHOLIC or LDS!

I dont know where people get off slamming other groups & judging them by their beliefs. Again you still have not proven that the beliefs did not exist at the same time. the groups who claimed to be a christian are far more christ like than any of the nasty, mean judgmental & rude mainstream so called christians.

your opinion/judgment of who is a christian & who is not a christian is A TYPICAL of why there is so much hate, bitterness & fighting.

but then of course you & your religion are the only REAL christian, because you say so.

You build this whole two religion theory thing based on a crooked roman empire that adopted all the exact same pagan things around them & when they decided someone is not christian.

I dont like your agenda of judging who is a christian & who is not. if you are going to do that through history (which you have judged very well yet lacking any real evidence that the others are also not christian, other than the typical bloodbath of rome) then you are obviosuly still judging who is a christian & who is not today.

I am sure there are plenty of 'christians' who will also tell you that YOU are not a christian either. Pathetic.

[Bandit]

There is little point in answering the rest of your post, you claim that I have an agenda, but perhaps you do as well. I sense that mostly you seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing, or as some say debating and thus no real purpose will arise from it.

no. i am tired of 'christians' going around judging who is a christian & who is not, like you have done, like the LDS & RCC do & any flavor you choose.

you think you are the only one who can claim to be christian & claim who is a christian, & your flavor of christian is not the only one.