»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
"The Americans are not entirely unsophisticated"
| The Alley |
|
"The Americans are not entirely unsophisticated" |
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
This from our regional newspaper comment column recently. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, and which facet of it to laugh or cry at! "By Peter Clarke According to those confused but determined folk the creationists, today is the day that God created the Earth. It was in October 4004 BC that he decided to make the planet and all the life upon it. This figure was derived from the biblical scholarship of James Ussher the Anglican Bishop of Armagh. He asserted the event occurred at nightfall. I do not quite understand that, as nightfall over Northern Ireland is daylight in Fiji. I don't doubt the Bishop's venerable learning but his reasoning seems comical to everyone that comprehends, however vaguely, the eons of evolution. It is laughable but also worrying that Governor Sarah Palin and her like-minded Americans adhere to this failed hypothesis still. Can they not read? Can they not think? Can they not learn? The Americans are not entirely unsophisticated. They accept there were many "bio-epochs" in which The Creator tinkered and tested diverse creatures, eventually discarding the dinosaurs and myriad other organisms for Homo sapiens and the mammals. Theologians spent much brain power trying to assess the earth's antiquity but they limited themselves to the Old Testament in the search for evidence. Anyway, if you have any lingering creationist sentiments we can all say happy birthday to our planet today. I don't know, but I assume the other planets share this happy if daft nativity. Religion is a very curious force." |
||
| © Copyright 2008 moonbeam - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
In this instance? I think it would be perfectly proper for sophistication to be left at the door, where Palin would then face Peter Clarke and very effectively mop the floor with him. I've never underestimated the power of a mammal vs a canard. |
||
|
WTBAKELAR
since 2008-09-09
Posts 1089Utah, USA |
I read the thoughts of an other here, What are your thoughts on where the Earth and the rest of the universe came from? If you believe in the big bang theory, where did the big come from for the bang? What is at the end of the universe? What no end? How far does it go? Does it go into the distance, future, or past? Do you believe that we are the only living creatures in this universe? Ease to ask questions, Do you have the answers? God theory is not so hard to handle. The answer is always NO, Until the question is asked. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
rwood You may be right, she certainly seems like a ruthless person with a single minded conviction that she is always right. People like that always win the battles, and always lose the war. WTBAKELAR I wasn’t really fired up so much by what he thought, as by the manner he said it which I thought was a bit patronizingly smug with a kind of English public school attempt to be witty. As for what I think, I suppose that once you accept the “reality” of matter, as to which my mental jury is out, then you have to admire the work of someone like Stephen Hawking. I largely subscribe to his position that “proposed that space and imaginary time together, are finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off.” This concept of finiteness without boundary is difficult to grapple with but neatly gets round some of the apparent paradoxes you suggest in your questions. Are “we” the only living creatures in the universe? I presume by “we” you mean life on Earth, then that’s easy: no. “God theory is not so hard to handle.” I have no idea what you mean by that comment. What is “God theory”? If by “God theory” you mean a theory that proposes that a spiritual being “made” a material world - then I’d say that was pretty illogical and unbelievable. [This message has been edited by Ron (10-27-2008 03:59 PM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Wait. Didn’t you post an article by a man named Clarke that blatantly degraded a woman and “like-minded Americans” because their beliefs were not the same as his own? He seems pretty convinced his findings are all-knowing and sophisticated above “confused but determined folk the creationists.” I could be wrong, but I have a hunch that in a battle he’d be as flatulent as his writing, and in a war he’d be as absent as his humility. I don’t adhere to a label of belief, but no human is all right and all-knowing above any other. |
||
|
WTBAKELAR
since 2008-09-09
Posts 1089Utah, USA |
Yes, we Earthlings, I am a firm believer that if we can be here, they can be out there, because, after all, where does out there go? One other thought: our time on Earth is but a heartbeat in the infinite time of being. Yet here we are communicating over the vastness of space via a keyboard. 50 years ago such things were a dream, and one hundred years ago we would have been called crazy to imagine such foolishness. We have only become moderately advanced in the past 100 years. Why not the past 1000, 2000, or BC4004? Why just the past 100 years? Are the beings out there in their 100 years of advancement, or are they at their 1000 years of advancement? Could we be decendents of a far greater advanced civilization that once was here on Earth and left, or did they come here and leave us? God only knows!!! Hey, thats funny! The answer is always NO, Until the question is asked. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
rwood "blatantly degraded" uh?! lol You make it sound as if there is some doubt that the creationists are “confused but determined" WTBAKELAR A lot of what you suggest seems to me a lot more probable than a god who created the world one dark October!  |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I don't argue for argument's sake but I do have a second question. How are non-creationists less confused or determined? You make it sound like everybody else has got it all figured out. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
rwood I rather doubt that anyone has got it "all figured out" - especially the "all" bit. I can't see anywhere that I suggested that everyone else had it figured out. Moreover I feel that vigorous advocates of natural selection like Dawkins are as guilty of inflexible thinking as advocates of "extreme" creationism. Before I can answer your question "how are non-creationists less confused?" I need you to tell me precisely what YOU mean by the term "creationist"? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Thanks, though it was Darwin on natural selection I believe a creationist is someone who believes that a God created the world, all within the world, and the universe, rejecting evolution and origins of man. I don’t knock anyone’s belief unless that belief knocks on my door and tries to force its way in to harm me. And I certainly wouldn’t depreciate one’s belief based on my own as if I’m above another as a species, despite my above average height. I think we are all on even ground, here, despite my Appalachian location. Nobody knows everything. Much of this ado about something is based on physicalities, but faith is internal and I can’t paint it but I sure draw from it every day. So if someone wants to believe that God created us as beautiful as we are who am I to be ugly?  besides? I probably would have been the first cavewoman to create high-heeled shoes. That wouldn't have went over too well with the clan and I'd been tossed outta the cave. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Darwin or Dawkins? http://richarddawkins.net/ |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Ah cool! Thanks Grinch. Learn something new everyday. The names are close, the kindred ideas, fascinating. I'd read "The Extended Phenotype" long ago, but my mind didn't allow me to connect the two today. I don't like where the evolution of my memory is going... |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Of course it was Darwin, lol. Richard Dawkins however is the contemporary exponent of Darwinism, and a lot more irrationally passionate imo. http://richarddawkins.net/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/055 277331X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225201983&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Watchmaker-Richard-Dawkin s/dp/0141026162/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225201983&sr=8-2 http://www.amazon.co.uk/River-Out-Eden-Darwinian-Scie nce/dp/1857994051/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225201983&sr=8-15 I see your definition of a creationist, I'm still not clear as to whether that means that a creationist is someone who puts an actual date on the creation of the universe or just vaguely believes that it was created "sometime" by god. Of course everyone has a right to believe whatever they wish to believe. I suppose I take a somewhat more robust view than you in that I believe everyone also has a right to try and show why what someone else believes may not be correct, politely of course. It's not really a question of being "above another" or superior, but simply a matter of intelligent informed debate. For instance, I'd contend that if you believe in a god who is spiritual as opposed to material, it is hard to sustain an argument that that god would create a material world. Obviously if you believe in a god of flesh then perhaps you at least have the basis of a logical premise, although you then bring yourself "down" to the level of physical science and come up against sort of arguments that Darwin and Dawkins put forward. I told you my views about the creation of the universe, what are yours? (oops, sorry, I see that Grinch posted a Dawkins link) |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And presumably, moonbeam, you also contend the obverse: that no corporeal human being has (or would) ever create anything spiritual? |
||
|
TRACE2RYM Junior Member
since 2008-10-09
Posts 38 |
I have 5 material things that were created by a spiritual manifestation. 5 children with spirits that are all above anything material When a woman and a man can love each other and create such miricles, I find it hard to believe they were created from the dust of a big bang in outerspace. I guess thats what faith is. I respect other peoples choices as to what they want to believe, or not, I am OK with knowing there is someone greater than me with a plan for the salvation of his children. I also believe that there may be others on or in different universes. When someone says How can that be? I ask for a better explanation. I have never heard one yet. Big Bang? Indeed, Where did it come from? And why didn't the bang destroy any living thing that may have been present? Things that make you go, WHUMMMMMMM. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Ron Yes, that's obviously a given. Though your choice of the word "would" is not a happy one - "could" would be much better. Still, you make that comment in the tone of "voice" you reserve for occasions where your subtext is: "don't you think your contention is hilariously illogical?" So clearly you must be using the word "spiritual" to mean something different from me. quote: Postulation 1: "I have 5 [children] that were created by a spiritual manifestation" Postulation 2: "a woman and a man ... create such [children]" Does this work? |
||
|
WTBAKELAR
since 2008-09-09
Posts 1089Utah, USA |
QUOTE For instance, I'd contend that if you believe in a god who is spiritual as opposed to material, it is hard to sustain an argument that that god would create a material world. I contend that If there is a God, That He could do or create as He wished, Spiritual, or physical. If He is all powerful and capable of creation, why not experiment with both material and spiritual. Trace2rym, I don't feel her first paragraph needs disection, they may be personal feelings and thoughts. I give her a pass I think her second and third paragraphs deserve comment I feel that she has a point on the big bang theory, but at the same time where did God come from? Have we always been? Has He always been? The "IT" I presume would be the makings of the bang theory? Where did "IT" come from? GOD? I'm So Confused!! |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: It seems only natural to me. Rocks and water can make things materialize without thinking, so why wouldn’t a thinking being create or want a materialization of that which is inspiring, enriching and appealing to the spirit? Thought processed into an objective task is only one way that things materialize. Subjectivity is in direct association with the spirit--of the mind, a person’s feelings and a person’s will. All things have an energy that extends from within and beyond. It’s not any wonder to me how humans would feel a force from beyond at work within them, within the world. The argument is sustained with passion, conviction, and faith, among many other human senses, unless you believe those senses cannot scratch the surface of anything material. As long as there are elements of the unknown, the unexplained, the basis for debate is indefinite and indeterminable quote: People can champion anything they want but thankfully and logically, freethinking requires us to seek out our own conclusions from many sources and some are undefined by logic, alleles, and heritable traits, especially since science still can’t exactly define what makes me me, and I’m just a simple human being. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Oh well. I also prefer "Fire, water, earth, and air" to the excessive details of the periodic table. Why should I be expected to recite the whole periodic table every time I wish to generalize about the elements? "Fire, water, earth, and air" give much more confidence, since I can actually remember them all and understand a strong sense of wholeness without losing that sense in a clutter of detail. In likewise, creationists "condense" the world into a more convenient generalization so they have a greater sense of understanding it, without needing to recite a longsome and misty clutter of details and specifications whereof no man may remember half of half of it let alone all of it, nor have much sense of wholeness in the bottomless pit of specifications and terminologies. Therefore more spiritual generalizations that may be materially very inaccurate, but still succeed at encompassing very important things, giving people spiritual confidence and a sense of wholeness, shall always have a legitimate place among humans. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I guess if you believe in a god that can "be" both of matter and of spirit then yes She would be capable of this. The premise seems very weak to me though. quote: I think you need to get your thoughts clearer about what "god" might be before you start suggesting what She might or might not be able to do. Perhaps if you think about the possibility that matter may not dwell in spirit nor spirit in matter, you may make progress. quote: I've tried for a while to understand what you are saying here, and can't. Please could you elucidate. quote: Sure, human thought can cause human physical endeavours to arrange preexisting particles into different shapes and sizes - usually called creative work or invention. I'm not talking about human thought or human emotion or human spirit though. quote: I have no problem at all with that Ess. Endless experimentation and speculation about the origins of the material universe may be fascinating, and also useful in advancing our knowledge about, and abilities to create, weird and wonderful new gadgets - yet I have a feeling that it all may be just a dead end - or a circle - or an illusion. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Clearly so. quote: Exactly so. It is very normal, of course, to assign our own limitations to the rest of the universe. Doesn't usually work, though. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Lol Ron! You are quite right, mea culpa. I have no set view about what god is. I do however have such a view about what he/she/it isn't, and it was upon those views that I based my comments above. I'm glad you agree with me about assigning our limitations, that's exactly the error I was suggesting many people make. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Ahhhh! Ussher was an Irishman, which probably explains a lot. As to the date of creation, it would have helped to have been there and taken notes. Apparently, Adam and what's her name were, but neither kept a diary. And how did Sarah Palin get into this discussion? As far as I can tell, all she ever created was a stir. And quite recently. I stand firmly behind Kurt Vonnegut and the Tralfamadorians. These are the residents of the planet Tralfamador, who, when confronted with the unknowable, raise their arms. wiggle their fingers, and chant "Busy, Busy." M -- which perhaps six not entirely unsophisticated Americans was the quote referring to? In your opinion, of course. Not laughing at anything specific, just life in general, happily digging holes and planting olive trees. Cultivating my "jardin," so to speak. Grinch: I encourage Richard Dawkins And even Stephen Hawking(s)* To keep right on a-talking Regardless of the balking. * An indication the brilliance of Internet posters is how few can spell his name correctly. I was going to add, "particularly by those who don't like him but haven't bothered to read him." but that would be snarky, so I won't do it. Snarkless in the Mo-jave, Jimbeaux [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (10-29-2008 08:23 PM).] |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Well, not entirely snarkless. Apparently, Ussher believed Adam and what's her name were kicked out of the Garden on Monday, November 10, 4004, less than a month after the Creation. Yikes! Even today's kids are "innocent" for a little longer than that. Do we don Sackcloth (available at any WalMart) or throw a party? http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm Snarky again after only ten minutes, Jimbeaux |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
You said: “if you believe in a god who is spiritual as opposed to material, it is hard to sustain an argument that that god would create a material world.” If a rock can make something happen with water, without any thought: meteorite crashes into the ocean changing the tides and eco systems, flooding landmasses etc. etc. Why wouldn’t a thinking, feeling (spiritual) being want to utilize its energy and power to propagate life? Again, it seems natural to me that such a spiritual force would want to make something happen, to create, and to animate the cosmos. How and when? I wasn’t there. But I’m thrilled to be filled with wonder about it. quote: I believe I mentioned the extraordinary presence of: a force from beyond at work within [humans,] within the world. Which many refer to this force as the spirit of God. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Jim Hi there - (I owe you an e-mail, guilty me!) Doesn't dear Sarah get into every discussion about delusional megalomania! "The Americans" - humm the guy has a quaint phraseology. I think he means to be insipdly offensive; kinda like "belittling by definite article". M |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I am also filled with wonder by material phenomena. Inanimate objects can indeed produce wonderfully uplifting effects in the form of feelings and emotions. None of that is necessarily incompatible with the concept of a divinity which, while recognising our spiritual reality, knows nothing of our material bodies. But then that's just what I think, and like everyone else, I am almost certainly wrong. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
