← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 20304 | Posts: 32 | Started: 2005-09-20
2005-09-20 10:30 | User Profile
Nobel is an overrated prize anyways (Elie Wiesel is a prime example of this) - creationist genius Raymond Damadian was discriminated against in its distribution in 2003: [COLOR=Blue] [SIZE=4][B] "The not-so-Nobel decision"[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=Blue] ...
All of which makes the exclusion of Dr Damadian as the third co-recipient of the Nobel so pointed that even some of the secular media have talked of the possibility of a link between Dr Damadianââ¬â¢s exclusion and his creationism. The [I]New York Times[/I] raised the issue in a recent report.3 In fact, as renowned an anticreationist as the agnostic/deist Canadian philosophy professor Michael Ruse has written of his own deep concern.4 [B]Choosing his words carefully, he writes of the ââ¬Ëlikely hypothesisââ¬â¢ that the motive for rejecting Damadian was his open creationism. [/B] Damadian is a Christian, says Ruse, whose beliefs include the Genesis account of creation: ââ¬ËAdam and Eve the first humans, universal flood, and all the restââ¬â¢. [/COLOR]
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/nobel.asp[/url]
/////////////////////////////////////
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9368495/[/url] [FONT=Arial] [SIZE=5] Kansas school board weighing proposal to give more time to critics[/SIZE]
Updated: 3:47 p.m. ET Sept. 16, 2005
[B]LAWRENCE, Kan. - Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked Kansas state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory, calling it instead the "indispensable" foundation of biology.[/B]
[B]The group, [U]led by the writer Elie Wiesel[/U], said it wanted to defend science and combat "efforts by the proponents of so-called intelligent design to politicize scientific inquiry."[/B]
The proposed standards, which could come up for final Board of Education approval later this year, are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution but state in an introduction that they do not endorse intelligent design.
That increasingly popular theory argues that some features of the natural world are best explained as having an intelligent cause because they are well-ordered and complex. Its followers attack Darwin's evolutionary theory, which says natural chemical processes could have created the basic building blocks of life on Earth, that all life had a common ancestor and that man and apes shared a common ancestor.
Education Board Chairman Steve Abrams, a conservative Republican who has supported the proposed standards, said he was unmoved by the scientists' plea, which became public Thursday.
"I don't think anything should be taught as dogma," Abrams told the Lawrence Journal-World.
The standards, used in developing tests for students, came up for update under state law.
[B]Besides Wiesel, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, the letter writers include chemists, physicists and medical experts from Wiesel's New York-based Foundation for Humanity.[/B]
In their letter, they lauded evolution, saying "its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA."
The group said intelligent design can't be tested scientifically "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." [I] Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.[/I] [/FONT]
//////////////////////////////////////////
And as for the mantra-like credo of these gentlemen that evolution is "indispensable" foundation of biology, check out this recent article in "[I]The Scientist[/I]":
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19909&highlight=skell[/url] [B] [COLOR=RoyalBlue][FONT=Garamond] [SIZE=3]"While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' [U]most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas[/U]," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal [I]BioEssays[/I], wrote in 2000.1
...
[U]Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology[/U]. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR] [/B]
Nothing in this world makes sense except in the light of Creation.
Petr
2005-09-20 22:32 | User Profile
Bump!
2005-09-20 23:34 | User Profile
Nothing in this world makes sense except in the light of Creation. A better way to put it: "Nothing in this world makes sense to Bible-thumpers except in the light of Creation." It all makes perfect sense to people who understand science better than everyone else.
It's too bad Elie Weasel is tainting scientific truth with his support. But quite frankly, I don't much care what kids are taught in schools, be it evolution or some kind of mythology such as Biblical creationism, Sumerian creationism, or whatever. If parents want to have ignorant kids, that's their choice.
2005-09-20 23:51 | User Profile
Ever heard of Van Tilian presuppositionalism, Angler?
Even atheists must assume theistic presuppositions to make any sense out this world and to have some basis to build their precious reasoning upon. The principles of modern science and laws of nature were built upon Christian theology.
If atheists evolutionists were true to their [B]own[/B] presuppositions, they would have to admit that this world is just an absurd illusion, which is exactly the conclusion that pagans in India came to already millennias ago. [SIZE=3] [FONT=Garamond][COLOR=Indigo] Evolutionary naturalism, therefore, provides one who accepts it with a defeater for scientific beliefs, a reason for doubting that science does in fact get us to the truth, or close to the truth. [ 14 ] Darwin himself may perhaps have glimpsed this sinister presence coiled like a worm in the very heart of evolutionary naturalism: "With me," says Darwin,
[B][I]the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? [/I][ 15 ][/B]
Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.[/COLOR] [/FONT][/SIZE]
[url]http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/plantinga/dennett.html[/url]
Petr
2005-09-20 23:56 | User Profile
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Red][B][I] - "But quite frankly, I don't much care what kids are taught in schools, be it evolution or some kind of mythology such as Biblical creationism, Sumerian creationism, or whatever. If parents want to have ignorant kids, that's their choice."[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
You are here very admirably distancing yourself from the position of that odious evo-fanatic Daniel Dennett. Kudos to you.
[COLOR=Purple] [FONT=Garamond][SIZE=3]"Dennett cannot be accused of avoiding the religious liberty issue, or of burying it in tactful circumlocutions. He proposes that theistic religion should continue to exist only in "cultural zoos," and he says this directly to religious parents:
[B] [I] If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods-- that the earth is flat, that "Man" is not a product of evolution by natural selection--then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity. Our future well-being--the well-being of all of us on the planet--depends on the education of our descendants.[/I][/B] [/SIZE][/FONT] [/COLOR][url]http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/dennett.htm[/url]
Petr
2005-09-20 23:57 | User Profile
Ever heard of Van Tilian presuppositionalism, Angler? Nope.
Even atheists must assume theistic presuppositions to make any sense out this world and to have some basis to build their precious reasoning upon. What do you mean? Give an example, please.
The principles of modern science and laws of nature were built upon Christian theology. Please provide an example of a scientific law that depends on Christianity in any way, shape, or form.
Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Um, no. Modern science was conceived and born in spite of Christian theism. Christian theology has never, ever contributed anything to science. If you can provide a counterexample to that statement, please do so.
2005-09-21 00:09 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Christianity has never, ever contributed anything to science."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
This is a statement of a fanatic. (I am a fanatic too - I am only against people who hypocritically don't admit being fanatics when they actually are)
Dr. Rodney Stark begs to differ - Christianity provide the whole [I]mental framework[/I] for science, as compared to pantheism:
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19623&highlight=prager[/url] [B][COLOR=Navy][FONT=Garamond][SIZE=3] "On the Dennis Prager radio talk show today, Dr. Rodney Stark (former president of Baylor University), author of a new book For the Glory of God, claimed that college students have been fed a bill of goods about the church, science, the Dark Ages, the Enlightenment and the alleged war of science vs. religion. [U]With evident chagrin in his voice, he stressed that the true social history of science was not that way at all. He said that every serious academic knows that Christianity gave birth to modern science[/U] (see online book), and that many great scientists were deeply religious individuals who were motivated to do science for the glory of God. The either-or fallacy of science vs. religion is a myth. Several times he emphasized that this is beyond dispute by historians and professors; he said that most of his fellow academics in the historical and social sciences gave his book, which documented this fact, favorable reviews."[/SIZE] [/FONT][/COLOR][/B]
Here is a long excerpt from Stark's book:
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14949&highlight=bertrand[/url]
///////////////////////////////
[FONT=Arial] In contrast with the dominant religious and philosophical doctrines in the non-Christian world, Christians developed science because they believed that it could be done, and should be done. [B]As Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) put it during one of his Lowell Lectures at Harvard in 1925, science arose in Europe because of the widespread ââ¬Åfaith in the possibility of science ââ¬Â¦ derivative from medieval theology.ââ¬Â/B Whiteheadââ¬â¢s pronouncement shocked not only his distinguished audience but Western intellectuals in general once his lectures had been published: How could this great philosopher and mathematician, coauthor with Bertrand Russell of the landmark[I] Principia Mathematica[/I] (1910-1913) make such an outlandish claim? Did he not know that religion is the mortal enemy of scientific enquiry?
Whitehead knew better. He had grasped that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, just as surely as non-Christian theologies had stifled the scientific quest everywhere else. As he explained: [I] I donââ¬â¢t think, however, that I have even yet brought out the greatest contribution of medievalism in to the formation of the scientific movement. [B]I mean the inexpugnable belief that that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope.[/B] It is this instinctive conviction, vividly poised before the imagination, which is the motive power for research: - that there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?
When we compare this tone of thought in Europe with the attitude of other civilizations when left for themselves, there seems but one source of its origin. It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in the rationality. Remember that I am not talking about of the explicit faith of a few individuals. What I mean is the impress on the European mind arising from the unquestioned faith of centuries. [B]By this I mean the instinctive tone of thought and not a mere creed of words[/B]./I
Whitehead ended with the remark that the images of Gods found in other religions, especially in Asia, are too impersonal or too irrational to have sustained science. Any particular ââ¬Åoccurrence might be due to the fiat of an irrational despotââ¬Â God, or might be produced by ââ¬Åsome impersonal, inscrutable origin of things. There is not the dame confidence as in the intelligible rationality of a personal being.ââ¬Â(81)[/FONT]
/////////////////////////////////
Many pagan WNs have no problem whatsoever in seeing connections between the origin of Communism and Christianity - this is at the very least as justified connection as that.
Petr
2005-09-21 00:20 | User Profile
Petr, what I meant was this (I changed my post prior to your reply):
Christian theology has never, ever contributed anything to science. If you can provide a counterexample to that statement, please do so.
Of course I don't doubt that someone who believes in Christianity might be motivated to do science or try to make progress in some other field of endeavor on account of his beliefs. But people have also been motivated to do science because of other religions, for personal ego gratification, for money, to please parents, etc. None of that is terribly important, since it has no real bearing on the science that is actually done.
Christian beliefs were long in direct opposition to science. It was only when the evidence for a round earth, for sun-centered planetary orbits, etc., became overwhelming that the Church finally began to concede that it had been wrong on various points. But how much damage had been done prior to that time? We all know about Galileo, but what about other scientists who had similar ideas but were afraid to come forward? Copernicus, for example, was afraid to publish his heliocentric view of the solar system until his death, lest he get in trouble with the Church authorities.
Yesterday it was the flat earth and the sun revolving around it. Today it's the origins of man and the age of the earth. Tomorrow it will be something else. At every step of the way, religion is eventually proven wrong and science is proven right.
2005-09-21 00:24 | User Profile
To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, who was once an atheist: if one has an idea of the concepts "just" and "unjust" (funny how justice is the central theme for the thinkers, ie Plato's Republic), then one must be comparing those against a medium, otherwise they have no meaning. How then can "the whole of reality" (universe with no God) be senseless when an idea of justice (a part of that reality) be full of sense?
"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. [I]Dark[/I] would be a word without meaning." [U]Mere Christianity[/U] p. 38
2005-09-21 00:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=H.A.L.2006]To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, who was once an atheist: if one has an idea of the concepts "just" and "unjust" (funny how justice is the central theme for the thinkers, ie Plato's Republic), then one must be comparing those against a medium, otherwise they have no meaning. How then can "the whole of reality" (universe with no God) be senseless when an idea of justice (a part of that reality) be full of sense?
"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. [I]Dark[/I] would be a word without meaning." [U]Mere Christianity[/U] p. 38[/QUOTE]"Just" and "unjust" have no exact definitions; they vary among times, cultures, and individuals. But the sense of justice which most human beings (and some lower animals, such as monkeys) possess can be explained naturalistically as the result of man's evolution as a social/tribal organism. Certain kinds of animals in certain kinds of environments are more likely to survive when they live in groups and cooperate. Justice is an important part of cooperation: you give me five apples, I give you five oranges; then we're both happy, and neither of us is less likely to survive than before. Thus, those animals that cooperated were more likely to pass on their genes and create new generations that did the same thing, while animals that didn't cooperate and engaged in dog-eat-dog behaviors ended up being much less likely to survive in harsh environments or when confronted by cohesive groups.
In short: Human beings, which supposedly have immaterial "souls," cooperate in much the same manner as lower social animals, which supposedly are purely materialistic and are not thought to have souls. The only difference is that humans are much more complicated.
2005-09-21 02:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Please provide an example of a scientific law that depends on Christianity in any way, shape, or form.[/QUOTE]
The purpose of Van Till's presuppositional method is to examine worldviews that contradict Christian theism to determine if they provide grounds for ethics and rationality. Someone who believes in a purely materialistic universe, governed by nothing but physical laws - your philosophic worldview, as I think you have stated elsewhere - cannot, in principle, form beliefs in his mind about the correctness or accuracy of scientific laws. There is no reason for the scientific materialist to believe the laws of gravity, for example, are "true," or "beyond a reasonable doubt," since his beliefs are just electro-chemical brain states acting on antedecent, deterministic physical laws. Assuming a materialistic worldview is correct, then an atheistic materialist and a Christian couldn't help believing what they do. The Christian's brain just fizzled one way, and the atheist's brain fizzled another way. Ergo, scientific materialism does not provide grounds for rationality.
[QUOTE]But the sense of justice which most human beings (and some lower animals, such as monkeys) possess can be explained naturalistically as the result of man's evolution as a social/tribal organism. Certain kinds of animals in certain kinds of environments are more likely to survive when they live in groups and cooperate. Justice is an important part of cooperation: you give me five apples, I give you five oranges; then we're both happy, and neither of us is less likely to survive than before. Thus, those animals that cooperated were more likely to pass on their genes and create new generations that did the same thing, while animals that didn't cooperate and engaged in dog-eat-dog behaviors ended up being much less likely to survive in harsh environments or when confronted by cohesive groups.[/QUOTE]
The most this evolutionary account of morality does is [I]explain[/I] why people abhor murder, rape, theft and the like. It does not explain why people [I]should[/I] abhor these acts. It therefore provides no basis for ethics.
2005-09-21 18:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]The proposed standards, which could come up for final Board of Education approval later this year, are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution but state in an introduction that they do not endorse intelligent design.[/QUOTE]They object to this? Do they think the theory of evolution is beyond doubt or criticism? Are they unaware there are phenomema the theory cannot explain -- and even Darwin acknowledged this? Why shouldn't that be taught to high-school students?
This is not the action of scientists. This is the action of a cult.
2005-09-21 19:43 | User Profile
Creationism is sheer bible thumping, superstitious lunacy with nothing to back it up. Evolution is [B]not [/B] a mere unsubstantited theory. Examples of evolution abound and can be seen all around us. Take for instance the provable and widespread proof of the evolution of the horse. Skeletons of adult horses the size of a dog are in museums [B]today,[/B] while no comtemporary critters of the "little guy" exist. He is not, in other words, a sub-specie. He is/was the progenitor of today's stallion.
In Pittsburgh, a white moth was being decimated by predators because it stood out so sharply among the soot and grime on the buildings and flora of the area. In a matter of [B]months,[/B] the white moth evolved into a black moth and thus saved it specie.
There is evidence all over the planet to which one could point to prove the fact of evolution, while there is absolutely nothing to support "creationism".
2005-09-21 20:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Ever heard of Van Tilian presuppositionalism, Angler?
Even atheists must assume theistic presuppositions to make any sense out this world and to have some basis to build their precious reasoning upon. [/QUOTE] Where did you come up with this preposterous notion? I am an atheist - not because of some dogma or agenda - but because I can find no reason [B]not[/B] to be an atheist. I have found nothing that would persuade me to believe in an invisible, though omnipresent God. Now, I'll tell you something you probably won't believe; I wish I [B]wasn't[/B] an atheist! I would dearly love to believe that some invisible big daddy loves me and is constantly on the outlook for my well being. As I am coming near the end of my life, I would like more than anything else to believe that I'm not really going to die and that I am simply going to a better place where I will be re-united with all my departed friends, relatives and my dog, Otto. That's what I would [I]like[/I] to believe, but I can't. To attempt to convince myself of the veracity of that fantasy would come under the heading of "mental masturbation", and I can't/won't do it.
2005-09-21 22:33 | User Profile
[COLOR=Blue][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "I have found nothing that would persuade me to believe in an invisible, though omnipresent God."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
No personal disrespect meant, but the Bible says that you (and countless others) are in the state of [B]willful denial: [COLOR=Red][/B] [B]Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; [U]so that they are without excuse[/U]:
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [/B][/COLOR]
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Blue][B][I] - "I would dearly love to believe that some invisible big daddy loves me and is constantly on the outlook for my well being."[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
This is actually a distortion on what the Bible teaches - He does indeed love men and wishes for rebellious sinners to come into repentance, but He also has [B]wrath[/B] upon human beings who are systematically defying His authority and proclaiming themselves as their own masters: [B][COLOR=Red][B] Psalms 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying],
2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.[/B][/COLOR][/B]
This is a description of the entire fallen mankind is a state of conscious rebellion against its Creator. Many rage-filled atheists have considered the idea of autonomy from God, even at the price of self-destruction, to have been an ideal, like anarchist Mikhail Bakunin did: [COLOR=Sienna][B] [I]'I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.'[/I]
* "God and the State", Ch. II (1876)[/B][/COLOR]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin[/url]
Dostoevsky also understood this mentality when he created the revolutionist character "Kirillov" in [I]The Possessed[/I], who intended to commit suicide to prove his absolute independence and self-divinity.
The Holy Spirit clearly depicts this death-wish mentality of His opponents:
[COLOR=Red][B]Proverbs 8:36
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.[/B][/COLOR]
C.S. Lewis once wrote that many people have experience of having been in some closed community, like private school or military regiment, that has a bad spirit. Inside that closed community, standards have slipped so badly that even the most depraved behavior or attitude is considered normal and inevitable - but once you step outside that community, you realize how grotesque other people consider your entire worldview to have been.
C.S. Lewis noted that it would be wise to consider the possibility that [I]the entire mankind [/I]might be just a "bad school" that has a rotten insular spirit, and once "the semester is over", we might find ourselves in front of a [B]larger audience[/B] that will condemn us for not living up to its standards.
Thus Lewis too realized, describing his own experiences an an unbeliever, why the idea of extinction may be even [I]comforting [/I]to fallen human being compared to the reality of Biblical God and His coming judgment:
(from "[I]Surprised by Joy[/I]," p. 171)
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]"To such a craven the materialist's universe has the enormous attraction that it offered you limited liabilities. [B]No strictly infinite disaster could overtake you in it. Death ended all. [/B]And if ever finite disasters proved greater than one wished to bear, suicide would always be possible. [B]The horror of the Christian universe was that that it had no door marked Exit[/B] ... But, of course, what mattered most was my deep-seated hatred of authority, my monstrous individualism, my lawlessness. No word in my vocabulary expressed deeper hatred than the word Interference. But Christianity placed at the center what then seemed to me a transcendental Interferer. If its picture were true then no sort of "treaty with reality" could ever be possible. There was no region even in the innermost depth of one's soul (nay, there least of all) which one could surround with barbed wire fence and guard with a notice of No Admittance. [B]And that was what I wanted; some area, however small, of which I could say to all other beings, "This is my business and mine only."[/B][/SIZE][/FONT]
And yes, Charlie Darwin himself seemed to know [B]that[/B] feeling as well:
[COLOR=Red][FONT=Trebuchet MS]"Surrounded as he was by unbelievers, and having soaked his mind in literature that rejected the concept of divine judgment in earth's history, Charles mused, '[B]I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished[/B]. And this is a damnable doctrine'.24"[/FONT][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/slide.asp[/url]
The salvation in the Biblical sense is [B]not[/B] foremostly an assurance of post-mortem existence but an assurance that one will mercifully escape the divine wrath that every fallen human being would lawfully deserve.
[COLOR=Blue] [FONT=Arial][I][B] [I] - "As I am coming near the end of my life, I would like more than anything else to believe that I'm not really going to die and that I am simply going to a better place where I will be re-united with all my departed friends, relatives and my dog, Otto."[/I][/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
Believe it or not, but myriads of human beings have considered extinction to have been a preferable choice of having to face up an Allmighty judge, the Creator of this world - or the pantheistic option of eternal cycle of reincarnation.
I am talking about the concept of[I] nirvana[/I], the extinction of individual existence that countless Orientals have actively sought for! See, according to a consistent pantheism, [B]everything[/B] in this world is just a meaningless illusion, the difference between good and evil for example being just a fantasy of mind.
Even the difference between life and death is seen as just another illusion, which is why so many Orientals have developed such an indifferent attitude to death: [COLOR=Purple][SIZE=3] [FONT=Garamond]In Hīnayāna Buddhism, Nirvana is considered to be the cessation of the activity of consciousness. A contemporary Indian author characterizes the Hīnayāna teaching as follows: [B]"In the Hīnayāna, Nirvana became interpreted negatively as the extinction of all being.. ..This view is an expression of weariness and disgust with the endless strife of becoming, and of the relief found in mere ceasing of effort. It is not a healthy-minded doctrine. A sort of world hatred is its inspiring motive."[/B] (159: pp. 590, 589) In Mahāyāna Buddhism, Nirvana is understood as a merging with the infinite, with the Great Soul of the universe, but it is not identified with the annihilation of existence. [287]
However, it was to the Mahāyāna trend that Nāgārjuna belonged (he lived at a time around the beginning of the Christian era). His followers, the Mādhyamikas, are sometimes called nihilists.
Nāgārjuna proceeds on the assumption that that which is not understandable is not real. He then proves that the following are neither understandable nor explicable: motion and rest, time, causality, the notion of the part and the whole, the soul, the "I," Buddha, God and the universe. [B]"There is no God apart from the universe, and there is no universe apart from God, and they both are equally appearances." (159: p. 655) "There is no death, no birth, no distinction, no persistence, no oneness, no manyness, no coming in, no going forth." (159: p. 655) "All things have the character of emptiness, they have no beginning, no end, they are faultless and not faultless, they are not imperfect and not perfect, therefore, O Sariputta, here in this emptiness there is no form, no perception, no name, no concept, no knowledge."[/B] (159: p. 656) [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
[url]http://robertlstephens.com/essays/essay_frame.php?essayroot=shafarevich/&essayfile=001SocialistPhenomenon.html#pagestart_286[/url]
Petr
2005-09-21 22:48 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "Examples of evolution abound and can be seen all around us. Take for instance the provable and widespread proof of the evolution of the horse. Skeletons of adult horses the size of a dog are in museums today, while no comtemporary critters of the "little guy" exist. He is not, in other words, a sub-specie. He is/was the progenitor of today's stallion."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR] [FONT=Arial]
On the supposed horse evolution: [SIZE=4][B] "The non-evolution of the horse"[/B][/SIZE] [COLOR=Blue][FONT=Garamond][SIZE=3] The palaeontologist David Raup wrote: ââ¬ËThe record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwinââ¬â¢s time. [B]By this I mean that the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be modified or discarded as a result of more detailed information. [/B]What appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and less gradualistic. So Darwinââ¬â¢s problem has not been alleviated.ââ¬â¢ D.M. Raup, ââ¬ËConflicts between Darwin and paleontology,ââ¬â¢ [I]Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin [/I]50:22, 1979.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/horse.asp[/url]
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "In Pittsburgh, a white moth was being decimated by predators because it stood out so sharply among the soot and grime on the buildings and flora of the area. In a matter of months, the white moth evolved into a black moth and thus saved it specie."[/I][/B] [/FONT][/COLOR]
On those "peppered moths": [SIZE=4] [B]"Goodbye, peppered moths"[/B][/SIZE] [COLOR=Blue][SIZE=3][FONT=Garamond] "University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ââ¬Ëthe prize horse in our stable,ââ¬â¢ has to be thrown out. He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.5"[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp[/url]
Laymen evolutionists like you are still believing in these kind of "[B]icons of evolution[/B]" that professional scientists have already stopped advocating.
[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895262762/104-9546189-3959908?v=glance[/url]
Petr
2005-09-22 00:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]Where did you come up with this preposterous notion? I am an atheist - not because of some dogma or agenda - but because I can find no reason [B]not[/B] to be an atheist. I have found nothing that would persuade me to believe in an invisible, though omnipresent God.[/QUOTE]
What type of evidence would persuade you that God, without question or dispute, exists?
2005-09-22 01:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Even atheists must assume theistic presuppositions to make any sense out this world and to have some basis to build their precious reasoning upon. The principles of modern science and laws of nature were built upon Christian theology.
If atheists evolutionists were true to their own presuppositions, they would have to admit that this world is just an absurd illusion, which is exactly the conclusion that pagans in India came to already millennias ago.[/QUOTE]Great post, Petr.
Without belief in an ultimate existence external to one's own mind, it is impossible to move beyond a solipsistic worldview, where the entirety of existence is self-contained within one's own mind. Empirical science assumes an absolute reality external to the observer, which is essentially a metaphysical, and arguably a theistic belief.
What is "reality", Angler? Is it not that which is true, regardless of whether you believe it to be true?
It is what is known to the mind of God.
2005-09-22 02:12 | User Profile
Like I've pointed out elsewhere, a very concrete example of Eastern pantheistic-gnostic mentality (world is just an illusion) spreading into the West is the popularity of songs such as this:
[FONT=Garamond][SIZE=5]Strawberry Fields[/SIZE]
Let me take you down, 'cos I'm going to Strawberry Fields [B]Nothing is real, and nothing to get hungabout[/B] Strawberry Fields forever
[B]Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see[/B] It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out, it doesn't matter much to me Let me take you down, 'cos I'm going to Strawberry Fields Nothing is real, and nothing to get hungabout Strawberry Fields forever
No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low That is you can't you know tune in but it's all right, that is I think it's not too bad
Let me take you down, 'cos I'm going to Strawberry Fields Nothing is real, and nothing to get hungabout Strawberry Fields forever [B] Always, no sometimes, think it's me, but you know I know when it's a dream[/B] I think I know I mean a "Yes" but it's all wrong, that is I think I disagree
Let me take you down, 'cos I'm going to Strawberry Fields Nothing is real, and nothing to get hungabout Strawberry Fields forever Strawberry Fields forever Strawberry Fields forever [/FONT]
Petr[/SIZE]
2005-09-22 03:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Carl Rylander]What type of evidence would persuade you that God, without question or dispute, exists?[/QUOTE]
Romans 1:20, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesââ¬âhis eternal power and divine natureââ¬âhave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
There can be no proof of God's existence to someone who really doesn't believe in God.
2005-09-22 03:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]A better way to put it: "Nothing in this world makes sense to Bible-thumpers except in the light of Creation." It all makes perfect sense to people who understand science better than everyone else.
It's too bad Elie Weasel is tainting scientific truth with his support. But quite frankly, I don't much care what kids are taught in schools, be it evolution or some kind of mythology such as Biblical creationism, Sumerian creationism, or whatever. If parents want to have ignorant kids, that's their choice.[/QUOTE] I find it curious that a good number of intelligent design proponents have extensive backgrounds in mathematics and probablility. William Dembski has doctorates in philosophy and mathematics (Ph.D., Univ. of Chicago, w/ work in probability/psi-functions), David Berlinski (Ph.D., mathematics, Princeton University), Lee Spetner (Ph.D., mathematical physics, MIT), Wolfgang Smith (BA, Cornell Univ., in math, physics, philosophy [at the age 17]; Ph.D., Columbia Univ., mathematics; formerly on faculty of MIT and currently emeritus professor at Oregon St.), I.L. Cohen ( who wrote "Darwin Was Wrong A Study in Probabilities"), et al.
As for Angler's contention, well, do not these scientists in the intelligent design movement not know science?!! What with doctorates in physics, math, chemistry, and biology from top universities, and professorships at some of the most prestigous schools??
2005-09-22 03:23 | User Profile
Let us not forget that this same hebrew slug, Elie Wiesel, was the main cheerleader for bombing Christian Serbia on behalf of Muslim terrorists.
2005-09-22 03:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoBear]Let us not forget that this same hebrew slug, Elie Wiesel, was the main cheerleader for bombing Christian Serbia on behalf of Muslim terrorists.[/QUOTE]
He also lent his considerable moral weight to the cause of 'liberating' Iraq.
:disgust:
2005-09-22 04:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Romans 1:20, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
There can be no proof of God's existence to someone who really doesn't believe in God.[/QUOTE]
Your statement appears to be inconsistent with the verse you quote. If God's handiwork leaves men with no excuse for denying His existence, then how can it be true that he "really doesn't believe in God"?
2005-09-22 09:26 | User Profile
As I've stated here once before, my own religious views aren't as dogmatically Christian as they once were - yet my belief in survival after death is far firmer than it ever was before, due to experimentation over the last few years with Electronic Voice Phenonmena (EVP). I have on tape clear examples of discarnate voices replying to my questions.
This, of course, [I]proves[/I] nothing about which religion is true - or indeed whether God as commonly conceived exists. But I suppose it would point in that direction.
2005-09-22 10:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Bump![/QUOTE]Should have left this alone Petr. This is one area obviously where the Angler's of the world prefer to let the Elie Wiesel's of the world do their thinking for them.:caiphas:
I just stay off these types of threads. If I wanted to exchange Christian-bashing anecdotes with atheistic jews there's plenty of other places I could do it. But I guess people like Angler, spiderman, and the other pagan WN have found happiness in their role as counter-missionary to us religious goyim.
2005-09-22 12:43 | User Profile
Let us not grow bitter, Okie. :)
Petr
2005-09-22 13:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoBear]Let us not forget that this same hebrew slug, Elie Wiesel, was the main cheerleader for bombing Christian Serbia on behalf of Muslim terrorists.[/QUOTE] For that alone he should hang. :wallbash:
AE
2005-09-22 14:30 | User Profile
I love the odd bedfellows created by the evolution/creation debate. As Steve Sailer has noted, liberals probably don't even realize that the subtitle of Origin of the Species is [B]The Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life[/B].
2005-09-22 15:22 | User Profile
Of course, survival of the fittest is incompatible with multi-kulti and diversity. And genocides, so admired by Walter, are no more than nature's diktat to kill or to be killed.
2005-09-22 15:27 | User Profile
Do you personally think that you are among "the fittest," madrussian?
Petr
2005-09-22 22:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Do you personally think that you are among "the fittest," madrussian?[/QUOTE] I know this wasn't addressed to me, but...
I think I am among "the fittest". God will have the last word on that, however.