299 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

Oh right, the philosophy group I was at, they debated that too.... should you not be able to hold office if you do not believe in God here in Texas, our UU church has a state rep, and city council member, as members for the benefit of being 'religious' but here is last Sunday's sermon:

http://www.austinuu.org/sermon/  (if that does not take you to Oct. 14th's then click on 'recent sermons')

The person delivering the sermon must never have read much of Dennett if he is lumping him in with Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens on condemnation of religion. Dennett's view is much less anti-religion (in fact even pro-religion on some things) than the other three.

[Karomesis]

the fact of the matter is that even if there was a super intelligence that "created" all this, it/they have as much concern for our well being as we have for an ant mound outside our door.

[thumb]

[basho]

I believed God knew my whole life, start to finish, all the things I'd do as an adult--if I'd go to heaven or not,

I don't see how "going to heaven" solves anything, either. What if god lets you into heaven and you choose to rebel, again with god's foreknowledge?

Now that's an extremely interesting question. Some Christian traditions hold that you can be banished from Heaven (see, for example, the Fallen Angels) and God, being omniscient, would know this in advance and must choose to let it happen anyway. In fact, to an omniscient, omnipotent God, the prime instigator of the Universe, this would be the equivalent of lining up billiard balls for a trick shot into the pocket.

On a side note, the very idea of "Fallen Angels" is problematic. Some fell because of their lust for human women, and often had sex with these lucky(?) girls. Angel semen is the icing on the cake, containing human-compatible gametes resulting in successful fertilization. To be blunt about it, angels have penises (or can manifest an angelic penis) and really like to fück young human females without bothering about contraception. This apparently pisses God off immensely, and I think I know why: (1) God made the angels. (2) Angels have penises. (3) God made a male human first, in his own image. (4) Man has a penis. (5) Ergo, God has a penis. (6) Penises exist to be used. (7) Angels who "rebel" against God by lusting after females get their asses kicked out of the party. (8) This all leads to the inevitable conclusion that God is gay and heaven will consist of an eternity of anal sex with God.

[Neurosail]

yeah, I  started asking that question about age 7

I believed God knew my whole life, start to finish, all the things I'd do as an adult--if I'd go to heaven or not, and had influence in my life day to day-God was perfect all knowing and such, then I wanted to know where God had come from...

This is Calvinism. You got this belief from the Presbyterian church you went to as a little girl.
It is a common belief for most Baptist, Presbyterian, and other protestant churches. It is also called predestination.
I used to believe in that also when I was little. I was predestine to be a genius, but something when wrong... [glasses]

[william7]

(8) This all leads to the inevitable conclusion that God is gay and heaven will consist of an eternity of anal sex with God.

Your mind is in the gutter again. Heaven will be when God comes to earth to live with men and women who are in full control of their angry, antisocial impulses and are able to utilize highly sophisticated but potentially dangerous technologies to conquer death, pain and suffering.

[basho]

Your mind is in the gutter again.

[tung] www.amazon.com/Gods-Phallus-Howard-Eilberg-Schwartz/dp/0807012254 (God's Phallus):

Eilberg-Schwartz here opens that issue, contending that making God in a man's sexual image either requires the feminization of the man or implies a homoerotic relationship between father and son.  Through a detailed study of the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud and Freud, the author demonstrates the tensions latent in any tradition within which men must engage the image of God's phallus.

The following extract is from an article by the book's author:

God's Phallus - Surprisingly enough, gender-sensitive critiques of the Jewish God can create problems for notions of masculinity.

So what are the dilemmas evoked by the maleness of God in ancient Judaism? The first is homoeroticism: the love of a male human for a male God. The issue of homoeroticism arises in ancient Israel because the divine‑human relationship is often described in erotic and sexual terms. Marriage and sexuality are frequent biblical metaphors for describing God's relationship with Israel. God is imagined as the husband to Israel the wife; espousal and even sexual intercourse are metaphors for the covenant. Thus when Israel follows other gods, "she" is seen to be whoring. Israel's relationship with God is thus conceptualized as a monogamous sexual relation, and idolatry as adultery. But the heterosexual metaphors in the ancient texts belie the nature of the relationship in question: it is human males, not females, who are imagined to have the primary intimate relations with the deity. The Israel that is collectively imagined as a woman is actually constituted by men, men like Moses and the patriarchs. And these men love, in ways that are imagined erotically and sensually, a male deity.

Interesting stuff!! Now, onto the Battle of Scriptural Interpretation!

Heaven will be when God comes to earth to live with men and women who are in full control of their angry, antisocial impulses and are able to utilize highly sophisticated but potentially dangerous technologies to conquer death, pain and suffering.

That doesn't counter the scriptural evidence that sex preoccupies the minds of the current and ex-residents of Heaven. What about the following passage?

Genesis 6:2-4:  "2. When the sons of God saw that these girls were beautiful, they married any of them they chose.  3. The Lord said, "My Spirit will not remain in human beings forever, because they are flesh. They will live only 120 years."

4. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also later. That was when the sons of God had sexual relations with the daughters of human beings. These women gave birth to children, who became famous and were the mighty warriors of long ago.

And some commentry on this:

The following comes from a series of ancient texts referenced in the Bible called "The Three Books of Enoch", a set of books found in the Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament.

According to these books, it is because of lust that some angels fell from Heaven. God asked the "Watchers" (Grigori), a select group of angels, to assist the Archangels in the creation of Eden. Those Grigori who descended to Earth saw the daughters of men and became enchanted with them. Consequently, the Grigori began to reveal to man some of the secrets of Heaven, such as astrology and the vanity of enhancing the face and body with perfumes and cosmetics. The Grigori then fell in love with human women. According to the text, some of the Grigori even took wives and created offspring, giants known as the Nephilim. This made God so angry that he cursed those Grigori who had betrayed Him, threw them out of Heaven, made them mortal and transformed them into demons. God sent the Great Flood to cleanse the Earth of the wanton killing and destruction perpetrated by the Nephilim. Notable angels who fell in this account are Semyazza, Samael, and Azazel.

[jaydfox]

the fact  of the matter is that even if there was a super intelligence that "created" all this, it/they have as much concern for our well being as we have for an ant mound outside our door.

[thumb]

Actually, I would think that a more apt analogy would be a scientist inventing new life in the lab. He would be terribly fascinated, not indifferent. The way I see it, if there were a nearly all-power, all-knowing being (the "nearly" part being important here), he would be more creative, more curious, more inquisitive than we humans can be. He/it would want to study our behaviors, how we respond to various situations. He/it would try to help us grow in capacity, to have the greatest ability to learn and grow and succeed with the smallest amount of help. It's not that he/it wouldn't care about our suffering, but that there would be no reason to protect us from it. What's more fun, playing Warcraft with a 5:1 numeric superiority over your enemies, or being outnumbered 5:1 and still defeating them? For me, the fun is in the challenge, not merely going through the motions.

I'm reminded of the AI race in chess (and now in Go). The brute force method is popular because, with today's hardware, why waste effort trying to make a "good" program? For me, I'd want to be able to make the strongest possible AI for chess with the smallest required memory and CPU requirements. For me, the holy grail of AI research isn't a chess program that uses brute force to play a "perfect" game, it's a chess program that can run on a 1990's desktop computer and beat deep blue! Maybe it's possible, maybe it's not, but I'm not satisfied with the brute force approach.

Likewise, I would think that an all-powerful creator (Creator?) would want to create a species/society that needed his help as little as possible. Maybe even try to see if he can raise a species that transcends their limited biology, being like gods in embryo.

And I wouldn't confuse lack of action with lack of concern.

[jaydfox]

I'm reminded of the AI race in chess (and now in Go). The brute force method is popular because, with today's hardware, why waste effort trying to make a "good" program? For me, I'd want to be able to make the strongest possible AI for chess with the smallest required memory and CPU requirements. For me, the holy grail of AI research isn't a chess program that uses brute force to play a "perfect" game, it's a chess program that can run on a 1990's desktop computer and beat deep blue! Maybe it's possible, maybe it's not, but I'm not satisfied with the brute force approach.

A bit off-topic, but an even better "holy grail" of course is a program (probably fairly large) that is good at learning new games. I'd think that a really good chess or Go program would be a subtle interplay of brute force searchs with pruning, combined with scripted moves where appropriate to save cycles. Similar to the idea of joseki, but with far more branches precalculated, and an intelligent pruner, etc.

But with no foreknowledge of a particular game, there would be a learning curve where the AI can determine where it's best to script and where it's best to just use an efficient brute force search. Kind of like a compression algorithm. Essentially random data can't be compressed, so it's stored. The analogy is complex situations that require brute force. On the other hand, low entropy data can be compressed. Likewise, situations that have fairly narrowly constrained "good" solutions can be scripted to avoid the unnecessary searching. An AI that can (quickly) learn how to do this would be very intelligent, in my mind.

[william7]

the fact  of the matter is that even if there was a super intelligence that "created" all this, it/they have as much concern for our well being as we have for an ant mound outside our door.

[thumb]

Actually, I would think that a more apt analogy would be a scientist inventing new life in the lab. He would be terribly fascinated, not indifferent. The way I see it, if there were a nearly all-power, all-knowing being (the "nearly" part being important here), he would be more creative, more curious, more inquisitive than we humans can be. He/it would want to study our behaviors, how we respond to various situations. He/it would try to help us grow in capacity, to have the greatest ability to learn and grow and succeed with the smallest amount of help. It's not that he/it wouldn't care about our suffering, but that there would be no reason to protect us from it. What's more fun, playing Warcraft with a 5:1 numeric superiority over your enemies, or being outnumbered 5:1 and still defeating them? For me, the fun is in the challenge, not merely going through the motions.

I'm reminded of the AI race in chess (and now in Go). The brute force method is popular because, with today's hardware, why waste effort trying to make a "good" program? For me, I'd want to be able to make the strongest possible AI for chess with the smallest required memory and CPU requirements. For me, the holy grail of AI research isn't a chess program that uses brute force to play a "perfect" game, it's a chess program that can run on a 1990's desktop computer and beat deep blue! Maybe it's possible, maybe it's not, but I'm not satisfied with the brute force approach.

Likewise, I would think that an all-powerful creator (Creator?) would want to create a species/society that needed his help as little as possible. Maybe even try to see if he can raise a species that transcends their limited biology, being like gods in embryo.

And I wouldn't confuse lack of action with lack of concern.

I believe God's well past the experimental stage if He ever was in one to begin with. Right now He's training or preparing us to live communally according to the teachings of Christ and the example of the early Christian Church in Acts so we can practice His law perfectly without punishment or the fear of it as prophecy indicates. Ezekiel 11:19-20; Jeremiah 31:33. Once we're able to do this successfully and have transformed ourselves into a wise, humble, meek, and merciful people, then we'll be able to take hold of these sophisticated technologies now on the horizon and safely use them for bettering our condition and attaining immortality. Without the requisite character transformation, the thing is impossible.

[cyborgdreamer]

On a side note, the very idea of "Fallen Angels" is problematic.  Some fell because of their lust for human women, and often had sex with these lucky(?) girls.  Angel semen is the icing on the cake, containing human-compatible gametes resulting in successful fertilization.  To be blunt about it, angels have penises (or can manifest an angelic penis) and really like to fück young human females without bothering about contraception.  This apparently pisses God off immensely, and I think I know why:  (1) God made the angels.  (2) Angels have penises.  (3) God made a male human first, in his own image.  (4) Man has a penis.  (5) Ergo, God has a penis.  (6) Penises exist to be used.  (7) Angels who "rebel" against God by lusting after females get their asses kicked out of the party. (8) This all leads to the inevitable conclusion that God is gay and heaven will consist of an eternity of anal sex with God.

Yet another reason to be thankful that I'm a woman. )

Seriously though, I'd imagine that, if God had a penis, it might mean that He was only one of some race of dieties which reproduce sexually.... [hmm]

[Luna]

The way I see it, believing in a universe which always existed or came forth from nothing is just as strange as believing in a God that always existed or came forth from nothing.

I agree.

1. There is no God.
-Then where did the universe come from?
2. There is a God.
-Then where did he come from?

If the answer to either those questions is:

1. Nothing
-How is that possible?
2. Something
-What, and where did it come from?

It almost seems as if there is an infinite amount of answers and questions.

Exactly my philosophy.
So something MUST come out of nothing.
And it can't have been infinite something and then nothing, because it binds a beginning and a beginning forces creation which forces creation of the creator.

The only real question will be, why something is created out of nothing.. or why the physics exists at all.
And I dunno why, whenever I think about it, I get a really bad feeling.

I hate being a useless inferior being @@..

[Luna]

I forgot to mention, this is EXACTLY why I hate string theory aswell.
Adding variables saying they are peramant variables and explains stuff and just hoping to reveal them one day..
Then why are the variables there?
It's just more questions.. they do exactly what religion do "God made it" "The variables, which we have no REAL evidence for, made it."

[cyborgdreamer]

Exactly my philosophy.
So something MUST come out of nothing.
And it can't have been infinite something and then nothing, because it binds a beginning and a beginning forces creation which forces creation of the creator.

The only real question will be, why something is created out of nothing.. or why the physics exists at all.
And I dunno why, whenever I think about it, I get a really bad feeling.

I hate being a useless inferior being @@..

But why can't there have been an infinite stream of causes and effects leading up to our universe? [glasses]

[william7]

I love this angry atheist lesbian scientist!, oh and horray for anger--bring it on

Before she gets too angry don't you think she should go on an unamerican diet? Men like normal female physiques.

[Luna]

Exactly my philosophy.
So something MUST come out of nothing.
And it can't have been infinite something and then nothing, because it binds a beginning and a beginning forces creation which forces creation of the creator.

The only real question will be, why something is created out of nothing.. or why the physics exists at all.
And I dunno why, whenever I think about it, I get a really bad feeling.

I hate being a useless inferior being @@..

But why can't there have been an infinite stream of causes and effects leading up to our universe? [glasses]

maybe..
But this is just getting stupid.
Not like this..
And probably not, there is the first thing ever happened, must have been.. nothing is really infinite..

[Live Forever]

I love this angry atheist lesbian scientist!, oh and horray for anger--bring it on

Before she gets too angry don't you think she should go on an unamerican diet? Men like normal female physiques.

How very superficial of you.

[william7]

I love this angry atheist lesbian scientist!, oh and horray for anger--bring it on

Before she gets too angry don't you think she should go on an unamerican diet? Men like normal female physiques.

How very superficial of you.

Hey, overweight, angry lesbians aren't my favorite people. They need to go on diets find good husbands and raise children. And that's not superficial. It's good sense.

[Live Forever]

I love this angry atheist lesbian scientist!, oh and horray for anger--bring it on

Before she gets too angry don't you think she should go on an unamerican diet? Men like normal female physiques.

How very superficial of you.

Hey, overweight, angry lesbians aren't my favorite people. They need to go on diets find good husbands and raise children. And that's not superficial. It's good sense.

How very 17th Century of you.

[william7]

How very 17th Century of you.

Men and women of every age formed normal heterosexual relationships and raised children. That's what our species was designed to do whether you want to look at it from an biological/evolutionary point of view or a creationist point of view. The overweight, angry lesbian would be much less angry and much more happy if she would be focusing her energies into fulfilling the role her body was designed for.

[Athan]

Men and women of every age formed normal heterosexual relationships and raised children. That's what our species was designed to do whether you want to look at it from an biological/evolutionary point of view or a creationist point of view. The overweight, angry lesbian would be much less angry and much more happy if she would be focusing her energies into fulfilling the role her body was designed for.

Sigh.

But why can't there have been an infinite stream of causes and effects leading up to our universe?

Because one can only approach infinity, one can never equal it. If there were an infinite stream of causes and effects leading up to our universe, one could argue that the universe would never have existed because the processes would have never stopped. Seeing as currently the scientific consensus is, I believe, an accelerating universe that decelerates to a growth of zero and becomes for all intensive purposes static we can surmise that these processes stop; it cannot be argued if you accept this premise that the infinitude of processes is still creating this universe (because to satisfy this the universe would have to be infinitely dynamic). Ergo from my philosophical point of view, this is impossible (though please check my logic).

[eternaltraveler]

if her and her wife want to have a child they certainly can through artificial insemination.

[william7]

Sigh.

Care to elaborate? I noticed Live Forever ran off too.

if her and her wife want to have a child they certainly can through artificial insemination.

Artificial is key word here. It's not natural. The penis and the vagina were designed to do the job.

[Luna]

They weren't "designed"..
And stop being so close minded.. she dosen't like men, you can't force her.

Some people don't even like any of the genders, it's not a sin.

[Live Forever]

I noticed Live Forever ran off too.

I was mentally overwhelmed by the logic and reason you were throwing at me. That, and I had to go do some laundry and get something to eat.

[cyborgdreamer]

if her and her wife want to have a child they certainly can through artificial insemination.

Artificial is key word here. It's not natural. The penis and the vagina were designed to do the job.

So what? Just because something is natural doesn't make it good or neccessary. People should do whatever they want with their bodies and their lives as long as they're not hurting others. Why restrict yourself to arbitrary standards of what's 'natural'?

[william7]

They weren't "designed"..
And stop being so close minded.. she dosen't like men, you can't force her.

Some people don't even like any of the genders, it's not a sin.

What does the Torah say it is?

[william7]

I noticed Live Forever ran off too.

I was mentally overwhelmed by the logic and reason you were throwing at me. That, and I had to go do some laundry and get something to eat.

You're just being difficult and unreasonable. What bug got in your bonnet?

[william7]

People should do whatever they want with their bodies and their lives as long as they're not hurting others.

It hurts the children. Children need the input of both a male and a female parent to be raised properly. It's like being raised in broken, single parent homes. The children are more prone to delinquency and other behavioral problems.

Why restrict yourself to arbitrary standards of what's 'natural'?

I'm not saying artificial insemination should not be used in cases like when a man is unable to impregnate his wife for some reason. I'm opposed to it, however, when it's done to further same sex marriages.

I see by your handle (cyborgdreamer) you have an investment in things artificial. May be stuff like that will work someday. I don't know.

[Athan]

People should do whatever they want with their bodies and their lives as long as they're not hurting others.

It hurts the children. Children need the input of both a male and a female parent to be raised properly. It's like being raised in broken, single parent homes. The children are more prone to delinquency and other behavioral problems.

Give me studies, I know plenty of people with divorced parents who are living better-than-normal lives and who never had either a male or female parental influence.

[Shannon Vyff]

Elijah, dude, my sister-in-law is a wonderful gay parent with two young children, I have many friends that are gay and raising children. There are many respected gay parents, men and women at my church.

Oh, and you can be overweight and be a nice person that contributes to society, I'm not judgemental of my many friends who are overweight. I also do not tell people how to live, or what to believe--I would take away your belief in a loving or angry God no more than I would a Muslim who takes comfort from the God that nourishes their soul. All sorts of religions do good for society, and I don't expect them to go away anytime soon. I support the interfaith ministries that are working to unite the efforts of many branches of religion for social action. We can educate others about facts, about science, about studies... but it is up to them to choose how to live.