Are we so small in the universe?

[Gauge]

No. What did I just say, in your own words?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so what your saying is that a scientist, let me refrase, a REAL scientist can have no religious beliefes?! thats one of the most rediculous thing ive ever heard! its like saying that christians have to believe that babies are just poofed (from god of course) into a woman and the 2 people who donated their dna had nothing to do with it, because if scientists cant believe in religion then religious people cant believe in science.

:erm

[BrassFusion]

If you're not going to read my posts, don't bitch about them.

[Gauge]

If you're not going to read my posts, don't bitch about them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if your not actually going to back up your statements then dont bother makeing a post at all

[Steven]

I'll reiterate:

Any scientist who tries to formulate a new theory that presupposes there is definitely a higher power in the universe is NOT A REAL SCIENTIST, because the point of science is to explain nature in the context of logic, not faith.

Not to say there's no god, or no spiritual scientists. Far from it. But the job of the scientist is to assume that there's no god and go from there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

there is always the chance that a bonified scientist is really just on a path of discovery, unpeeling the layers, simply in an effort to reveal the process.

and that therefore there is no true agenda other than that of discovery.

and logic therefore leads them to the conclusion of "I just don't know - but damn this whole thing sure looks deliberate and concise the more unpeel the layers"

which then "logically" (and remember you can never remove the human element out of deduction process and all people ultimately rest on their ideals regardless of title or creed) leads them to beleive that there may be after all, a master architect because to them the random theory does not add up.

there are many scientists who have found themselves in exactly this position.

again I invite you to explore the works of Chuck Missler for example.

you like brainy people, I have a feeling he may speak your language.

[kellygrrrrrl]

that the 'scientific' potential for acknowledging that there may indeed be an all knowing universal power often causes an instantaneous  and emotional dismissal.

ie:  nobody wants to acknowledge "GOD" - because nobody wants to have to yeild to him/he/she/it .....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly.

And thanks...

HI! I haff bwain Kewee

:laughing

[HipsterDufus]

I don't really think people are looking for excuses not to believe in the Christian God. I think that with all of the different religions out there, people are becoming confused as to how to decide. Many people, such as myself, know that they do not like (or in my case, despise) the religion that they were raised in for being too stuffy, hypocritical, and more concerned with status than spirituality. So, they don't want to go back to that. I've come to an understanding that not all Christians are like my parents' church, but I'm not sure that I really want to trust/believe in a God that allowed people like that to use his name for their benefit. The whole physics/spirituality blend that people try to debate is something that I don't really care about, honestly. I don't need to have a God's existence proved to me through abstract theories. I only want to find him/it/whatever through my own experiences. And if it doesn't happen, I'll turn to dust anyway, just like the JW's believe. Big deal; under my current belief system, that might have happened anyway.

[kellygrrrrrl]

My problem is this.

I believe in GOD.

Selfish as this may sound,.......

Being a Christian is a choice. A dedication. A Symbolic dedication to GOD.

Which requires a lot of lifestyle changes and a lot of turning your mind around...

This is what I personally have the hard time with.

Not change for anyone else. You. And only you.

Easier said than done.

When all you've even known was what you know, it is hard to do the 360 change.

When everyone opposes you, and wants to argue you, it hurts....

People don't really understand...why would you want to dedicate so much to this when....(opposing thoughts/theories.... etc...)

The best form of symbolic dedication to GOD is to be wahsed clean to start over. (Baptism)

A public dedication to GOD.

----which is why I don't understand why Babies get baptized.

Baptism/dedication/The symbolic washing away of sin is a choice.....Babies don't have that choice.....nor have they sinned to have to be washed clean.

Jesus was Baptized in his 30's when he was capable of making this decision and dedication to GOD.

This is something I am just not ready for.

I know myself too well.

This makes me sad, because I have no self-control, I have always had problems with dicsipline....self-discipline...etc...

Once you Dedicate, and you fuck up....it's worse than never getting baptized at all....

from what I understand.

I dissapoint myself by saying I will and then don't....all the time.

I couldn't do that to GOD.

Please be kind!

Just sharing some of my personal dealings. =)

[phee]

Good discussion...

I do believe that there is an a paradox forming that is a bit unnecessary though...

I actually do believe that spirituality and science can co-exist... Where I agree with BrassFusion is where if God is acknowledged as part of the scientific process then there is no scientific process any more for example: E = MC squared x God... makes no sense.... If you include an unprovable supernatural force into your science... there is not science any more...

But, as I understand it this is not the point of Faith to explain things scientifically (although some branches of some religions disagree) but the point of faith is to make ones existance more meaningful. Some people need faith because they can't think for themselves, some people use faith to give their lives more strength and to use as a moral compass, some people are brainwashed and simply are looking through the blinders of faith because to be without them is too terrifying, some people just take comfort in the idea....

As I ramble on... back to topic...

Science has given us a glimpse of how "small" we are in the scientific universe. Faith is a good (albeit manmade) counter to this feeling... Where I as an Agnostic disagree is this idea of "yeilding" to a higher power... to me that is very limiting and self depricating way of looking at the universe and faith... We know so little about either realm (science and the spirit) who are we to assume that we know what it is, what it wants of us, if it wants of us, or it is even self aware? (Azathoth to you Lovecraft readers!). To me, it is insulting to ones self to limit your point of view to a Western montheistic male diety, when there are soooo many possibilities given the vastness of what we can see in the universe (not to mention what we can't) .

To me this is like walking into a music store with billions upon billions of different albums an recordings... and only buying Ted Nugent for the rest of your life because "your parents and friends" have told you to... or the more strange... "well I have looked around and I have decided that Ted Nugent is the only thing I will like" Or even moreso... "I need Ted Nugent and if I listen to anything else, or if you listen to anything else... you are wrong"

More later... this rant is now complete.

[HipsterDufus]

That Christian guilt that you're feeling was one of the biggest turn-offs to the church I went to as a kid. Sure, if you killed someone, you should feel guilty. If you stole something, you should feel guilty. But to not be dedicating enough of your life to God? Again, I'm going to go back to saying that this God must be kind of a jerk if he wants you to feel bad for not doing enough for him.

I have a friend who just turned Catholic. He smokes, he drinks, he tells racist jokes (not seriously; he's just not PC). Overall, he's a great guy. He's smart as all hell and knows exactly why he's a Christian. He's one because he feels that spirituality can benefit him and make him a better husband, friend, citizen, etc. That is the reason that he made his choice. He did not do it because he felt guilt that not enough of his life was devoted to God. In my opinion, he did it for all the right reasons and because he believes. Guilt is not a reason for devotion, imho.

Edit: this was directed towards Kelly's last comment, FYI.

[Gauge]

I actually do believe that spirituality and science can co-exist... Where I agree with BrassFusion is where if God is acknowledged as part of the scientific process then there is no scientific process any more for example: E = MC squared x God... makes no sense.... If you include an unprovable supernatural force into your science... there is not science any more...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

agreed however i think that these scientist beeing grown ups and not wanting to loose their jobs can probably put their religious convictions asside. with that said i dont see some hard core christian becoming a scientist, born again or from the begining, it would conflict with their beliefs but i do believe that scientist can have a religion. it about beeing open.

[phee]

agreed however i think that these scientist beeing grown ups and not wanting to loose their jobs can probably put their religious convictions asside. with that said i dont see some hard core christian becoming a scientist, born again or from the begining, it would conflict with their beliefs but i do believe that scientist can have a religion. it about beeing open.

Indeed

[kellygrrrrrl]

That Christian guilt that you're feeling was one of the biggest turn-offs to the church I went to as a kid.  Sure, if you killed someone, you should feel guilty.  If you stole something, you should feel guilty.  But to not be dedicating enough of your life to God?  Again, I'm going to go back to saying that this God must be kind of a jerk if he wants you to feel bad for not doing enough for him.

I have a friend who just turned Catholic.  He smokes, he drinks, he tells racist jokes (not seriously; he's just not PC).  Overall, he's a great guy.  He's smart as all hell and knows exactly why he's a Christian.  He's one because he feels that spirituality can benefit him and make him a better husband, friend, citizen, etc.  That is the reason that he made his choice.  He did not do it because he felt guilt that not enough of his life was devoted to God.  In my opinion, he did it for all the right reasons and because he believes.  Guilt is not a reason for devotion, imho.

Edit: this was directed towards Kelly's last comment, FYI.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do not feel guilty.....which I agree, guilt isn't the reason you should.

I would say I'm more like, "Not ready" to make this kind of choice yet.

Also, just to clear this up, ""God must be kind of a jerk if he wants you to feel bad for not doing enough for him""......

(Not picking on ya....really ..)

I thought like that once....

But then I thought, GOD? A Jerk? Well, no.....I AM alive, I do have air to breath, food, green pretty tree's, every imaginable neccessity at my fingertips...Not phones, not tv's, or comuters....Yeah sure, PEOPLE made those...but GOD made the stuff to make them

AIR, Water, all the neccessitites to live and exist. It took billions and billions of years to make all this for ME? this gigantic universe with all of its stuff - wow....that's pretty big.

God doesn't owe me a thing....

I'M the jerk really.

I don't HAVE to feel bad for the things I did do,....etc....

God doesn't make me feel bad for the things I did.

I feel bad because I know it was wrong....I feel bad, because "I reaped what I sowed".....

And the more I think about it, GOD doesn't really want me to do anything anyway.

Just live clean.

Is that so hard?

Well, kind of.

For my own selfish reason.....

I could take the stand of, Well if GOD just made us to live....really with no purpose,.....what the hell...

I didn't asked to be born anyway. (Pout)

Ok, so I just die....big deal

Death seems so much better than living in this shit hole....at times

But deep down inside, that's not really what I want to belive.

I don't.

We all strive to live on....there is absolute fear in death....(to me)

[phee]

Live clean according to whom?

[kellygrrrrrl]

10 commandments, book of psalms, Jesus example....

etc.....

according to biblical standrads.

Which really are simple....

But hard by today's standards.

[phee]

10 commandments, book of psalms, Jesus example....

etc.....

according to biblical standrads.

Which really are simple....

But hard by today's standards.

So a specifically Christian Male Diety then?

[HipsterDufus]

10 commandments, book of psalms, Jesus example....

etc.....

according to biblical standrads.

Which really are simple....

But hard by today's standards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's kind of a dumb question, but would you consider a different religion? There's plenty out there that still offer a code of morality but don't believe in the harsh consequences of Christianity.

[phee]

10 commandments, book of psalms, Jesus example....

etc.....

according to biblical standrads.

Which really are simple....

But hard by today's standards.

You see (not to pick on you miss)

But with all of the possibilities that this universe holds... clinging to this one set of ideals amongst so many, kind of closes ones mind.... as I said above kind of like listening to one and only one band, discounting all others...

[kellygrrrrrl]

Well, what do you mean hunny?

I don't really have a Specific religion, nor is there a male deity that I follow....

As far as consequences....they all pretty much say the same thing.

Die.

Hell.

etc...

[phee]

10 commandments, book of psalms, Jesus example....

etc.....

according to biblical standrads.

Which really are simple....

But hard by today's standards.

But this is VERY SPECIFIC to western religious paternal thought...

You mentioned the 10 commandments.... they are very specific about this

"I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me... .."

"Remember [zachor] the Sabbath day and keep it holy"

[kellygrrrrrl]

Please, I don't think of this as being picked on at all. =)

I'm just sharing what I know, and have researched!

I find this to be one of the most interesting conversations I have had as of yet...

(Mostly because it is something I have studied, and put a lot of focus into at one time)

I also don't concider myself to be closed minded at all.

I feel I am one of the most open minded people I know.....

I always leave my options open, and I never settle on just one idea.

People are always saying how I change my mind so much....how I am so "spontaneous" and blah blah blah....

[HipsterDufus]

Well, what do you mean hunny?

I don't really have a Specific religion, nor is there a male deity that I follow....

As far as consequences....they all pretty much say the same thing.

Die.

Hell.

etc...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, there's plenty of other religions out there. Currently, I really like the belief system of Asatru, even though I can't honestly say that I'm one of it's followers. You may want to check this out. A shorter description can be found here.

[phee]

Please, I don't think of this as being picked on at all. =)

I'm just sharing what I know, and have researched!

I find this to be one of the most interesting conversations I have had as of yet...

(Mostly because it is something I have studied, and put a lot of focus into at one time)

I also don't concider myself to be closed minded at all.

I feel I am one of the most open minded people I know.....

I always leave my options open, and I never settle on just one idea.

People are always saying how I change my mind so much....how I am so "spontaneous" and blah blah blah....

Would you consider yourself a Christian or Agnostic?

[HipsterDufus]

Not to bombard you with reading material, but Gnosticism is also a very interesting branch of Christianity.

[kellygrrrrrl]

I would say Christian...more than anything.,...I guess.

I believe that the scriptures are real.

The only reason I sway towards the beliefs that I do, is becaue I see the hooplah bullshit in Christianity as we know it.

I think we may have different ideals of "Christians"

I'm not all into that whole trinity hail mary crap.

it's all bullshit.

(to Me)

Ohh let me kgo say 10 hail mary's to atone for my horrible sin, just so I can go do it again and do my hail marys again...no. not how it works.

Oh let me go tell the preist of my sins so he can tell me how many hail mary's to do?

No.

[phee]

The scriptures are real what exactly?... and are you talking about the scriptures cannonized by the Catholic Church? And if you are refering to the bible, which bible?

here are some of the ones just in English:

* Abbreviated Bible - TAB - 1971, eliminates duplications, includes the Apocrypha

* American Standard Version - ASV - 1901, a.k.a. Standard American Edition, Revised Version, the American version of the Holy Bible, Revised Version

* American Translation (Beck) - AAT - 1976

* American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) - SGAT - 1931

* Amplified Bible - AB - 1965, includes explanation of words within text

* Aramaic Bible (Targums) - ABT - 1987, originally translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic

* Aramaic New Covenant - ANCJ - 1996, a translation and transliteration of the New Covenant

* Authentic New Testament - ANT - 1958

* Barclay New Testament - BNT - 1969

* Basic Bible - TBB - 1950, based upon a vocabulary of 850 words

* Bible Designed to Be Read as Literature - BDRL - 1930, stresses literary qualities of the Bible, includes the Apocrypha

* Bible Reader - TBR - 1969, an interfaith version, includes the Apocrypha

* Cassirer New Testament - CNT - 1989

* Centenary Translation of the New Testament - CTNT - 1924, one of the few versions translated solely by a woman

* Common English New Testament - CENT - 1865

* Complete Jewish Bible - CJB - 1989, a Messianic Jewish translation

* Concordant Literal New Testament - CLNT - 1926

* Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation - CCDT - 1953, includes the Apocrypha

* Contemporary English Version - CEV - 1992, includes Psalms and Proverbs

* Coptic Version of the New Testament - CVNT - 1898, based on translations from northern Egypt

* Cotton Patch Version - CPV - 1968, based on American ideas and Southern US culture, only contains Paul's writings

* Coverdale Bible - TCB - 1540, includes the Apocrypha

* Darby Holy Bible - DHB - 1923

* Dartmouth Bible - TDB - 1961, an abridgment of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha

* De Nyew Testament in Gullah - NTG - 2005

* Dead Sea Scrolls Bible - DSSB - 1997, translated from Dead Sea Scrolls documents, includes the Apocrypha

* Documents of the New Testament - DNT - 1934

* Douay-Rheims Bible - DRB - 1899

* Emphasized Bible - EBR - 1959, contains signs of emphasis for reading

* Emphatic Diaglott - EDW - 1942

* English Standard Version - ESV - 2001, a revision of the Revised Standard Version

* English Version for the Deaf - EVD - 1989, a.k.a. Easy-to-Read Version, designed to meet the special needs of the deaf

* English Version of the Polyglott Bible - EVPB - 1858, the English portion of an early Bible having translations into several languages

* Geneva Bible - TGB - 1560, the popular version just prior to the translation of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha

* Godbey Translation of the New Testament - GTNT - 1905

* God's Word - GW - 1995, a.k.a Today's Bible Translation

* Holy Bible in Modern English - HBME - 1900

* Holy Bible, Revised Version - HBRV - 1885, an official revision of the King James Version which was not accepted at the time

* Holy Scriptures (Harkavy) - HSH - 1951

* Holy Scriptures (Leeser) - HSL - 1905

* Holy Scriptures (Menorah) - HSM - 1973, a.k.a. Jewish Family Bible

* Inclusive Version - AIV - 1995, stresses equality of the sexes and physically handicapped, includes Psalms

* Inspired Version - IV - 1867, a revision of the King James Version

* Interlinear Bible (Green) - IB - 1976, side-by-side Hebrew/Greek and English

* International Standard Version - ISV - 1998

* Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - TJB - 1966, includes the Apocrypha

* Jerusalem Bible (Koren) - JBK - 1962, side-by-side Hebrew and English

* Jewish Bible for Family Reading - JBFR - 1957, includes the Apocrypha

* John Wesley New Testament - JWNT - 1755, a correction of the King James Version

* King James Version - KJV - 1611, a.k.a. Authorized Version, originally included the Apocrypha

* Kleist-Lilly New Testament - KLNT - 1956

* Knox Translation - KTC - 1956, includes the Apocrypha

* Lamsa Bible - LBP - 1957, based on Peshitta manuscripts

* Lattimore New Testament - LNT - 1962, a literal translation

* Letchworth Version in Modern English - LVME - 1948

* Living Bible - LB - 1971, a paraphrase version

* McCord's New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel - MCT - 1989

* Message - TM - 1993, a.k.a. New Testament in Contemporary English, a translation in the street language of the day, includes Psalms and Proverbs

* Modern Reader's Bible - MRB - 1923, stresses literary qualities, includes the Apocrypha

* Modern Speech New Testament - MSNT - 1902, an attempt to present the Bible in effective, intelligible English

* Moffatt New Translation - MNT - 1922

* New American Bible - NAB - 1987, includes the Apocrypha

* New American Standard Version - NAS - 1977

* New Berkeley Version in Modern English - NBV - 1967

* New Century Version - NCV - 1987

* New English Bible - NEB - 1970, includes the Apocrypha

* New Evangelical Translation - NET - 1992, a translation aimed at missionary activity

* New International Version - NIV - 1978

* New Jerusalem Bible - NJB - 1985, includes the Apocrypha

* New JPS Version - NJPS - 1988

* New King James Version - NKJ - 1990

* New Life Version - NLV - 1969, a translation designed to be useful wherever English is used as a second language

* New Living Translation - NLT - 1996, a dynamic-equivalence translation

* New Millenium Bible - NMB - 1999, a contemporary English translation

* New Revised Standard Version - NRS - 1989, the authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version

* New Testament in Plain English - WPE - 1963, a version using common words only

* New Testament: An Understandable Version - NTUV - 1995, a limited edition version

* New Translation (Jewish) - NTJ - 1917

* New World Translation - NWT - 1984

* Noli New Testament - NNT - 1961, the first and only book of its kind by an Eastern Orthodox translator at the time of its publication

* Norlie's Simplified New Testament - NSNT - 1961, includes Psalms

* Original New Testament - ONT - 1985, described by publisher as a radical translation and reinterpretation

* Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha - OJBC - 1996, an Orthodox version containing Rabbinic Hebrew terms

* People's New Covenant - PNC - 1925, a version translated from the meta-physical standpoint

* Phillips Revised Student Edition - PRS - 1972

* Recovery Version - RcV - 1991, a reference version containing extensive notes

* Reese Chronological Bible - RCB - 1980, an arrangement of the King James Version in chronological order

* Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible - SNB - 1976, a version whose concern is the true name and titles of the creator and his son

* Restored New Testament - PRNT - 1914, a version giving an interpretation according to ancient philosophy and psychology

* Revised English Bible - REB - 1989, a revision of the New English Bible

* Revised Standard Version - RSV - 1952, a revision of the American Standard Version

* Riverside New Testament - RNT - 1923, written in the living English language of the time of the translation

* Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition - SSBE - 1981, the sacred name and the sacred titles and the name of Yahshua restored to the text of the Bible

* Scholars Version - SV - 1993, a.k.a. Five Gospels; contains evaluations of academics of what are, might be, and are not, the words of Jesus; contains the four gospels and the Gospel of Thomas

* Scriptures (ISR) - SISR - 1998, traditional names replaced by Hebraic ones and words with pagan sources replaced

* Septuagint - LXX - c. 200 BCE, the earliest version of the Old Testament scriptures, includes the Apocrypha

* Shorter Bible - SBK - 1925, eliminates duplications

* Spencer New Testament - SCM - 1941

* Stone Edition of the Tanach - SET - 1996, side-by-side Hebrew and English

* Swann New Testament - SNT - 1947, no chapters, only paragraphs, with verses numbered consecutively from Matthew to Revelation

* Today's English New Testament - TENT - 1972

* Today's English Version - TEV - 1976, a.k.a. Good News Bible

* Twentieth Century New Testament - TCNT - 1904

* Unvarnished New Testament - UNT - 1991, the principal sentence elements kept in the original order of the Greek

* Versified Rendering of the Complete Gospel Story - VRGS - 1980, the gospel books written in poetic form, contains the four gospels

* Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures - WVSS - 1929

* Wiclif Translation - TWT - 1380, a very early version translated into English

* William Tindale Newe Testament - WTNT - 1989, an early version with spelling and punctuation modernized

* William Tyndale Translation - WTT - 1530, early English version, includes the Pentateuch

* Williams New Testament - WNT - 1937, a translation of the thoughts of the writers with a reproduction of their diction and style

* Word Made Fresh - WMF - 1988, a paraphrase with humour and familiar names and places for those who have no desire to read the Bible

* Worrell New Testament - WAS - 1904

* Wuest Expanded Translation - WET - 1961, intended as a comparison to, or commentary on, the standard translations

* Young's Literal Translation, Revised Edition - YLR - 1898, a strictly literal translation