2 of 2
2
I believe in God but I have an open mind
Posted: 05 December 2010 08:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
asanta - 05 December 2010 07:52 PM
sobpatrick - 05 December 2010 07:40 PM
asanta - 05 December 2010 03:29 PM

Nope, christmas is just more fun! Who doesn’t like getting and giving presents under any pretext?

At least you still call it Christmas - enjoy your Christmas presents - (or holiday gifts - that one bugs me too)

It is a totally secular excuse to get together with family and friends. Not a manger in sight. We have a Santa come by for the kids and enjoy good food and drink. We do the same at easter, except of course we have an egg hunt. We also celebrate the new year, which is a totally arbitrary mark of the end of a time period.

How about a star on top of the Christmas tree?  You should try the manger - no harm in it -especially if you don’t believe - just like putting costumes on at halloween to scare aware the evil spirits - you can make it a craft for the kids - collect fallen branches and glue gun them together - you have a stable - like making and old fashion farm but you get to put a little baby in it and kings. 

Do you find it odd that Santa is an anagram for Satan?  One thing I have no offence in is saying is that believing in God is much like believing in Santa - Santa basically has to be all places at all times on Christmas eve - just like God - sounds impossible but if God can do it why can’t Santa?  - especially if he’s a saint God should be able to give him some of his powers (actually it isn’t impossible to be all places at all times - according to several scientific theories - string theory being among them)

One of the reasons I do believe in God is due to the humbleness (and strangeness) of the whole Christmas and Christ story - other religions at the time had great deeds of warriors and gods doing battles, going on quests and odessys.  With Christains it’s the son of everything - born in a barn, having no money, no power and being killed on a peice of wood for really no reason - other than pissing off the religious leaders at the time - I guess that’s one thing he had in common with Athiests…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 December 2010 09:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
sobpatrick - 05 December 2010 08:59 PM

Do you find it odd that Santa is an anagram for Satan? 

Nope, because:
1) I don’t believe in ‘satan’.
2) Something has to be an anagram of ‘satan’, just like something has to be an anagram of ‘orange’. It would be more compelling if there were NO anagram for a word.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2010 07:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  96
Joined  2010-09-10

No I don’t really want to change anything - I like tradition- I grew up with the Brontosaurs and Pluto and now they’ve been changed (somewhat) - I don’t agree with that.

Brontosaurus was found to basically not exist, and further discoveries have forced us to reclassify Pluto as a dwarf planet. Science advances, some things are found to be incorrect or in need of clarification. f you can’t deal with this, then you shouldn’t be involved.


  I take some offence to Christmas being called the holidays - why change it?


Though it’s true it’s at least partially PC, Christmas is one of a few holidays around the same time of year, and there are several who don’t practice it a all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2010 07:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
sobpatrick - 03 December 2010 11:20 PM

2) Evolution is a mathimatical impossibility (not really but according to Dr. H.J. Morowitz - renowned biologist and athiest at the time of his conclusion - the number he arrived at of life evolving by chance was one to a number followed by 340 million zeros

You’re confusing evolution with the origin of life. Evolution is certainly not an impossibility but a fact. The only appropriate answer to the riddle of the origin of life at this point is to say that we don’t know how it had happened.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2010 08:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
sobpatrick - 05 December 2010 08:59 PM

Do you find it odd that Santa is an anagram for Satan?

No, but I find it odd that you would think it to be odd. Santa Claus is an evolved version of Saint Nicholas who lived in Greece about 1700 years ago.

Look, sobpatrick, it is your own fault that today’s society responds to Christmas the way it does. God knows I am more saddened and upset by this than most people are, but were billions of people to believe that, say, snowmen are alive and that they should be taught in biology classes as a rare form of life, I can see how the rational part of our world might begin to boycott this nonsense.

I am sorry to say, but it is you who is killing Christmas.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2010 08:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  971
Joined  2005-01-14

I sort of agree with George.  Even though I don’t see any reason to celebrate the birth of Jesus, I do celebrate the winter solstice, because that is a good excuse for a celebration.  I don’t have any problem calling it “Christmas”—it’s only a label, after all—UNTIL some Christian jumps up and declares if I call it “Christmas”, I’m celebrating Christ’s Mass.  I have actually had Christians get in my face and insist that you can’t celebrate “Christmas” unless you’re a Christian!  That’s when I started saying “happy holidays”!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2010 10:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
ShadowSot - 06 December 2010 07:35 AM

No I don’t really want to change anything - I like tradition- I grew up with the Brontosaurs and Pluto and now they’ve been changed (somewhat) - I don’t agree with that.

Brontosaurus was found to basically not exist, and further discoveries have forced us to reclassify Pluto as a dwarf planet. Science advances, some things are found to be incorrect or in need of clarification. f you can’t deal with this, then you shouldn’t be involved.

Brontosaus is an Apatosaurs - there was a missclasification in 1879.  My issue was that a couple academics over-ruled 99.99 % of the population - including the United States postal service when they could have just changed the apatosaurs name and make it easy on everyone - they also did it with the tracodon and pteradactyl - and I’m sure with others.
While I use science every day, I find it difficult to say it advances as it deals with infinity.  Can you advance in something infinite?  Taking a step towards infinity doesn’t get you any closer to its end.  We perceive that it advances or else we’d loose faith in it.  I’m only involved because I’m inquisitive and I thought this was the centre for inquiry


  I take some offence to Christmas being called the holidays - why change it?


Though it’s true it’s at least partially PC, Christmas is one of a few holidays around the same time of year, and there are several who don’t practice it a all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2010 10:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
George - 06 December 2010 07:40 AM
sobpatrick - 03 December 2010 11:20 PM

2) Evolution is a mathimatical impossibility (not really but according to Dr. H.J. Morowitz - renowned biologist and athiest at the time of his conclusion - the number he arrived at of life evolving by chance was one to a number followed by 340 million zeros

You’re confusing evolution with the origin of life. Evolution is certainly not an impossibility but a fact. The only appropriate answer to the riddle of the origin of life at this point is to say that we don’t know how it had happened.

I find it difficult to say anything in evolution is a fact as the theory deals with constant change - don’t you think the theory of evolution can evolve?  Imagine it evolving as much as we have from the protoza we originated from.  I think the only fact is that the facts will change as we change - the facts of an apes brain are different than ours - and ours will differ from the next link.  There’s a quote from Darwin that illustrates this - I don’t have it, but I remember it went along the lines of - how can I trust my brain if I can’t trust the concepts of an apes brain. - sorry bad paraphase, but I think you get the idea.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2010 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
George - 06 December 2010 08:03 AM
sobpatrick - 05 December 2010 08:59 PM

Do you find it odd that Santa is an anagram for Satan?

No, but I find it odd that you would think it to be odd. Santa Claus is an evolved version of Saint Nicholas who lived in Greece about 1700 years ago.

Look, sobpatrick, it is your own fault that today’s society responds to Christmas the way it does. God knows I am more saddened and upset by this than most people are, but were billions of people to believe that, say, snowmen are alive and that they should be taught in biology classes as a rare form of life, I can see how the rational part of our world might begin to boycott this nonsense.

I am sorry to say, but it is you who is killing Christmas.

Not sure how it’s my fault…?
I just don’t like changing the name - every Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Agnostic and Athiest I know marks Christmas in some way.  That being the case - why hide the name?  Our country started out with only a couple cultures and now there are all cultures - but we’re not changing our countries’ name - and why would we?  I would defend Canada’s name the same way I would defend Christmas.  Would I be killing Canada if I were?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2010 11:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
sobpatrick - 06 December 2010 10:50 AM
George - 06 December 2010 08:03 AM
sobpatrick - 05 December 2010 08:59 PM

Do you find it odd that Santa is an anagram for Satan?

No, but I find it odd that you would think it to be odd. Santa Claus is an evolved version of Saint Nicholas who lived in Greece about 1700 years ago.

Look, sobpatrick, it is your own fault that today’s society responds to Christmas the way it does. God knows I am more saddened and upset by this than most people are, but were billions of people to believe that, say, snowmen are alive and that they should be taught in biology classes as a rare form of life, I can see how the rational part of our world might begin to boycott this nonsense.

I am sorry to say, but it is you who is killing Christmas.

Not sure how it’s my fault…?
I just don’t like changing the name - every Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Agnostic and Athiest I know marks Christmas in some way.  That being the case - why hide the name?  Our country started out with only a couple cultures and now there are all cultures - but we’re not changing our countries’ name - and why would we?  I would defend Canada’s name the same way I would defend Christmas.  Would I be killing Canada if I were?

Keep religion out of politics and schools, and in return people will let you (and me) keep the name.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2010 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  96
Joined  2010-09-10

Brontosaus is an Apatosaurs - there was a missclasification in 1879.  My issue was that a couple academics over-ruled 99.99 % of the population - including the United States postal service when they could have just changed the apatosaurs name and make it easy on everyone - they also did it with the tracodon and pteradactyl - and I’m sure with others.

In 1877, Othniel Charles Marsh published the name of the type species Apatosaurus ajax. He followed this in 1879 with a description of another, more complete specimen, which he thought represented a new genus and named Brontosaurus excelsus. In 1903, Elmer Riggs pointed out that Brontosaurus excelsus was in fact so similar to Apatosaurus ajax that it belonged in the same genus, which Riggs re-classified as Apatosaurus excelsus. According to the rules of the ICZN (which governs the scientific names of animals), the name Apatosaurus, having been published first, had priority as the official name; Brontosaurus was a junior synonym and therefore discarded from formal use.

Followed by:

The finds — the largest dinosaur ever discovered at the time and nearly complete, lacking only a head, feet, and portions of the tail — were then prepared for what was to be the first ever mounted display of a sauropod skeleton, at Yale’s Peabody Museum of Natural History in 1905. The missing bones were created using known pieces from close relatives of Brontosaurus. Sauropod feet that were discovered at the same quarry were added, as well as a tail fashioned to appear as Marsh believed it should, as well as a composite model of what he felt the skull of this massive creature might look like. This was not a delicate Diplodocus-style skull (which would later turn out to be more accurate[18]), but was composed of “the biggest, thickest, strongest skull bones, lower jaws and tooth crowns from three different quarries”,[19] primarily those of Camarasaurus, the only other sauropod for which good skull material was known at the time. This method of reconstructing incomplete skeletons based on the more complete remains of related dinosaurs continues in museum mounts and life restorations to this day.

Others have been reclassified, yes. And they will continue to do so, despite what the public may say about it. In a very real sense the public’s view doesn’t matter, instead it’s the actual identification of the species. it was renamed based of later and more correct findings.

While I use science every day, I find it difficult to say it advances as it deals with infinity.  Can you advance in something infinite?  Taking a step towards infinity doesn’t get you any closer to its end.  We perceive that it advances or else we’d loose faith in it.  I’m only involved because I’m inquisitive and I thought this was the centre for inquiry


Science becomes better defined as the tools and process’ used in it become better.  Advanced means to progress, unless you wish to say that we are on the same level as we were in the 1800’s, you must admit that we have advanced. 
  Would you leave the dinosaur a brontosaur, creating a class that for all intents and purposes did not exist, and was created due to faulty understandings of the skeleton at that time? Or, would you treat it as what it was, a species of apatosaurus?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2010 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
sobpatrick - 06 December 2010 10:32 AM

I find it difficult to say anything in evolution is a fact as the theory deals with constant change - don’t you think the theory of evolution can evolve?  Imagine it evolving as much as we have from the protoza we originated from.

I am not sure if I understand what you’re asking here. Not everything in evolution is a fact, but there is no doubt that evolution does exist. And we have not originated from Protozoa; but again, I have no idea what your comparison here means.

sobpatrick - 06 December 2010 10:32 AM

I think the only fact is that the facts will change as we change - the facts of an apes brain are different than ours - and ours will differ from the next link.  There’s a quote from Darwin that illustrates this - I don’t have it, but I remember it went along the lines of - how can I trust my brain if I can’t trust the concepts of an apes brain. - sorry bad paraphase, but I think you get the idea.

You would be surprised to know that your brain and that of a chimp are essentially identical in their structure. They do, however, differ in their size, hence their capacity.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 February 2011 06:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2011-01-31
sobpatrick - 02 December 2010 11:13 PM

Just wanting to get some feed back - I think about the existance of a higher power constantly and I have never heard anything that has made me truly question its existance - my belief -I feel - is completely science and reason based, so I would love to hear any opposition -  (though not too much as I’m a father of small children and should really be spending more time with them than this).  Athiest generally seem like pretty open minded people so I hope you don’t mind having a believer in your midst.  I logged on as a member as I saw the promo for the T.T.C. “extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence” and I think it has a major flaw (or not).  Wouldn’t a higher intellegence know familiarity breeds contempt and not provide evidence for that reason?  Or at least evidence that would convince the average joe - like a “hi it’s me God”  Wouldn’t it be mysterious and know humans will be more intregued by a possibly unanswerable puzzle - as some would say the present situation is?  Or is this campaign aimed at the average joe?
Just wondering
On another note - is there any interest among athiest to change the names of the days of the week or months as they obviously have religious connotations…?
Patrick

That was my position about 15 years ago.

I was born a moslem in pious but level-headed family (scarce) in Indonesia (85% moslem, forces are so strong to make it officially moslem).  I was able to read Koran before I can read latin.  By the time I was 12-15, prompted by a good book that took me to journeys into religion comparisons, I was certain that Islam is nonsense, but some god existed as some higher intellectual full of universal love.  By 15 I had a pocket sized bible I read in the bus coming back from school, and I found it ridiculous.

By the time I was 21-25 though, I was fairly certain that God is nothing but representation of everything we cannot have: afterlife, luck, justice, even companionship.  Thus in fact god is nothing but a bucket for our garbages.  But I look at religious people lovingly, I said: the ignorant people need god, because they are not strong enough to face life without it.  If they dont fear hell they might turn into criminals. 

But life goes on, my mind expanded into more areas and dig deeper into the invisible aspects of human life, happiness, etc.

By the time I was 30 I was convinced that while GOD IS IRRELEVANT, RELIGIONS ARE EVIL.
Miracles are our mindtricks to deceive us into surviving, by believing, imagining, possible easier and purposeful life.

I am 40 now, and all anyone need to do to make me change my opinion, drop it whatever, is to prove it, or disprove me.  Nothing has happened but those that convince me more, that religions are evil. (in my opinion: specially Islam, because Christianity had been in principle dead since 1700s.  It should be since Copernicus 200 years earlier, but they had no tv).

And I believe if you keep looking, keep your awareness of everything that surrounds you, you will experience the same thing.

[ Edited: 01 February 2011 06:27 AM by Hyperborean ]
Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2