text:
The Secretary Barbie® Doll
All high-powered studio execs need a reliable right-hand gal! Designed by Robert Best, The Secretary Barbie® Doll is as classy as they come, in a vintage office look that's both elegant and sweet. This gorgeous go-getter is smartly dressed in a chic yellow twinset, herringbone pencil skirt, black skinny belt and dainty golden hoops. Our ash blonde career girl also comes with fun accessories like glasses, "notepad," "portfolio" and "pencil." Understated enough for the workplace, yet still impressively high on style: work it, girl!
Fashion designed especially for the Silkstone® Barbie® doll body. Not for use with other Barbie® dolls.
For the adult collector.
Production doll may vary from the photo shown above. Mattel reserves the right to modify the fashion/fabrics, sculpt, hair color/style, and accessories. Doll cannot stand alone as shown.


text:
"A feeling of surprise, even disbelief, that someone so unique could have remained unknown to us for so long." More»
What is sunrise like at the Getty?
"The fog was so thick we couldn't see the sunrise when it came at 5:47am PT. There was no gong, no fanfare. Many of us were oblivious, engrossed in conversations with old friends or new acquaintances, awkwardly touching each other as per Ono's instructions, or contemplating the obscured landscape. I looked at my companions, asking them "Was that it? Did we miss it?" That was it, but we hadn't missed it at all."
Piece by hyperallergic's Matt Stromberg. Read in full here.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
View All > Indio Cowboy Hat
Sale: $14.00
Reg: $28.00
Indio Cowboy Hat
model #: 106312
Giddy up. Get the look with our version of the cowboy hat, woven using our signataure stripes and adorned with wooden beads.
No Reviews
- Paper Straw
- 22.5 Inch Circumference
There are no reviews for this product
You must be logged in to write a review.


text:
This tool kit packs as lot of potential for kids to develop including hand-eye coordination, fine motor skills and visual processing practice. While kids are busy building, this activity set is pounding in concepts needed for math readiness and drilling in the principles of cooperative play when working with a buddy. Busy builders also construct pretend play scenarios that power active imaginations.
Download our Product Instructions and Activity Guide:
View now:
Design & Drill™ Take-Along Tool Kit (844k file)


text:
For the Daily News
The Starkville-Mississippi State University Symphony Orchestra announces a March 5 concert featuring music from the European Romantic period.
Free to all, "Romantic Rendezvous" includes some major pieces written and performed between approximately 1800 and the beginning of the 20th century.
The 7:30 p.m. program in Lee Hall's Bettersworth Auditorium opens with an overture of Beethoven's "Lenore Overture, No. 3," the most popular of three the German composer wrote for his only opera, "Fidelio."
MSU music department strings instructor Simona Barbu will be featured as the cello soloist on Russian Peter Tchaikovsky's "Variations on a Rococo Theme," which gained widespread modern fame through performances and recordings of Leonard Rose and Yo Yo Ma.
Also on the bill will be the work of another German, Robert A. Schumann's Symphony No.3 in Eb, Op.97 ("Rhenish")
For more information, visit http://www.starkvillemsusymphony.org [1].
[1] http://www.starkvillemsusymphony.org


text:
Fun family address stamp! Stamp your address on everything with this fun square self inking stamper. A square self-inking stamper which produces a quick, crisp impression. Imprint size is approximately 1.625" square. Available in 15 ink colors. This stamper is inked for many impressions and can be re-inked anytime. Typestyle and positioning only as shown.
The word "THE" is always included as shown on this design.


text:
The best in expert care for your vehicle.
Comprehensive standard coverage whether you buy or lease.
Stay connected in ways you never thought possible.
More of what you love, all in one place
Everything you need to manage your Buick.
The Experience Buick Lease is a special 24-month lease offer available to our customers who lease a new 2015 Buick vehicle through GM Financial. Imagine a lease that includes scheduled vehicle maintenance1 included for 24 months – plus, premium services like OnStar† and SiriusXM Satellite Radio†. That's the Experience Buick Lease.
With scheduled maintenance, you get the most out of your Buick experience. That means taking care of the scheduled maintenance that you'd expect in the first two years or 24,000 miles (whichever comes first) of a vehicle's lifespan. And with the Experience Buick program, those scheduled visits are all included. Here are just some of the services covered:
Keeping you and your family safe, secure, and connected with the Directions & Connections® plan†.
Plan Includes:
OnStar RemoteLink® Mobile AppTM
The OnStar RemoteLink Mobile App† lets you connect to your vehicle like never before. Check fuel levels, oil life and tire pressure from your phone. You can even start your car (if equipped) or unlock your doors from anywhere you have cell phone service. You can even send directions from your phone to your vehicle with just a few simple steps.
Imagine hearing the music you want without having to flip through commercials, fumble with CDs, or manage a playlist. Imagine cheering on your favorite team, no matter where you are. Or having over 150 Channels of comedy, talk, news, entertainment, family programming, and more. Now imagine having all of this, all in one place – and being able to listen wherever you drive. And when it comes to traffic, if you have the optional vehicle GPS navigation system, SiriusXM's NavTraffic† appears right on the GPS navigation system screen to show detailed traffic data when it's needed the most – while you're driving. Also, when equipped, your vehicle will receive SiriusXM Travel Link: Information you need most, right at your fingertips, including weather, fuel prices and movie listings. It's all here, all in one place. And best of all – it's included in your 24-month lease. For more information, visit Buick.com/siriusxm
With the XM All Access package†, listen to over 150 channels, including:
1. Covers scheduled oil changes with filter and tire rotations, according to your new vehicle's recommended maintenance schedule, for a maximum of 4 service events within 2 years or 24,000 miles, whichever comes first. Does not include air filters. See dealer for other restrictions and complete details


text:
I don't mean to alienate anyone by asking this question, but when did it become extreme to not spend money that doesn't exist?
Now either I'm hearing resentment from the voices in my head, or the credit cards in my pocket, or it's the third choice...my inner Democrat.
We all have it, we just refer it as something different. Anakin Skywalker called it the dark side of the force.
I've banged my head on this wall for a number of posts, but what the hell is wrong with those guys? If there is a more eloquent way to put that I wouldn't know because it must be buried under 14 trillion dollars of debt.
That's $14,000,000,000,000.00. If you count the 4 then there are literally the same amount of zeros serving in Obama's cabinet.
Does this "number" mean anything to liberals? Anything at all?
This is sheer madness, basically the GOP says "hey, lets cut $51 billion."
Then the Democrats come back with 11 billion as their first, best and final offer. They don't even have the decency to throw in sweeteners like, "when the Chinese repo the country we'll spare your families from their slavers."
Lets be clear, NEITHER number is even remotely close to being remotely close to being remotely close to being acceptable. The GOP wants to cut the deficit down by 5%...that's not extreme...that's a layup with no defense and a step ladder.
We can't just cut to reduce the deficit, we have to cut to reduce the debt as well. We are talking about the life of the country being at stake.
Meanwhile, USAID is moaning that 70,000 children will die because of a GOP budget...have the math whizzes over there figured out many will die if the entire economy collapses?
Also, just today Zero number nine (which is like client number nine, except she's screwing us), Kathleen Sebilius says our healthcare system is like that of a developing nation and it will stay that way if the 10 years of funding for 7 years of ObamaCare is overturned. A developing nation? Is she stating the problem or their goal?
Then there is the CBO saying that Obama is understating his deficits to the tune of trillions! These people aren't serious...or they're doing this on purpose.
The Democrats are screwing this country into economic oblivion, and much to the chagrin of people like Helen Thomas you can't "accidentally" have sex.
I don't know what the motivation is, but at this point I don't think any other conclusion can be drawn. It took years of GOP incompetence to build up the kind of debt liberals racked up in just a couple of years, and they did it at a time when they KNEW it the tide needed to be reversed.
The government may be liberal Nirvana, but the reality is if shuts down over the budget fight the only tragedy that would come from it would be that the devil has to take a time out from dragging Uncle Sam to Hell so both sides can rework what the ETA will look like.


text:
Jefferson Convention & Visitors Bureau
1221 Elmwood Park Blvd., Ste. 411, New Orleans, LA 70123
Property Description
Discover a place steeped in history and culture, mouth watering cuisine, festivals and family entertainment. Experience a world that gives a whole new meaning to what you know as New Orleans. Experience Jefferson.


text:
- Online Banking / Bill Pay
- Checking
- Money Market
- Savings
- ATM/Debit Cards
- CDs
- Senior Partners
- Mobile Banking
Hometown Specific Information - Please enter your zip code below to view the information specific to your hometown location.
Links are being provided for information purposes only. TowneBank has no control over any other website and is not able to endorse, guarantee or monitor content, availability, viewpoints, products or services that are offered or expressed on any site other than this one.
"TowneBank... Hometown banking you can believe in."
"Together we're invested in our hometown."
"Creating hometown opportunities with every local deposit."
"TowneBank. The best bank for you and your community."
"Creating a foundation of success right here at home."
"Bigger isn't better. Local is."
"You're not an account at TowneBank. You're a friend."
A plug-in required to play this video is not installed.


text:
EAST DUBUQUE, Illinois - An East Dubuque man is charged with murder, accused of killing his stepdaughter who disappeared nearly two years ago.
Illinois court records show 40-year-old Terry Abbas was arrested and charged with two counts of murder this morning in Jo Daviess County. According to the records, Abbas is accused of strangling a minor identified only as "C.K." with his hand "with the intent to kill."
The filing references an offense date of October 13, 2011. That is the same day 14 year-old Chyenne Kircher disappeared from her East Dubuque home. Abbas made an inital appearance in Jo Daviess County Court Thursday, his bond was set at $1 million.
During a press conference Thursday afternoon, law enforcement announced that Abbas was arrested on Wednesday as part of their investigation into Chyenne's disappearance. Abbas was under investigation by a Critical Incident Response Team from the state of Illinois. The C.I.R.T. began their investigation six months ago.
During the press conference, a spokesperson said officials believed Chyenne body is located in an area behind her family home, an excavation of the scene is under way.
Officials from the East Dubuque Police, Jo Daviess County Sheriff's Office, the Illinois State Police and the FBI are at the excavation site.
In October 2012, East Dubuque Police Chief Steve O'Connell said samples of Chyenne's handwriting were sent to the state crime lab to find out if it matched the runaway note. O'Connell said the results did not lead them to believe there was foul play involved.
The Jo Daviess County Sheriff's Department has scheduled a press conference for 8 a.m. Friday.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa News, Sports, and Weather


text:
Well-appointed, welcoming, spacious, modern and yet classic – all words that can be used to describe our 291 rooms, studios and suites. The hotel also has a 2,300m² conference area with 13 variable rooms on the ground floor, all with natural daylight, air conditioning and the latest technology.
Potsdam is a city of many faces, which invites you to discover its history and to understand and fall in love with its 'soul'. In addition to the famous parks and gardens of Sanssouci Palace, the city has plenty to offer: an incredible ensemble of lovingly created landscapes, impressive sites of Prussian and German history, palaces designed by great architects – all surrounded by game-filled forests and the river Havel, which regularly bulges out to form delightful lakes. It's just 20 minutes by car to the centre of Berlin – a fantastic city ripe for exploring on Potsdam's doorstep. Train station (InterCity/EuroCity) 2km; Berlin Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport 47km; just 11km from the A10 autobahn, 'Potsdam Nord' exit.
Dorint Potsdam at a glance:


text:
Hm, don't get around to read manga really, are more into anime from that part of the world
Although I did enjoy Hellsing a lot, but tearing London apart in multiple volumes felt a bit of ... overdoing it XD
Any here read/reading Gunslinger Girls? Rather love the take on "enhanced" child fighters, although it is another grip on the Halo mythos and Ender's Game kinda thing.
On anime side it is GitS SAC FTW! Although I am also a big fan of Haibane Renmai, Mushi-shi and .HACK//SIGN
My comment to the discussion erupting in this thread: I think *someone* managed to view the hentai anime or manga and those cannot be said to be a representative of the genre as a whole. Some of the strongest female leads I have found in comics or cartoon are in anime and manga. Also many of the Asian movies contain strong females.
But I will admit: The anime/manga has an odd idea of fan service - my boobs obeys the law of gravity, the boob movements in some of those seem to defy gravity . Oh well - but hardly a deal breaker seeing the fan service from Hollywood contain girls in very tight leather outfits or skirts shorter than a finger nail.


text:
NXTcomm Preview
LRTV NXTcomm6/19/2007
Light Reading
Light Reading
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View ADD A COMMENT
NXTcomm Preview
LRTV NXTcomm6/19/2007
Light Reading
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View ADD A COMMENT
More Blogs from LRTV NXTcomm
NXTcomm 2008 is history and the shows executive director explains what the show tried to accomplish and several attendees weighed in with their thoughts as well
ECIs president and CEO Rafi Maor explains how carriers can provide scalable services and why managed services is a tempting business for vendors
Ken Hertzler, Director, NEC Corp. of America says virtualizing the data center can save CPU cycles, power, and money.
Sun Microsystemss Greg Calhoun talks about how his company can help service providers be more energy efficient
NECs Naoki Satomi discusses IMS and its challenges
Flash Poll
From The Founder
Live Streaming Video
CLOUD / MANAGED SERVICES: Prepping Ethernet for the Cloud
Moderator: Ray LeMaistre Panelists: Jeremy Bye, Leonard Sheahan
Upcoming Live Events
September 16-17, 2015, The Westin Galleria Dallas, Dallas, TX
September 29-30, 2015, The Westin Grand Müchen, Munich, Germany
October 6, 2015, The Westin Peachtree Plaza, Atlanta, GA
October 6, 2015, Westin Peachtree Plaza, Atlanta, GA
October 14-15, 2015, New Orleans Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, LA
November 5, 2015, Hilton Santa Clara, Santa Clara, CA
All Upcoming Live Events
November 5, 2015, London, UK
SlideshowsThe Wild Side of Telecom: Fun Times at BTE
More Slideshows
Hot Topics
What's a Gigabit Good For? Carol Wilson, Editor-at-large, 7/1/2015
Colt to Jettison Ailing IT Business Iain Morris, News Editor, 6/30/2015
Eurobites: Activist Investor Takes Stake in AlcaLu Paul Rainford, Assistant Editor, Europe, 6/30/2015
IoT in Action , 6/30/2015
FCC Chairman Talks Up SDN/NFV Mari Silbey, Senior Editor, Cable/Video, 7/2/2015
Like Us on Facebook
Upcoming WebinarsWebinar Archive
July 9, 2015
Understanding why SDN is essential to NFV
BETWEEN THE CEOs - Executive Interviews
Casa Systems has been going from strength to strength over the last couple of years. In 2013, it became the first vendor to ship an integrated CCAP device -- the ...
Cedrik Neike, SVP of Global Service Provider, Service Delivery, at Cisco, talks to Light Reading founder and CEO Steve Saunders about solving service provider customer problems in a virtualized, DevOps world, including multivendor support and the future of network procurement.
Cats with Phones
Cats Can't Answer Phones Click Here


text:
micoach is all you need to get the results you want.
(2 Products)
Your Selection
this ball has a great durable outside with good unconventional shape of stitching rather than the traditional hexagons which really helps for curling shots knuckleballs and all general shots, amazing! ... read more
Great practice ball ...literally just used it first time last night @ our game. Good touch and response - great value! ... read more
I bought this ball looking for a nice training ball under $30. It has been a nice surprise for such a low price. ... read more


text:
Jump to content
|Last action by
|Tyson Fury to fight Wladimir Klitschko in October in The Sporting Arena
|The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt in Gamers' Hangout
|Weapons? What do you own? in The Hobby Corner
|Adblocking... Could Patreon revolutionise the internet? in General Discussion
|Win 10 Preview to RTM question. in Microsoft Beta (Windows 10)
Posted 15 November 2012 - 03:22
Posted 15 November 2012 - 03:36
Posted 15 November 2012 - 03:40
Seems like you've discovered the elusive taskbar bug that has survived since Vista first rolled around. Some people have it, and some don't. Report it to Microsoft. They don't care. Matter of fact, it's even in 8, just search the forum for "Windows taskbar bug", and I'm sure you'll find PLENTY of subjects/topics about it. I have it too sometimes, and have just thought of it as a really annoying "feature", since Microsoft refuses to acknowledge it or fix it.
Posted 15 November 2012 - 03:55
Could we not like, take a full system report of everyone with this reported behaviour, and see what things (drivers, software) they share in common? Seems like a good place to start.
Posted 15 November 2012 - 20:06
Posted 15 November 2012 - 20:27
Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:43
As stupid as it may sound, Microsoft refrains from fixing little bugs like these. For every bug they fix, they risk breaking something else. So unless there's a larger issue at hand, such as a crash or exploit, small bugs like these are considered not worth fixing and may never be fixed.
Posted 23 November 2012 - 06:03
Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:51
I get that, the most extreme way I found to 'fix' it is to close explorer.exe, then reopening it, mostly I just restart my pc or ignore it, sometimes it'll display a dotted line type of box over the last item I opened on the desktop too, I don't think there's any real danger to your systen's stability other than the obvious annoyance it causes, or at least I've not noticed any of that sort of behaviour on my pc.
Something I remember, this was present in my version of XP too...


text:
COLUMBUS – It wasn't the type of game the Starkville Academy Volunteers needed to have Wednesday afternoon against a top five team in the state.
Even though the Vols kept it close against the highly-talented Washington School Generals for a half, the third quarter let them down in losing a 63-27 decision at the Class AAA, Division 2 Tournament on the campus of Heritage Academy.
Washington stretched a 32-19 halftime advantage by hitting SA with an 11-0 run to open the second half.
The Vols fell behind 51-21 at the end of the third quarter and couldn't recover.
"I tried to call a timeout to try and stop it, but there is only so much you can do," Starkville Academy boys coach Mark Alexander said. "It's been something for us all year with the third quarter. Other teams step it up and we can't match it."
The Generals jumped out to a 23-10 lead after the first quarter and stretched it to 26-12 with 6:28 remaining in the second quarter, but the Vols cut the margin to 28-19 at the 2:04 mark on a free throw by Austin Kinard.
Washington scored the final four points of the first half to take the 32-19 advantage into the intermission.
"I felt pretty good at halftime even though we knew we hadn't played that well," Alexander said. "It wasn't one of our better games. We had been playing well down the stretch for the most part. For whatever reason (Wednesday), we just didn't play well and on top of that, Washington is 21-5 and ranked fifth in the state so they are a good team and can make you look like that. It was a combination of them being really good and us not being on our A game."
Kyle Loman scored nine points to lead SA and was one of five seniors to play their last game.
Alexander thanked the efforts of Loman, Kinard, Zachary Gerhart, Jon Michael Robinson, Zach Thomas and the injured Calvin Young who went to war with him during his first year as coach of the Vols.
"They've been through three coaches in three years," Alexander said. "With the way the season has gone, it would have been easy for them to quit, but I give them a lot of credit for hanging in there. They continued to battle and that says a lot about their character.
"We lose those five senior starters and Calvin. We'll look back on what we've done, evaluate and get those young guys ready to play."


text:
- Obey No1kinobe
- Sydney
- Australia
This conversation is closed.
Is it time to accept literal religious belief systems are intellectually bankrupt?
Is it time to accept literal religious belief systems are intellectually bankrupt given our current scientific understanding of the universe?
For thousands of years different religious belief systems have explained how the universe came into existence and appears the way it is, why we are here, how we should live, and what happens when we die.
Often these beliefs are enshrined in religious texts, from prophets, revelations, or interpreted by a priestly class. In addition to creation myths, there are laws and tribal history/mythologies, miraculous claims etc.
Today we have the benefit of being more aware of the variety of religious beliefs and science to show us that life and the universe is far more complex than most religious traditions give credit. The older religions are so often clearly products of their time and place in terms of explaining the world, what is acceptable, how we should live.
In asking this question I note at best only one of the many religious views could be literally correct and likely none are. While other foreign beliefs seem alien, strange and far fetched, if we are examine the traditions we are familiar with they too are strange. Religions are like clothes and language - artifacts of culture.
Today we laugh at the idea the world is flat, or the centre or the universe, that the sun and the moon are gods. We understand atoms and bacteria, plate tectonics and are starting to grasp the age and size of the universe, evolution and the diversity of life, the quantum.
Science better explains the universe, human behaviour. While never complete, perhaps science gives us a better basis for a rationale debate on the meaning and wonder of life and how best to live.
Do different religions support tribalism, or at least make it worse?
Are fundamental religious views holding back science and social development?
Are Deism or beliefs related to a non interventionist intelligence or creator still valid hypotheses and less damaging?
Closing Statement from Obey No1kinobe
There was an article in the paper yesterday discussing the US Republican candidates. It mentioned that over 40% of US Americans believe in the genesis stories. In the only country to put humans on the moon and holding the most powerful and technologically advanced military in human history, nearly half the population believes the universe was created in 6 days, Eden, the tree of knowledge, god walking in the garden, Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain, people living 900+ years etc.
I note many religious folk commented below that that they believe these scriptures are not meant to be taken literally.
Perhaps some literal beliefs are easy to discount. If you believe the Earth is a flat disc sitting on the back of a giant turtle flying through space, or gods routinely walking the earth, I suggest we can file these away as myth.
Key considerations for the other literal beliefs may include (1) whether humans were created as is or evolved and (2) whether the universe is about 6,000 years old or about 13 billion years old. (3) Are the other super normal/natural claims believable?
A god could have created the universe to look much older than it is. Our genetic similarity with other living creatures may just be the way we were created. But what a tenuous connection to reality this is. I suggest this is getting as close to being intellectually unsustainable as possible if not already over the line.
A literalist believes all the other interpretations are false. I suggest they are just one away from a more intellectually sustainable position. There is no proof for even a non interventionist creator.
A big question is how these seemingly nonsense stories, some with roots in the Bronze Age, are still believed today. Perhaps a topic for another conversation?
Thank you for all the thoughtful comments.
Jacob Miller
Mar 2 2012: There are atheist and theists who have tremendous respect and admiration for each others "intellect".And neither would presume the other to be intellectual bankrupt at all and these minds are the best of the best. Even the great Bertrand Russell said of G.K Chesterton (a catholic theologian and journalist) "This is a man of colossal genius". Modern day theologians/apologists such as Timothy Keller and Ravi Zacharias are highly respected by their peers and defend the case for theism in very well known academic settings all over the world. Maybe I have just misunderstood what you mean here. Please elaborate?
- +3
Mar 2 2012: Hi Jacob,
I can't talk for GM, but I can give you my take. I don't know anything about Chesterton, so I can't comment on that. The other two, I had never heard about Keller. So I searched and the little I found, he did give straight answers for much. I still liked him as a person. He seems to believe that the Bible is literal, which would be intellectually bankrupt already. But I did not hear if he believes, for example, that the planet is only 6,000 years old, which, if so, would put him more clearly among the intellectually bankrupt. Worse if he believes that there was an actual flood. Zaccharias, I had not heard a lot from him, but he strikes me as a snake-oil salesman, and the reason is that he uses lots of rhetorical trick, while being fallacious (at least in a couple videos I saw).
Now, don't get me wrong. These guys might be brilliant and ignorant (or brilliant and liars). But ignorance when discussing atheism in a vacuo (without learning about those things that make a lot of the intellectually-bent reject the beliefs in any gods), would be intellectually bankrupt. Wouldn't it?
As for being in academic circles. Well, Alvin Plantinga has a position in philosophy, and he makes the most outrageous fallacies for "God." I remain perplexed that other philosophers respect the guy because they find "the fallacies hard to pinpoint." I find that reason for respect absurd. I agree that you need intelligence for hiding such fallacies, but in the end, those who buy the fallacies would be intellectually bankrupt.
To summarize, even clear-cut but genial rhetoricists like Hovind (Kent, not Eric, Eric is a perfect idiot), might give the impression of intellectual power. However, that people would buy into the rhetoric and fallacies is what makes fundamentalist religions intellectually bankrupt.
Best.Mar 3 2012: Good point Jacob. I'm sure there are many people with a higher IQ and a better education in science that still have literal beliefs. Many reject evolution etc. Some have developed intelligent designer creationism to try and fit the general facts with their beliefs. Others have woven science into their beliefs. Their belief system has evolved.
I was actually looking for a better word than bankrupt when I started the conversation.
My focus is on the belief, not the individuals genuinely trying to make sense of the world.
If someone today said the sun was the golden chariot of Apollo, or the earth was flat we generally agree these beliefs have no reasonable basis. We find them wanting intellectually.
I'm suggesting the same applies to most literal belief systems both extinct and still going strong - no matter how worthy the proponents.
I understand a kid in some Amazonian jungle tribe believes in nature spirits and ancestor spirits.
Honestly, my first impression regarding the highly educated literalist belieavers is how can they believe that their particular version is the truth. But there are strong psychological and social dynamics associated with religion.
Just the simple fact that at best only one of these belief systems is the truth. Don't they get that point at least?
There is so much evidence the world and the universe is old. That all species are related via DNA etc. That neuro science at least shows us what is going on in peoples heads when they have transcendent experiences if not the conclusion whether god or nirvana is real.
Maybe bankrupt is overly emotive. But I'm starting to believe that the literal belief systems and associated stories I'm familiar with (Ra, Zeus, Mithra, Odin, Yahweh etc) just can not stand up to a non bias rational analysis (if that was ever possible). What would an alien think if they examined these beliefs? Man made cultural constructs often with prescientifc roots? Who knows. They might have their own myths.
Mar 3 2012: I think bankrupt was spot on. There is intellectual bankruptcy in believing that there was a global flood just a few thousand years ago, or that our planet is just a few thousand years old, or that the grand canyon was carved by Noah's flood. Buying into the rhetorical trickery of televangelists is intellectually bankrupt. Sorry, but adults believing that such fantasies as those in the bible are literally true cannot but be intellectually bankrupt.
I think GM, that you try too hard to be polite. That's fine. But there must be a point where you draw the line. Right?
Mar 4 2012: "Sorry, but adults believing that such fantasies as those in the bible are literally true cannot but be intellectually bankrupt."
You are right about that. No one believes anything as an adult you can only believe something the right way with the determination to believe it like a child. Intellect only gives the thieves who want it most momentary illusions of grandeur but anyone who knows anything about themselves knows they want a lot more out of life than to just understand something intellectually. Reason may do well for a lot of things but like everything else in life there still remains the issue of practicality.Mar 4 2012: Hi Gabo. Obviously I have strong views abou literalists beliefs
But I have the benefit of Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein, Watson and Crick, and so much more over the last 100 years. We take evolution and the big bang for granted.
A very good secular 20/21st century education, the internet in a rich country with reasonable separation of church and state. We have an openly atheist prime minister.
We can see the patterns, join the dots, how religion is so evidently man made - a cultural institution spreading like language. Diverse and conflicting when taken literally.
But I remember a time when I wanted to believe. I've seen all sorts of religious experience.
I feel for Branislav where to go against the Eastern Orthodox church is frankly dangerous.
I understand childhood indoctrination and also just how you absorb the christian world view just living in the Western world. I understand how faith can be banged into your head as a supreme virtue.
Religion/god is such a powerful meme. It might be like trying to unlearn English. Bits of it are stuck.
Then the benefits of socialisation, consolation.
The power of being surrounded by people who believe something - we are social and hierarchical tribal animals. We don't give up world views easily. We don't like losing an argument etc
Our brains are amazing. Combined with the hormones etc that drive our memory, feeling, reasoning, I can't blame people for having religious type views.
I guess I also think that there will be more than what science has reasonably proven today.
Maybe one day we''ll discover connections and natural forces and sub sub sub atomic particles or the remnants of other universes, or some amazing dimensions of consciousness.
But I wish people could acknowledge jumping to god, especially a specific god that usually happens to be the one in their neighbourhood, as a reasonable way to fill these gaps. And I wish they would accept they need more than god said so before forcing their way of life on us al
Roy Bourque
Mar 5 2012: Religious writings were written in the age of mythology. They come from a right-brain orientation. They are all built on associations. That includes Genesis. It is a historical myth. Adam and Eve are not two people, they represent an entire culture. And the fall in the Garden of Eden didn't happen on a warm Sunday afternoon, it was several thousand years in the making.
- +2
The forbidden fruit was anything that entices, but leaves you destitute if you partake of it. Today, we see it in the form of drug addictions, compulsive gambling, involvement with organized crime, and a host of other self-defeating activities. They all belong to the same tree because they all have the same result; they drain the life from those who partake of it. The tree is a metaphor, and it is just as real today as it was then. When you understand these things, it takes on a whole new dimension. It is about following rules. All the rules of the industrial age were written in blood and tears. The rules are there to protect, not inhibit.
Taking the Bible literally undermines what it was supposed to do, to lead us on a spiritual path that opens our eyes to untold wonders, while protecting us from harm. As Paul put it, we are ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. It is in the spirit that we meditate and pray for answers.
I wrote a book called "The Merging of Two Worlds". You may find that it provides a lot of answers.
Mar 6 2012: Thanks Roy. That is probably just as valid a view as any based on the bible.
Robert White
Mar 2 2012: Science is a movie: where each individual frame changes slightly from the one before, much as does our comprehension of the universe. The longer we watch, the more we understand of the plot, the players, and the universe in which it is set. Fundamental faiths are pictures: static once taken, with no chance of change thru time (unless tinkered with). Although each individual picture can stir emotions, some even transcendant in the image they convey, unless they can evoke relevance at any future time that they are viewed, they are dated. And the further back the picture was taken, the more dated (and irrelevant) they become.
- +2
Fundamental religious views will hold back science and social development, UNLESS the desire is for stasis. But as neither science nor social development are static, fundamentalist views will always be at odds with these ideas. The question then becomes a requirement for individuals to decide which side they want to come down on, and whether they will allow all others to search their own path, or only theirs.
Fundamentalism is SAFE... we know what we get. Science is DANGEROUS... the search may take us where we never expected (or wanted, or should) go.
Mar 5 2012: Like the film metaphor. Perhaps some developments are platform changes e.g. Darwins evolution of species might be like a shift from silent to sound, or from black and white to colur, or to 3D etc
Josh S
Mar 8 2012: Hello everybody,
- +1
I'd first like to respond to G M, who created this discussion.
I will specifically be talking about Christianity and the Bible for this discussion, simply because i am most familiar with it and am not familiar with other religious texts.
You seem to assume that the Bible spoke out against the world being flat, spoke out against diseases, and is completely against accurate history and science. However, the Bible does not contradict these things. For examples, the Bible itself said that the world was round (Isaiah 40:22). It never in fact contradicts scientific discovers such as that of bacteria, the atom, and the like.
Moreover, the Bible has proven to be the most accurate piece of literature that we have today. Every account of where things should be (historically speaking) such as the location of towns and what-have-you, is all correct. It remains to be the most accurate literature we have.
You also mention that religion is like culture, but the Bible is 100% the same as it was 1900 years ago. This is evidenced by the dead-sea scrolls. It does not change with culture, with 'fads' or with anything, but remains the same.
However, i would like to note the difference between the Bible, and Christian Doctrine. Nowhere in the the Bible does it support racism or the like, but people may turn it and take it out of context to fit there purpose. While i do admit that religious speakers may be incorrect at times, the Bible is not. Religion, in the sense of traditions, and preaching done by people may change, but the Bible itself, the basis of Christianity, does not, and this is important to note.
Mar 8 2012: Hi Josh, I guess I see it all a bit differently.
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth." The earth is a sphere, not a circular plane. Maybe they meant sphere.
Gen 1.1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth. How would someone 2000 years interpret heavens. I guess the heavens were the day and night sky. They had no idea the stars were distant suns or how big the universe was. Probably thought of the heavens as some sort of sheet with pin points of light for stars and the sun and the moon revolving around the earth. We read heavens nowand think of something quite different.
Perhaps we really need to go back to the original language texts - is this referring to the heaven where god sits. I don't know. Do you really think that by heavens they meant all the galaxies in the universe? Sure its pretty vague 2000 years later but I doubt it. The moon is not a great light gen 1.16.
The core purpose of Bible is not to explain atoms, chemistry, physics. This helps it avoid a lot of issues with how we now understand the universe. But it reflects the state of knowledge from the time it was written. Not much evidence of god knowledge.
I guess I could go through verse by verse and point out issues. But some basics regarding some literalist views.
- The Earth is not 6000 years old
- Earth is not the centre of the universe, or even the centre of the galaxy
- Man was not created. Homo Sapiens evolved.
Then there are all the supernatural claims starting with god creating the earth, creating light, sending plagues, destroying cities, turning people to salt, flooding the entire earth.
In the space I have left, agree the bible hasn't changed much since they decided on the final compilation. Orthodox have a slightly different compilation. Agree the doctrine is not the same as the bible. But I stand by taking it literally conflicts with our modern scientific understanding and that none of the many interpretations by humans can claim to be the truth.
Mar 8 2012: Hi G M
"The earth is a sphere, not a circular plane. Maybe they meant sphere. "
Job 26:7 (NIV)
"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing."
Not much doubt about that.
"They had no idea the stars were distant suns or how big the universe was. Probably thought of the heavens as some sort of sheet with pin points of light for stars and the sun and the moon revolving around the earth. "
Genesis 22:17 (NIV)
"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies,"
The number of stars is equated to the grains of sand on the seashore, which is close by today's calculations. The first scientific estimate was 6000
Isaiah 42:5 (NIV)
"This is what God the Lord says---the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:"
Red Shift anyone.
Job 36:27-28 (NIV)
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams ; [28] the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind."
Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 (NIV)
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. [7] All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again."
Hydrologic cycle, years before we worked it out.
The bible has always been clear that the universe had a beginning & an end, & that it was winding down. This is recent news to many in the scientific community.
The bible isn't really a science book, but it certainly doesn't conflict with science.
:-)Mar 8 2012: Hello G M, i do agree with you that the bible was not made to be a scientific book, atleast not as its sole or main purpose. However, in all the times that it does go into science, it seems to be correct. You gave 3 main examples as to how science conflicts with the Bible, I guess I'd like to adress those 3:
1. "the earth is not 6000 years old" - this number was created by priests that followed the lineage of human ancestry given in the Old Testament. If we do take the number to mean 6000 years old, and say that, it at most is talking about human ancestry. Again, in science, nothing argues this. However, in the bible there seems to be a momentary pause in time, between the creation of humans and the creation of the universe "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Genesis 1 1-2. There is a clear distinction in time between the creation of Earth, and the creation of humans.
2. I don't see any scriptural debate for your argument, yes the Catholic church has supported this view, but the Bible does not.
3. The evolution of man is still theory, in fact to humans now, if we were to take the bias out of it, both arguments can seem ridiculous : Evolutionary view: Multibillion-celled superorganisms that feel emotions came from a hostile soup, which would in fact kill them if we were there today. Biblical View: an omnipotent being created humans in his own image
Both views can seem fantastical, but the Bible has yet to be proven wrong on science, so I don't doubt it now.
Mar 9 2012: Thanks Josh.
The parts of evolution I struggle with the most are the start of DNA based life up until relatively complex life forms. From there the connections supporting evolution are pretty strong and make sense to me intuitively. I can see the genetic relation between us and the great apes, then all the mammals, then all the vertebrae etc. The tree of life. I can see how species could evolve.
I also struggle with the concept of gravity. I see what it does. I can do the calculations. What is it. How does it work. How does mass interact over near infinite distances. Somehow every bit of matter interacts with other matter via gravity.
Even matter. We know its not solid. Made of atoms 99.99999% empty space. Then the subatomic particles are not really solid either. It seems matter is like concentrated energy. What is energy.
There is a lot I struggle with. But to jump to a god is huge step. To jump to one belief system as being the best descriptor of this god is another huge step.
All science is theories. The ones that survive fit the facts best and can be used to predict. They are refined. I don't get it all. But there are many of these theories that fit together very well explaining the universe and people with much less dissonance than any religion I have encountered.
I can see how you would interpret things your way. I guess there has been a 2000+ years trying to fit texts with the changing understanding of the physical universe. Expect there are ready made answers and examples.
But can you see how my materialistic view also fits the universe as we see it.
Can you see the similarity between a human and a chimpanzee.
They use tools.
They seem to mourn lost ones.
The anatomical similarities.
They can understand sign language.
It seems eminently plausible we share a common heritage.
And now we know our DNA shows how similar we are.
If there is a god, the world might look exactly as it does. Same if there is no god.
Mar 5 2012: "In asking this question I note at best only one of the many religious views could be literally correct and likely none are."
- +1
I find this quite interesting.......you are not the only person with this view.
I honestly feel that it is possible to find those whose views are correct. We have within our thinking ability, the power to reason. And there is the "ring of truth" out there if we look carefully.
Fundamentalists have done alot of damage spreading incorrect views of creation, that are not in harmony with scripture.
The mixing of politics and religion(Christendom), which commenced in the fourth century with Constantine, has mudied up scriptural truth for a very long time.
And yet, there have been many, beginning in the ninth century, who, at the risk of dying, have sacrificed to make the scriptures accessible to the common people in their own language.
Why have the scriptures survived until our day?
How can some faithful ones continue to preach it's message?
Religious beliefs are just that.....beliefs.......scriptural truths are something totally different.
Religious beliefs are in foreclosure..........
The truth is out there........we have to look for it.
This is my humble opinion.
Comment deleted
Mar 6 2012: Hi Adriaan,
- 0
Yes I will go to a link.....you have to give me some days, as I have alot of reading to catch up on from some other TEDsters.
Please give me the link directly as I do not know where exactly you placed it for GM.
MaryMar 4 2012: It seems to me that there are people who are uncomfortable with not knowing. Peter says he was looking for truth and he found it in the bible. I think that there may be truths but there is no ultimate truth that we humans can know now. What there is I would call mystery, not knowing. I think perhaps people who need to find some ultimate truth feel adrift and want answers because they fear death, or are afraid they will not find meaning in their life, or they want to know there is some kind of ultimate justice that makes their own virtue meaningful. Humankind has been creating stories to explain or talk about mystery and our own human experience for a very long time. The folks that feel they need to know often tether themselves to one of the stories and call it the truth. They might look for facts that support their chosen truth while pushing back those that don't. In my moral construct this is a great sin. In their pride and arrogance they narrow and confine the mystery. I choose to be in awe and leave it at that. That is my idea of faith. So my answer is yes. Literal religious belief is intellectually hollow and spiritually inadequate.
Mar 5 2012: I shouldn't speak for Peter, but in other conversations his specific story sounded quite different to what you suppose.
There has been a lot of creation science and intelligent design work done to support different religious views. Some of it can be fairly convincing. Floodology (my word) is used to explain fossils etc and the illusion that the Earth looks older than it is. Islam has its own stands of relgious science to support their views drawing connections between black holes and the koran etc.
Around the 1800's mainstream science stopped accepting theories with supernatural aspects although most scientists were theists. At some point some religious groups rejected the slippery slope of trying to reinterpret religious texts in light of continuing scientific discoveries. All these contortions are so interesting but also kind of sad. What a stubborn species we are.
Totally agree in general about the story creation. Interesting comment about literalist views being spiritually hollow. Can you expand?
Mar 5 2012: Science posits the Theory of Evolution and then examines the flow of new evidence to determine if it does or does not support the broader theory and the current thought about the details. While there is entrenchment in all areas of science, it will eventually give way to new physical evidence because discovering and understanding physical evidence is what science is trying to do. Everything is invited in. Creationists are selectively looking for evidence to support an idea they found in a book. There is a confining, a cramping of what is allowed in.
Who is having a spiritual experience? Who is open to the awe and mystery of creation? One cannot be open to mystery unfolding if the final chapter has already been written. I am not a scientist. My formal science education was limited. Now I experience joyful, yes spiritual, amazement as I learn more and more about the complexity and connections in our physical world. Why would I want to limit my understanding and appreciation of this ongoing discovery to the confines of a book written by people who lived centuries ago? Because it is the Word of God? I decided as a teenager that the god of my Christian upbringing was too small when my religious teachers tried to confine him with their beliefs. And the same people would confine the Word of God to one book of their choosing.
It is incontrovertible that something awesome and beyond human understanding is going on. Everything, everything is a miracle. I don't mind that people want to create stories to talk about this mystery but, when they say the story is literally true and cannot be changed, they are taking away its life. If the story is not living and breathing, if it cannot change its shape, it is not able to provide adequate spiritual support to the living and breathing and changing world. It is like food that fills but does not nourish; the eater may not even realize what they are missing.
Mar 5 2012: great post. thank you.Mar 6 2012: Wonderful post. The natural universe is amazing and wondrous and stranger, deeper, bigger, smaller, older, more complicated than any old religion could imagine.Feb 27 2012: Even some atheists can be said to have a sort of "belief". The problems arise when an effort is made to impose any belief on those who do not share it..
Feb 27 2012: I agree and oppose forcing any belief system on others. Some would argue science is a belief system - don't want to go down that rabbit hole.
I also believe in separation of church and state. This protects those with different faiths as well as no faith.
I disagree with Imposing atheism or religious belief on children.
Happy to teach about all religions and non religious world views at schools including ethics. Actually this would be a good thing.Mar 2 2012: Atheists have a lack of belief in a God or gods, and shift the burden of proof where it belongs, onto those claiming the existence of such things. No more, no less.
This lack of belief is justified by a lack of evidence.
Mar 2 2012: 'Lack of evidence' , this is a interesting expression , what is this really mean ?
- +1
Gabo Moreno
Mar 3 2012: Eduard,
- +1
It is incredibly ridiculous to suggest that we have to be philosophers in order for our conclusions to be correct. Yes, they do some training. But I have caught one too many of them getting to the wrong conclusion and falling for ridiculous fallacies. Since philosophy is one of the most abundant titles held by apologists, I have to conclude that it must be too easy to get a degree on that thing. Sorry for the good philosophers.
Also today philosophy cannot survive as pure thought. Information is necessary, and a philosopher trying to, for example, work on the philosophy if science, would have too much to learn. While what I see is imbeciles (apologists with philosophy degrees, but not all philosophers are like these) trying to ridicule physics and Big bangs, based on prehistoric notions of nature and science. My guess is that this is why Hawking said that philosophy is dead. I disagree. But philosophy cannot be done in a vacuo. Don't get me wrong. Philosophy is an important discipline. We would all benefit of a good training in proper thinking and such. But apologists make philosophy look silly.Mar 2 2012: Chris what you say is often but certainly not always true. For example many, if not most, of those who grew up under Maoism were indoctrinated to believe in atheism almost as a religion and Mao was their prophet (if not God). The cult of personality of Stalin was similar. Any form of indoctrination that promotes adoption of any belief without personal investigation tends to share characteristics with "religions". Pure Athiesm would not I would agree. Also you may admit that Buddhism may also qualify since many Buddhists deny the ultimate existence of any deities. Also Gautama told his students to accept no proposition without examining it themselves.
Mar 3 2012: Chad, agree. Suggest in an ideal world we would be taught about religions and other world views and let people come to their own conclusions.
Eduard, I've made a little effort and come to a conclusion. If I can anyone can in similar circumstances. It's easier than ever to get on the internet or read a few books. We are not starting from scratch in terms of the heavy lifting for philosophy, science, analysis of religions etc.
9/3/12 Eduard - Not starting from scratch - by this I mean we have the benefit of many thoughtful people with many different views and arguments. We have the benefit of many debates and books essays and blogs. A few hours on youtube or ted and you can pick up a lot of the basic arguments and ideas, even some more advanced.
Suggest the challenge is more related education and cultural issues. It is just not accepted in some places to go against the ethnic or cultural religion openly.
Yes we are not all thinkers and we have evolved to conform to preserve group harmony, but our reason may take us in a different directionMar 3 2012: This idea of letting people come to their own conclusions has been very much spread (here on TED too ) ; in my opinion it is a trap because in order to come to some true conclusions you have to make a careful analysis , to think .... no person do it spontaneously, in a natural way ; there is need of training and of a lot of mental work usually ; look a reason why philosophers and thinkers are so important .
We aren't all thinkers , this is obvious , therefore the likelihood that your own conclusions to be true is very low .
I also agree it's crucial to think for ourselves but a certain amount of trust/belief I think it's needed .
Another kind of fallacious thinking is to suggest the idea that the all religions supports indoctrination (no investigation , critical thinking) .Mar 7 2012: G M:
It's not that easy to build your mind (even by reading some books or get on the internet) , it takes more than this to really be a man in terms of mental ability .
I don't know what you mean by 'starting from scratch' : to not start from scratch with your mental ability or to can have some knowledge . Even the second happen if the first don't ( and it takes time and effort) I personally won't pay too much attention on your conclusions , it will be easy to destroy them . You know, the most people are so willing to be destroyed ...... this makes them to look so ridicule . Many atheists are in this condition .Mar 4 2012: Chris I respect Atheists for their honesty. However if you think about it you might might consider looking at it by stating your negative as "I believe there is no god" thus you still seem to believe something even though the something is the reality of nothing. If you really only lack faith that there is something and are neutral then wouldn't a more accurate statement be that " I don't know if there is a god or not" which would be equivalent to agnosticism. Actually from a position of a hardcore Atheist the burden of proof is equally shared in theory though how anyone would propose to "prove a negative" I would love to hear.
Mar 4 2012: Maybe semantics but I think Chris simply said a lack a belief in gods - not a belief that there are no gods. There is a subtle difference.
After that you can have any world view or beliefs you want. Humanism, Buddhism (technically) etc.
My view is technically agnostic. I admit no one really knows if there are gods, or whether there are minute intelligent entities sitting inside each electron. There could be 16 invisible gods sitting beside me. I don't know. Is the burden of proof on me to disprove every variation of theist claims or possibilities. How do you disprove an invisible entity.
With benefit of modern science and reason, on the shoulders of giants, we know enough today to be reasonably confident all the thousands if not millions of literalist interpretations are nonsense. If you are a believer in one view, you also reject all the others.
If there are gods, they seem to have no practical impact on my life. So practically I am an atheist.
Guess most atheist or agnostics have some sort of rationale on how they came to this conclusion. After all I guess we have assessed the theist options and found them wanting.Mar 7 2012: Gabo :
(I hope you'll see my comment)
I understand your reserves about some philosophers ; my view is that part of the philosophers job is to check the conclusions ...... you know we have here : science philosophers , empirical philosophers, cognitive philosophers...... (maybe it's a old labeling, I don't know but we have/had them ) therefore I think they can check our conclusions (about science for example , Karl Popper).
Apologist can't be real philosophers because they don't try to see the truth ; they have something in mind and try to fit everything with that (I did that before too as a amateur) ; there isn't a disinterest quest for truth .
It's obvious now I didn't have in mind to talk about apologists even though they hold philosophy degrees .
My 'problem' with you is that you don't believe in God and value logic (it seems from our talks) while I do believe in God and value logic too ( at least I try) .
Why this happen ? All I got from you so far is that my logic was fallacious with some examples ; it builds me .......... but I still believe in God .
Mar 9 2012: Eduard, it show how amazing the human brain is that from different upbringings and experiences we can look at many of the same information and come out with completely different views.
Even people who believe in gods can't agree.
Even people who follow Jesus don't agree.
Maybe there is some truth in there.
But this diversity of belief in gods makes me very suspect of anyone who thinks their god is the only real one. Or their beliefs are the correct ones.Mar 9 2012: I understand your reservers . It's not a wonder that we have different views about god because, look around you, we don't have the same view about the same table .
With a bit of work I think that many possibilities (gods) can be brought down only to very few . We can work something out if we want to , we always can.
But this idea to make someone believe there is no god , it's fallacious .
Mar 9 2012: Hi Eduard.
Seems we agree that all the different literal interpretations of god(s) can't be correct.
How would you narrow it down. Perhaps to the invisible ones.
Perhaps to the gods people still believe in today.
Maybe the religion that most accurately describes gods is extinct.
How is it fallacious to think it most likely to be no god? I admit we don't know.
If there are god(s), its obvious humans can not agree about it.
How do you know there is only one. How do you know there aren't infinite universes some with gods others without?
What insight do you have that makes you certain?
Not even a little bit of faith required? Very interested to hear.
My world view seems to fit a 21st century understanding of the universe, history, human culture, behaviour, religions and their practices, experience and psychology at least as well as a religious one.Mar 10 2012: I can narrow it down pretty easy theoretically : making experiments about this gods .
I didn't say it's fallacious to think is very likely to be no god , I said it's fallacious to think this guiding you after that idea (=many 'gods') , and this is obvious .
Come on GM , you know it's not unscientific to believe in God . It's true there are many ways to believe and some of them wrong but there are rational ways too , you can have a 21th century understanding of the world and believe in God .
Perhaps there are infinite universes , I even think that , if they are some with gods others without ...? I don't know exactly what you mean by it , how could be an universe with god ? by being some people who think God exist ? or do you mean God being the substance of that universes or a part of that universes ? ....... or ... I don't know what you mean by your question .
And something else I' not supposed to have the all answers about god(s) .
Mar 10 2012: "you can have a 21th century understanding of the world and believe in God ." I agree depending on how you define god and how well you understand the science.
Some beliefs in gods clash with science and our 21st century understanding of the universe. Others less so.
I misunderstood your fallacy comment earlier. It may be impossible to rule out some sort of creator god. Whatever we understand, people can say an invisible god set it up that way. Some claim god set up evolution. Can never win this argument.
I don't know if there is or isn't some sort of god, but stand by the logic all the different religious interpretations cant be 100% correct. One or some might come close. I would argue it is only possible at best for one literal one. I also propose that a less specific non interventionist type creator is more plausible a fit than Ganesh or the Jewish tribal god etc. The different cultural interpretations and specifics are contradictory and probably mostly wrong even if there is some sort of creating intelligence.
We are just starting to scratch the surface understanding the universe. What is outside the 14 Billion light years we see with Hubble. There could be other universes. They could be popping into existence all over the place on a scale we can barely comprehend, like the number of atoms in a glass of water. It gets infinitely small too. Every electron could contain many universes. What some might call god might be a committee of many entities. Reality is likely stranger and more complex than we can begin to imagine.
If there is some creator of the universe its a big assumption to think humans are the centre of its focus or that our human brains have come close to comprehending what it might be. It makes sense that humans would create gods focusing on humans. Billions of galaxies each with billions of stars seems overkill if humans are main focus of a creator. Could be. Or everything is and happened with no gods
Gabo Moreno
Mar 11 2012: Eduard,
- +1
It makes much more sense to start by thinking that all gods are equally made up until proven otherwise than to decide to "narrow it down" as if there was some reason why there would have to be "one," and one that is already believed to exist. Narrowing down sounds a lot like a nonsensical waste of time.
Then if you got to wanting to "narrow it down" yet you accept that you can't get to the true one by reason (you said that you don't get to "God" by reason, remember?), then it is worse, because "narrowing down" becomes a process of comparing nonsense. How the hell do you do that? Then, if narrowing it down means that you will accept every single nonsense and contradiction in a belief system as if they were not contradictions and nonsense, then for sure you will end up believing that the god you already believed is the true one. After all for starters, you accepted that there was a god,. That there could be none never entered your mind. You accepted that reason would not lead you there, so what's left? Then you accepted that any contradictions are not contradictions because ... well, just because you accept anything rather than accept that your specific god is false. Thus, anybody trying to narrow this down using your methods will arrive at their already believed gods. Pure nonsense and a waste of time. Bring me evidence. Bring me reasonable evidence that there is at least one god, I might start changing my mind. But telling me that something as nonsensical as the biblical god is "the one," shows me enough intellectual bankruptcy in your methods. So no thanks.
Luis Murrell
Feb 27 2012: It depends on your meaning of the word "literal". The Biblical creation and flood stories were lifted from earlier Mesopotamian legends (who may have gotten them from even older legends from India, or from oral histories from the end of the last ice age). The Bible gives a moral meaning to the events- it's no longer the warring of opposing gods and supernatural beings, with humans as an insignificant by-product; it's the action of a single Deity bringing order from chaos, culminating in a being made in His own image. A devout Jew or Christian can be "non-literal" in the descriptive part (literal six days of creation) but "literal" in the perceived moral part (the universe as having inherent direction, purpose, capacity to generate value). Mind you that this covers a wide spectrum- from the "weak anthropists" (say, Teilhard de Chardin) to the Intelligent Designers. Although I wouldn't give anyone from the Discovery Institute the time of day, I'm not about ready to consider Teilhard intellectually bankrupt.
- +1
Feb 27 2012: Thanks Luis. I mean taking it all literally. Adam and Eve. Noah and his boat. Parting of the red sea. The creation story.
God picking the hebrew tribes. Young earthers etc.Similar for Buddha being born out the side of his mother etc.
I also mean taking the old laws as applying today.
Also any belief that thinks it has the correct view of god. God is Yahweh. God is the trinity. God is Allah. Zeus etc are gods.
I think Teilhard might have been less literal about the creation story. Accepting evolution removes some dissonance. Guess there are less issues conflicting with science etc is you cut the most mythical bits.
Not sure how you pick and choose the themes. Seems very subjective. Expect many have changed to suit the times.Mar 9 2012: Karen, some great thoughtful posts I can't reply to as 3rd level down.
Sometimes it looks like Moses was making it up as he went.
A literal old testament god is pretty scary.
Glad we have freedom of religion in our society today and believers aren't allowed to kill those that quit their relgion.
Sadly not the case in all countries.
Even if not meant to be literal, some people take it literally, and the symbolic interpretations might also include some nasty elements.
Regarding stories and myth. Agree its fascinating. Today iIts hard to imagine a world before writing, or even very scare writing and literacy. I imagine many of these stories started as oral traditions.
The power and the stickiness of religion is amazing. Such a powerful meme. Something to explore (probably for the nth time) in another conversation.Mar 9 2012: GM,
Il post up here because i dont seem to be able to reply to your reply below =p
As a student of science, i have been quizzed, tested and lectured on all of what you talk about, and i understand completely the concept of evolution and the similarities of DNA. Interestingly, almost half our DNA is the same as a banana, 99% is the same as a chimp. I understand completely the similarities in genetics as well as behavior. We can pin the first animal all the way to sponges, even further back to bacteria, where according to science it all began. The way in which our views differ is this: you take the similarities and believe that shows a connection, a connection between all forms of life. I see this connection differently. I see it as logic, i believe it is quite logical for a creator to make organisms similar. Why make everything completely different from each other. While this may seem like an escape route to you, it makes sense to me. The old phrase 'why reinvent the wheel if you dont have to' applies perfectly. This is how i view it and you have your own belief. There is no definite material proof for either side and it is simply a matter of faith.
Mar 9 2012: Thanks Josh.
TED conversations stop at the 3rd level of response.
Agree there are many ways a creator could be compatible with evolution etc.
The creator could have just set the universe in play and left it to its own devices with evolution happening all by itself. Perhaps on many worlds.
Alternatively, the creator could have set up a universe where evolution was inevitable on many worlds.
Alternatively a creator could have set up the universe so that life only appeared on planet earth.
I personally think it unlikely this is the only world with life and that there is some cosmic human destiny and universe revolves around humans. Still perhaps it does.
Some think humans were inevitable. Some think if we rolled the dice again something different would appear. I expect not completely different, probably organically based.
Some think humans and all the animals were created pretty much as is but with recent minor variation due to natural selection or human driven selection e.g. the cow from the Auroch. They would say god created us with DNA but discount the evolution of species.
My view is the current species evolved without any help. We have a common ancestor with the great apes some millions of years ago. etc.
Agree there could be a creator at some level compatible with evolution. This creator must have been pretty patient. I doubt we are the only species or that the universe and god revolves around us. Again, this can be made compatible with some sort of creator god.
Agree we don't know. Difficult to prove an invisible god outside matter, energy, space and time, who works in a spiritual dimension no one can detect or prove.
Some point to religious experiences. I think it likely most all religious experience goes on in the heads of individuals like turbo meditation - but not involving gods.
We come close to sharing a world view, except the final question of god. I find this a better fit with our understanding of the universe today. We could both b wrng
Mar 10 2012: Thank you to you too G M,
it was a good conversation, and it seems that we only disagree on that issue, because i agree that there is probably other life forms, seeing as there is evidence of earlier life on the only other planet we have visited, which poses its own questions, but back on topic, great conversation.
-JoshMar 10 2012: Josh,
It is ridiculous to say that "both positions" are based on faith (leaving aside that people can believe in a god and accept the evidence for evolution). I have no faith whatsoever that the frequency of alleles in populations change with time. There is evidence, and we can calculate how that happens and verify it. I have no faith that there is variability within populations of a single species, and that such variety can give some individuals advantages under one environment or another. This is obvious, and there is also direct evidence. I have no faith that fossils differ more and more from what we see today as the strata where they are found are older. There is plenty of evidence. I have no faith that we might find fossils showing apes that link us to the other great apes close to the geographic areas where we find those apes most similar to us, we have found plenty such fossils right there. I have no faith that viruses can insert into our DNA. We know this from direct evidence. I have no faith such viruses don't insert themselves independently at the same position in two organisms, we know this from direct evidence. I have no faith that if we and the other apes did not share common ancestry, then our inserted viruses should be different and found in different positions, and that finding the very same virus inserted at equivalent places by chance is very low compared to finding them that way because the insertion happened in a common ancestor, this makes sense, and we have found such thing. Not just one virus, but many, at common positions, which makes sense if we share ancestry. I have no faith about any of the much more evidence I can't write about within this comment. To say that evolution is a matter of faith cannot be but ridiculous.
Sorry but I get tired of this ridiculous claim. I have heard it too many times, so now I lose patience for it immediately. Worse if you are supposed to be studying science. That makes me feel you should know better.
Mar 10 2012: Hi Gabo, I agree Science is in a different league to religion in process, intent and need for faith/belief.
They are polar opposites in many ways.
Science tries to make sense of the world based on evidence and will discard theories that don't stack up.
Religion, assumes its core tenants are correct. I note human religious adherents often look for ways to reduce the dissonance between science and their scriptures or beliefs. Some even adapt their beliefs in non core areas e.g. accepting evolution. Others resort to backward engineered theories such as Intelligent designer and creation "science".
The religious have faith that their often cultural interpretation is correct and all others are wrong.
However, for the non religious layman such as myself, there is an element of trust regarding science. I have to trust that there has been no major distortions of the evidence or simple misinterpretation. I have to trust the evidence for the leading theories is overwhelming. Many of us don't have familiarity with the evidence that a scientist might. I'm wary of bias or some of the specific or detailed claims on the cutting edge of science. Other things are bedded down fairly reliable.
I can see from a religious view that there might be concerns about bias. They might say that science is a moving feast - Pluto was a planet now its just one of many transneptunian objects. The subtleties of science may not be well taught. That this theory is very well established and the that one is more on the cutting edge or that there are several explanations and no clear direction yet. The layman atheist may strongly hold a distorted scientific view etc.
This flexibility, this obvious human process, is its strength and a weakness for attack.
As an atheist my world view has evolved. I am open to adjusting it if science or an reasonable argument fits the evidence. But being human I realise I may sometimes latch on to ideas that fit my paradigms. But
Mar 10 2012: Hi GM,
I don't have much time to elaborate. Yes, we trust some stuff. But it would be nonsensical to compare that trust, trust on things that are plausible, to faith in the invisible and illogical (from cosmic gods and miracles, and long et cetera, which are so far from even plausible). For example, I have no problem trusting that Nero or Julius Cesar lived. Or that there might have been a guy named Jesus. Nothing extraordinary or unbelievable about those. I have no problem with natural explanations for our origins because they don't require me to accept anything that would break anything in the way reality works. But believing that a guy named Jesus was a god made into man who could suspend natural laws at will, and who resurrected? Nah, that is so far from plausible that it reminds me of the famous "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I hope that was clear enough. Not much time to elaborate further or better.
Best!Mar 11 2012: I agree Gabo. Comparing religious faith to our trust in Science is at best a misunderstanding.
I'm just trying to explore the mindset of believers and test my assumptions.
I'm convinced all religions are man made and their gods and supernatural claims are imaginary.
All great faiths and traditions. I include Buddhist reincarnation.
We know they are human made from a practical perspective - Jesus was a man. Muhammad was a man. Joesph Smith was a man, Charles Russell was a man. Hubbard. Mary Baker Eddy was a woman (at last).
They are founded by humans. Their orthodoxy and rules are decided by humans. They are led by men (mostly).
Some of the stories should make us fairly skeptical. The missing body and convenient ascension into invisibility. The dictating angel in a cave. The mysterious golden plates and seer stones etc. Visions. Revelation. Hidden away. Invisible gods.....Mar 9 2012: Hi Karen,
By your comments, it appears you are taking this story far too literally. That is the exoteric version, and it offers little in terms of wisdom. This story was written in the age of mythology, and the writer gives us clues to say that this story is no different, for how could over a million people be served by only two midwives (compare Exodus 12:37 with 1:15)?
According to Bernard Anderson, professor of Old Testament theology, in his book "understanding the Old Testament", the story was written after the fact. According to other sources (I can't name them without a little research) the story of Moses being found in a basket is found in other pre-biblical texts, so it is not unique to this story. That being said, the elements of the story are all pieces of a puzzle, and you can't analyze each piece individually. They are all pieces of a much larger picture, so you have to put the pieces together and see what the whole picture looks like.
Moses was raised in the house of Levi (Exodus 2:1-10), so he would have been partial to Levi. Secondly, the sons of Levi are being taken by God as the firstborn of Israel (numbers 8:14-19), and the firstborn, as represented by Cain, Ishmael, and Esau were all rejected by God because they were the aggressors. And Levi is no different (Genesis 49:5-7). So they have some straightening up to do. And that is what is represented by the tabernacle.
Eastern philosophy regards the firstborn as the animal passions, what we are born with. The spiritual ascension is what is referred to as second born, twice born, or born again in Eastern philosophy. As Jesus says, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). Its all part of a much bigger picture. You can't pick out pieces here and there and analyze them singularly.Mar 8 2012: Hello Karen,
The Levites were an aggressive group and essentially become what we would refer today as the secret service of our government officials, to serve and protect the priesthood (Numbers 1:45-54). What role they play is important to the story. They were to protect and serve the tabernacle (Numbers 8:5-22). What the tabernacle represented is the key to the story. It wasn't just a place of worship. It was a symbol of God among the people. Its whole setup is explained in Eastern philosophy; the ark of the covenant represented the dwelling place of God. It was contained in the center of the Holy of Holies, which was surrounded by four coverings. Like a mendala (as explained by Joseph Campbell) it represented the abysmal dark from which all things come and back to which they go. And when appearances emerge, they break into pairs of opposites. Those opposites were represented by the two cherubim facing each other on the top of the ark of the covenant.
The veil that separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy place is the same veil that separates our understanding from the wisdom of God. It is the veil that we strive to see beyond that we may know the spirit of god. The four coverings represent the sheaths of the human body. The outermost covering represents the physical body. It is the coarsest of the sheaths, and is represented by badgers skins. The next sheath is the astral body. It is more refined, and is represented by rams skins dyed red. The next sheath is the mental body. It is represented by fine goats hair. the innermost sheath is the spiritual body. It is represented by fine linen.
The people were on the outside, represented by their separation from God. The mystery was to seek your way to the place behind the veil by spiritual ascension (or inner awakening), what would later be regarded as the search for the Holy Grail. The prophet Malachi gives us a perspective (Malachi 3:1-3).
Mar 8 2012: Roy, I am not conversant in Biblical symbolism though I am a fan of Joseph Campbell's work. I'm not sure how what you have written explains Exodus 32: 18-35. What I read in the passage is that God is communicating with Moses and no one else in the group. The people are a worried and restless bunch and seem to lack confidence in Moses. Moses leaves for a period to be with God and get the tablets. The people think Moses will not return and they are fearful, like children, so they ask Aaron to make a god to help them and he fashions a calf from their gold. They feel better when they have something to pray and sacrifice to. God knows this is going on and expresses his ire to Moses who asks God's forbearance to which God agrees. Moses goes down to join the people and, even though God gave him the scoop, he seems to have forgotten all about forbearance and goes ballistic. He has a "hissy fit' and throws the tablets down and breaks them. He burns the gold, grinds it up, combines it with water and makes the people drink it. Then he gets on Aaron who does not want to take any personal responsibility for his actions and even lies by saying the calf made itself in the fire. Moses has a kind of "what will the neighbors think?" moment and decides to take punitive action. He calls out for all those that are for the Lord to come to his side. The Levites come and apparently that is all. I wonder why Moses and God were not more appealing to the group as a whole. So the Levites follow his command to take a sword and kill his brother, friend and neighbors. What happened to "Thou shall not kill". They kill about 3000 of their (unarmed) family, friends and neighbors and Moses blesses them for their service to God. To the still living he says they are bad sinners but he will try to atone for them. He goes to God and again asks for mercy for these sinners and even steps up to say what sounds like "the buck stops here, I'll take the punishment."Mar 8 2012: continued ." But God is not buying this and says "just get them going to Israel. I'll punish them in my own time." Later he sends a plague for punishment. Does that sound right to you? There is no tabernacle in this story so you lost me at the first tabernacle. Would you like to try again? I would appreciate it.Mar 9 2012: Roy, your explanation quite fascinating. Thank you.Mar 6 2012: Psalm 139:14 (NIV)
[14] I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
Are we blind ?
Mar 7 2012: The process of seed to fruit is indeed amazing no matter what living entity it may be. Perhaps the gestation of a human is most impressive but I am also struck by the complexity of what appear to be "simple" life forms. How can there be that much information density in anything? Even things that are not defined as alive have processes that take on the semblance of life. I recently went to a talk about waves and currents. Wow!
In the end though, I don't see how one transfers that appreciation to a "you" even metaphorically. It doesn't seem to me that all this complexity and information that humans are aware of and all that is still unknown can be attributed to a "you". "You" s have faces and personalities; they have bodies. It is just not a big enough concept. I'm a bit partial to the longer but more fitting "That which cannot be named". It seems to confer the proper respect.
Mar 7 2012: Hi Karen.
It depends to a large extent on what, or who, you think you are. Are you a child of God, or are you something else? If you are a CofG then there would be a family resemblance. God might have a face & a personality, or other attributes similar to you. We as humans should be able to understand something about how He has made things; we should have similar logic.
As it happens, we do have a fair grasp on how things work, & we continue to learn.
Only one man has made a claim to be God, & he backed it up with a lot of evidence, culminating in rising from the dead. He even has a face & a personality.
If he was a liar, then we are back at the start; what are we ? And why should we just happen to understand so much science, Mathis etc. I go for the CofG hypotheses .
Mar 7 2012: Peter, thank you for responding. Here is what I am thinking and I have more questions. To arrive at the "who" in Psalms, you are making assumptions that I have not made in arriving at a spiritual understanding. I confess to having a logical mind, math oriented type, so it rebels at leaps of logic and building constructs on possibly faulty assumptions. Right off, I don't know what "I" am because there is more than one possibility and I don't have enough information to draw a conclusion. Do you include only humans as CoG? You assume a family resemblance. That seems very unlikely to me so I wonder how you so easily make that assumption. The power of this world and the universe, stars, galaxies, infinite space, black holes, the source of all knowledge great and small……looks like me? I would say "In your dreams" and you seem to readily accept this idea as given. I am really curious what it is about you and me that brings us to such different views of this probability. That is a segue to the next assumption, that we as humans would share God's logic. I need to ask which one of us is sharing that logic because it seems like we two do not have the same kind? : ) My weak little brain is no match for minds of many humans so I would feel excessively prideful to make any comparison between myself and the intelligence contained in universe. Yes, I am a bit of that universe and contain some of that intelligence, but the enormity of the whole makes the comparison to me meaningless as I see it.
Judging by history I'm not ready to say we have a fair grasp on how things work. It seems like we have learned a great deal in the realm of the hard sciences but I have no concept of what we still do not know so I would hesitate to make any measure of our success. You seem much more optimistic in your assessment. Can you tell me why?
Oh space is up. I have more.Mar 7 2012: You are speaking of Jesus I assume. I've heard that he never claimed to be God so can you help me with a quote. Of course, for me, a quote will not seal the deal because, knowing the limits of language and human ability, I would consider the chance of a misquote a high probability. And of course it follows that I would question anything in the Bible so would not use it as a reliable single source to base my understanding on. By the way, I think there have been quite a few men who claimed to be God and mostly folks think they are delusional.
So where are we? Well I'm still at "what am I" but I don't see it as the start. I say, "I don't know" and move on from there. I'm guessing that you want the answer first so you are starting with a hypothesis, "I am a child of a human like God" and go from there. I've tried that hypothesis and some others over time but have found them unsatisfactory for my logical mind. The bottom keeps falling out when it rests on conjecture. If it works for you then you will keep embracing it. I am not so much bothered that people believe they were made in God's image as that they make God in their own image and then put their own words in his mouth. The first seems like hubris, the second is blasphemy in my book of ethics.
I would very much like to hear/read your response to my thoughts. I appreciate your willingness to engage.Mar 7 2012: Hi Peter,
Just focusing on the father part of god (not Jesus) - even the term child of god can be taken many ways including no family resemblance.
Even the masculinity often assigned god is so arbitrary.
One similarity any creator deity may have with humans is some sort of consciousness or intelligence. We don't even know this for sure. We may be the unconscious dream of something beyond our comprehension.
If there are gods I expect they are nothing like humans. Can't blame humans for anthropomorphising god. Its just the way we have evolved to think in human terms. This probably goes against primitive literal interpretations such as Zeus impregnating women. But probably should not be held against the potential existence of actual deities - god entities.
The ideas of god we have seem consistent with them being human created constructs.
If there are no gods it is best to invent invisible gods. I can see a certain fit between some god beyond our comprehension, beyond space and time, and a universe whose origins and complexity are also pushing the limits of our comprehension.
Its interesting that I see god created by man in our image (or reflecting an element of human experience e.g. looking like an animal) and you see us created in gods image.Mar 7 2012: Hi Karen, the natural universe is amazing with or without any deities. Science continues to reveal how wondrous and complex it is. A 12 grader today (that paid attention in class) has a basic understanding of the universe far beyond what our forebears responsible for many of the worlds most popular religions. Although, it would be a rare school kid who would insights into the human condition and consciousness say of Buddhism etc.
I believe many of our supernatural beliefs in invisible entities reflect human (and some animals) evolving to see agency behind natural phenomena where none actually exists. Lightening from the angry gods. Volcano Gods. Natural spirits. Faeries. Fertility gods. Sea gods. Even a dog will growl if it hears a noise, probably because survival is enhanced if we assume the worse - that this might be some dangerous entity - rather than assuming it's the wind.
Modern monotheism seems a lot more sophisticated than natural spirits or tribal gods. However, in the bible in Genesis and older testament whether symbolic or literal intent, god is more overtly active in human affairs, more human, more a person walking the garden of Eden, destroying cities, testing Job, speaking to kings. Most of the sophisticated thinking seems to have gone on outside of the bible, closer and closer to modern times.
Makes me think myth. I note all these entities are invisible to humans nearly all the time. A big pointer as to their actual existence. Suggest godidea evolved to suit facts. Invisibility is necesity
Some believers think he is God. Others don't. I'm not sure if the bible is a good place for evidence of the truth of the situation, but I guess you can test it from a scriptural perspective. My recall are there are some inferences - only way to father thru me etc. Not much I am God, and there is a trinity. If you take the bibical stories as gospel he certainly didn't parade around shouting I am god, I am the messiah. Most the time he acted as a man, as a guru
Mar 9 2012: Hi G M, I am fascinated by the human drive to create a story. I try to put myself in the place of someone who knows nothing of the information that inquiry and observation and new tools have reaped in the last 500, 1000, 5000 years. My Earth would be flat and magical lights would move around it. The weather would be a complete mystery (which reminds me that I turned on the computer to get the forecast) I would like to understand how it is that so many good and intelligent people embrace and cherish beliefs that seem to be diminished or negated by modern knowledge. That is, for me, another of life's many mysteries. I don't expect to find an answer but that doesn't lessen my curiosity. Thanks for the conversation.Mar 8 2012: Hi Karen.
I appreciate your civility & willingness to listen, this is a new experience for me on TED. One thing we need to get our heads around is that we, & the universe exist. Something absolutely astounding has happened, & we are a part of that. It totally boggles our minds & swamps our understanding. So logically, the cause of it all must be unbelievable from our standpoint.
Matthew 18:3 (NIV)
And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
We have to understand that we must have a degree of trust, our brains cannot work it all out. That is not to say that we go against our reason. We enter a marriage with a degree of knowledge, & some faith. Christianity is very similar, we have a relationship with Christ.
We can get some way by brainpower. We see the results of something happening; what are the possible candidates? My first 35 years of searching came up with evolution as the most likely. The trouble, from my perspective, is the lack of any hard evidence. It's a great theory, but has no 'killer punch'. Much has to be taken on faith, too much for my liking.
Romans 1:18-20 (NIV)
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, [19] since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. [20] For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities---his eternal power and divine nature---have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
So Paul reckons that the truth of God should be obvious to anyone examining the creation.
God is the only other candidate; but which one?
Look at it another way; which book? As you are analytical, then you will probably have to plough through lots of books. I started with the bible, so saving a lot of time.
Back later
Mar 9 2012: Good reminder to be civil. Its easy to forget you are conversing with people when typing looking at a screen
The conversation s would be of little value if we all thought the same.Mar 9 2012: Hi Peter, Looking at you first paragraph I would agree but would change unbelievable to something like unknowable or unfathomable. One doesn't have to believe anything, only to observe that the the material world exists in our perception. As we have learned through ever more thorough observation, what we are seeing, what we are all part of is beyond comprehension. There are some human geniuses that delve into the complexity and try to sort things out but we have only grazed the surface of what is there. Look at the confusion around the effects of increased carbon in out atmosphere. Scientists began voicing concern decades ago but people with money at stake want to wait it out before making changes to significantly reduce carbon emissions. No human can precisely describe the workings of our climate with absolute certainty and those that oppose carbon reduction point to any shred of doubt or disagreement to disregard all evidence that says we should get right on it. The public is left trying to figure out who to listen to and the whole topic has turned into another ring in our political circus. In our idiotic polarization of every issue it becomes a matter of "belief" instead of inquiry. I don't "believe" we have a climate, I live in one. I don't "believe or not believe" that there is warming because of carbon in our atmosphere, I rely on those geniuses to figure it out for me. I guess some have the luxury of thinking that God is going to save them anyway so no worry. It doesn't matter what humans do because God is in charge of the weather. I know Pat Robertson definitively believes that. Anyway, I'm not a fan of the work "unbelievable" because some things really are and yet lots and lots of people still believe. Gosh I really regret that i have to stop here because the children topic is another one I'd like to discuss but I have to go and won't be back until after the end of this TED conversation.Mar 9 2012: I must run on too much, ran out of room again. Anyway I hope you have the above saved and can post it again on another related topic. Nice visiting with you and others. Until next itmeMar 8 2012: I started out to prove the bible wrong; my wife had become a Christian & it bugged me. Like most skeptics, I soon found that I didn't agree with this god, but I also realised that my approval was not a measure of truth. The 66 books merged into one & told a coherent story of planet earth from start to finish. It checked out uncannily with recorded history, & the daily papers. The Old Testament told of the coming Messiah in detail. The NT tells the story of his life, death, & resurrection, & the fact that the Jewish people would not recognise the very one they were expecting.
I could write a book myself, but the point is that it rung true to me. History, Archeology, Experience, even the anger the very mention of Jesus invokes in people, all made me wonder.
Revelation 3:20 (NIV)
"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."
Head knowledge doesn't do it. We are by nature antagonistic to our dad, & hate the thought of him telling us what to do. He loves us & wants to be part of our lives. I took up his challenge, & asked his forgiveness. My life has never been the same. Millions can testify to that. This is the faith bit, however that faith will be repaid by fuller understanding as you get aquainted.
If you check out the other Holy Books, you mostly find a distortion of the Christian Bible.
There are 150 or so flood stories; therefore skeptics deduce there wasn't a flood. Go figure!
The Koran claims to be an update of the Bible, but the two books are totally at odds. Muslims demote Jesus to prophet.
Jehovah's Witnesses demote Jesus to Archangel.
All the Christian cults demote Jesus, deny the virgin birth etc.
God is a Spirit, out with time & space, we have a similar eternal component. We are in kindergarten to make our choices. Jesus came to pay the price for our freedom. He now inhabits a human-like body in eternity. We can too; it's awesome! It has to be.