Smart Kid

[Hokulele]

Hokulele - out of curiosity do you have the reference for the geocentric solar system in the bible?

I'm done for today - I'll check back tomorrow.

Take your time, I can understand about the deluge of responses here. Regarding the geocentric solar system and the bible, there are two sets of quotes that are typically referenced. The first is from Joshua 10:12-14.

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

The second is from Ecclesiastes 1:5-7.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea [is] not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

These are just the two most famous quotations. These were used by the church in the case of Galileo as proof that the theories Galileo was espousing were heretical. In both cases the fact of the sun's movement is explicitly stated, as was believed at the time. It is only now with our current understanding of the solar system do we say the sun's rising and setting is metaphor, and not literal truth.

 

[jimlintott]

I'll be the control group and not read anything.

Don't we need a placebo group? They could read Lord of the Rings.

I do have to give rcronk props for staying quite cool and maintaining composure in the 'deluge'.

 

[Jon.]

Jon. - I didn't get faith because I didn't have sincerity about finding the truth concerning the book. You could proceed to prayer without faith and see what happens - it didn't work when I tried it.

What kind of sincerity would I have to have for the experiment to be valid? Would I have to "want" it to be true? If I approached it with an open mind, scepticism but a willingness to be convinced by evidence, would that be enough?

Five senses? Do you have kids or parents or someone you love? Have you felt love? Isn't that outside of your five senses? If so, could it be possible that you could receive not only a physical sensation as I described but also knowledge through something other than five senses?

An emotion is not a form of knowledge - the fact that I experience the emotion is. I have never received any knowledge through the love that I feel for my parents, spouse and children; I have received knowledge from those individuals, however.

objective:undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena - when you receive the answer, you'll know that it came from outside of yourself and has nothing to do with emotion or personal bias. The observable phenomena for me was that my life completely changed as a result of that answer.

But it was observable only by you, which makes it subjective. Your behaviour may have changed in ways that were objectively evident, but the knowledge that the Book of Mormon was true was not objectively evident.

I have the computerized Bhagavad Gita and have read some of it also. No, I haven't read all of the books you listed in their entirety and I don't have to accept or reject them all as a whole - truth is truth - if the Bhagavad Gita says you should love and serve God and others to find lasting happiness, that's truth regardless of its context.

What if it doesn't (eg. Dianetics)? What if it denies that Jesus Christ was the son of God or that he was resurrected (eg. Qu'ran)? What if it says that there is not one god, but many (eg. Bhagavad Gita)? What if it says there is no God at all (eg. Buddhist texts)?

Other people have read these works in all sincerity and "known" that they are true. How can you say that they are wrong?

Men are fallible, I'll trust the answer I received from God over the attempts of men to put truth together. But over time, the truth usually wins out and the world ends up shperical - just like God made it. If the Bible said the world was a sphere and men proved scientifically that it was flat, I'll trust God and then wait for men to catch up.

What if the Bible says that the world is flat (Matt 4:8) and supported by pillars (1 Sam. 4:8)?

I haven't done this experiment with other books specifically because I know that if I read those books, I can get the truth that's in them and if it's something I really am not sure about and want to know the truth, I'll perform the experiment and find out for myself.[/quoe]

Other people have performed those experiments. They say that these books are true, even (or perhaps especially) where they contradict your books. Why do you say these people are wrong?

Again, I believe the answer I got from God and work with men's answers until they match - the truth wins out eventually.

Indeed, and nobody still believes that the moon gives off its own light, or that the stars could actually fall to earth (Mark 13:24-25), although they did at one time. Nobody still believes that seeds must be "dead" in order to germinate (1 Cor. 15:36), although they may have done at one time. Nobody still believes that the earth is set on an unmoving foundation (Heb. 1:10), although they did at one time. Eventually, the truth wins out. How do you think the Biblical or Mormon theories of the origin of species, or the migration of Israelites to the Americas, will survive against contrary scientific truth?

I would stick around and we could start another thread for your questions. I would read a book of your chosing and accept it or refute it, I will accept your result as a data point.

Will you accept my data point as equally valid to yours? Specifically, will you entertain the possibility that you were wrong (or deceived, or delusional) when you accepted the truth of the Book of Mormon? If so, how do you deny the validity of your own earlier data point, as well as the data points of lapsed Mormons (RandFan is one who posts here fairly often - I'm sure he'd answer any PMs you might send him)?

ETA: you seem to have something set up with Ryokan, and I will defer to that setup for now. If you want to do this with me, PM me.

 

[The Grave]

The idiot is back...but beware the 'friends' you aquire.

Dark Jaguar - I completely get the selection pressure and reproduction, etc. I was asking why some things are living and why some things are not - what is at the cause of "life" to an atheist?

It's funny that you said "If we designed computers that could replicate" - since that would take intelligent creators (we) to do such a thing. That whole argument supports creationism simply because only intelligent beings could make such computers. I'm a computer programmer by the way and it is truly an interesting science.

Your second point first:-

No slagging off; scouts honour! Honest Indian!

So, "It's funny that you said...." that god is the creator, when the simple knock-out to this is the fact that you are one of those faithers that wish to replace something fairly complicated with some thing MUCH more complicated...thereby breaking every observational concept of any functioning reality.... i.e. to me it is delusional ramblings... and I'm not trying to wind-up Holy Jon! or you.

There is no room in your theory of god for a formation of god. That bucket doesn't hold water.

First point second:

To me as a trained science/engineer type person who has studied and taught for what feels like centuries...

Firstly there is no "cause" of life, in a purpose full way by a being... simply because this replaces one unexplained jig-piece with a more complicated one.

Next: Have you read any good biochemistry books recently {ever}?? Or microbiology... or Dawkins, Gould et al...?

I know how your computer works: shuffle a few n's and p's here, a few electrons there... stone aged gadgetry for our near-stone-aged times that we live in!

A good biol book will tell you that your membranes/cells are nothing more than tiny twigs of phospholipids cramped in together; a few not very complicated glycoproteins and Bob's your uncle, hey presto, a bag full of chemicals that can make more chemicals; some of which can copy themselves.

All understood by phys/chem... it's just a lot of information... and we're still learning it.

Do you know you are 97% DNA alike to chimps, ~85% to horses and even 70% + for a banana... that one gets 'em every time...WHY? because they all rely on membranes, cells and other organelles that are pretty much the same... why? because they originate from the same common ancestor... all life does...or maybe there's some scope for more but that's the point.. not much.

Surely if a designer had drawn us all up... we'd be as different as chalk and cheese... but we're not. This is the evidence for evolution and the nail in the coffin for creationism.

Chimps have ABO blood, like yours and mine.

If you notice all mammals have 2 eyes/ears/arms.... no wings out of their backs, only modified arms...

Whales and dolphins have left-over legs/pelvic bones from having walked on ground...

No engineer would design a car with a 'real', left over horse {for horse power} inside a Ferrari... would they? Why should god give whales a pelvis & legs?

The hippo looks like a pig and is named after a horse... kinda... and yet DNA testing tells us that it is the closest relation to...what do you think...?






A whale.

Your god {not that I think there is such a thing} can't even design an animal that we can't explain in terms of evolution... if IT could we'd be stumped!

Good luck in your search...

"To travel with hope, is better than to arrive..."

Griff...

 

[Foster Zygote]

The idiot is back...

Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

[kmortis]

Now then, make your M&Ms capable of having young.

I do believe that you've just described a version of heaven that I could get into....

 

[RandFan]

Hi rcronk,

I came here an inactive Mormon but a firm believer in intelligent design. Reading through this thread I see a number of similarities between us. I made many of the same arguments and held a number of notions that you do know. My first thread here was an argument in support of ID not too different from your M&M example.

I'm a computer programmer which might explain why I came to a number of the same conclusions. I came up with a variation of the Chinese Room before I knew there was a Chinese Room thought experiment.

I'm not so presumptuous as to assume that my experiences will necessarily be of any importance to you. However, I think it perhaps helpful for you to know that others (yes other) precede you.

I was not an atheist before being a Mormon. My family converted when I was too young to know what theism or lack of theism was. I was a true believer though. I believed it as absolutely as any human can, at least as far as I can tell but I won't deny that through my life I had my trials of faith.

In any event, welcome and I wish you the best of luck. I think you are doing a good job. You don't have the chip on your shoulder that I came here with (and still have from time to time).

RandFan

 

[Tony]

I'm looking for the atheist explanation of what the fundamental difference is between living and non-living

Umm...the fundamental differences between living and non-living things is that living things are living and non-living things aren't.

what makes something move around of its own free will

This doesn't make sense. How can something make something move around of its own free will??? If it has free will, it doesn't need to be made to do anything.

 

[BillyJoe]

Don't be so hard on yourself.

...I see he has a son called Tony.



(BTW, where you saying above that evolution can occur without environmental changes?)

BJ

 

[BillyJoe]

rcronk,

I'm impressed with the way you've handled the idiots around here.

If you have found your way I am happy for you. But everyone is different. For example, I was a devoutly religious at age 15, but, within a year, my faith was completely gone as a result of thinking for myself about those things others had told me were true. I have not looked back since and I can't imagine any circumstances where I would.

As a matter of interest, do you believe in an eternal afterlife?

 

[Foster Zygote]

...I see he has a son called Tony.



(BTW, where you saying above that evolution can occur without environmental changes?)

BJ

A species can evolve without environmental change. Even if the environment remains static mutations can occur which give certain individuals a greater chance of reproductive success than others. And even species that have barely changed their form at all in millions of years are accumulating mutations in their genome.

 

[blobru]

I now know that the Book of Mormon is a true book.
...
a combination of stories about people and discourses starting in Jerusalem in 600 B.C., following a family from Jerusalem to the American Continent until about 421 A.D.

In the precocious [and holy] spirit of the OP's nephew, who compared God to the tooth fairy at the start of this thread, I thought I'd take your challenge, delve into the Book of Mormon a bit, and compare it to the historical record, to see if its claimed 'truth' was worth any more than a quarter under my pillow.

1 Nephi 1:4
4 For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of
the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having
dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there
came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must
repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.

So far so good, historians date Zedekiah's reign circa 597-586 B.C.

Now we read a bit further, and I must say things really start to heat up. At one point God commands his prophet Nephi to murder his rival Laban in his sleep:

1 Nephi 4:18
18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban
by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own
sword.

Then later on He rewards Nephi with a vision of just how upset He's going to be with a certain 'Gentile' church:

1 Nephi 13:4
4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the
Gentiles the formation of a great church.

1 Nephi 13:5
5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church
which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth
the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down,
and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into
captivity.

1 Nephi 13:6
6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable
church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.

(Probably explains why not a whole lot of Xmas cards arrive in Salt Lake City with a Vatican return address.)

Anyway, these visions are just the kick in the rear Nephi needs to lead his tribe out of the wilderness to the shores of a great ocean, which thanks to the Almighty's exceedingly fine ark blueprints and trusty compass, they make it across to the New World, where they find:

1 Nephi 18:25
25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of
promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were
beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and
the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all
manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we
did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of
copper.

As Dunstan's 4-year-old nephew might say: "unh-uh";
"the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat" are all Old World fauna. This is the 6th century BC, right?
Cows etal. won't show up for another 2 millenia at least:

"When Europeans first touched the shores of the Americas, ... there were no horses, cattle, sheep, or goats, all animals of Old World origin. Except for the llama, alpaca, dog, a few fowl, and guinea pig, the New World had no equivalents to the domesticated animals associated with the Old World[...]"
The Columbian Exchange
- Alfred Crosby, Professor Emeritus, University of Texas at Austin

So sorry, but unless as part of this 'experiment' we're expected to not show the same degree of curiosity a 4-year-old might while reading this "true book", I'm afraid that sort of 'truth' ain't worth a nickel in a sewer drain to me.

 

[rcronk]

Ryokan - thanks for the Buddhism info - I really like how humble the warrior monks were. I admire them. Yes - I'll read the Dhammapada and try to follow the eightfold path. What's the best online link for the Dhammapada that you've found as well as a summary of the eightfold path? I can go find it all on my own, but if you have a good link, I'll take it. Good experiment. I really like the angle that the Eastern religions and philosophies look at the truth. For example, they explain the concept of meekness as a pebble being thrown into the ocean as opposed to a puddle - a meek person is like the ocean, not affected by annoying disturbances, etc. Good stuff.

Hokulele - Thanks for the scripture references. I'm not sure I'd be able to take those verses into a (non-crooked) court and convince people that a heliocentric theory was heretical - the verses are pretty vague. That's one thing that bugs me about people is that they do their own junk in the name of religion and thereby give religion a bad wrap. If people could get their own answers and not follow or compel each other - that would be nice.

jimlintott - lol - yes, we need a control group! No Lord of the Rings though. You must read nothing or you'll taint the control. Thanks for the props - I've been battered in forums for years - usually on 9/11 conspiracy theories though (which I think are a pile of junk, BTW), so I'm getting better at rolling with the punches.

Jon. - Yes, I think open minded skepticism with a willingness to accept the truth you find will work. Emotion is just an example of something you experience outside of the five senses. I have discovered that Knowledge can also come from outside my five senses - not through emotion but some other way that I don't yet understand - I just know it can happen because it happened to me. Objective/Subjective - fair enough. Those books can have truth in them and it's good to gather truth wherever you can find it. If one of them says that Christ was not the Son of God, for example, then based on the knowledge I have received, I would have to say that those specific words in that specific book are in error - it doesn't mean that there isn't any truth in the book - in fact the whole rest of the book may be full of truth. Each person must find these things out for themselves. I think it's a stretch to claim that Matt 4:8 says the world is flat. I think you meant 1 Sam 2:8 and the phrasing of that verse sounds more symbolic than literal. I'm not saying the Bible is perfect, it has its flaws, but it also has truth in it. As for contradictions between people saying that two things are true that contradict each other - either one or both of the people are wrong. Truth sits there waiting to be discovered - nobody owns it, no religion owns it - it exists independently of all of us. If there's an orange on the table and one person says there's an orange on the table and another person says there's not an orange on the table, one of them is just wrong and that's ok - it's not the end of the world and it doesn't mean that the person who said the orange is there is prideful or better than the other person either. I call meteorites "falling" or "shooting" stars sometimes - it doesn't mean I think that they're literally falling. Again, I'm not going to get into "defend the perfection of the bible" mode because it's not perfect, but I think it has some crucially important truths in it that make these other flaws irrelevant. I will accept your data point as being equally valid as mine. I cannot accept the idea that I was delusional or wrong about my answer though because of the nature of the answer. If you run the experiment correctly, you'll understand me. Until then, you probably won't. But that's ok. We can still hang out, right? I'll PM you and Ryokan and anyone else who wants to run the experiment. Thanks for your willingness.

Polaristutoring - I freaking love bananas!

Foster Zygote - LOL!

kmortis - I freaking love M&M's(tm)!

randfan - I was Mormon, then atheist, then a bunch of different religions, then Mormon again. My brother-in-law is Vaishnava (Hare Krishna) and I occasionally hang out over there and the Jehovah's Witnesses are right there across the street in their Kingdom Hall - I went there too. There's truth scattered everywhere. Thanks for the welcome - and I'm really lazy so I try not to keep too much on my shoulders.

Tony - Good points, let me clarify. I was looking for what causes something to be living or not living and in theism, a spirit is usually what people believe is at the source of what's moving the body about and is at the source of thought, etc. I was looking for the atheist point of view on these things.

BillyJoe - I don't think I've run into an idiot yet - but then again, I may be an idiot and just can't tell when I run into one of my own ilk. ;-) LDS Article of faith number 11 - "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." Yes, I believe in an eternal afterlife - I hope they've got some really good hobbies there.

blobru - I'm glad you've decided to read the Book of Mormon for the purpose of finding out truth rather than just going through it to try to find things you think aren't true and bash on it - oh wait...

all - the idea of praying for wisdom is not just a Mormon idea either: 1 James 1:5 - "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." The conditions of the experiment come from The Book of Mormon in Moroni 10:3-5 - "Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."

 

[blobru]

blobru - I'm glad you've decided to read the Book of Mormon for the purpose of finding out truth rather than just going through it to try to find things you think aren't true and bash on it - oh wait...

You're right, I'm a pretty disgusting experimental subject. I guess I'll just never be able to wrap my brain around what true-believers mean by "truth".

 

[rcronk]

There are explanations for the issues you've brought up. www.fair-lds.org is a good place to look around for some of those explanations. These issues have been brought up before and have been discussed. I guess I was confused that you didn't bring up anything good that you learned during your reading and that seemed to reveal the purpose of your reading.

 

[blobru]

Y'know I did enjoy the bit where Laban got his head cut off (drunk s.o.b. had it coming as far as I'm concerned), and the Nephite name for the Atlantic(?) "Irreantum" was kinda purty; however, almost every verse starting with "And so it came to pass that" and the archaic verb tenses ("they floateth their boateth over the moateth") made it fairly tough sledding, and much as the prospect of pre-columbian contact between the Old World and New excites my imagination, when they get off the boat and find ponies for the kids to ride on, well, that's when I decided to pack it in and watch some cartoons.

 

[rcronk]

m-kay.

 

[rcronk]

I have started a new thread for the "Religious Book Exchange". The instructions and explanation of the process is explained over there. I will now focus most of my time on the above mentioned new thread and reading the Dhammapada. If you're interested in seeking truth using the experiment we've discussed and you're willing to keep it positive as you seek for that truth, join me over there and let's see what happens.

 

[blobru]

... I decided to pack it in and watch some cartoons.

and by 'cartoons' I mean hard-core pornography.

Good Luck, Cronk!

 

[rcronk]

I've actually found that to be quite destructive in the lives of hundreds of people I know who are trying to become unaddicted to it. There are 12-step programs for that if you ever want to stop but find that you can't.

It ends up being a drug addiction to the testosterone, adrenaline, and about four other bodily produced "drugs" that are produced. Except these drugs are free and anonymous. They produce a funneling effect which focuses a person so much that time, morals, and family disappear while one is under their influence. They serve the same purpose that street drugs and alcohol serve when it comes to escaping the pains of reality or covering up hatred/fear/depression and they have the same progression-stifling effects.