All of that "proof" for evolution can be interpreted to support Creation. By no means is it unilateral.
Bob A wrote:
That's not faith at all. Faith is a process of non-thinking whereby one accepts beliefs passed down through tradition with no evidence, or even against the evidence.
I disagree. Faith is based on some kind of logic. The axioms of the various kinds of logic used to justify various faiths may differe significantly and may be a matter of debate, but every faith about which I know is based on logic.
Bob A wrote:
None of those things require faith; they can demonstrated scientifically (through inductive reasoning), not to mention that they're all glaringly obvious.
The "glaringly obvious" things are usually the hardest to prove, at least from my experiences. If you want to try, however, go ahead. There's also the matter of proving that induction works, though...
Bob A wrote:
Also, in my view it's futile to speculate about whether reality "really" exists; we can perceive it, and that's all that matters.
Our perception is easily fooled. Just look at how many optical illusions are out there.
adelikat wrote:
2) Whether there is a higher power or not, you can not argue that man has a need for something higher than himself (herself).
Why not?
Bob A wrote:
It's true that religions evolve, but they only evolve to come closer in line with secular culture.
So why are there still large, divisive issues today, such as stem cells, sodomy, abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and the death penalty? You'd think that this so-called "evolution" of religions bringing them closer to secular culture would have dulled some of the fervent ideas on these matters, but that is not the case.
Bob A wrote:
The more this happens, the more religion loses importance, and the easier it is for people to deconvert.
They're not deconverting, they're just converting to another religion.
Baxter wrote:
Main difference between a scientific theory and a religious theory is the fact that a scientific theory can be proven wrong, and a scientist will accept this.
The question is how long it will take for the scientist to accept it, and how much of a fight he'll put up.
Fabian wrote:
I am of the opinion that history teaches us very little on this, since (I've said this before, just restating) it's in the past few hundred years people in general have started to become well-educated enough to not need superhuman explanations (etc, everything we've discussed in this thread).
I disagree. I've already said that knowledge does not necessarily damage religious ideas. Another point is that this "we've become so much smarter" argument could be applied to anything from crime and wars to poverty and health, which I doubt anyone ever needed, but these are still large problems in our "more-educated" world.
DeFender1031 wrote:
you misunderstand me, the translation is days in modern hebrew not biblical hebrew.
You're implying that there have been large changes in the Hebrew language since antiquity. I took a Jewish history class with a professor from the nearby Hebrew Union College, and he said that the language is essentially the same. Part of the reason is that it has historically been used mostly for religious purposes; Israel was surrounded by a bunch of other cultures and generally used the dominant language of the time (e.g., Aramaic) to conduct everyday business.
moozooh wrote:
Remember the story about heliocentrism (and church's position against it).
That story that has been widely misrepresented. I recommend reading this page for some clarification, although the resources here are all quite good.
moozooh wrote:
Besides, the clone is not a perfect copy of the cell donor, which implies that it is a new life.
You seem to have the idea that it has to be a "perfect copy" if it shares the same genetic material. Phenotype, however, is influenced by the environment, not just the genes. Check your biology textbook if you don't believe me.
Furthermore, the cloning process is not creative. It takes an already-existing nucleus and places it into a different egg cell. For scientists to "create" life, they would have to start off with atoms and make a living thing. God created everything out of nothing, however, so even that wouldn't be such a big accomplishment, if you ask me.
Boco wrote:
But when you're looking for the intended meaning you should probably look as close to the writer as possible, for example at commentaries written within a few generations when the culture wouldn't've changed significantly since.
There have been significant changes in our cultures within the last century, even the last few decades, so why can such changes not have occurred in the past? Furthermore, how do you know that the intentions of the commentary writer(s) were to interpret the document as the author intended?
Boco wrote:
It's also rather difficult to take something as poetic as the creation narratives and translate them literally and have it make any sort of sense.
Why's it so difficult? Is it just because the story doesn't agree with "science"? I don't see what the problem is if you allow for the existence of the all-powerful God described in the Bible.
Boco wrote:
If we are to take it as six literal days, why did Moses himself differentiate them?
How does that example show differentiation? Sure, the word "day" in any language can probably mean something other than a 24-hour period, but you look at context to determine the meaning.
Boco wrote:
Commentary from 1500+ years ago differentiates them and lcaims the creation narratives are parable.
Can you give examples? This page gives examples of scholars who interpreted them literally.
Boco wrote:
The days are numbered, but they don't begin with "first day" (implying there are further days) - they begin with "day one" meaning that the first creation narrative is attempting to look FORWARD from God's view, NOT backward from man's.
How does this affect how long they are?
JXQ wrote:
Question, why do you "censor" the word God?
Some people believe that the word should not be spelled out completely because it's holy or because others could defile it. DeFender1031 could have an entirely different reason, however.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
Fabian wrote:
You might be right about the percentage of knowledge thing, although I'd guess no. It doesn't matter at all though. Don't really understand why it was brought up either.
You, or someone else, said that people generally drop religion as they get more knowledge. I then said, or attempted to say, that increased knowledge does not necessarily require people to drop religion. An important factor, of course, is whether they have access to information about how the new knowledge supports one type of religion or another.
Fabian wrote:
Do you agree or disagree with my prediction by the way?
I can't say that I agree or disagree. It will depend on that "access to information" factor. If people will only (or mostly) have access to information that supports non-supernatural religions*, then the other types will most likely decrease dramatically, and vice versa. I think that the amount of people who believe in God as revealed in the Bible will decrease, at least as a percentage of the earth's total inhabitants, but I don't know how the numbers will shift.
*I mean religions that don't believe in the existence of any sort of supernatural being/object
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
Fabian wrote:
Also, this "I assume .... supernatural elements. " quote is partly contradicting the definition you yourself posted earlier ("esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies"), but it's not a big deal so don't worry about it.
It's not contradicting the definition, since the definition does not state that all religions include the supernatural, only that some do.
Fabian wrote:
To say that this man does not have less knowledge than you or me or the average Joe in 2006? I'm sure you'll agree that's a bit much after thinking about it some more, right?
Yes, I did word that part incorrectly. I meant that the percentage of all our knowledge today which an average Joe possesses or has ready access to is probably not much greater than the percentage of all knowledge in 1506 which an average Joe of that time possessed or had ready access to. If you want to discuss various forms of impediments to the access of knowledge, we can do that.
Fabian wrote:
However, the quote of yours of everyone having their own religion (what I just quoted above) obviously has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, since we're specifically discussing religions with "supernatural elements" (your quote).
You did not specify that we were discussing only those religions at the beginning of the topic. You just said "organized religion." Based on the definition I presented, I consider atheism, evolutionism, etc. as organized religions. They do fit your definition of being "big" and "widespread."
Fabian wrote:
And as kind of a sidenote, "mass media" has very very little to do with what people know today, aside from news reporting.
My main idea was that the majority of people who present knowledge in some form present it in a way to further their agenda.
Zurreco wrote:
When we question religion, there is a huge necessity for faith in order to accept the responses. When we question science, we further question things we don't accept until we can surely agree or disagree, to an obvious limit.
Science requires large amounts of faith to work, too. For example, scientists must have faith that the universe exists, that it consistently follows rules/laws, and that we have the capability to understand those laws. You can't scientifically prove that any of those are true, since they could just be errors with how you perceive things. For example, solipsists are a rather extreme example of people who do not believe those things, since they believe that only the mind exists. So, faith is required in order to accept any type of response, not just a religious one.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
The debate comes down to arguing about the divine inspiration of the Bible. If you want to read about that, check this page, as typing all of that out myself would take too long.
Zurreco wrote:
The scriptures and gospels were definitely NOT written right after the fact, or even close enough to the point where exaggeration and whatnot couldn't have seeped in. I'm not saying that the works aren't true or anything, but I have a hard time remembering what I said to my room mates a few hours ago.
Actually, "exaggeration and whatnot" would count as untruth. Therefore, you are saying that the works aren't true.
Hyena wrote:
Those four authors were witnesses to what they wrote, for the most part.
From what the Bible says, Mark and Luke apparently became disciples later. However, they both worked with Paul and had contact with the Apostles. BTW, the Apostles were the 12 disciples who were with Jesus while He lived on earth. Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. See Acts 1:15-26 for more info on this.
Zurreco wrote:
The one part that comes to mind is when Jesus is doing his thing on a sunday, and the herodian preists are watching him. etc.
That's recorded in Mark 3. The man had a withered hand, not blindness. Furthermore, Mark 3:7 records that "Jesus withdrew himself with His disciples to the sea" right after that event. Therefore, His disciples were with him on that occasion.
Zurreco wrote:
Therefore, how is it possible that we can accept a second-hand telling of a situation that serves to benefit the initial narrarator? Isn't that practically rumor?
This isn't an issue because of divine inspiration. I think it would be nice if people asked those questions about so-called "scientific" knowledge, however, such as the so-called "proof" for evolution, which definitely doesn't claim to be inspired by God. We could make a whole other thread just about that, though.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
It's pointless to argue if the terms aren't defined. You can't "prove" anything at all without basic assumptions about what process(es) can be used in proofs and what you will accept as evidence.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
Fabian wrote:
I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, I'm saying that people being more well-informed than they were say 500 years ago has led many people to not believing in any religion.
I assume that you're using a different definition of "religion" than I am. Everyone has a religion, but not every religion mentions God, the supernatural, etc. Therefore, the trend, if it exists, is more toward religions without supernatural elements.
I wonder if people are truly better-informed than 500 years ago. There is certainly more knowledge than 500 years ago, but I don't believe that the general populace has access to the majority of that knowledge. Even the knowledge that they do access through the mass media is partial, since each author has his or her own agenda.
JXQ wrote:
Do you think this is disrespectful to Jesus? If so, why? If not, why not?
I think it is disrespectful because you're banalizing Jesus's power. The miracles He did were for the glorification of God, not just to show off. Such "jokes" only "promote" Jesus as some sort of magician or source of entertainment, when His purpose was to reconcile us to God.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
Zurreco wrote:
It just means that those who don't share the morals of most religions have more outlets by which they can voice themselves, and technology is allowing these people to slowly have more of a say.
I wouldn't necessarily say that they have more outlets, just that they're more outspoken. I mean, the majority of Muslims are supposedly peaceful, but we generally hear about the radicals who cause trouble.
religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
The universal part of the definition is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Consequently, I do not think that religion in general is on the verge of disappearing. I'm not sure what you mean by "organized religion," though. As JXQ already mentioned, Jesus and other people in the Bible said that there would be many false religions before the judgment, which is certainly the case today. While I don't know about increases and decreases in "organized religion," the Bible says that there will eventually be a world religion that will encompass everyone during the time of the Antichrist.
In accordance with the above definition, my belief about this whole idea of "separation of church and state" is that it is quite impossible. People will always believe something about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and their beliefs will affect how they behave and what sort of political ideas they support.
Fabian wrote:
The trend of religion becoming less popular is pretty noticeable, and I think it will only continue, at a faster pace as man's general knowledge keeps growing at a faster pace.
You're saying that knowledge necessarily makes religions that include the part after "esp. when considered" in the above definition less popular. That is not the case. Scientific knowledge can be interpreted in a way that agrees with the Bible. It all depends upon what unprovable assumptions you're using to interpret the data.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
JXQ wrote:
I had an interview yesterday and I took a small written exam with several riddle-like questions on it.
I think that's a rather unusual thing to happen at an interview. They really must have wanted to identify the people who "think outside the box." What was it for, if you don't mind telling us?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
On my first visit back to Romania in 1998, I got a videogame system (it says Sega Mega Drive 2 on the package) and two games that I brought back to the US for some weird reason. Well, I suppose that I thought I could somehow get it to work over here (feel free to laugh at my n00bishness, but please also respond with something helpful).
Anyway, the things that interest me are the games, which I dug up today. I'm pretty sure that at least one of them is a pirate cartridge. It says several things (in order from top to bottom: 95 in 1, VT-653, 1998, Super) and has some pictures of games/game symbols that aren't actually on it, iirc (Adventure Island IV and 3 Contra Force(?) on either side of the text; bottom row: a picture of a hockey goalkeeper diving, cartoon of a guy shooting a gun with a dog nearby, Mortal Kombat symbol, some cartoon picture with Japanese(?) text and the number 5).
The second game is the one that interests me the most. The cartridge says NT-621 and Street Fighter on it, with several other pieces of Japanese(?) text, two of which are preceded by the numbers 96 and 60. On the left side, there is a mosaic-type picture of Chun Li, Blanka, E. Honda, Ken, Sagat, Guile, Zangief, and Ryu. From what I remember, this game isn't exactly a normal version of Street Fighter II, if it could even be called that. I only remember playing it on an old, possibly B&W, TV in Romania, but the character select screen was definitely different from the real SFII game. There was a pretty large, rectangular grid of characters. It may have been 8-by-8 or even larger, but it wasn't necessarily square. In any case, I seem to remember that the character face sprites repeated every line or every few lines. Furthermore, I think that the sprite didn't necessarily match up to which character you actually got when the fighting started.
Basically, I'd like to know if anyone can help me identify these games. I can't exactly play them to get any more info. In fact, I should probably destroy the cartridges, since they're most likely pirated. What would be the best way to do that, btw?
Thanks for any help.
EDIT:
I would post pictures, but I can't find any of the digital cameras we have or the USB cables to transfer the pictures.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
Great job on this run, GuanoBowl. You spent a lot of time on it, and it's easy to see the quality getting better as the game progresses. Unfortunately, I voted no because we already know how to improve some parts of it (e.g., Deku Tree).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
bkDJ: Thanks for trying to help, but I see some issues with your suggestion.
I thought we had decided that the N64 runs at 20 FPS.
Capturing an AVI with H264 lossless seems prohibitive, at least for my current HD (10 GiB free space, around 30 GiB total). Last time I tried, I got a 3-GiB file when recording up to the Silver Gauntlets. Admittedly, that was at 640×480 resolution, but I think it would still be huge at 320×240.
I get the lag with and without "Sync game to Audio" checked.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
JXQ wrote:
Is this even going to be accepted for publication?
Since GuanoBowl already said that he would work on a better version, I don't see why it would be...
EDIT:
Very nice stuff in the Spirit Temple, GuanoBowl. Just one thing. Please keep more than one heart during the final battles. That beeping is so annoying.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
Bob A wrote:
(a) Everyone who works voluntarily prefers working to not working, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
I wasn't arguing about their preference for work but about their preference for the kind of work that they are doing. The way I interpret that point on that page is that the people are being forced to do tasks that they would prefer not to do, not that they are being forced to work when they do not want to work. For example, being forced to work in construction when one would rather be a teacher.
Bob A wrote:
(technically they would accept more, but that's obviously not what it meant.)
I didn't find it so obvious from what I read there.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
Nibelung: Actually, I was having problems loading the site sometime yesterday, and Opera performed no better than Firefox. I find Bisqwit's explanation the most likely one for that.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
No, I haven't, but that section you linked to seems about as utopian as you can get. Of the working population of the earth, how many people do you think (a) actually like what they're doing and (b) wouldn't voluntarily accept more money for what they're doing? Using the definition given on that page, and the statistics that I've seen about the questions just listed, it would appear that most working people are in a situation of slavery.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
Kyrsimys: I think that's a bad analogy. We're talking about serving your country in some way. If you don't want to do that, why should you be allowed to remain there?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(67)
Joined: 6/22/2005
Posts: 1041
Boco wrote:
Prisons can be where people learn useful trades, then get government-sponsored jobs. You know, making those people useful to society instead of harmful to it.
That's the purpose of school.
Bag of Magic Food wrote:
So it's not where you go to be made to feel like a bad person?