what is god to you/what do you revere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smerdyakov

The cell is vastly more complex than darwin could have ever dreamed. And on top of that, how the cell could have come out of cosmic soup is even more unfathomable -- and something evolutionary theory can not reasonably account for. And on top of that, to form something like a human eye? Evolution requires favorable mutation. The probability of favorable mutation can excede to the trillionths. So consider: We have unfavorable mutations in the trillionths. All this to produce ONE favorable mutation. The amount of favorable mutations necessary to gradually assemble the human anatomy is mind boggling. And on top of that, where are all of these species with unfavorable mutations in the fossil record? They ought to be bountiful.

Gradual evolutionism would require its own magical unicorn. It seems to me a theory only effective once we have a level of complexity in place to account for a gradual change in a species.

---

How the cell could have come out of the cosmic soup is not as unfathomable as it sounds. Many people think it took about a year or something. It took a real real long time. Nothing compared to the time of evolution of the ape into a human. Many excellent researches and evidence back this up. It is a fact.

The forming of a fossil is a very rare situation (that needs rare circumstances). We should be lucky we found as many fossils as we did and do. And all fossils found, back the evolution theory up. Thousands and thousands of fossils.

There are many scientific articles about the evolution of the human eye (since creationist always use that as the evidence evolution cannot be true). It is all backed up with excellent evidence and a clear logic.

Gradual evolutionism does not need it's magic unicorn. It needs research and evidence. And there is plenty. Like I said before...evolution is a fact. There are still processes that we don't understand (yet), but so far all found evidence does back this 'theory' up. I am not talking about a book of evidence. I am talking about library's full of books all over the world with only evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhmyGod!

There are many scientific articles about the evolution of the human eye (since creationist always use that as the evidence evolution cannot be true). It is all backed up with excellent evidence and a clear logic.

.

---

Julia Sweeney did a brilliant piece on this theological Eyegate subject, in her show (maybe too in her book by the same name, but I've as yet not read it) Letting Go of God.
A very good comparison of we favored above all living things humans, and the lowly godless squid & octopi with the kickin' evolved eye they have...the one without an optic nerve going through it to attach to the retina, causing a blindspot, which our brains have to compensate for by hallucinating the difference:oo:.
Yeah I know, kewl huh:eek2:..where's my stick:cool2:?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhmyGod!

How the cell could have come out of the cosmic soup is not as unfathomable as it sounds. Many people think it took about a year or something. It took a real real long time. Nothing compared to the time of evolution of the ape into a human. Many excellent researches and evidence back this up. It is a fact.

---

What's a fact? The probability of a cell arising is what? 1 in 10^57,800. And that came about 'in a year or something'? 'That's a fact'?

Point me in the direction where gradual evolution has demonstrated how a single cell arose from cosmic soup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhmyGod!

The forming of a fossil is a very rare situation (that needs rare circumstances). We should be lucky we found as many fossils as we did and do. And all fossils found, back the evolution theory up. Thousands and thousands of fossils.

---

There should be trillions of fossils. That's the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhmyGod!

There are many scientific articles about the evolution of the human eye (since creationist always use that as the evidence evolution cannot be true). It is all backed up with excellent evidence and a clear logic.

---

I only used the eye to illustrate that the jump from a single cell (already incredibly complex) to the evolution of an eye is enormous. 'Simple to complex' becomes relatively meaningless given the overarching complexity of all parts involved in the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhmyGod!

Gradual evolutionism does not need it's magic unicorn. It needs research and evidence. And there is plenty. Like I said before...evolution is a fact. There are still processes that we don't understand (yet), but so far all found evidence does back this 'theory' up. I am not talking about a book of evidence. I am talking about library's full of books all over the world with only evidence.

---

But it is by no means as factual as you make it out to be. It's a splendid theory, yes, given a complex species exists, but does not address the ]origins of the species as directly as I think you imagine.

Keep in mind. I'm not a creationist, as I stated in earlier posts. I don't agree with intelligent design, either. I only said I find ID more reasonable than Theistic creationism (for the reasons I posted earlier), not that I was convinced by it.

I agree with you that that science is a viable tool to understand the origins. We're not there yet, though -- not by a long shot. More time and research is needed. By no means does gradual evolutionism demonstrate factually the origins of the species (as of yet). I think punctuated equilibrium makes more sense than gradual evolutionism anyway.

But yeah, I don't think you and I are in disagreement concerning the question of this thread. Thanks for responding.

GOD: Group Of Drunks.

GOD: Getting Off Drugs.

GOD: Game Of Death.

GOD: Glory Or Death.

Dunno, search for it on Godgle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smerdyakov

What's a fact? The probability of a cell arising is what? 1 in 10^57,800. And that came about 'in a year or something'? 'That's a fact'?

Point me in the direction where gradual evolution has demonstrated how a single cell arose from cosmic soup.

There should be trillions of fossils. That's the point.


But it is by no means as factual as you make it out to be. It's a splendid theory, yes, given a complex species exists, but does not address the ]origins of the species as directly as I think you imagine.

.

---

Evolution is a fact. Ignoring evolution or saying it's not true, is ignoring the truth. It took hundredthousands and thousands of years for the single cells to evolve into multiplecell organism in the cosmic soup. What theory do you have over the beginning?

Why should there be trillions of fossils? Do you know how a fossil get's to be? Like I wrote before, it's a rare process. It doesn't happen much. Some rare animals we found who were fossilised are such a coincidence! And unique. We should be very happy to even found some of them. There sould not be trillions of them, that does not make sense at all.

I also believe in punctuated equilibrium. But also in gradual evolution. I think both processes happen(ed) to species. Both have evidence. And one does not exclude the other.

Thank you too for responding! I like talking about these subjects! And I know we are not there yet...not in a long way. That makes it so interesting. But we do have A LOT tho...we also should remember that.

@PATINTHEHAT: Thank you! I'm gonna read it! I love that blindspottheory! Tres kewl! :cool2:

God to me is a giant turtle. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smerdyakov

...Like I said, I'm sure folks do experience something they consider the religious -- but it will be a subjective experience, not a culturally holistic experience (like the ancient contexts I was referring to). Again, this seems to be the result of a difference in world views. The past was dominated by a religious worldview; the modern worldview is one dominated by science (at least in terms of objective validity). I think the former was dominated by the religious because there was no sufficient understanding of the natural world.
...

---

We must be careful not to over-generalize. Cultures have always had dissidents. I think that it is fair to say that some societies today permit more pluralism than any that existed in the past. What I do agree with is your conclusion that ancient religions should not be applied rigidly to the whole culture of the world today, but I object to making this depend upon a particular theory of natural history. You’re confusing social progress with the hard sciences. According to your logic, the priesthood does not have the right to dominate the public worldview any longer… because that right belongs properly to the scientific community. Call me crazy, if you like, but I don’t see much difference.
OhmyGod! has said that --

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhmyGod!

... there are no motives of irreligious people...

---

and I agreed that there is no single, grand conspiracy. However, it is also true that even those outside of churches do form some organizations. In the former Soviet Union, theism was outlawed, but tyranny still existed. I don’t mean to stereotype all atheists as Marxist. I’m only saying that a person with no political outlook whatsoever is just as hard to find as one who is entirely above self-interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhmyGod!

Yeah...you are right...that should be the first question: 'what is god?' and then: 'what is god to you?' And later the question what god to society is.
...

---

One may attempt to set aside the influences of culture within one’s own mind prior to arriving at a definition, but this is practically impossible when in a discussion with others. This forum is not a controlled environment suited for scientific experimentation. Communication is inherently social.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhmyGod!

...I am posting because I love to find answers and ask every question one can think of. I don't like it when there are subjects that are non-discussable...

---

Are you trying to learn, or are you just here to teach?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhmyGod!

Evolution is a fact. Ignoring evolution or saying it's not true, is ignoring the truth. ...

---

:tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smerdyakov

...we do know the mechanism of thunder. I'm not being overly secure about that knowledge -- it's just knowledge. And with that knowledge there's no way to attribute any force beyond the natural (in terms of the 'how') without denying the natural. ...

---

So what? Naturalism has anthropological origins, as well. It’s just as easy for me to dismiss that concept as it is for you to deny God.
Nature, Schmature… You can’t fool me. It’s turtles all the way down.

Sell your XS on e-bay -- youll get more for it. Set-up a reserve price on it...describe it...show a picture of the warranty card, etc. Youll do well -- its a popular set-up for prosumers right now.

Then get what you need/want Youll definitely want to stick with Canon because of your existing Canon lenses and the 40D. Mind if I put your inquiry to my pro friend who shoots exclusively Canon? Hell have something immediate to say knowing him and suggest for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pathoftheturtle

OhmyGod! has said that --and I agreed that there is no single, grand conspiracy. However, it is also true that even those outside of churches do form some organizations. In the former Soviet Union, theism was outlawed, but tyranny still existed. I don’t mean to stereotype all atheists as Marxist. I’m only saying that a person with no political outlook whatsoever is just as hard to find as one who is entirely above self-interest.

---

Yes, those outside of churches do form organizations. I never said they didn’t. They even kill. But not in the name of atheism. And to use the former Soviet Union example, is kind of weak and I think you know it. Marxism has nothing to do with atheism. It’s some violent kind of utopia of extreme equality. They might have been atheists…but they also had two ears. Or two legs. It was never in the name of atheism why they have done the things they did. There has never been any mass murder in the name of atheism…as in opposite of religion. There is no motive in atheism. No motivation that says people with opposite thoughts are less or should be killed or what so ever. That’s what we are speaking about…not about people with political outlook or without opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pathoftheturtle

One may attempt to set aside the influences of culture within one’s own mind prior to arriving at a definition, but this is practically impossible when in a discussion with others. This forum is not a controlled environment suited for scientific experimentation. Communication is inherently social.

---

I was only poiting out that asking the question what God is to society, is also a huge question, but maybe for a special topic? I would love to discuss it...but we should keep in mind the thread starter wanted to know what god to an individual person is. Not to a group. If you see a scientific experimention in my words....well, that is sure not my intention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pathoftheturtle

Are you trying to learn, or are you just here to teach?

---

This has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. It’s more about the way HOW I am discussing. But I will respond anyway. Well, like I wrote before, I am Dutch…my English is not that good. So if I come over like I only want to teach people something, that is not my intention. But you try to have this discussion in Dutch and I wonder if you can make it so far that I might think you only want to teach. I stand open for every thought, I do not own the truth and will change my opinion if I think someone’s got a better point than me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pathoftheturtle

:tongue:

---

And that smiley…I’ve learned long time ago when people use a smiley in a discussions it’s a way to say they don’t have the words to explain. Well…anyway, I do think evolution is a fact. How much more evidence do we really need? It scares me that about 70 percent (I’m not sure…I think it is even more) of all humans believe the earth is not older than about 2000 years. And that there are still many schools who teach the Bible/Koran as a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pathoftheturtle

We must be careful not to over-generalize. Cultures have always had dissidents. I think that it is fair to say that some societies today permit more pluralism than any that existed in the past. What I do agree with is your conclusion that ancient religions should not be applied rigidly to the whole culture of the world today, but I object to making this depend upon a particular theory of natural history. You’re confusing social progress with the hard sciences. According to your logic, the priesthood does not have the right to dominate the public worldview any longer… because that right belongs properly to the scientific community. Call me crazy, if you like, but I don’t see much difference.

---

Though I'm not trying to generalize, this may be impossible to avoid given the type of idea I'm suggesting. I understand that religion exists today (and I don't think it's a bad thing). I'm speaking to the nature of the religious experience. It seems to me that the experience has slowly slinked back into the individual while God has slowly been pushed away from an immediacy in the natural. And this is reasonable enough given that we can't find miracles in the realm of objective experience (ie, blatant miracle -- not interpretive -- though I think all miracles were/are interpretive). Like I've said, I believe this is a consequence of drying out the objective world, so to speak, of mystery, or wonder. With science comes reducibility which in itself separates the individual (particular subjective experience) from the natural (objective actuality). My argument is that this sort of reducibility did not dominate the ancients' worldviews -- nature was more so interpreted from the standpoint of the human rather than understood in a reducible way. Really, the issue is an epistemic distinction, not one of social progress. For this reason, I believe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pathoftheturtle

So what? Naturalism has anthropological origins, as well. It’s just as easy for me to dismiss that concept as it is for you to deny God. Nature, Schmature… You can’t fool me. It’s turtles all the way down.

---

makes little sense. Yes, science has anthropological origins, but only because humans are the ones that do it. Everything humans do have anthropological origins. Saying god has anthropological origins is a bit different insofar as we are talking about a deity distinct from humans. Also, from above, the result of science takes the humans out of the picture -- something entirely different from religion. Sure, you could say it's turtles all the way down :smile2:, but this conclusion would be based on some subjective judgment most likely influenced by defiance. I could say the world is a chicken egg, but would you take me seriously? No, because there's no way to objectively substantiate my claim -- it's one limited to the caprice of the subject.