iloveannie said:

I'll believe in God when he presents himself to me. Until then I'll try to keep my mind open and enjoy what I'm experiencing.

Open your eyes, seek after the truth...and you will find it. GOD is out there, right now, all you have to do is ask him to reveal himself to you and he will...

hollywooddove said:

I always enjoy watching these debates spin. It is a great reminder to me that life still has many mysteries, in our short lives, that will always remain unanswered for certain. I do wish we had some certain truth that supports a unified philosophy of existance, but those unanswered questions still hide it from us. No matter which side of the table we sit on, there will always be people who believe there is something or someone greater at work in this 'dream of life' we wander through for our short years; or there will be those who believe the material is all that there can possibly be. Religion is a vast subject, there are so many beliefs out there. Each in his own heart convicted that they are on the right and true path, even if it contains no religion at all. But in the end, we are all subject to that all inspiring unknown which places a faith, a hope, a subtle joy and sadness for answers yet to be revealed, or never revealed.

We are in this together. I have always found it so bitter that sharing one's belief can cause so much hostility. In the end, we are ultimately responsible for ourselves. I hope for more than this life, else it all seems a lot for nothing, and so little that results in collapse. But that's just me.

[Edited 9/28/10 10:23am]

Very well said...

HomeSquid said:

robinhood said:

we are born with free will, but not necessarily a conscience.

some people are born with a significantly smaller, and sometimes totally absent, section of the brain which deals with empathy and their ability to be consciously aware of the difference between right and wrong.

what you are describing are merely theories. We have much to learn about the human brain. All the evidence points to everyone being gifted with conscience...every culture everywhere and for all recorded history displayed this uniquely human trait. But I do want to say I appreciate how civil and thoughtful you are...our dialogue is peaceful that's cool

no problem and ur welcome. i dont like conflict so i do what i can to avoid it.

i will try to find the article that surfaced recently about the findings of the studies done on the brain of psychopaths and sociopaths

i really wish i could agree with you that 'all the evidence points to everyone being gifted with conscience', it's a lovely ideal and it is one i used to believe in

i've had too many experiences with sociopaths, and read a lot of material on the subject, even the 'experts' say that these people are born, not made

professional psychologists and psychiatrists have written extensively on the subject, but like i said i will try to find the article i saw recently

if the theory of evolution has any merit, it makes sense to me that genetic mutation can degenerate to the point of people being born without the part of the brain required to process empathy, but that's another can of worms.

we dont always evolve for the better, sometimes we evolve for the worse, depending on the gene mix.

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

Spinlight said:

Why do you consider the bible to be the best evidence around? The bible has gone through multiple translations, edits, and revisions over the past 3000 years. If anything, I would say that the bible - in its original form - was an edict that was commissioned by a king to be written (a king commissioned it as in the writers of the old testament were paid to do so). And the new testament was written via dictation, and then went through the numerous translations, edits, and revisions. Roman Catholic bibles are different than Hebrew bibles, etc. Soooo, which version of the bible do YOU believe to be true and what do you say about the evidence of its inception?

Well the Bible has a verse in Rev. instructing people to not attempt to change GOD's word, or they will be dealt with. I firmly believe that...I know that GOD wouldn't let his word be tainted. And just because something is translated, doesn't mean it is wrong. The meaning is still there...

I have the KJV of the Bible, but I use my NIV because the wording is easier to understand. I've had bible in a few different languages, and when translated, the meanings are still the same.

The Bible is the best evidence, it's GOD's word. When one really thinks about GOD, it's logical to believe he exists...I mean where did we come from? I find it mindboggling that people easily accept that once we dies, that's it, then to actually think there may be life after we leave this one.

GOD's existance is all around us! I can't believe anyone could ever witness the birth of a baby or climb to the top of a mountain and overlook nature and NOT believe in GOD. Those things simply amaze you and take your breath away. And really get you to thinking....

That because it involves critical thinking, which religion teaches you to dismiss. Why grasp at straws to find the beginning and end of something? What if the universe always was - in the same way you believe that "God" always was.

Spinlight said:

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

Well the Bible has a verse in Rev. instructing people to not attempt to change GOD's word, or they will be dealt with. I firmly believe that...I know that GOD wouldn't let his word be tainted. And just because something is translated, doesn't mean it is wrong. The meaning is still there...

I have the KJV of the Bible, but I use my NIV because the wording is easier to understand. I've had bible in a few different languages, and when translated, the meanings are still the same.

The Bible is the best evidence, it's GOD's word. When one really thinks about GOD, it's logical to believe he exists...I mean where did we come from? I find it mindboggling that people easily accept that once we dies, that's it, then to actually think there may be life after we leave this one.

GOD's existance is all around us! I can't believe anyone could ever witness the birth of a baby or climb to the top of a mountain and overlook nature and NOT believe in GOD. Those things simply amaze you and take your breath away. And really get you to thinking....

That because it involves critical thinking, which religion teaches you to dismiss. Why grasp at straws to find the beginning and end of something? What if the universe always was - in the same way you believe that "God" always was.

That's a great point! I think that it's in all of us to wonder where we came from, etc. I think we want to find out the mysteries of life and death. Honestly, we will never know...life is what it is. GOD isn't the final answer to it all, even when you find GOD, you have more questions. Get this all the time with kids "Well, where did GOD come from?" And that's where we teach he just was...All the hows, whats, when, why, etc. will be answered one day so don't worry yourself with trying now, just have faith and believe.

You know, I always tell people, if for nothing else, GOD gives you a sense of peace within yourself. And you do have someo hope for life after death. Imagaine those people that believe nothing, then they lose a loved one and regret never saying goodbye or I love you. At least with belief in GOD, you have a hope of seeing this person again one day. For those with miserable lives on Earth, with GOD, you have the promise of a paradise after death. Hope and peace alone should be enough to make everyone open their hearts. Because everyone, no matter how they deny it, wants to know....

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

Your thought process is the reason why this world is the way it is now. You wrote the most blasphemous, "we don't need GOD, " everyone do whatever you want to do crap!!

Actually I didn't write any of that.

I happen to personally believe that God is all, thus the notion that we don't need God is flawed by definition.

I just have no wish to force that belief on anyone else.

Post like this just irk me because you are trying to upset people by putting a nun in the same category as a disgusting sex fiend! And for Catholics, that is a BIG insult!

I wasn't trying to upset people.

I didn't put a nun in the same category as a sex fiend (that term was meant to be a bit light-hearted, but for clarity I guess you could simply say a sexually liberated individual - I certainly didn't judge either as being "disgusting").

All this "I don't believe a nun is closer to GOD than a sex fanatic."

I didn't write that.

Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. Not up to you to judge what's in her heart, but if she DOES have GOD in her heart, and the sex fanatic doesn't, then she is closer to GOD as she has accepted him, and the other has not.

Actually, that was exactly my point.

Naturally though, by that logic, the reverse could also apply.

You are right, one day we will all the see the truth, those for some that truth will be like a bolt of lightning and for others it will be like a bed of roses, as we already know the truth. GOD has put it out there for us...whether we listen or not is our own faults.

I personally feel that those who believe that they already know the truth in its entirety are likely to be the most disappointed (ie. look out for the thorns in that bed of roses!)

That said, I also believe that the Truth is only revealed to someone once they are ready, so it's somewhat of a moot point

It's important that people understand that Prince doesn't 100% adhere to the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, he still thinks for himself and personally guided by God on his own.

For examply in an interview he said he believed Jehovah's Witnesses were THE CLOSEST to the truth, he didn't say THEY ARE the truth, which means not 100% of their beliefs are true to Prince.

And we know he believes in sex before marriage, he still refers to it in his songs (On The Couch) which is against Jehovahs Witmesses beliefs.

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

I can't believe anyone could ever witness the birth of a baby or climb to the top of a mountain and overlook nature and NOT believe in GOD. Those things simply amaze you and take your breath away. And really get you to thinking....

I remember thinking that about ten or twelve years ago. I wanted to believe in a God but never subscribed to any religion. Some people get taken up by it, others don't. Some want to but find the multitude of choice driving them away. Also the fanaticism they witness pushes them further from certain religions. Sometimes.

For me, wanting to find the belief that others seemed to possess occupied a lot of my thoughts. It was actually upsetting me at times: wanting to find God and the truth but not knowing where to turn and whether the choice I made would be right. And then a few short years ago something changed.

I listened to Richard Dawkins on an early morning religious debate show (UK). The guy spoke so much sense. For the first time it dawned on me that I had never been given the choice "not" to believe. I thought about it a lot but it came rushing in to be honest. A spiritual awakening perhaps. Since then I cannot say that God does not exist as I cannot prove otherwise. By the same token neither has anybody yet shown me evidence to prove he does exist. Just because we are does not mean that a supreme being made it so.

I can also see how the world can work quite happily without religion. It has it's place in changing a people and altering their behaviour; giving them hope, keeping them from doing harm to others and themselves and nurturing communities. However it can also be manipulated for more selfish purposes, as we currently witness the extreme Islamic actions happening around the world. The Catholic faith is no less guilty and let's not forget the violent adoption(?) of Christianity throughout Europe.

Would type more but I guess I'm either preaching to the converted or talking to covered ears, either way I've gotta go as I'm feelin' peckish and it's lunchtime

iloveannie said:

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

I can't believe anyone could ever witness the birth of a baby or climb to the top of a mountain and overlook nature and NOT believe in GOD. Those things simply amaze you and take your breath away. And really get you to thinking....

I remember thinking that about ten or twelve years ago. I wanted to believe in a God but never subscribed to any religion. Some people get taken up by it, others don't. Some want to but find the multitude of choice driving them away. Also the fanaticism they witness pushes them further from certain religions. Sometimes.

For me, wanting to find the belief that others seemed to possess occupied a lot of my thoughts. It was actually upsetting me at times: wanting to find God and the truth but not knowing where to turn and whether the choice I made would be right. And then a few short years ago something changed.

I listened to Richard Dawkins on an early morning religious debate show (UK). The guy spoke so much sense. For the first time it dawned on me that I had never been given the choice "not" to believe. I thought about it a lot but it came rushing in to be honest. A spiritual awakening perhaps. Since then I cannot say that God does not exist as I cannot prove otherwise. By the same token neither has anybody yet shown me evidence to prove he does exist. Just because we are does not mean that a supreme being made it so.

I can also see how the world can work quite happily without religion. It has it's place in changing a people and altering their behaviour; giving them hope, keeping them from doing harm to others and themselves and nurturing communities. However it can also be manipulated for more selfish purposes, as we currently witness the extreme Islamic actions happening around the world. The Catholic faith is no less guilty and let's not forget the violent adoption(?) of Christianity throughout Europe.

Would type more but I guess I'm either preaching to the converted or talking to covered ears, either way I've gotta go as I'm feelin' peckish and it's lunchtime

Many people go through, and I feel in this day age more than ever, a path of belief destruction. We tear down all that we have been taught in order to rebuild a foundation on what we find true. Knowledge, though, is limited. In other words, to dispense with the suspense, we will never know everything, and we will not find a reality that is 100% provable and assuring. No faith is frozen. Beliefs grow, actually live in a sense, and work within the dynamics of our existence.

Yes it is true, religion has spilled blood. The assimilation of Christianity was bloody horrible. But let's not negate some of the benefits that these struggles ensued. The strife of the Puritan reformation and its civil war in the 1600's pushed the great migration of Puritans to the Americas. It was the preachings of the Great Awakening that unified the American to find the heart of one people. (I'm sure I will find some debate on slavery, which is wrong, and was in the United States far before Independence and was in fact placed there by the actions of the Spaniards in the 1400's and the Virginia Company in the 1500's. America's sin was to hold to a tradition that was totally in humane. And I do sympathize with the plight of the American Indian who lost their homes to disease and war from the invasion. These were actions of greed that would have happened with or without the cause of religion. The Virginia Company had been taking fertile land from the Indian to grow tobacco in the name of commercial profit from the beginning, and when the Indians fought back, rightfully, they were no longer the intelligent and artful people found in the America's, but then labeled and defined as savages in order for a means to an end. )

With or without religion, we will find reason to war. If it will not be disagreement on religion, it will be disagreement on something else, or it will be just plain conquest and greed. This is the human condition. Intolerance.

Atheist are intolerant of Christians, and Christians are intolerant of atheist, because they seem to view one another as blinded by their own wishes. Have we really robbed one another of anything if we live out our lives in the peace that our beliefs dictate instead of the constant bickering that farther divides us? I think not.

I would say to Christians, you have won over no one when you preach of a loving Jesus and scold people that they are worthless and headed to Hell if you are not living a life lead by love and compassion. How many people have you fed or clothed? How many people have you loved that may not see as you do? Or is your attack on the injustice of the world to simply sit on a pew and pray that God will do away with your enemies? If your life does not speak of Christ, you are your own enemy, and should be wary of your prayers.

I would say to Athiest, you have won over no one when you tell someone that being true to their heart, for having the courage to believe there is a love beyond their own that is worth following and transforms your existence to a better one, are idiots. Obviously this life style works for them, or they would not so passionately follow it. It's no more wrong to believe that the universe is divinely positioned than it is to believe the universe is randomly active. It is here regardless.

But we seem to be a hopeless lot, always striving to squash the other more so in the name of pride to validate our security that we may 'right', and never to help one another.

Btw, I am Christian for many reasons and I am NOT here in this discussion to validate my Christian beliefs or defend them in this passage. After all of these centuries in Christian teachings, we still have a long way to go for our improvement.

[Edited 9/29/10 7:15am]

iloveannie said:

I listened to Richard Dawkins on an early morning religious debate show (UK). The guy spoke so much sense.

wow. You must not have heard/read the rebuttals to Dawkins. He is only effective with those who are not hip to the goings on in the ID and Christian apologist movements.

Thanks though for your honest, humble post. But PLEASE don't rely on Richard Dawkins' sophistry as the end of your quest

robinhood said:

HomeSquid said:

what you are describing are merely theories. We have much to learn about the human brain. All the evidence points to everyone being gifted with conscience...every culture everywhere and for all recorded history displayed this uniquely human trait. But I do want to say I appreciate how civil and thoughtful you are...our dialogue is peaceful that's cool

no problem and ur welcome. i dont like conflict so i do what i can to avoid it.

i will try to find the article that surfaced recently about the findings of the studies done on the brain of psychopaths and sociopaths

I don't think there's any doubt that there'll be genetic defects that causes humans to show little conscience. Additionally a person can "kill" their conscience by exercising free will in a negative manner

if the theory of evolution has any merit, it makes sense to me that genetic mutation can degenerate to the point of people being born without the part of the brain required to process empathy, but that's another can of worms.

Evolution is a reality. Only there are limits to it. The old Micro vs Macro issue. It makes perfect sense that genetic mutation would produce persons with a severely under-developed brains...that is a whole other can of worms indeed.

hollywooddove said:

iloveannie said:

I remember thinking that about ten or twelve years ago. I wanted to believe in a God but never subscribed to any religion. Some people get taken up by it, others don't. Some want to but find the multitude of choice driving them away. Also the fanaticism they witness pushes them further from certain religions. Sometimes.

For me, wanting to find the belief that others seemed to possess occupied a lot of my thoughts. It was actually upsetting me at times: wanting to find God and the truth but not knowing where to turn and whether the choice I made would be right. And then a few short years ago something changed.

I listened to Richard Dawkins on an early morning religious debate show (UK). The guy spoke so much sense. For the first time it dawned on me that I had never been given the choice "not" to believe. I thought about it a lot but it came rushing in to be honest. A spiritual awakening perhaps. Since then I cannot say that God does not exist as I cannot prove otherwise. By the same token neither has anybody yet shown me evidence to prove he does exist. Just because we are does not mean that a supreme being made it so.

I can also see how the world can work quite happily without religion. It has it's place in changing a people and altering their behaviour; giving them hope, keeping them from doing harm to others and themselves and nurturing communities. However it can also be manipulated for more selfish purposes, as we currently witness the extreme Islamic actions happening around the world. The Catholic faith is no less guilty and let's not forget the violent adoption(?) of Christianity throughout Europe.

Would type more but I guess I'm either preaching to the converted or talking to covered ears, either way I've gotta go as I'm feelin' peckish and it's lunchtime

Many people go through, and I feel in this day age more than ever, a path of belief destruction. We tear down all that we have been taught in order to rebuild a foundation on what we find true. Knowledge, though, is limited. In other words, to dispense with the suspense, we will never know everything, and we will not find a reality that is 100% provable and assuring. No faith is frozen. Beliefs grow, actually live in a sense, and work within the dynamics of our existence.

Yes it is true, religion has spilled blood. The assimilation of Christianity was bloody horrible. But let's not negate some of the benefits that these struggles ensued. The strife of the Puritan reformation and its civil war in the 1600's pushed the great migration of Puritans to the Americas. It was the preachings of the Great Awakening that unified the American to find the heart of one people. (I'm sure I will find some debate on slavery, which is wrong, and was in the United States far before Independence and was in fact placed there by the actions of the Spaniards in the 1400's and the Virginia Company in the 1500's. America's sin was to hold to a tradition that was totally in humane. And I do sympathize with the plight of the American Indian who lost their homes to disease and war from the invasion. These were actions of greed that would have happened with or without the cause of religion. The Virginia Company had been taking fertile land from the Indian to grow tobacco in the name of commercial profit from the beginning, and when the Indians fought back, rightfully, they were no longer the intelligent and artful people found in the America's, but then labeled and defined as savages in order for a means to an end. )

[Edited 9/29/10 7:15am]

1) You are clearly speaking of your own experiences in the church and while I commend your candor, I'll remind you that not all congregations are created equal. You dress your words prettily, but it doesn't mean anything until you get down to brass tacks and really point out or discuss aspects of the church which have and have not grown over the past 2000 years. Topics of interest: Homosexuality (Lev 18:22), slavery (Lev. 25:44-46), women (Pet 3:7), rape (Judges 21:10-24), trust (Psalms 118:8), etc. These entries are not stricken from the canon and filed with the Apocrypha. These are upheld as living, breathing rules you are to adhere to or face severe punishment. Sounds lovely.

2) No, let's not forget the blood that was spilled. Stop glossing over the errors and atone for them. Isn't Christianity all about atonement? Who has atoned for it? Who atones for it every day? Do you? I don't think I have ever heard a Christian say to me that they spend time atoning for the sins of the past. Religion, far and away, captures the most amount of blood spilled for any catalyst throughout all of time. In fact, people like to make a lot of mention about Jesus and the blood flow that occurred after he died, but let me remind (whomever) that blood was shed for religious purposes before Mary got knocked up with her mystery child (and don't tell me it was immaculate - Joseph's ancestral ties to King David and the reputation of their family name kept them from admitting Mary had been impregnated via either rape or adultery). Crucifixions (indeed, ones that occurred on crosses regardless of Prince's description of the stauros) were looooooong in place by then and there's recorded evidence of tens of thousands of years worth of religious warfare artifacts housed in museums all over the world.

3) This is just patently false. Faith and religion were directly tied to the colonization of America and Native Americans were even put through bible study to convert them and, thus, they proved unwilling to drop their own beliefs (you know, because everyone is entitled to their beliefs and pretty much every religion states their Holy Man is the be all end all) in favor of these strangers' beliefs. This was not the primary motivation - The companies, like Columbus before them, had struggled with settling the areas and had run out of money. Columbus had promised his monarch all the gold they wished for (because established trade routes ALREADY EXISTED from the European coast (up and down) to the American coast (up and down) and failed to provide them because THERE WASN'T ANY, and simply began slaughtering Native Americans (originating from the caribbean islands) left and right. The English settlers were not much better and though they are, for some reason, depicted as a reasonable bunch, their apple did not fall too far from the torturous, murderous, war-driven tree of King James.

[Edited 9/29/10 9:46am]

Everyone appears to have their 'certainties' about faith and opinions about who is 'right' and who is 'wrong.' I believe that anyone who claims to be certain about faith or the mysteries of the universe and God/Gods/Goddesses or lack thereof has a level of arrogance I cannot fathom. My mind is open to all possiblities. I do not believe humans will ever really know anything. Not even after we are dead. Therefore, I keep my mind open to new scientific findings and new theories about the universe. This article, imo, displays much humility and makes tons more sense than all the arguments I've read from both sides.

I do, however, think he could have stuck to the word "Agnosticism" instead of making up a silly sounding term.

http://www.newscientist.c...?full=true

Beyond God and atheism: Why I am a 'possibilian'

When it comes to the big questions, why should we have to either deny God or believe? Surely good science doesn't so restrict us, says David Eagleman

I HAVE devoted my life to scientific pursuit. After all, if we want to crack the mysteries of our existence, there may be no better approach than to directly study the blueprints. And science over the past 400 years has been tremendously successful. We have reached the moon, eradicated smallpox, built the internet, tripled lifespans, and increasingly tapped into those mind-blowing truths around us. We've found them to be deeper and more beautiful than anyone could have guessed.

But when we reach the end of the pier of everything we know, we find that it only takes us part of the way. Beyond that all we see is uncharted water. Past the end of the pier lies all the mystery about our deeply strange existence: the equivalence of mass and energy, dark matter, multiple spatial dimensions, how to build consciousness, and the big questions of meaning and existence.

I have no doubt that we will continue to add to the pier of knowledge, appending several new slats in each generation. But we have no guarantee how far we'll get. There may be some domains beyond the tools of science - perhaps temporarily, perhaps always. We also have to acknowledge that we won't answer many of the big questions in our brief twinkling of a 21st-century lifetime: even if science can determine the correct answer, we won't get to enjoy hearing it.

This situation calls for an openness in approaching the big questions of our existence. When there is a lack of meaningful data to weigh in on a problem, good scientists are comfortable holding many possibilities at once, rather than committing to a particular story over others. In light of this, I have found myself surprised by the amount of certainty out there.

Take, for example, this decade's books by the new atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Their books are brilliant and insightful, but sometimes feed a widespread misconception that scientists don't have the capacity to gambol around beyond the available data. Some readers walk away from these books with the impression that scientists think they have the big picture solved - if not in detail, at least in outline.

But good science is always open-minded, and the history of science is one of surprises and overturnings. Science is nothing but careful thinking, and careful thinking encourages an appreciation of the complexity of the world. The complexity encourages us to maintain several possibilities at once. In a single lifetime, we may have no way to remove the ambiguities from these possibilities.

A scientist may tend to favour one story over the others, but will always be careful to concede uncertainty and maintain a willingness to change the balance with new, incoming information. As an example, there are two very different interpretations about the reality underlying quantum physics. It is possible that there will be no way to ever know which is correct, or if instead some entirely new theory is correct. And that ambiguity is accepted as part of the enormity of the mysteries we face, and the terms of the agreement we have with nature.

So while there are plenty of good books by scientist-atheists, they sometimes under-emphasise the main lesson from science: that our knowledge is vastly outstripped by our ignorance. For me, a life in science prompts awe and exploration over dogmatism.

Given these considerations, I do not call myself an atheist. I don't feel that I have enough data to firmly rule out other interesting possibilities. On the other hand, I do not subscribe to any religion. Traditional religious stories can be beautiful and often crystallise hard-won wisdom - but it is hardly a challenge to poke holes in them. Religious structures are built by humans and brim with all manner of strange human claims - they often reflect cults of personality, xenophobia or mental illness. The holy books of these religions were written millennia ago by people who never had the opportunity to know about DNA, other galaxies, information theory, electricity, the big bang, the big crunch, or even other cultures, literatures or landscapes.

So it seems we know too little to commit to strict atheism, and too much to commit to any religion. Given this, I am often surprised by the number of people who seem to possess total certainty about their position. I know a lot of atheists who seethe at the idea of religion, and religious followers who seethe at the idea of atheism - but neither group is bothering with more interesting ideas. They make their impassioned arguments as though the God versus no-God dichotomy were enough for a modern discussion.

What if we were planted here by aliens? What if there are civilisations in spatial dimensions seven through nine? What if we are nodes in a vast, cosmic, computational device? Wouldn't that make their debates seem limited, in retrospect? I don't think the important goal should be to fight for a particular story in the absence of strong evidence; it should be to explore and celebrate the vast possibilities.

Consider the enormous "possibility space" of stories that can be dreamed up. Take the entirety of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition as a single point in this possibility space. The eastern religions are another point. Strict atheism is another point. Now think of the immense landscape of the points in between. Many of these points will contain stories that are crazy, silly, or merely wildly improbable. But in the absence of data, they can't be ruled out of that space.

This is why I call myself a "possibilian". Possibilianism emphasises the active exploration of new, unconsidered notions. A possibilian is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind and is not driven by the idea of fighting for a single, particular story. The key emphasis of possibilianism is to shine a flashlight around the possibility space. It is a plea not simply for open-mindedness, but for an active exploration of new ideas.

Is possibilianism compatible with a scientific career? Indeed, it represents the heart of science. Real science operates by holding limitless possibilities in mind and working to see which one is most supported by the data. Sometimes it is difficult or impossible to gather data that weighs in - and in those cases we simply retain the possibilities. We don't commit to a particular version of the story when there is no reason to.

Possibilianism does not suggest free rein to believe whatever strikes one's fancy. It is not tantamount to "anything goes". We know a great deal, not only about the cosmos and molecules, but also about human yearning, fallibilities, poor memories and our extraordinary ability to fabricate any variety of fantastic but utterly untrue stories. Within the realm of what is addressable, we profitably apply logic to further knowledge. Possibilianism is "anything goes at first" - but we then use science to rule out parts of the possibility space, and often to rule in new parts.

In every generation, people are seduced by the idea that they possess all the tools they need to explain the universe. They have always been wrong. From consciousness to dark energy, we know that we are missing an unknowable number of pieces of the puzzle. This is why in the debates between the strict atheists and the fundamentally religious, I choose a third side. A little less pretence of certainty and a little more exploration of the possibility space.

As Voltaire put it, "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

Cute little article there...written by someone still searching for the truth....

While no one can say they know everything about everything 100%, there are those that can say they know "the truth and have found GOD, and now rely on HIM to reveal himself, develop a personal relationship with HIM, and be led by HIM. All the cute, intelligent-sounding articles won't change that.

The testimonies to people like this guy are the best, some people really come from a low spot and when they discover the truth about GOD and come to him...it is very refreshing!

Vendetta1 said:

Some of the Christians on this very site like to quote the Bible in one breath; claiming that Christians are one thing and then in another breath be rude, curse other people out, lie and gossip and then use the EXCUSE that you all are just human. I find so many of you hypocritical and fake.

HomeSquid said:

iloveannie said:

I listened to Richard Dawkins on an early morning religious debate show (UK). The guy spoke so much sense.

wow. You must not have heard/read the rebuttals to Dawkins. He is only effective with those who are not hip to the goings on in the ID and Christian apologist movements.

Thanks though for your honest, humble post. But PLEASE don't rely on Richard Dawkins' sophistry as the end of your quest

Sophistry? What he said resonated more with me than anything anyone of religious belief has yet said.

Trouble with all of this is that nobody will be converted to either side and the argument will continue until the bitter end. Tomato, tomato. Of course it's tomato, only fools say otherwise.

HomeSquid said:

robinhood said:

no problem and ur welcome. i dont like conflict so i do what i can to avoid it.

i will try to find the article that surfaced recently about the findings of the studies done on the brain of psychopaths and sociopaths

I don't think there's any doubt that there'll be genetic defects that causes humans to show little conscience. Additionally a person can "kill" their conscience by exercising free will in a negative manner

if the theory of evolution has any merit, it makes sense to me that genetic mutation can degenerate to the point of people being born without the part of the brain required to process empathy, but that's another can of worms.

Evolution is a reality. Only there are limits to it. The old Micro vs Macro issue. It makes perfect sense that genetic mutation would produce persons with a severely under-developed brains...that is a whole other can of worms indeed.

yes, apparently the parts of the brain that fire properly in 'healthy' people, do not fire properly in sociopaths and psychopaths.

the belief is that sociopaths are environment-made, and that psychopaths are born that way.

i cant find the article i was looking for, but in my search i did some more reading.

my heart goes out to people who, due to childhood circumstances and negative environmental conditioning, suffer severe brain damage, caused by trauma, and repeated trauma at that.

i dont know if they can reconnect with their conscience or not, maybe they can be healed over time, depending on how severe the brain damage is.

but i'm pretty sure psychopaths remain untreatable due to the genetic disorder. my heart goes out to them also, even though they'll never know what that means.

but we've spun off in a different direction to my original comment, which was simplistic and generalized for the sake of brevity, where i said "some people have a conscience, others need a guide book"

in my opinion, everyone needs love regardless of religious belief or lack thereof. its hard sometimes, to keep being kind and sensitive to other people's feelings and beliefs, but it's always worth trying our best imo.

without love we have nothing.

Man! This Thread Blew up with posts!

To not believe in a creator is actually very unscientific, because science states that everything must have a cause.

Ok so then evolutionists, what created the big bang?.......

Anybody?.......

Ok so it came out of nothing (or rather the original particles came from nothing) which is completely against the scientific statement above.

So THERE SIMPLY HAS TO BE SOMETHING ELSE - OUTSIDE OF MATTER.

There has to be.

Some people call this 'something else' God.

Now then evolutionists will say 'oh so where did God come from then, ha ha'

Well because I'm not arrogant I accept the fact that this something else is BEYOND OUR COMPREHENSION.

Us humans in the universe are like fish in a goldfish bowl, they might know that there is something outside but it is simply beyond their comprehension.

swdee said:

To not believe in a creator is actually very unscientific, because science states that everything must have a cause.

LOL. You're wrong. Bye!

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

Cute little article there...written by someone still searching for the truth....

While no one can say they know everything about everything 100%, there are those that can say they know "the truth and have found GOD, and now rely on HIM to reveal himself, develop a personal relationship with HIM, and be led by HIM. All the cute, intelligent-sounding articles won't change that.

The testimonies to people like this guy are the best, some people really come from a low spot and when they discover the truth about GOD and come to him...it is very refreshing!

I will take someone still searching for that illusive truth over someone who claims to know it. And I disagree that he is coming from a 'low spot.' I believe he is coming from a very humble place. What I disagree with is the dismissive and arrogant attitude that anyone who hasn't "found" God is somehow inferior and it's only a matter of time before they open their eyes and 'see.' No one can know that.

Since I disagree with just about everything you post and also your arrogance in assuming I will not be happy until I find a God to worship, I'll refrain from posting to you. I am willing to debate all sides and keep an open mind...I wish everyone would.

Spinlight said:

swdee said:

To not believe in a creator is actually very unscientific, because science states that everything must have a cause.

LOL. You're wrong. Bye!

Hm, I'd be interested in seeing both you support these tenants.

hollywooddove said:

Spinlight said:

LOL. You're wrong. Bye!

Hm, I'd be interested in seeing both you support these tenants.

it's very simple. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's beginning. All it takes is one example to rule that out...so let's hear one....anyone?....give us one example of something that has a beginning that didn't have a cause

HomeSquid said:

hollywooddove said:

Hm, I'd be interested in seeing both you support these tenants.

it's very simple. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's beginning. All it takes is one example to rule that out...so let's hear one....anyone?....give us one example of something that has a beginning that didn't have a cause

I happen to believe that also. Every science class I took in college, including the infamous study of organic chemistry, is based on a set of fundamental tenants. Number one, is that there is no evidence of spontaneous generation in the serious study of the genre. You will find this in any text based on real time observation. We have no evidence of something coming from nothing. This applies to the physical sciences as well as the organic sciences.

hollywooddove said:

HomeSquid said:

it's very simple. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's beginning. All it takes is one example to rule that out...so let's hear one....anyone?....give us one example of something that has a beginning that didn't have a cause

I happen to believe that also. Every science class I took in college, including the infamous study of organic chemistry, is based on a set of fundamental tenants. Number one, is that there is no evidence of spontaneous generation in the serious study of the genre. You will find this in any text based on real time observation. We have no evidence of something coming from nothing. This applies to the physical sciences as well as the organic sciences.

The very basis of life itself is that proteins became so complex that, essentially, life just began from nothing.

Spinlight said:

hollywooddove said:

I happen to believe that also. Every science class I took in college, including the infamous study of organic chemistry, is based on a set of fundamental tenants. Number one, is that there is no evidence of spontaneous generation in the serious study of the genre. You will find this in any text based on real time observation. We have no evidence of something coming from nothing. This applies to the physical sciences as well as the organic sciences.

The very basis of life itself is that proteins became so complex that, essentially, life just began from nothing.

Even if that is true, the construction of a complex protein that delivers any beneficial qualification towards anything resembling life is a highly competitive realization when considering the mutations of mirror compounds, not to mention highly concentrated acids or bases, simple salts, and many others I can't remember, in what would have had to be a chaotic model at the least. Most of those forces simply cancel out others at a very efficient rate. What would protect these proteins? And further more, what would satisfy the conditions that would create a codependency of one protein type to another that would equate in direction that is purely random yet beneficial in the construction not of a single cell, but simply of the many subcelular organelles that constitute specific purposes? It's still all a vast mystery. I think it is way over simplified in the class room in basic biology courses. It's like ... here is the theory, here is some experiments, so it has to be. There is so much more to it. These would be miraculous proteins simply to get this point. Still, it has never been observed. We have never seen life rise from chemicals, protiens or not, on its own. Of course, then we have to push the question back, where did this fortuidous collection of chemicals come from? Where did any of it come from. Are we to believe that everything whimmed itself into existence or was there an intelligence behind it all? (Please no alien theories, that only pushes the question back to what made the aliens) If it were clear cut, there would be no debate.

[Edited 10/2/10 9:40am]

[Edited 10/2/10 9:42am]

ludwig said:

robinhood said:

'motivational posters': good enough for the idiot who created this one.

einstein was not an atheist.

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish" - Einstein.

looks like he's right about that one.

You are totally wrong. Einstein was an atheist. You should read his biography before you post false information.

Einstien, I'm not sure. Lincoln, probably a Unitarian. Jefferson and Franklin, Diest. Sagan, agnostic. Darwin, I am not sure.... I would probably think his statement in which he identified himself as an agnostic would be the most reliable.

noimageatall said:

DaphneLovesPR1NCE said:

Cute little article there...written by someone still searching for the truth....

While no one can say they know everything about everything 100%, there are those that can say they know "the truth and have found GOD, and now rely on HIM to reveal himself, develop a personal relationship with HIM, and be led by HIM. All the cute, intelligent-sounding articles won't change that.

The testimonies to people like this guy are the best, some people really come from a low spot and when they discover the truth about GOD and come to him...it is very refreshing!

I will take someone still searching for that illusive truth over someone who claims to know it. And I disagree that he is coming from a 'low spot.' I believe he is coming from a very humble place. What I disagree with is the dismissive and arrogant attitude that anyone who hasn't "found" God is somehow inferior and it's only a matter of time before they open their eyes and 'see.' No one can know that.

Since I disagree with just about everything you post and also your arrogance in assuming I will not be happy until I find a God to worship, I'll refrain from posting to you. I am willing to debate all sides and keep an open mind...I wish everyone would.

Reading and comprehending what someone has written is very important when responding to them. I never said this guy was coming from a low spot...I said somepeople come from a low spot. I do like to hear the testimonies of people that were strick nonbelievers, it's very encouraging when they find GOD.

And please trying to convey that ONLY Christian people feel that they know the truth. Of course I know that I have found the truth..otherwise I wouldn't be believing in anything. Even atheist say they know their is no GOD, in fact they often call believers foolish and weak minded for believing in a myth. Everyone believes that they have found the truth once they take a stance. And those that are still indecisive about the whole thing, can't really take a stance on it at all since they don't have a clue what the truth is yet. They are still searching, so they can't say anyone is wrong or right! Atheists and Christians(Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) say they KNOW the truth....so what's your point? You gonna go around being angry at everyone who has a strong belief in their heart about something? That's ridiculous!

It sounds like to me, you're projecting your own "unhappy feelings about not knowing GOD" off on me since I've said nothing like this to you! You aren't willing to debate on an issue with an open mind, you're willing to discuss things only when they are what YOU want to hear. A debate w/o opposing viewpoints is no debate at all!! I've sat and had debates with many people on many issues...both sides need to be both knowledgeable about their stance and have some strong belief in it, otherwise, it's no fun. Being openminded about it all, doesn't mean you have to believe in your stance any less, it means you are open to discussing and listening to the other person's views. And its NOT arrogant when someone, like I did, can point out a good point someone has made if it's true. And you refusing to reply to me b/c I believe in GOD, does not affect me in anyway. I am mature enough to be polite and communicate with people whether they share my beliefs or not.

swdee said:

It's important that people understand that Prince doesn't 100% adhere to the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, he still thinks for himself and personally guided by God on his own.

For examply in an interview he said he believed Jehovah's Witnesses were THE CLOSEST to the truth, he didn't say THEY ARE the truth, which means not 100% of their beliefs are true to Prince.

And we know he believes in sex before marriage, he still refers to it in his songs (On The Couch) which is against Jehovahs Witmesses beliefs.

I've been saying this for a while.

hollywooddove said:

Spinlight said:

The very basis of life itself is that proteins became so complex that, essentially, life just began from nothing.

Even if that is true, the construction of a complex protein that delivers any beneficial qualification towards anything resembling life is a highly competitive realization when considering the mutations of mirror compounds, not to mention highly concentrated acids or bases, simple salts, and many others I can't remember, in what would have had to be a chaotic model at the least. Most of those forces simply cancel out others at a very efficient rate. What would protect these proteins? And further more, what would satisfy the conditions that would create a codependency of one protein type to another that would equate in direction that is purely random yet beneficial in the construction not of a single cell, but simply of the many subcelular organelles that constitute specific purposes? It's still all a vast mystery. I think it is way over simplified in the class room in basic biology courses. It's like ... here is the theory, here is some experiments, so it has to be. There is so much more to it. These would be miraculous proteins simply to get this point. Still, it has never been observed. We have never seen life rise from chemicals, protiens or not, on its own. Of course, then we have to push the question back, where did this fortuidous collection of chemicals come from? Where did any of it come from. Are we to believe that everything whimmed itself into existence or was there an intelligence behind it all? (Please no alien theories, that only pushes the question back to what made the aliens) If it were clear cut, there would be no debate.

[Edited 10/2/10 9:40am]

[Edited 10/2/10 9:42am]

I would love to answer your questions, but if I knew the answer to them I would be a billionaire rather than sitting here on Prince.org arguing the merits of intelligent design.