# Religion and Engineers



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 5, 2008)

Well, since we have thoroughly discussed politics, I figured we should hit on the other office taboo subject...religion.

Has anybody else noticed that there seems to be a higher rate of atheists, agnostics, pastafarians, or otherwise religiously apathetic people among engineers than in the general public? In the sample size of people that I went to school with, I know of 3 very devoutly religious people (ironically, they are all different religions too...jewish, baptist, and catholic). On the other hand, I know of at least 10 actively atheist people, and several agnostics. The vast majority of my friends from school are either non-practicing members of whatever church their parents attended, or just completely indifferent to religion (they aren't atheist/agnostic, but they aren't religious either).

I think this phenomenon stems from the scientific mindset of engineers. We look for logical and/or plausible explanations for why things are the way they are. A mythical being that you can't hear or see creating things out of thin air, granted with the powers of omniscience and omnipotence just doesn't seem to jive with our mentality.

There is also the theory* that religion has been used throughout recorded history to instill fear in people in order to gain power over them and money from them. I feel that the power and wealth of the Catholic church is a significant validation of this theory. Also, if you look at ancient religions and some modern ones (Hindu comes to mind), you notice that there gods to explain everything that is/was unexplained at that point in history. For instance, the Greek god Helios was said to pull the sun into the sky every day...which was used to explain the rising and setting of the sun before astronomy had been thoroughly researched. I find it quite interesting that the Big Bang Theory is currently being studied because the creation of the universe is one of the last big unexplained things that religion is used to explain.

* I used the word "theory" because I realize that this post will be highly offensive to some people, and that is not my intention. I just wanted to discuss the impression that I get that engineers seem to have a tendency towards being non-religious, and hear other peoples' reasons for either being religious or not.


----------



## SSmith (Oct 5, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I find it quite interesting that the Big Bang Theory is currently being studied because the creation of the universe is one of the last big unexplained things that religion is used to explain.


The Big Bang concept doesn't attempt to explain the creation of the universe, because the whole "infinitely dense point in space" part assumes something was there prior to the Bang. Big difference from the religious perspective arguing creationist "beginning from nothing" position against it. Very much arguing apples to oranges.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 5, 2008)

I think a person's religious beliefs are their own business and I will nto discuss mine, or ask anyone to discuss theirs. but to more direclty address your question, this is from the wikipedia page on atheism:



> A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god or afterlife was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared with more than 85% of the general U.S. population.[100] In the same year Frank Sulloway of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Michael Shermer of California State University conducted a study which found in their polling sample of "credentialed" U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level.[101] An inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine.[102] These findings broadly agree with a 1958 statistical meta-analysis by Professor Michael Argyle of the University of Oxford. He analyzed seven research studies that had investigated correlation between attitude to religion and measured intelligence among school and college students from the U.S. Although a clear negative correlation was found, the analysis did not identify causality but noted that factors such as authoritarian family background and social class may also have played a part.[103]


----------



## benbo (Oct 5, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Well, since we have thoroughly discussed politics, I figured we should hit on the other office taboo subject...religion.
> Has anybody else noticed that there seems to be a higher rate of atheists, agnostics, pastafarians, or otherwise religiously apathetic people among engineers than in the general public? In the sample size of people that I went to school with, I know of 3 very devoutly religious people (ironically, they are all different religions too...jewish, baptist, and catholic). On the other hand, I know of at least 10 actively atheist people, and several agnostics. The vast majority of my friends from school are either non-practicing members of whatever church their parents attended, or just completely indifferent to religion (they aren't atheist/agnostic, but they aren't religious either).
> 
> I think this phenomenon stems from the scientific mindset of engineers. We look for logical and/or plausible explanations for why things are the way they are. A mythical being that you can't hear or see creating things out of thin air, granted with the powers of omniscience and omnipotence just doesn't seem to jive with our mentality.
> ...


I don't know if you have any statistics to back this up, but I personally know as many religious scientists and engineers as atheists or agnostics.

First, the fact that you seem to indicate that Hinduism is a modern religion when it is at least six centuries old, and the beginnings of Hinduism may predate the birth of Christ by over 1000 years or something like that, maybe you haven't really looked much into any of this. Hinduism has many meanings, but I'm not going to go into that right now.

Your post isn't offensive to me, although I am religious, primarily because I am used to this type of arrogance from of a lot of atheists who for some reason seem to believe they are smarter than everyone else, with very little evidence.. THere is nothing more nonsensical to me than people who think they are more intelligent than someone else becuase they lack faith. I will put my IQ and logical capabilities up against 99% of atheists out there. I know a lot of morons who are atheists, and there are a lot of idiots who believe as well. But it seems like it is always some atheist who thinks they are smarter than everyone else, and for some reason feel like bringing up their religion of "atheism", for which they have no proof, constantly.

There are bad things associated with many religions, but religion has been a force for tremendous good in the world as well. Are you aware of the trmendous coercive force of the atheistic regimes of the world? This far surpases anything religion has ever created. Since people will argue (incorrectly I believe) that Nazism was a religious movement, I'll forget that one. How about communism, which is expressly atheistic. This brought us Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Vietnamese regime, Castro. Oh yeah, these groups don't gain power over anyone.

Well, I'm not going to go into all the good religion has done, I suspect it would be a waste of time. It is just funny that it is always some atheist who feels like gracing us with their opinion on religion.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 5, 2008)

Dleg said:


> I think a person's religious beliefs are their own business and I will nto discuss mine, or ask anyone to discuss theirs. but to more direclty address your question, this is from the wikipedia page on atheism:


I understand and respect that. Thanks for the snippet...that is an interesting article.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 5, 2008)

benbo said:


> I don't know if you have any statistics to back this up, but I personally know as many religious scientists and engineers as atheists or agnostics.
> First, the fact that you seem to indicate that Hinduism is a modern religion when it is at least six centuries old, and the beginnings of Hinduism may predate the birth of Christ by over 1000 years or something like that, maybe you haven't really looked much into any of this. Hinduism has many meanings, but I'm not going to go into that right now.
> 
> Your post isn't offensive to me, although I am religious, primarily because I am used to this type of arrogance from of a lot of atheists who for some reason seem to believe they are smarter than everyone else, with very little evidence.. THere is nothing more nonsensical to me than people who think they are more intelligent than someone else becuase they lack faith. I will put my IQ and logical capabilities up against 99% of atheists out there. I know a lot of morons who are atheists, and there are a lot of idiots who believe as well. But it seems like it is always some atheist who thinks they are smarter than everyone else, and for some reason feel like bringing up their religion of "atheism", for which they have no proof, constantly.
> ...


Actually, I brought up Hinduism because it is one of the few polytheistic religions that are still practiced, so I meant "modern" in the way that it is still in practice, not that it was recently invented.

I do find the tone of your post fascinating though. Upon rereading my post, I admit that it comes across as me attacking the foundations of religion like an atheist would, but that is just because I have a lot of atheistic friends, so I hear that stuff repeated a lot. I am more non-religious, maybe leaning towards agnostic. My parents tried to force religion on me as a child, which caused me to reject it once I went to college. Recently, I have been trying to figure out what I believe, and have been investigating it a lot (contrary to your assertion).

There is only one thing about religion that I can't stand, and that is when people try to force their religion on somebody else, so I'm honestly sorry if my post struck you that way.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 5, 2008)

I've made the argument here before, partly for fun and partly serious, that atheism is just as much a "belief" as any religion. This is because an atheist is choosing to believe that there is no God - the atheist ignores that science has so far not proven the situation either way. The origin of the universe remains a mystery. A purely rational person (and therefore an intelligent person?), I have argued before, would choose to just remain undecided, rather than jumping to the conclusion that there is no God or creator.

(And yes, of the many self-proclaimed "atheists" I have known, many were just as obnoxious in pushing their views as any religious zealot I ahve ever encountered. At least the Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses walk away when I tell them I'm not interested.)


----------



## benbo (Oct 5, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Actually, I brought up Hinduism because it is one of the few polytheistic religions that are still practiced, so I meant "modern" in the way that it is still in practice, not that it was recently invented.
> I do find the tone of your post fascinating though. Upon rereading my post, I admit that it comes across as me attacking the foundations of religion like an atheist would, but that is just because I have a lot of atheistic friends, so I hear that stuff repeated a lot. I am more non-religious, maybe leaning towards agnostic. My parents tried to force religion on me as a child, which caused me to reject it once I went to college. Recently, I have been trying to figure out what I believe, and have been investigating it a lot (contrary to your assertion).
> 
> There is only one thing about religion that I can't stand, and that is when people try to force their religion on somebody else, so I'm honestly sorry if my post struck you that way.


OK. Sorry if I reacted badly. My main beef is not with the correlation between science or intelligence (or reverse correlation). Actually, it appears those studies Dleg presented may show some sort of reverse correlation. I'd have to look into it further because I know Shermer for one is a known antagonist to religion. But it may very well be true that most scientists and engineers are atheists. I don't know, and I don't know the reason.

My main beef is with the canard that religion is responsible for all the evil and corruption in the world. I hear that all the time and it is tiresome. People are responsible for all the evil in the world, and some of them are religious. But the atheists have done more than their fair share.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 5, 2008)

benbo said:


> OK. Sorry if I reacted badly. My main beef is not with the correlation between science or intelligence (or reverse correlation). Actually, it appears those studies Dleg presented may show some sort of reverse correlation. I'd have to look into it further because I know Shermer for one is a known antagonist to religion. But it may very well be true that most scientists and engineers are atheists. I don't know, and I don't know the reason.
> My main beef is with the canard that religion is responsible for all the evil and corruption in the world. I hear that all the time and it is tiresome. People are responsible for all the evil in the world, and some of them are religious. But the atheists have done more than their fair share.


Understood...and I see how you got that from my first post. I really didn't mean it that way. And I agree with DLeg that atheists can be pushier than members of various religions when it comes to discussing the topic...which is why you and I know all of these same arguments.

I believe politicians and all-consuming government is responsible for far more evil in the world than religion. But I also believe that religion is used at a lot of inappropriate times by people with a great deal of power to try to bend the populace to their will (i.e. both Dubya and Palin saying that the War in Iraq is "God's Plan").

I just had a perception that most of my engineer friends seemed to trend away from religion while the general public seem to trend toward religion. It seems that the topic has already been investigated, and my perception has at least some truth to it.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 5, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Well, since we have thoroughly discussed politics, I figured we should hit on the other office taboo subject...religion.


Had to spring this one on a Sunday Wilheld? 



wilheldp_PE said:


> I think this phenomenon stems from the scientific mindset of engineers. We look for logical and/or plausible explanations for why things are the way they are. A mythical being that you can't hear or see creating things out of thin air, granted with the powers of omniscience and omnipotence just doesn't seem to jive with our mentality.


Well, i fall in the religious category. I disagree that there is a "phenomenon" at work here - you're just as likely to see the secular / religious skew in ditchdiggers or metal shop &amp; foundry workers - probably moreso; as a matter of fact, it could be easily argued that a _non-scientific mind or non-intelligence_ jives with a non-religious mentality. A final point, at least on atheism is that you're out on a longer branch in your effort to not believe - the sheer proliferation of religion or spiritualism thru history &amp; literature runs profoundly counter to your belief (non-belief?) structure.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 5, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> Had to spring this one on a Sunday Wilheld?


Heh...it never occurred to me. I was just perusing the board and found a post about God being the greatest engineer of all time. It sorta clicked with me because I just drove back from homecoming today where I had talked to my aforementioned atheist friends.



error_matrix said:


> Well, i fall in the religious category. I disagree that there is a "phenomenon" at work here - you're just as likely to see the secular / religious skew in ditchdiggers or metal shop &amp; foundry workers - probably moreso; as a matter of fact, it could be easily argued that a _non-scientific mind or non-intelligence_ jives with a non-religious mentality. A final point, at least on atheism is that you're out on a longer branch in your effort to not believe - the sheer proliferation of religion or spiritualism thru history &amp; literature runs profoundly counter to your belief (non-belief?) structure.


As DLeg posted before (from the wiki article about atheism), there does seem to be a phenomenon at work here...



> An inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine. These findings broadly agree with a 1958 statistical meta-analysis by Professor Michael Argyle of the University of Oxford. He analyzed seven research studies that had investigated correlation between attitude to religion and measured intelligence among school and college students from the U.S. Although a clear negative correlation was found, the analysis did not identify causality but noted that factors such as authoritarian family background and social class may also have played a part.


Where I made the mistake is falsely assigning causality between intelligence and lack of religion. In fact, the last sentence in the quoted section above seems to fit my situation better. By forcing me to go to church, my parents inadvertently caused me to reject what they wanted me to believe.


----------



## engineergurl (Oct 5, 2008)

Oh this might be fun.... I'm game...

I am TOTALLY Catholic.... my thoughts... the bible said he did it in 7 days... but how long is a day to GOD? go on guys.... give me crap....lol.

Although I do want to mention one of the most greatest professors in the world. My Botany professor acknowledged us and taught ALL the aspects of eveolution in class... great man anyway, but that made him greater in my mind and he really did teach me to learn a logical balance between science and religion in my own way.

On a side note, this topic mentioned that this subject was taboo... soooooo what do you do if you are a beliver in something (anything, mind you) and someone trashes it at work? Just curious.....

MUAH, and I'll shut up now!


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 5, 2008)

engineergurl said:


> Oh this might be fun.... I'm game...
> I am TOTALLY Catholic.... my thoughts... the bible said he did it in 7 days... but how long is a day to GOD? go on guys.... give me crap....lol.


That is actually one of the most compelling arguments that I have heard _for_ religious creationism. A "day" mentioned in the Bible could be an eon to us. That kind of bridges the disconnect between the carbon dating of material that is several billions of years old and the literal time line of the Earth's existence derived from the Bible.



engineergurl said:


> On a side note, this topic mentioned that this subject was taboo... soooooo what do you do if you are a beliver in something (anything, mind you) and someone trashes it at work? Just curious.....


I dunno about that one. I don't usually even try to avoid talking about politics because it is so invasive these days that it would be hard to never talk about it...you would have to consciously avoid the topic. Plus, most of the time, you can end up agreeing to disagree about politics.

Religion is just...different for some reason. Usually the only people that will openly discuss religion are trying to force you to accept their beliefs. I just like to talk about it because I think it is a very interesting topic of discussion. I like to take a step back and look at different religions, their different belief structures, the history of religions, and interactions between religions. Even if you don't believe what others believe, I still think it's possible to have a stimulating discussion about religion.


----------



## Enginnneeer (Oct 6, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Well, since we have thoroughly discussed politics,






engineergurl said:


> Oh this might be fun.... I'm game....


oh boy, this may be more interesting than talking about the recent politics...

I know of engineers who send their kids to private schools, camps or youth activities. This includes jewish, catholic, and christian. I usually learn this because someone cant have lunch or the next meeting on a certain day or time because of their kid's game or some kind of event.... I have met some engineers, mostly younger, that dont seem active in church activities except the volunteering to build or repair houses sponsored by some type of church. I have known students in engineering that some are church going and some not. In college I was voted in to the committee and even did a few retreats with my church group on campus...though several semesters my lab nights did get in the way of several church social events that kept me from participating, unlike my non-science friends. I sometimes would still go after the event to finish the cleanup since the group would hang afterwards...if I was lucky they usually saved some food for me.


----------



## maryannette (Oct 6, 2008)

I am a Christian engineer. I know a lot of Christian engineers. I only know a few atheists/agnotstics. None of them are engineers.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 6, 2008)

engineergurl said:


> On a side note, this topic mentioned that this subject was taboo... soooooo what do you do if you are a beliver in something (anything, mind you) and someone trashes it at work? Just curious.....


You could tell them that it is not an appropriate discussion for the workplace since those discussions usually end with bad feelings.



mary said:


> I am a Christian engineer. I know a lot of Christian engineers. I only know a few atheists/agnotstics. None of them are engineers.


DITTO.

And to add to Dleg's comment, I too notice the "non-believers" trying to 'justify' their non-belief. They even make stories like the one above that shows how the smarter one is, the more likely they are to also not believe.

As far as religion, if a person's religion makes them a better person in the way they treat others and themselves and how they approach this crazy world we live in, then their religion is a GREAT thing. I can't argue it at all.

and isn't that the point?


----------



## sehad (Oct 6, 2008)

I'm a Christian engineer, as are most of the engineers that I know personally. I think it's a matter of location. From my observations, most athiests or like minded people are from the Northern region. Very few are from the Southern region. I'm from the South, just about everyone down here belongs to some type of religion. Those that are non-practicing members of their church are usually teenager to young adults (and some older at that) that are more interested in seeing what is out there and experimenting just as I was when I started college. Sad to say that most "christians" are not tolerant of those that are not. Which surprises me, because most of Jesus's ministry while he was on Earth was to those that were considered scum and the dogs of that time.

Sad to say that most, and at times I know I am included in this number, that claim to be christians simply claim to be. To be a christian is reflected in the way you live your life. The very meaning of christian is Christ-like. What you say you are and how you act can be TOTALLY different. To me, being a christian is not a statement, but it is a lifestyle. Just my two cents.

I guess it sums it up now that I am a Christian. I have friends from several different religions. I have a few friends that are athiest. I have a few that don't know what they believe yet.


----------



## MA_PE (Oct 6, 2008)

Obviously, religion is a personal preference and IMHO isn't great fodder for forum boards. I find fanaticism annoying on any front and religion is certainly a subject where you find zealots/fanatics.

It's my view that the fundamental tenet of all worthwhile religions is to treat others the way that you want others to treat you. Catholics call it the Golden Rule. If everyone believed and practiced that philosophy the world would be a better place. Unfortunately people are human so they don't.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 6, 2008)

> It's my view that the fundamental tenet of all worthwhile religions is to treat others the way that you want others to treat you.


I'm down with that!

And yeah I too agree that religion and politics and things like that aren't great stuff to hash out on a message board. Turns into a flame war real quick.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 6, 2008)

you guys are pussies! :joke:

While discussing the origins of the universe, my physics professor would say w/ a half-smirk "_you know, Something cannot come from Nothing! It violates the very rules of every kind of physics we know_" - whether that was a nod towards 'a grand architect' or not wasn't entirely clear, but i took it to be meaning there is no slam-dunk dismissal of the case for the Creator, no matter how much science you wanna throw at it.

From one of the greatest thinkers of recent history, his views on religion:



> Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[55] In his book The World as I See It, he wrote: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."


He is also credited w/ the quote of "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 6, 2008)

> *Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain*
> DAYTON, TN—A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin—author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement—made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton.
> 
> "I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits," said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed "Scopes Monkey Trial" and is widely considered one of Darwinism's holiest sites. "Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested."
> ...


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 6, 2008)

^ :lmao: - you do need to lay off TheOnion though. . ..


----------



## chaosiscash (Oct 6, 2008)

Oddly enough, I did a cross-country flight into Dayton, TN yesterday (I'm building cross-country time in preparation for starting on my Instrument training).

I didn't notice any reporters from The Onion at the airport, however.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 6, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> ^ :lmao: - you do need to lay off TheOnion though. . ..


its addictive!


----------



## MA_PE (Oct 6, 2008)

I like onions


----------



## sehad (Oct 6, 2008)

onions have layers


----------



## chaosiscash (Oct 6, 2008)

just like ogres


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

sehad said:


> I think it's a matter of location.


I thought that was for real estate! :lmao: :lmao:

I think religion, generally speaking, has taken a bad turn because there are the 5% of people out there who are perverting or otherwise souring the 'good' that comes from one's faith.

I have had many engaging discussions with a colleague whose beliefs are broadly different from my own. We have MUTUAL RESPECT for one another's point of view, so overall it has been a good dialogue. Moreover, I have learned a great deal from him and about faith in general from the discussions - all-in-all good stuff! lusone:

Now, when it has come to the $700B assistance package ... :15: :16: 

:lmao:

JR


----------



## Supe (Oct 6, 2008)

jregieng said:


> I think religion, generally speaking, has taken a bad turn because there are the 5% of people out there who are perverting or otherwise souring the 'good' that comes from one's faith.



I think you whacked the nail on the noggin there.

I have no problem with people who take pride in their faith. I personally believe however, that most organized religion is a giant crock pot because of the level of corruption and manipulation present in virtually all religions. This is only emphasized by the fact that a very small percentage of people arbitrarily choose their religion, but rather, are raised into it.

That being said, I don't believe in a "God" as most people interpret it. Rather, I consider myself to be a bit of an agnostic with some rudimentary alchemy tossed in!


----------



## MA_PE (Oct 6, 2008)

> consider myself to be a bit of an agnostic with some rudimentary alchemy alcohol tossed in!


no worries Supe. I've got you covered.


----------



## Supe (Oct 6, 2008)

MA_PE said:


> no worries Supe. I've got you covered.


:laugh: :beerchug:

I wish that were the case! Unfortunately blackouts don't count for spiritual visions!


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 6, 2008)

mary said:


> I am a Christian engineer. I know a lot of Christian engineers. I only know a few atheists/agnotstics. None of them are engineers.


I imagine there's more than a couple agnostic engineers here on EB.

However, my experience seems to be the oppostie of wilheldp's--this is completely qualitative, but it seems to me that engineers tend to be _more_ likely to be religious.


----------



## IlPadrino (Oct 6, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> However, my experience seems to be the oppostie of wilheldp's--this is completely qualitative, but it seems to me that engineers tend to be _more_ likely to be religious.


I wonder if any of us have enough "experience" to make a reasonable sampling... it would seem all our experience is anecdotal - that is, not worth much.


----------



## benbo (Oct 6, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> I wonder if any of us have enough "experience" to make a reasonable sampling... it would seem all our experience is anecdotal - that is, not worth much.


How can anyone not believe in a Supreme being when they have heard of GT_ME?

I'm sure it is anecdotal. However, I would be willing to bet that more than a few EBers were praying right before they opened their envelope with the test results. Probably even some of the atheists were praying to the great Stormwater Modeler in the Sky.


----------



## IlPadrino (Oct 6, 2008)

benbo said:


> However, I would be willing to bet that more than a few EBers were praying right before they opened their envelope with the test results. Probably even some of the atheists were praying to the great Stormwater Modeler in the Sky.


Uh... that's what you'd call "fail safe", right?


----------



## IlPadrino (Oct 6, 2008)

I found this NYT article interesting: A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash. There's a related article 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution  that is also interesting.

And take a look at

Whatever your opinion, it's an interesting discussion (at least to me) to try and reconcile how the matter should be addressed in the public schools.


----------



## SSmith (Oct 7, 2008)

I don't consider myself a Christian. You can discuss the different philosophical nuances you want, but for me the crux of the matter is primarily an engineering one:

I don't believe a man can walk on water.

It's that simple. I don't understand how any well trained engineer can support that position either. On one hand--if I cant believe this, then the whole thing falls into the category of historical fiction. On the other hand--if man can walk on water, then the very basics of engineering fall apart. For me the choice was easy.

But I will never be able to understand those people who can't understand why I have trouble accepting the idea that man walked on water. They look at me like I'm the crazy one...


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 7, 2008)

You 'believe' it the same way you believe that there is eternal life after death. (if you're a christian)

The whole idea is based on the fact that you must have a 'belief' in something that you can't see, hear, or touch.


----------



## maryannette (Oct 7, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> You 'believe' it the same way you believe that there is eternal life after death. (if you're a christian)
> The whole idea is based on the fact that you must have a 'belief' in something that you can't see, hear, or touch.


Amen.


----------



## benbo (Oct 7, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> I found this NYT article interesting: A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash. There's a related article 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution  that is also interesting.
> And take a look at
> 
> Whatever your opinion, it's an interesting discussion (at least to me) to try and reconcile how the matter should be addressed in the public schools.


I am a religious believer but I believe science should be taught in science class. To me that means teaching evolution as a scientific theory and presenting the various questions about the theory in a scientific manner without mentioning the religious alternatives. I don't think religion should be mentioned except a possible disclaimer to " talk with your parents about any this."

But I do believe that all science should be taught with the express and wholly true idea that all throughout history the theories of completely self assured sceientists have constantly been upgraded and proven wrong. The history of the world is replete with scientists and engineers who were confident they were right based on "scientific principles" only to later be proven wrong by a new set of "scientific" principles. That is certainly fair game, but it should not be done from a religious perspective in my opinion. Save that for Sunday (or Friday or Saturday or whatever your day is).


----------



## SSmith (Oct 7, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> The whole idea is based on the fact that you must have a 'belief' in something that you can't see, hear, or touch.


Except walking on water is very much something you can see, hear, or touch...


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 7, 2008)

Do any of you dream?

Have any of you been able to fly in your dreams? or do anything else that is not humanly possible in reality? And can your dream be proven scientifically?

What if eternal life is a dream state? and if you've lived a good life and have good dreams it will be like heaven? or if you've lived a bad life and have nightmares it will be like hell?

When your dreaming, your human restrictions are lifted.

I see no reason why this cannot be the case after death.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 7, 2008)

SSmith said:


> Except walking on water is very much something you can see, hear, or touch...


Christians believe that Christ was the manifestation of God, so that he really was not human. Jews believe that he was a human profit, but not really the son of God.

If these religions can't agree, then I feel it is normal for technical thinking engineers to question the practicality of it, but as stated above, I choose to 'believe'.

Regardless, I think anybody can recognize that Jesus was and is the most famous person to ever walk this earth. Who else has been at least known of by every human for the last 2000 years?

He changed the world. No matter you're beliefs, you must admit, he changed the world.


----------



## maryannette (Oct 7, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> If these religions can't agree, then I feel it is normal for technical thinking engineers to question the practicality of it, but as stated above, I choose to 'believe'.


I have questions in my mind. I question things every day. BUT (and maybe only believers can recognize this), there are some things that happen that are TOO un-random not to be part of God's big plan. And there are things that scientists should be able to be exact about, when they aren't.


----------



## csb (Oct 7, 2008)

SSmith said:


> I don't consider myself a Christian. You can discuss the different philosophical nuances you want, but for me the crux of the matter is primarily an engineering one:
> I don't believe a man can walk on water.
> 
> It's that simple. I don't understand how any well trained engineer can support that position either. On one hand--if I cant believe this, then the whole thing falls into the category of historical fiction. On the other hand--if man can walk on water, then the very basics of engineering fall apart. For me the choice was easy.
> ...


Surface tension and buoyancy. Christ has giant feet. Same way Carnival can keep a cruise ship from sinking down.

Right?


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 7, 2008)

SSmith said:


> I don't consider myself a Christian. You can discuss the different philosophical nuances you want, but for me the crux of the matter is primarily an engineering one:
> I don't believe *a man* can walk on water.





> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.


And Christ walking on water is what trips you up. . .? :huh: Ok. . . you pretty much make the leap of engineering faith from paragraph one my man.

Secondly, your argument is based upon your _belief_ that Christ was soley *a man*. Your decision to not believe was already in place with that simple sentence choice.


----------



## SSmith (Oct 7, 2008)

Actually I wasn't talking about Jesus walking on water, I was referring to Peter. I should have been more clear...


----------



## IlPadrino (Oct 7, 2008)

SSmith said:


> Actually I wasn't talking about Jesus walking on water, I was referring to Peter. I should have been more clear...


Odd that wouldn't have been obvious to a Christian... Or is it just the Catholics that have faith in this story.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 7, 2008)

I figured he might be talking about Peter, and if you know the story, Peter thought to himself "this defeats engineering logic" and began to sink.



> Though we may not walk across water, we will go through difficult, faith-testing circumstances. Are you sinking into despair or are you looking to Jesus and his miraculous power for help?


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 7, 2008)

> After feeding the five thousand, Jesus sends his disciples ahead of him in a boat to cross the Sea of Galilee. Several hours later in the night, the disciples encounter a storm. Jesus comes to them, walking on the water. This terrifies the disciples and they think they are seeing a ghost. Jesus tells them in verse 27, "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."
> Peter replies, "Lord, if it's you, tell me to come to you on the water." So Jesus invites Peter to come. Peter gets out of the boat and begins walking on the water toward Jesus. But when Peter takes his eyes off Jesus and sees the wind and waves, he begins to sink. Peter cries out to the Lord and Jesus immediately reaches out his hand and catches Peter. As they climb into the boat together, the storm ceases. Then the disciples worship Jesus, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."


----------



## Supe (Oct 7, 2008)

Can any stormwater modelers in here provide any validity to Moses parting the Red Sea?


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 7, 2008)

Well, the sea levels dropped, they walked across the high point which was land, the Egyptian Army followed, the flood waters washed them away.

How hard would that be to prove?


----------



## Casey (Oct 7, 2008)

Well, I know I am looking forward to seeing Bill Maher's Religulous... Promises to be entertaining

Trailer


----------



## csb (Oct 7, 2008)

Supe said:


> Can any stormwater modelers in here provide any validity to Moses parting the Red Sea?


hydraulic jump? caused by a change in slope?


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 7, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> Odd that wouldn't have been obvious to a Christian... Or is it just the Catholics that have faith in this story.


I'm not really sure its odd, as the only passage mentioning Peter's feat is in Matthew; whereas Jesus walking on water is in 3 of the 4 gospels. Easy to assume a non-believer was referring to the universally known feat Christ accomplished. Its also easy to assume a non-believer wouldn't have strong familiarity with biblical passages, an error on my part anyways.

And at that, its still a rather trivial passage to hang your blanket dismissal of christianity. Peter walked to Christ, himself standing on the stormy water, at Christ's command. Peter wasn't very successful at it, as doubt led to him sinking.

One would think the obvious 'beyond human capability' feats performed by Moses (i.e. parting Red Sea) would fall more towards doubters ammunition caches.


----------



## maryannette (Oct 7, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> I figured he might be talking about Peter, and if you know the story, Peter thought to himself "this defeats engineering logic" and began to sink.


I love this explanation!!! I can just see Simon walking on water, then his left brain kicks in and SPLASH!!!!


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 7, 2008)

csb said:


> hydraulic jump? caused by a change in slope?


I'm no f'tard, but I did earn my junior woodchuck badge in stormwater design. They probably just dewatered it with a sump pump, garden hose and one of those dewatering bags. The bag got full of sediment too quickly and burst before the Egyptians could make it across.


----------



## MA_PE (Oct 7, 2008)

> I'm no f'tard


don't sell yourself short VT. True, you're not THE f'tard, but I think you'd blend in at an f'tard convention.

B) j/k I couldn't resist.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 7, 2008)

ZING!


----------



## frazil (Oct 7, 2008)

LOL


----------



## engineergurl (Oct 7, 2008)

Okay... so let me put a little different spin on it... SOME believe that people should live by the books teachings but also feel that they are just a book of stories and parables to show us how we should live... rather then actual truths... it's been tranlated and transcribed so many times that it's not too of a far fetched idea... if this was the case... then the whole water thing could be considered an example of the great things He could do if He wanted to...

ironiclly I'm playing devils advocate here 

I do agree that there are sometimes just too many coincidences in life that are unexplained...

what the heck is that quote from Jay and Silent Bob?


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 8, 2008)

Some of the branches of Christianity say "to take the Bible seriously" while others say "to take the Bible literally".

There is a big difference in that.

I am United Methodist by faith, and we take the Bible seriously. We do not take it word for word but try to apply its meaning to our daily lives.


----------



## maryannette (Oct 8, 2008)

Dleg said:


> I think a person's religious beliefs are their own business and I will not discuss mine, ...


That's okay for many people, but I take the Great Commission seriously. I try very hard not to be obnoxious or offensive to anyone. I've been attacked by the Bible in the past and that's not the way to share faith. I am not perfect, but I think I am good enough to share my personal beliefs and efforts to live by them. I don't think force-feeding religion is effective. And I don't think force-feeding atheism is effective, either.


----------



## MA_PE (Oct 8, 2008)

> I try very hard not to be obnoxious or offensive to anyone.


It has been my experience that whenever you try to convince or proof a strong belief (in anything) to someone who has a contrary view it is virtually impossible not to be obnoxious or offensive on some level. As I get older I'm learning to back off and or keep my mouth shut entirely, and it ain't easy for me. Just ask Mrs MA.


----------



## Dexman1349 (Oct 8, 2008)

engineergurl said:


> Okay... so let me put a little different spin on it... SOME believe that people should live by the books teachings but also feel that they are just a book of stories and parables to show us how we should live... rather then actual truths... it's been tranlated and transcribed so many times that it's not too of a far fetched idea... if this was the case... then the whole water thing could be considered an example of the great things He could do if He wanted to...


I have always felt that the bible (I'm only familiar with this as I haven't been exposed to other religious books very much) was a collection of life stories to use as a guide on how to live my own life. I like to compare it to Asop's fables. Each story has a lesson to be learned and applied to your own personal situation.

This was only truly revealed to me a few years back when a co-worker and myself were discussing how various groups (pro-life vs pro-choice, gay rights, etc.) use specific quotes from the bible to prove their point or disprove the opponents views. The topic came up on how Levidicus (sp?) is commonly used in the anti-gay movement (Thou shall not lie with a man as you would with a woman as it is an abomination- I think is close to the quote). The part that would make me mad is very close to this quote are several others that are just shrugged off as no longer valid (There's one about not talking back to your elders, another on not eating the flesh from the sea, and an entire section on animal sacrifice).

So my question I posed to my co-worker was, "Why are only the quotes that apply to your point still vaild, but the rest has been shrugged off?" Only later did I learn the lesson that he has applied the bible as a guide to live his life, and I have applied it differently to live my own life. I have in essence taken on a live and let live mentality. If I don't like gay marrage, I won't marry a man. If I don't like abortion, then I won't ask my wife to have one. I just ask that others don't make me live by their standards. I would rather have the choice to not do something, than to have someone (or some governmental standard) dictating it not be done.

Edit: As far as the "Is there a God?" question: I know there are several things that just can't be explained by "normal science" practices. I am not really of any defined faith (I don't go to churh), but I do think there is some form of higher power out there. How else can you explain Chaos Theory?


----------



## benbo (Oct 8, 2008)

Dexman1349 said:


> I would rather have the choice to not do something, than to have someone (or some governmental standard) dictating it not be done.


Wonderfully sounding philosophy, however I guarantee you do not live by it. Everybody has some point at which they want governmental intrusion on another person's individual rights. EVERYBODY. It is just at what point that is.


----------



## csb (Oct 8, 2008)

^ Right. I don't want people shooting at me or walking around naked or just taking stuff from my house. I'm glad there are laws for that stuff rather than be hoping that someone else's moral code meets mine.

Hmm...but that does raise the issue...who's moral code should be enforced?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 8, 2008)

MA_PE said:


> It has been my experience that whenever you try to convince or proof a strong belief (in anything) to someone who has a contrary view it is virtually impossible not to be obnoxious or offensive on some level. As I get older I'm learning to back off and *or keep my mouth shut entirely*, and it ain't easy for me. Just ask Mrs MA.


That's what I'm doing.


----------



## benbo (Oct 8, 2008)

csb said:


> ^ Right. I don't want people shooting at me or walking around naked or just taking stuff from my house. I'm glad there are laws for that stuff rather than be hoping that someone else's moral code meets mine.
> Hmm...but that does raise the issue...who's moral code should be enforced?


That's what the governmental system is for. Some people (like me) says that should be decided in Congress or the state legislature. Other people say the court also has a big role.

A lot of people say "live and let live" as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's rights (your rights end at my nose). But even that is subject to argument because exactly when does somebody else's activity (say a risky health or sexual practice) start to effect the budget and in turn my rights. Again, that's what the government (which should mean the people as a whole) is supposed to decide. JMO.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 8, 2008)

benbo said:


> That's what the governmental system is for. Some people (like me) says that should be decided in Congress or the state legislature. Other people say the court also has a big role.
> A lot of people say "live and let live" as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's rights (your rights end at my nose). But even that is subject to argument because exactly when does somebody else's activity (say a risky health or sexual practice) start to effect the budget and in turn my rights. Again, that's what the government (which should mean the people as a whole) is supposed to decide. JMO.


Wow...remind me to never get into a political or religious debate with you under any circumstances. I disagree with everything you just said.


----------



## chaosiscash (Oct 8, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> That's what I'm doing.


Word


----------



## benbo (Oct 8, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Wow...remind me to never get into a political or religious debate with you under any circumstances. I disagree with everything you just said.


Be a bit more explicit please. I don't think it is possible to disagree with everything I just said unless you are a complete anarchist. By the way, I don't believe in regulating personal behavior in general. But I do believe any laws should be decided in the legistlature (for most laws) or Congress, which happens to be what the Constitution says. Even libertarians generally believe in the power of Congress to enact laws. They are always running candidates for Congress, and Ron Paul is in the Congress and he is sort of a libertarian.

For example, who should decide what is a crime and what is not a crime?

And for future reference, when you say you disagree with everything somebody writes, that is a debate


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 8, 2008)

benbo said:


> Be a bit more explicit please. I don't think it is possible to disagree with everything I just said unless you are a complete anarchist. By the way, I don't believe in regulating personal behavior in general. But I do believe any laws should be decided in the legistlature (for most laws) or Congress, which happens to be what the Constitution says. Even libertarians generally believe in the power of Congress to enact laws. They are always running candidates for Congress, and Ron Paul is in the Congress and he is sort of a libertarian.
> For example, who should decide what is a crime and what is not a crime?
> 
> And for future reference, when you say you disagree with everything somebody writes, that is a debate


It's not a debate, it's a disagreement. It would be a debate if I gave reasoning for my disagreement to try to persuade others to agree with my views.

And I don't disagree that Congress is there to make laws, but the context in which you said that implied that Congress is there to legislate morality and I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I don't know when the government decided that it had jurisdiction over people's personal lives, but I suspect it was 'round about the time of Roe v. Wade. If you morally agree with abortion and gay marriage, then have at it...legislating something like that is not in anybody's best interest.

I also disagree that religion is the only path to living a moral life. I consider myself a very moral and honest person without the "fear of God" being instilled in me.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 8, 2008)

benbo said:


> A lot of people say "live and let live" as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's rights (your rights end at my nose). But even that is subject to argument because exactly when does somebody else's activity (say a risky health or sexual practice) start to effect the budget and in turn my rights.


That's the issue I have with abortion. I strongly disagree with abortion, so as stated by Dexman above, I would never ask my wife to have one. HOWEVER, I am very much offended by the government taking my taxes and giving it to someone to perform an act that I strongly disagree with.


----------



## MA_PE (Oct 8, 2008)

Hello, I'd like to have an arguement please.

for the uninformed (and the pleasure of the informed) I attach the "Arguement Sketch"


----------



## benbo (Oct 8, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> It's not a debate, it's a disagreement. It would be a debate if I gave reasoning for my disagreement to try to persuade others to agree with my views.
> And I don't disagree that Congress is there to make laws, but the context in which you said that implied that Congress is there to legislate morality and I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I don't know when the government decided that it had jurisdiction over people's personal lives, but I suspect it was 'round about the time of Roe v. Wade. If you morally agree with abortion and gay marriage, then have at it...legislating something like that is not in anybody's best interest.
> 
> I also disagree that religion is the only path to living a moral life. I consider myself a very moral and honest person without the "fear of God" being instilled in me.


First, I have absolutely no idea where that last statement came from. It wasn't me. You're arguing with somebody else there.

Congress or the state legislature has to legislate morality. Who else will do it? What do you think child molestation laws are? Laws against murder? They are legislation of morality. That just happens to be morality everybody agrees with.

I didn't mention anything about Roe v. Wade and I don't want to get into that debate. But just from a factual point of view, the reason many people have problems with Roe v. Wade is because it was not decided by the Congress but by the Supreme Court. And there is a philosophical difference of opinion as to when a fetus is a human being and gets the same rights as everybody else. I agree there are arguments on both sides of that issue. Maybe some day science will fully resolve it.


----------



## Dexman1349 (Oct 8, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I also disagree that religion is the only path to living a moral life. I consider myself a very moral and honest person without the "fear of God" being instilled in me.


I never said it was the only path. It is a path that I and several others have chosen to take. It also has nothing to do with "the fear of God" (for me anyways). The only thing I "fear" is some idiot hitting a 2 outer on the river at the poker tables to take my money. 

Try not to overgeneralize people and create bias based on views held by a small percentage. It's like saying Mexicans prefer to eat beans and rice.

With a population the size of the US and with the amount of interconnections between heritages and faiths (and especially since the economy is global), the size of the "groups" are actually getting smaller.


----------



## Dexman1349 (Oct 8, 2008)

benbo said:


> Wonderfully sounding philosophy, however I guarantee you do not live by it. Everybody has some point at which they want governmental intrusion on another person's individual rights. EVERYBODY. It is just at what point that is.


I do agree with this. The "live and let live" philosophy is a very idealistic one. The one big flaw in it is the "human factor." My morals largely match those of the people I surround myself with, however there will always be disagreements on some of the details (gay rights, abortion, death penalty, etc...). With such a large hodgepodge of people in the US, it is IMPOSSIBLE to dictate the morals to cover everyone at the federal level. This is where I agree with the basis of the republican ticket (but I'm not a republican): small federal government, let the smaller municipalities decide for themselves. Should there be a national abortion policy? hell no, it should be determined at the state/county/city levels which have a better idea of what their populations want. I can tell you right now that Boulder (liberal city to my northwest) and Colorado Springs (conservative city to the south) have a very large gap in their belief structure that even the state government has a hard time appeasing both. I can't imagine trying to create legislation to control Texas and California.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 8, 2008)

benbo said:


> First, I have absolutely no idea where that last statement came from. It wasn't me. You're arguing with somebody else there.
> Congress or the state legislature has to legislate morality. Who else will do it? What do you think child molestation laws are? Laws against murder? They are legislation of morality. That just happens to be morality everybody agrees with.
> 
> I didn't mention anything about Roe v. Wade and I don't want to get into that debate. But just from a factual point of view, the reason many people have problems with Roe v. Wade is because it was not decided by the Congress but by the Supreme Court. And there is a philosophical difference of opinion as to when a fetus is a human being and gets the same rights as everybody else. I agree there are arguments on both sides of that issue. Maybe some day science will fully resolve it.


That statement wasn't directed at you...just a general vibe I have picked up in this thread.

I think it's interesting that the two examples you used of legislating morality, murder and molestation, are the two clearest examples of acts that infringe upon the rights of others. Those are also the biggest arguments I hear from statists when I talk about anarcho-capitalism ("if we lived in Anarchy, people would walk around raping and killing everybody!"). The way I see it is that murder is a clear violation of the right to life, and molestation would be a violation of the right to pursuit of happiness. So to answer your question, I believe those laws are to protect Constitutional rights, not moral issues. What is your feeling on gay marriage? I think that having laws banning it are a clear violation of the right to pursuit of happiness for some citizens, and the only basis given for such laws are moral and religious. I agree that Roe v. Wade is a tricky matter, but it remains that it is a moral choice that should not be legislated.


----------



## benbo (Oct 8, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> That statement wasn't directed at you...just a general vibe I have picked up in this thread.
> I think it's interesting that the two examples you used of legislating morality, murder and molestation, are the two clearest examples of acts that infringe upon the rights of others. Those are also the biggest arguments I hear from statists when I talk about anarcho-capitalism ("if we lived in Anarchy, people would walk around raping and killing everybody!"). The way I see it is that murder is a clear violation of the right to life, and molestation would be a violation of the right to pursuit of happiness. So to answer your question, I believe those laws are to protect Constitutional rights, not moral issues. What is your feeling on gay marriage? I think that having laws banning it are a clear violation of the right to pursuit of happiness for some citizens, and the only basis given for such laws are moral and religious. I agree that Roe v. Wade is a tricky matter, but it remains that it is a moral choice that should not be legislated.


I have no problem with gay marriage. I don't believe it is a matter for the state. But i accept that the fact I don't think it is a matter for the state is just my opinion and not everyone shares it. I don't get to declare by fiat what is and is not suitable for discussion.

Who decides who is a child or who is an adult in your utopain free wheeling society? Who sets the age of consent? These laws are as arbitrary as any other law, and for some reason you have no problem accepting them. What if a 15 year old girl wants to marry a 50 year old man? How about 14? 13? 12? Isn't it against her "pursuit of happiness" as you put it, to not be able to do what she wants?

Sine you don't like the examples I cited, I'm assuming you are for allowing children to purchase alcohol at any age? Or can the capricious state set limits on who is a an adult or who is not based on something so arbitrary as the years on the planet.

As far as murder. As you are aware, there has been an evolving definition in this country as to who constitutes a person and who doesn't.

And I note you enjoy government intervention when it meets your own particular moral test. Me too. All I am saying is that this has to be hashed out by the system established in the Constiution and the State legislatures. During time, the people debate and decide what level of regulation they want. It might not be what you like, or it might not be what I like.


----------



## csb (Oct 8, 2008)

Dexman1349 said:


> I can tell you right now that Boulder (liberal city to my northwest) and Colorado Springs (conservative city to the south) have a very large gap in their belief structure that even the state government has a hard time appeasing both. I can't imagine trying to create legislation to control Texas and California.


I'm pretty sure Boulder and Colorado Springs are pretty much polar opposites to a higher degree than Texas and California! It would essentially be like putting Cheech and Chong and the Pope in a van for a road trip.

There, I brought us back to religion  Discuss the Tao of Cheech. I'll start:

"Duuuuuddddeee."


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 8, 2008)

I wonder how long it will be before Hitler is thrown into the mix...


----------



## chaosiscash (Oct 8, 2008)

So is it OK to pray before a college football game?


----------



## frazil (Oct 8, 2008)

opcorn: It's been awhile since we've had a good debate...


----------



## csb (Oct 8, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I wonder how long it will be before Hitler is thrown into the mix...


First page, fourth post we've got a Nazi reference...

We only have nine more views till this post has been viewed 666 times.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 8, 2008)

benbo said:


> And I note you enjoy government intervention when it meets your own particular moral test. Me too. All I am saying is that this has to be hashed out by the system established in the Constiution and the State legislatures. During time, the people debate and decide what level of regulation they want. It might not be what you like, or it might not be what I like.


I'm going to go ahead and ignore the rest of your post because it's exactly the type of useless bickering I was hoping to avoid. I will just say this, and it will probably answer any other questions you have of me, I would _tolerate_ a government that was firmly controlled by the letter (not the unending interpretation of the spirit) of the Constitution. But as far as me "enjoy[ing] government intervention when it meets your own particular moral test", you are incorrect. There is not a single service or product that the US government provides to me that could not be provided cheaper, better, and more efficiently by the private sector. If people want something, there will be somebody there to sell it to them...roads, education, police, arbitration, etc...and if the seller wishes to charge too much for their service, then the populace has the power to vote with their wallets.


----------



## benbo (Oct 8, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I'm going to go ahead and ignore the rest of your post because it's exactly the type of useless bickering I was hoping to avoid. I will just say this, and it will probably answer any other questions you have of me, I would _tolerate_ a government that was firmly controlled by the letter (not the unending interpretation of the spirit) of the Constitution. But as far as me "enjoy[ing] government intervention when it meets your own particular moral test", you are incorrect. There is not a single service or product that the US government provides to me that could not be provided cheaper, better, and more efficiently by the private sector. If people want something, there will be somebody there to sell it to them...roads, education, police, arbitration, etc...and if the seller wishes to charge too much for their service, then the populace has the power to vote with their wallets.


You're right. The argument is pointless because although I agree with some of what you say, I get the impression you are one of these anarcho-capitalists, who as far as I know don't really even believe in the Constitution or Congress or courts or anything. If you believe in the free markets providing everything, including national defense, a court system, every single thing, then I don't know why you even bring up the Constitution, much of which is expressly antithetical to that point of view.

It is surprising that this system that suposedly works so well as never been tried anywhere. So I don't know how we would prove or disprove your contentions.


----------



## Dexman1349 (Oct 8, 2008)

csb said:


> I'm pretty sure Boulder and Colorado Springs are pretty much polar opposites to a higher degree than Texas and California! It would essentially be like putting Cheech and Chong and the Pope in a van for a road trip.
> There, I brought us back to religion  Discuss the Tao of Cheech. I'll start:
> 
> "Duuuuuddddeee."



I was just trying to illustrate the population differences. Trying to take a system that can't appease a few hundred thousand will fail miserably when the population is in the millions.

Cheech &amp; Chong and the Pope in a van for a road trip? That sounds like something that you would see in the spring linup on Fox...


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 8, 2008)

Dexman1349 said:


> Try not to overgeneralize people and create bias based on views held by a small percentage. It's like saying Mexicans prefer to eat beans and rice.


:thumbs: :appl:


----------



## Supe (Oct 8, 2008)

chaosiscash said:


> So is it OK to pray before a college football game?


You can, but it doesn't work if you're an Ohio State fan. :smileyballs:


----------



## csb (Oct 8, 2008)

Dexman1349 said:


> I was just trying to illustrate the population differences. Trying to take a system that can't appease a few hundred thousand will fail miserably when the population is in the millions.
> Cheech &amp; Chong and the Pope in a van for a road trip? That sounds like something that you would see in the spring linup on Fox...


I was just saying the differences in just the school populations (CU versus USAFA) was huge, let alone the actual towns. I was agreeing with you.

Crap. I need to copyright the idea before it's a reality show.

Would people really "buy" roads if the government didn't provide them? Would you "buy" welfare?


----------



## snickerd3 (Oct 8, 2008)

csb said:


> Would people really "buy" roads if the government didn't provide them? Would you "buy" welfare?


Wasn't that was the original point of the tollway system? Now states rob that fund to pay for lots of other non road things.


----------



## csb (Oct 8, 2008)

But they would need to form big groups to pay for anything...Like E-470 in Colorado was set up that way, but it's one of the few tollroads anywhere in the region and so it struggles. There are too many "free" roads around. How much would it change travel if EVERY road were a toll road or needed some fund to draw from? Would your neighborhood street become sponsored by some big company? Like instead of Main Street it would be Xcel Energy Street, like major ballparks. I'm intrigued.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 8, 2008)

csb said:


> But they would need to form big groups to pay for anything...Like E-470 in Colorado was set up that way, but it's one of the few tollroads anywhere in the region and so it struggles. There are too many "free" roads around. How much would it change travel if EVERY road were a toll road or needed some fund to draw from? Would your neighborhood street become sponsored by some big company? Like instead of Main Street it would be Xcel Energy Street, like major ballparks. I'm intrigued.


Origins of our country, thats exactly what roads consisted of. That's where the term 'turnpike' comes from, as roads were typ manned by sometimes nefarious companies who would allow paid passers thru by raising or turning the pike [edit: not a fish] which blocked the way. Actual origins are from BC biblical times. . .tied back to religion (kidding)


----------



## csb (Oct 8, 2008)

I guess if it was all you knew, you'd go for it. However, taking the America we have today and dropping the government out of it seems like it would yield much different results.


----------



## snickerd3 (Oct 8, 2008)

csb said:


> But they would need to form big groups to pay for anything...Like E-470 in Colorado was set up that way, but it's one of the few tollroads anywhere in the region and so it struggles. There are too many "free" roads around. How much would it change travel if EVERY road were a toll road or needed some fund to draw from? Would your neighborhood street become sponsored by some big company? Like instead of Main Street it would be Xcel Energy Street, like major ballparks. I'm intrigued.


I guess it depends on the area. In IL (tollways only in northern IL) there are lots of "free" roads for commuters, but it will take you forever. The tollways are bumper to bumper traffic, but they are the most direct route and still shorter than the "free" roads.

Our lovely governor doubled the price of tolls if you pay cash a few years ago. Even with our Ipass system, people I know pay $3/day just in tolls....but I'm getting off topic...


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 8, 2008)

Off topic indeed - but on that note, come up to MI and see our lovely, non-toll roads, with i believe the most lenient weight restrictions concerning commericial hauling - all with the joys of rampant frost heave &amp; aggressive snow removal tactics. Mudpuppy? Gymrat? can i get an amen?!

(whoops back to religion, i keep doing that. . .)


----------



## IlPadrino (Oct 8, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> IThere is not a single service or product that the US government provides to me that could not be provided cheaper, better, and more efficiently by the private sector. If people want something, there will be somebody there to sell it to them...roads, education, police, arbitration, etc.


I'm all for smaller government, but this ABSOLUTE statement is absurd if you mean to say the free market will always step in to provide services - and the fair market price will settle on what the demand is willing to pay the supply. There are just too many barriers to entry for many "services and products". And, really, are you saying you'd trust every government function to a private organization? What about the government itself? Oh... right... you're an anarchist - you don't need no stinkin' government!

I hope this discussion remains civil... it's always interesting to learn how others unlike me think. It's the whole point of DIVERSITY.


----------



## IlPadrino (Oct 8, 2008)

Dexman1349 said:


> Try not to overgeneralize people and create bias based on views held by a small percentage. It's like saying Mexicans prefer to eat beans and rice.


I don't understand why it's wrong to say Mexicans prefer to eat beans and rice. They do.

Just like Italians like to eat pasta and Chinese like to eat... well... Chinese food! These are well observed generalizations - not accurate for the entire population but valid nonetheless.

It was funny, though, the other day when the guys moving my furniture asked me to pick them up lunch. They were all from Central America but wanted me to get them Chinese food!


----------



## Dexman1349 (Oct 8, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> It was funny, though, the other day when the guys moving my furniture asked me to pick them up lunch. They were all from Central America but wanted me to get them Chinese food!


I was getting lunch at the mall last weekend and was standing in line for chinese food. I looked over at the BBQ place to see a young chinese couple... Oh the irony!


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 8, 2008)

benbo said:


> You're right. The argument is pointless because although I agree with some of what you say, I get the impression you are one of these anarcho-capitalists, who as far as I know don't really even believe in the Constitution or Congress or courts or anything. If you believe in the free markets providing everything, including national defense, a court system, every single thing, then I don't know why you even bring up the Constitution, much of which is expressly antithetical to that point of view.
> It is surprising that this system that suposedly works so well as never been tried anywhere. So I don't know how we would prove or disprove your contentions.


Let's see...

National Defense: Well, we fought the Revolutionary War before we had our own government...and even as huge underdogs, we prevailed over the most powerful military in the world at that time. If our national security was truly being threatened, there is no doubt in my mind that we could and would bond together to fight for our common good against foreign threats. Right now, I don't feel like our government is fighting to protect our national security, or even our best interests, by starting wars in places that do not have any affect us.

Court System: Most, if not all, contracts have an arbitration clause in them that states that a neutral arbitrator gets to decide on any disputes before a lawsuit is filed. I don't see how this system couldn't completely replace our court system. Not to mention the fact that there is a HUGE conflict of interest every time an individual citizen is sued by the government. The judge's paycheck is signed by one of the parties in the lawsuit.

Education: Private and parochial schools have existed forever, and will likely exist forever because the level of education in public schools is sub-standard.

Roads: The toll-road example has already been hashed out. If there is competition between competing routes, then the quality of the roads will improve and costs will be kept in check in order to gain/maintain market share.

And let me preempt the whole cost issue. Do you think that you could afford to pay for the goods and services currently provided to you by the government, on an a la carte basis, if you instantly had 30% more income (i.e. taxes were eliminated)? Would you be more willing to donate to charitable institutions to help the less fortunate pay for these services? I know I would, on both accounts.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 8, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> I hope this discussion remains civil... it's always interesting to learn how others unlike me think. It's the whole point of DIVERSITY.


Me too, but emotions tend to run high when you attack largely unquestioned ideals and faiths of people. I know that I can remain civil about it, but I have met very few on the other side that are willing to have an in-depth conversation about these things.


----------



## benbo (Oct 8, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Let's see...
> National Defense: Well, we fought the Revolutionary War before we had our own government...and even as huge underdogs, we prevailed over the most powerful military in the world at that time. If our national security was truly being threatened, there is no doubt in my mind that we could and would bond together to fight for our common good against foreign threats. Right now, I don't feel like our government is fighting to protect our national security, or even our best interests, by starting wars in places that do not have any affect us.
> 
> Court System: Most, if not all, contracts have an arbitration clause in them that states that a neutral arbitrator gets to decide on any disputes before a lawsuit is filed. I don't see how this system couldn't completely replace our court system. Not to mention the fact that there is a HUGE conflict of interest every time an individual citizen is sued by the government. The judge's paycheck is signed by one of the parties in the lawsuit.
> ...


I'll just pick one point. Ever heard of the Continental Congress? We may not have had the same exact Constiutional Republic we have now during the Revolutionary War but there was a governmental system or at least the framework of one in place, both for each colony and overall. If I remember my history this was in place during the war, and that's why we have recognizable governmental and military leaders from that time.

It is pointless to argue this. I believe in a smaller form of government, but I just don't know if the system you put forth would work, and I don't believe it has ever been tried anywhere on a large scale, without other governmental entities to "pick up the slack." For example, I don't see anybody or company volunteering to say, deliver a single post card to a shack in Montana for less than a dollar. I don't believe anybody could profit doing that. I am not unhappy with everything government does, nor am I happy with everything done in private industry. My cell phone service is a perfect example. My regulated land line is a lot more reliable.

But I'm not saying you are not correct. I can't prove it one way or the other. I still don't know who sets the laws in your society, or how they are set.

So I'm done here. Maybe somebody else will pick up the gauntlet.


----------



## benbo (Oct 8, 2008)

I will also add that if I remember correctly, the Continental Congress had a heck of a time getting the colonies to pay their fair share for the war, and resorted to printing up money and borrowing. Sound familiar? That may be why they rich guys who also ended up funding a lot fo it put the power to raise revenue in the constitution. And they had financial incentives to pay for most of the war.

And once again, you claim you want to be civil, but then state that anybody who disagrees with you is operating off of "largely unquestioned ideals and faiths". Believe me, I'm 51 years old and have been hearing, thinking and debating about this stuff for over 30 years, since I first heard all about the Trilateral Commission at work and how a dollar isn't really a dollar.


----------



## Road Guy (Oct 8, 2008)

I'll talk politics with anyone anyday but wont touch religion with a 10' pole!


----------



## frazil (Oct 8, 2008)

are we still talking about religion?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 8, 2008)

benbo said:


> It is pointless to argue this. I believe in a smaller form of government, but I just don't know if the system you put forth would work, and I don't believe it has ever been tried anywhere on a large scale, without other governmental entities to "pick up the slack." For example, I don't see anybody or company volunteering to say, deliver a single post card to a shack in Montana for less than a dollar. I don't believe anybody could profit doing that. I am not unhappy with everything government does, nor am I happy with everything done in private industry. My cell phone service is a perfect example. My regulated land line is a lot more reliable.
> But I'm not saying you are not correct. I can't prove it one way or the other. I still don't know who sets the laws in your society, or how they are set.


2 points...

1. Do you think it is coincidence that there has never been a government-free society in the recorded history of man, yet every society has eventually collapsed under its own weight (see Roman, Byzantine, Greek, etc. Empires).

2. If you are haggling the price of something, do you start by making your offer at the absolute highest price you are willing to pay? I don't...I low ball the hell out of them, hoping that we will eventually meet at my pre-determined number. I would like a VERY small government (i.e. nothing more than what is expressly mentioned in the Constitution). That would be the compromise that I would like to reach with hardcore, liberal statists. So I start at the other extreme...anarcho-capitalism. That isn't to say that I don't think anarcho-capitalism won't work. I think that if everybody bought into the concept, then we would have a much more civilized and wealthy society as a whole.



benbo said:


> And once again, you claim you want to be civil, but then state that anybody who disagrees with you is operating off of "largely unquestioned ideals and faiths". Believe me, I'm 51 years old and have been hearing, thinking and debating about this stuff for over 30 years, since I first heard all about the Trilateral Commission at work and how a dollar isn't really a dollar.


Me saying that something isn't questioned doesn't mean that it is wrong. It just means that people don't/can't discuss them in a civil manner in order to somehow meet in the middle. It's either "you agree completely with my view" or "you are an idiot". BTW, you attacked me for being an atheist and an anarcho-capitalist, neither of which represent my views 100%. It is true I lean towards both of those philosophies, but you seem to be trying to pigeon-hole me into a stereotype that you can attack with your anecdotes, or set up straw men to destroy in my place.

I don't have your longevity in discussing these issues, but I have done a great deal of research into both my political and religious views. If you are willing to debate them, I'll be here.


----------



## benbo (Oct 8, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Me saying that something isn't questioned doesn't mean that it is wrong. It just means that people don't/can't discuss them in a civil manner in order to somehow meet in the middle. It's either "you agree completely with my view" or "you are an idiot". BTW, you attacked me for being an atheist and an anarcho-capitalist, neither of which represent my views 100%. It is true I lean towards both of those philosophies, but you seem to be trying to pigeon-hole me into a stereotype that you can attack with your anecdotes, or set up straw men to destroy in my place.If you are willing to debate them, I'll be here.


I'll address your points -

1. Yes, I know those societies collapsed. I just don't feel you have any proof that your society would work, especially since there are really no examples ot look at.

2. I understand your positions are nuanced.

I don't think calling somebody an atheist or an anarcho-capitalist is an insult. Those are points of view, not personal characteristics. I don't believe I've called anybody an idiot, except maybe TMcKeon or GT_ME. Obviously you've thought this through, and maybe I jumped to a conclusion by thinking that you were accusing all believers or "statists" of being illogical, mindless, brainwashed automatons. If I misunderstood, then I apologize for that.

I don't see any point in debating this, since we are talking past each other. You believe my points are anecdotes or straw men and refuse to discuss them. Maybe they are, and I'm probably doing the same. Bottom line, I don't think either of us is going to change their minds, so it's not worth the electrons.


----------



## maryannette (Oct 8, 2008)

My! My! :reading:


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 8, 2008)

benbo said:


> I don't see any point in debating this, since we are talking past each other. You believe my points are anecdotes or straw men and refuse to discuss them. Maybe they are, and I'm probably doing the same. Bottom line, I don't think either of us is going to change their minds, so it's not worth the electrons.


Which is the usual conclusion to these types of threads...but it usually goes a lot longer and gets a lot more personal. I said I wanted to avoid it, but I guess I lied. I used to have these types of debates all the time, which is when I learned a great deal of the information that has shaped my beliefs. I could do without all the insults and personal attacks that these threads bring*, but I enjoy learning about others views.

* Not talking about you...just in general.

By the way, I didn't take offense to you calling me an atheist...it was more the "oh, you're one of _those_ guys that thinks all us Christians are stupid" tone to your post. Then, I got the "oh shit, he's an anarchist nut job" vibe out of your other post.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 8, 2008)

Nietzsche says "out of chaos comes order"

"Ah, blow it out your ass Howard"

-- Blazing Saddles


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 8, 2008)

Very interesting thread, but I'm keeping my mouth shut. I have a feeling if I opened it I would offend 90% of the people here. Plus I don't have the energy to debate benbo.

But, I will say:



error_matrix said:


> Off topic indeed - but on that note, come up to MI and see our lovely, non-toll roads, with i believe the most lenient weight restrictions concerning commericial hauling - all with the joys of rampant frost heave &amp; aggressive snow removal tactics. Mudpuppy? Gymrat? can i get an amen?!(whoops back to religion, i keep doing that. . .)


Yep.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 9, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> Very interesting thread, but I'm keeping my mouth shut.



Second the motion.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 9, 2008)

An opinion kept to oneself is essentially worth nothing, and contributes nothing (perhaps a wise choice?) - mentioning you have one but remain mum about it all the moreso. - I don't know why you guys are walking on eggshells all up in here. . .

not sayin', i'm just sayin'. . .


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 9, 2008)

I subscribe to the idea that my religious beliefs are my business. I do not like to force my beliefs down someone else's throats.


----------



## engineergurl (Oct 9, 2008)

Note my silence... it is definitly an interesting topic to discuss but not debate because a debate is essentially trying to prove one or the other is right. This just doesn't work with religion... you either have faith in something or you don't. I personally enjoy DISCUSSING religions other then mine because I find that the ultimate basis for it all is the underlying teaching of being a good human being and I love to learn about the practices and traditions and understandings of it all and there are some totally cool things to learn. (Hence the "ooohhh this could be fun" statement)

As far as the religious influence on politics... well there is no doubt that there is one. I will NOT debate let alone discuss who should be making what laws, what laws are fair, where our tax money should be going or any of that here. That is for another thread...

Now do I care if I offend someone by simply expressing what my faith is and how I feel... not really, but I don't feel that I should in some situations because I understand that others have different or no faith in a higher being and sometimes it's just not the time or place (ie. I could get in trouble at work maybe?!?)... but if I have an open invitation or feel the situation is right... way cool.


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 9, 2008)

I don't want my opinoins out there for most of the world to see. I'd be happy to debate privately in an approriate setting. I just don't feel this is the appropriate setting.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 9, 2008)

Hmmm.... To be honest, this is the first time I've run across the term "anarcho-capitalism". That's kind of how I've always viewed most Libertarians as leaning, except for when it comes to government services that they (individually) feel are worth taxing for.

Well whatever you want to call it, I would say that the future portrayed in Mike Judge's _Idiocracy_ is what would probably result from anarcho-capitalism.

Also, having worked on the side of government, and based on experience with even the best-intentioned coprorations doing the bare-minimum to treat their wastes, and then only because they are "forced to" by government, I am absolutely convinced that anarcho-capitalism would result in a public health and environmental disaster. And I choose the term "disaster" deliberately. I can only assume that letting human weakness dominate the way society is run would also cause similar disasters in other parts of our lives, but I can only speak from what I have observed...


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 9, 2008)

Dleg said:


> I can only assume that letting *human weakness* dominate the way society is run would also cause similar disasters in other parts of our lives, but I can only speak from what I have observed...


Can I ask you what a government is besides a collection of humans that have influence over the lives of other humans? Instead of every human suffering from their own weaknesses (as would be the case in an anarchy), we are suffering from our own weaknesses _plus_ the weaknesses of those in the government.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 9, 2008)

^Absolutely not. Government, at least as far as American government goes, is an attempt to take such weakness into account and operate a system that, if run properly, cancels those weaknesses through the checks and balances set up by the constitution. It is, on its very face, an attempt to set aside those human weaknesses and develop a set of rules that make sure that all important decisions are made with a level-headed, rational consideration of the good of the many versus the good of the few.

What is the overriding philisophy of anarcho-capitalism, in how it would be "best" for society as a whole? In what way would anarcho-capitalism prevent a public health catastrophe resulting from the reluctance to deal with wastes? The way I see it, the expense and trouble of dealing with wastes would be ignored until it became so desirable (e.g., in the event that catastrophe strikes) that the private sector sees a potential profit, and the public at large are willing to pay for it. In other words, by the time it's too late, and great Auntie Petunia and little Jo-jo have already died of cholera or the plague...


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 9, 2008)

Dleg said:


> ^Absolutely not. Government, at least as far as American government goes, is an attempt to take such weakness into account and operate a system that, if run properly, cancels those weaknesses through the checks and balances set up by the constitution. It is, on its very face, an attempt to set aside those human weaknesses and develop a set of rules that make sure that all important decisions are made with a level-headed, rational consideration of the good of the many versus the good of the few.


And are there unicorns in the forest that fart rainbows? That's a very noble view of what government is supposed to be, but in reality, the magnified weaknesses of politicians are thrust upon the people while we are being told that it is all for our own benefit.



Dleg said:


> What is the overriding philisophy of anarcho-capitalism, in how it would be "best" for society as a whole? In what way would anarcho-capitalism prevent a public health catastrophe resulting from the reluctance to deal with wastes? The way I see it, the expense and trouble of dealing with wastes would be ignored until it became so desirable (e.g., in the event that catastrophe strikes) that the private sector sees a potential profit, and the public at large are willing to pay for it. In other words, by the time it's too late, and great Auntie Petunia and little Jo-jo have already died of cholera or the plague...


If the first quoted section of your post is what you think government is, then anarcho-capitalism isn't for you. The government isn't there to solve all of our problems for us...never should have been, and I don't think that is what the Constitution set out to do. Personal responsibility is the central governing thought of both anarchy and libertarianism. If there is a serious health risk, then you better get to work solving the problem before you die. First person to invent the solution wins, and can become very wealthy selling said solution (i.e. the capitalist part of anarcho-capitalism). Second person to solve the problem also becomes wealthy and provides competition to the first person (i.e. a check/balance). If one of the providers is seen to be corrupt or greedy by the population, they will buy from the other guy, and the first guy _won't_ become wealthy.

Having a large central provider as the government breeds helplessness and laziness. Instead of people taking responsibility for their actions and suffering the consequences, they just look to Big Brother to bail them out (see: the current housing bailouts).


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 9, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> And are there unicorns in the forest that fart rainbows? That's a very noble view of what government is supposed to be, but in reality, the magnified weaknesses of politicians are thrust upon the people while we are being told that it is all for our own benefit.


I apologize preemptively for this ad hominem personal attack. I would delete it, but that would be dishonest.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 9, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> And are there unicorns in the forest that fart rainbows? That's a very noble view of what government is supposed to be, but in reality, the magnified weaknesses of politicians are thrust upon the people while we are being told that it is all for our own benefit.
> If the first quoted section of your post is what you think government is, then anarcho-capitalism isn't for you. The government isn't there to solve all of our problems for us...never should have been, and I don't think that is what the Constitution set out to do. Personal responsibility is the central governing thought of both anarchy and libertarianism. *If there is a serious health risk, then you better get to work solving the problem before you die. First person to invent the solution wins, and can become very wealthy selling said solution (i.e. the capitalist part of anarcho-capitalism). Second person to solve the problem also becomes wealthy and provides competition to the first person (i.e. a check/balance). If one of the providers is seen to be corrupt or greedy by the population, they will buy from the other guy, and the first guy won't become wealthy.*
> 
> Having a large central provider as the government breeds helplessness and laziness. Instead of people taking responsibility for their actions and suffering the consequences, they just look to Big Brother to bail them out (see: the current housing bailouts).


If you fail to see how this falls apart when talking about a society-level issue like public health, then perhaps you should stop smoking whatever it is that is giving you the rainbow-farting hallucinations about your own plan. (Hey - you chose not to delete it)

The basic idea is that people (and especially profit-oriented corporations) generally don't want to do something that is preventative in nature, or that is aimed at everyone (i.e., not only their "customers"), until the need for it smacks them in the face. By the time you get to the point of needing to invent the cure, the plague has already happened. And all those folks who happen to not be able to afford the "cure" whatever it is - medicine, basic sanitation, a safe drinking water supply) will still get those diseases AND spread them to the folks who paid to supposedly insulate themselves from the problem. Same thing with certain environmental problems - once a resource is spoiled, it is spoiled for everyone. Not just those who neglected it in the first place.

Hence the term "public" health, and the very real and very necessary function of government in providing for a certain minimum level of service to everyone, not just those who can afford it.


----------



## PE-ness (Oct 10, 2008)

I wish I was smart enough to debate these important issues with you guys, but I'm afraid my head just isn't big enough to contain more than one thought at a time. And it pretty much contains only one. All the time.

But then again, that keeps things nice and simple for me.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 10, 2008)

Dleg said:


> The basic idea is that people (and especially profit-oriented corporations) generally don't want to do something that is preventative in nature, or that is aimed at everyone (i.e., not only their "customers"), until the need for it smacks them in the face. By the time you get to the point of needing to invent the cure, the plague has already happened. And all those folks who happen to not be able to afford the "cure" whatever it is - medicine, basic sanitation, a safe drinking water supply) will still get those diseases AND spread them to the folks who paid to supposedly insulate themselves from the problem. Same thing with certain environmental problems - once a resource is spoiled, it is spoiled for everyone. Not just those who neglected it in the first place.
> Hence the term "public" health, and the very real and very necessary function of government in providing for a certain minimum level of service to everyone, not just those who can afford it.


Benbo nailed it when he said that nobody knows if anarcho-capitalism would work because it has never been given the old college try. But free market economics dictates that if there is demand for something, somebody WILL provide it.

The problem is that the US has never enjoyed a truly free market. Government regulation and testing is a bigger barrier to entry than just about anything else, and I'm sure you will argue for its necessity, but there have been numerous reports of dangerous drugs and food items "slipping past the goalie" even with FDA oversight. Then you have the government mandated monopolies like the local power companies. This is more a state or local function (in the case of power), but it is a monopoly nonetheless.

And finally you have Intellectual Property rights (patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.). This is one of the places where I can't decide if I agree 100% with anarcho-capitalism. They say that IP laws stifle competition, allowing the inventor to enjoy a monopoly on the sale of a product for a period of time which hurts the consumer. Lack of a competing product allows for artificially high price, and less innovation on the product. BUT, I say that lack of IP laws would stifle innovation. If company A invests a lot of time and money inventing a widget, releases it to market at a price required to recoup R&amp;D costs, then company B reverse engineers the widget, and puts an exact replica on the market at a much reduced price, then company A makes no profit on their R&amp;D effort. The incentive to invent is diminished. Then again, people still haven't figured out the recipe to KFC Original Recipe chicken or Coke Classic, so maybe it is still possible to keep trade secrets without the government.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 10, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Then again, people still haven't figured out the recipe to KFC Original Recipe chicken...


Oh, I beg to differ...

http://www.recipezaar.com/58947

I think this may be the real deal. Look at the # calories/serving, and the # calories from fat. Sweet Jebus!


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 10, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> Oh, I beg to differ...
> 
> http://www.recipezaar.com/58947
> 
> I think this may be the real deal. Look at the # calories/serving, and the # calories from fat. Sweet Jebus!





> The Original Recipe is not packaged in three different places. The way it is cooked and the process makes it taste like it has eleven herbs and spices when in reality there is not. The way it is done in the restaurant is using dried eggs and milk in the flour along with a box of breading salt and the seasoning bag and a bag of breading flour.


Well, they sure are going to a lot of trouble to protect a recipe that is already a non-secret.


----------



## MGX (Dec 30, 2008)

I'm Methodist.

I love reading/debating/studying different religions and philosophies, but they all seem to lead to a dead end. There is always a leap of faith to be made in order to arrive at any conclusions as far as I can tell, otherwise we'd all be agnostics. A philosophy degree would be a wonderful expenditure of energy and fascinating to no end as a lifetime study, but how incredibly useless it is to feed a family!

I recently re-watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" TV miniseries and it floors me each time I view it. The photos of galaxies and their dimensions either make me think any god must be incredibly large and awesome or so tiny to be irrelevant in proportion to the entirety of existence. Having a sense of wonder about how everything works and the majesty of it all with a sense of skepticism are invaluable. I also think that we, as a society, can have this debate without bloodshed is fantastic.


----------



## Dleg (Dec 30, 2008)

^There was that one episode of Cosmos, about the concepts of additional dimensions and infinity, I think, where he broached the subject. I always have thought that was one of the most thought-provoking and well-done pieces of television I have ever seen. I saw it when I was maybe 13 or 14, and it helped shaped the way I think about things even today. Definitely one of those "Whoa Dude!" moments.

(I own the series on DVD, by the way. Excellent viewing for anyone interested in science, let alone astronomy or physics)


----------



## maryannette (Dec 31, 2008)

MGX said:


> ....
> There is always a leap of faith ....
> 
> I recently re-watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" TV miniseries and it floors me each time I view it. The photos of galaxies and their dimensions either make me think any god must be incredibly large and awesome or so tiny to be irrelevant in proportion to the entirety of existence. Having a sense of wonder about how everything works and the majesty of it all with a sense of skepticism are invaluable. I also think that we, as a society, can have this debate without bloodshed is fantastic.


I worked in manufacturing for 20 years. I thought often about the amount of planning, design work, coordination, testing, etc. that went into making one fairly simple product. Compared to that, the universe is billions of times more complex. The conclusion: surely the universe was designed; it didn't just "happen".

Should we switch to pirate avatars in 2 weeks?


----------



## SSmith (Dec 31, 2008)

mary:) said:


> I worked in manufacturing for 20 years. I thought often about the amount of planning, design work, coordination, testing, etc. that went into making one fairly simple product. Compared to that, the universe is billions of times more complex. The conclusion: surely the universe was designed; it didn't just "happen".


Using your same logic, for several thousand years now it has been well understood what it means in an _engineering sense_ for something to float. The conclusion: no man could have ever walked on water.

That aside--who said things had to 'happen?' Why couldn't things just have always been? The idea of things beginning and ending could very well be a human artifact due to our short timelines and nothing else.


----------



## maryannette (Dec 31, 2008)

SSmith said:


> Using your same logic, for several thousand years now it has been well understood what it means in an _engineering sense_ for something to float. The conclusion: no man could have ever walked on water.
> That aside--who said things had to 'happen?' Why couldn't things just have always been? The idea of things beginning and ending could very well be a human artifact due to our short timelines and nothing else.


No argument from me. I can't talk you into having faith and you can't talk me out of it. I'm just sharing a different perspective.


----------



## benbo (Dec 31, 2008)

SSmith said:


> That aside--who said things had to 'happen?' Why couldn't things just have always been? The idea of things beginning and ending could very well be a human artifact due to our short timelines and nothing else.


Not to get into any religious implications, which is futile as Mary suggested. However, I don't know of any theory of cosmology that holds the universe has existed and will exist in it's current state forever. Some sort of changes "happened" in all the theories I know about (Big Bang, steady state). Not to mention evolution

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you posted.

Edit: For me, it is impossible to conceive of something 'starting" - which means there was nothing before it. I can't conceive of nothing. It is also impossible for me to conceive of something always being. So I don't try to think about this anymore.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Dec 31, 2008)

benbo said:


> Not to get into any religious implications, which is futile as Mary suggested. However, I don't know of any theory of cosmology that holds the universe has existed and will exist in it's current state forever. Some sort of changes "happened" in all the theories I know about (Big Bang, steady state). Not to mention evolution
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you posted.
> 
> Edit: For me, it is impossible to conceive of something 'starting" - which means there was nothing before it. I can't conceive of nothing. It is also impossible for me to conceive of something always being. So I don't try to think about this anymore.


This is where I think both religious and agnostic definitions of the beginning of the World/Universe break down. According to agnostics/physicists, there was nothingness, then the universe exploded forth from an infinitely small and infinitely dense piece of matter. Religious folks say that the universe was created by their deity of choice. Neither can explain what produced that tiny, dense piece of matter or deity. There is a fairly large disconnect in both theories.

You say you can't conceive of something "starting" or "always being", then how do you make the connection that God either had to spring forth from nothingness or have always been?


----------



## maryannette (Dec 31, 2008)

You know, that is one of my questions. I've always believed that everything comes from God, but where did God come from? I don't know all the answers, but I have faith.


----------



## SSmith (Dec 31, 2008)

mary:) said:


> No argument from me. I can't talk you into having faith and you can't talk me out of it. I'm just sharing a different perspective.


I just do not understand how on one hand your engineering sense can affirm your faith, but then you choose to ignore that same sense when it points out a potential discontinuity. ::shrug::


----------



## benbo (Dec 31, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> This is where I think both religious and agnostic definitions of the beginning of the World/Universe break down. According to agnostics/physicists, there was nothingness, then the universe exploded forth from an infinitely small and infinitely dense piece of matter. Religious folks say that the universe was created by their deity of choice. Neither can explain what produced that tiny, dense piece of matter or deity. There is a fairly large disconnect in both theories.
> You say you can't conceive of something "starting" or "always being", then how do you make the connection that God either had to spring forth from nothingness or have always been?


First of all, I don't know how you assumed anything about what I believe about God. Maybe you can point out where I posted somehting like what you wrote here.

But since you mentioned it, that's what faith is about. I'm not claiming to fully understand it, and certainly not trying to prove it. The difference is that I wouldn't claim that I could, unlike most scientists.


----------



## SSmith (Dec 31, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> According to agnostics/physicists, there was *nothingness,* then the universe exploded forth from an infinitely small and infinitely dense *piece of matter.*


There is a rather large contradiction in this statement. Physicists don't try to explain the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang theory explain the phenomena that we observe today back to an infinitely dense point, but not before that point. Google "what happened before the Big Bang" to see some of the different theories about it.


----------



## maryannette (Dec 31, 2008)

I can't explain it, either. Logically, I struggle sometimes defending my faith. But, faith is more than logic. For me, it is a relationship with God. I know that must sound really stupid to some people, that I have a relationship with a being that is imaginary in many senses. I can't explain my emotions and relationships. I can't tell you why I am in love with my husband. When I met him, I said, "I wouldn't want to marry him." But I did and we've been married nearly 30 years. That defies logic. Some things I just accept. I accept that I have a good marriage, despite not being attracted to my husband initially. I accept that I am a Christian, despite the disconnects. I just am what I am. I'm comfortable with that.


----------



## SSmith (Dec 31, 2008)

I'm sure you are aware that comparing your husband to a superstitious ideal is hardly comparing apples to apples.

I don't understand the people that *want* to believe in something more than their sense allows. I want to believe that it isn't raining today so I could bag the leaves I raked yesterday. I want to believe it really badly... But no matter how hard I want to believe it's not raining, I can look out the window and see the rain falling. No amount of faith could change that fact.

The religious perspective would be that I just didn't have enough faith.



mary:) said:


> I can't explain it, either. Logically, I struggle sometimes defending my faith. But, faith is more than logic. For me, it is a relationship with God. I know that must sound really stupid to some people, that I have a relationship with a being that is imaginary in many senses. I can't explain my emotions and relationships. I can't tell you why I am in love with my husband. When I met him, I said, "I wouldn't want to marry him." But I did and we've been married nearly 30 years. That defies logic. Some things I just accept. I accept that I have a good marriage, despite not being attracted to my husband initially. I accept that I am a Christian, despite the disconnects. I just am what I am. I'm comfortable with that.


----------



## benbo (Dec 31, 2008)

SSmith said:


> I'm sure you are aware that comparing your husband to a superstitious ideal is hardly comparing apples to apples.
> I don't understand the people that *want* to believe in something more than their sense allows. I want to believe that it isn't raining today so I could bag the leaves I raked yesterday. I want to believe it really badly... But no matter how hard I want to believe it's not raining, I can look out the window and see the rain falling. No amount of faith could change that fact.


First of all, she is not comparing her husband to a religious ideal. She is comparing an emotion, which is certainly not a tangible thing. I believe in a lot of things I cannot see, touch, see under a microscope or rationally explain. I believe in things like love, and joy, and the pleasure that I get from listening to music. I would certainly forgo my own rational survival instinct to save my child, my wife, or even my friend. All of these things to me go far beyond chemical interactions in the brain, or patterns on an EEG.

And what is truly inconceivable to me is that there is no purpose to this universe other than the physical events which happen. It is not a matter of wanting to beleive this. I just believe it.

I understand that you don't understand this. I also don't understand your point of view. That's what makes the world go around.


----------



## maryannette (Dec 31, 2008)

SSmith said:


> I'm sure you are aware that comparing your husband to a superstitious ideal is hardly comparing apples to apples.
> I don't understand the people that *want* to believe in something more than their sense allows. I want to believe that it isn't raining today so I could bag the leaves I raked yesterday. I want to believe it really badly... But no matter how hard I want to believe it's not raining, I can look out the window and see the rain falling. No amount of faith could change that fact.
> 
> The religious perspective would be that I just didn't have enough faith.


Well, I've got just the right amount of faith for me, and I guess that's what counts.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Dec 31, 2008)

benbo said:


> First of all, I don't know how you assumed anything about what I believe about God. Maybe you can point out where I posted somehting like what you wrote here.But since you mentioned it, that's what faith is about. I'm not claiming to fully understand it, and certainly not trying to prove it. The difference is that I wouldn't claim that I could, unlike most scientists.


It could have been the ass-reaming that you gave me on the first page of this thread for daring to suggest that engineers might have a propensity towards agnosticism.

I was just applying your direct quote of "Edit: For me, it is impossible to conceive of something 'starting" - which means there was nothing before it. I can't conceive of nothing. It is also impossible for me to conceive of something always being. So I don't try to think about this anymore." to your apparent belief in God expressed on page 1 of this thread.


----------



## benbo (Dec 31, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> It could have been the ass-reaming that you gave me on the first page of this thread for daring to suggest that engineers might have a propensity towards agnosticism.
> I was just applying your direct quote of "Edit: For me, it is impossible to conceive of something 'starting" - which means there was nothing before it. I can't conceive of nothing. It is also impossible for me to conceive of something always being. So I don't try to think about this anymore." to your apparent belief in God expressed on page 1 of this thread.


Okay - I can see how you might assume that I beleive in God because of something I wrote way back when. I don't want to debate that. I still don't see how that has anything to do with the statement you had a problem with. I used the term "conceive" specifically in my statement here rather than believe. I meant definition 3 for conceive below, as opposed to definition 1 for believe.

Definitions of conceive –

1.To become pregnant with (offspring).

2.To form or develop in the mind; devise: conceive a plan to increase profits.

3.To apprehend mentally; understand: couldn't conceive the meaning of that sentence.

4.To be of the opinion that; think: didn't conceive such a tragedy could occur.

5.To begin or originate in a specific way: a political movement conceived in the ferment of the 1960s.

Definitions of believe –

1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real &lt;ideals we believe in&gt;

2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something &lt;believe in exercise&gt;

3: to hold an opinion : THINK &lt;I believe so&gt;transitive verb


----------



## SSmith (Dec 31, 2008)

Huh? Comparing a superstitious ideal to an emotion is a likewise comparison? I'm inclined to think the below post is a complete non sequitur.



benbo said:


> First of all, she is not comparing her husband to a religious ideal. She is comparing an emotion, which is certainly not a tangible thing. I believe in a lot of things I cannot see, touch, see under a microscope or rationally explain. I believe in things like love, and joy, and the pleasure that I get from listening to music. I would certainly forgo my own rational survival instinct to save my child, my wife, or even my friend. All of these things to me go far beyond chemical interactions in the brain, or patterns on an EEG.
> And what is truly inconceivable to me is that there is no purpose to this universe other than the physical events which happen. It is not a matter of wanting to beleive this. I just believe it.
> 
> I understand that you don't understand this. I also don't understand your point of view. That's what makes the world go around.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Dec 31, 2008)

benbo said:


> I used the term "conceive" specifically in my statement here rather than believe. I meant definition 3 for conceive below, as opposed to definition 1 for believe.


Touche. I tend not to believe (accept as true, genuine, or real) in things that I cannot conceive (form or develop in the mind). This is why religion represents a logical leap that I am incapable of making.


----------



## benbo (Dec 31, 2008)

SSmith said:


> Huh? Comparing a superstitious ideal to an emotion is a likewise comparison? I'm inclined to think the below post is a complete non sequitur.


You're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## benbo (Dec 31, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Touche. I tend not to believe (accept as true, genuine, or real) in things that I cannot conceive (form or develop in the mind). This is why religion represents a logical leap that I am incapable of making.


I should have been more clear in my terminology.


----------



## maryannette (Dec 31, 2008)

God bless all of you.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Dec 31, 2008)

I suppose what I don't understand in all of this is why it bothers some of you so much for some of us to believe in a God. It certainly doesn't bother me that some of you choose not to believe.


----------



## EM_PS (Dec 31, 2008)

SSmith said:


> I'm sure you are aware that comparing your husband to a superstitious ideal is hardly comparing apples to apples.
> I don't understand the people that *want* to believe in something more than their sense allows. I want to believe that it isn't raining today so I could bag the leaves I raked yesterday. I want to believe it really badly... But no matter how hard I want to believe it's not raining, I can look out the window and see the rain falling. No amount of faith could change that fact.
> 
> The religious perspective would be that I just didn't have enough faith.


Speaking of apples to apples. . .you're comparing the belief structure of the whole of organized religion known to mankind to bagging leaves on a rainy day, of which you attempt to believe said day is in fact not rainy!?

You're comparing something that cannot be proven nor unproven, to something that can be ascertained by looking out your window. Hardly a valid comparison.

edit top of page :bananalama: - - oh, wrong thread


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Dec 31, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> I suppose what I don't understand in all of this is why it bothers some of you so much for some of us to believe in a God. It certainly doesn't bother me that some of you choose not to believe.


It doesn't bother me. It's just something that I don't understand and would like to discuss in order to learn more about it. I'm like this with everything, but most other topics aren't met with hostility so readily.


----------



## SSmith (Dec 31, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> I suppose what I don't understand in all of this is why it bothers some of you so much for some of us to believe in a God. It certainly doesn't bother me that some of you choose not to believe.


When we are talking amongst those who build our nation's bridges, design our city's buildings, electrical and road infrastructure, that engineer our nation's defense, it bothers me greatly that there is a part of them that puts reason and sanity aside for whatever reason.


----------



## chaosiscash (Dec 31, 2008)

SSmith said:


> When we are talking amongst those who build our nation's bridges, design our city's buildings, electrical and road infrastructure, that engineer our nation's defense, it bothers me greatly that there is a part of them that puts reason and sanity aside for whatever reason.


Wow. If you knew what I did and what I believe (along with a great many of the people I work with) you'd really freak out. I don't think my beliefs are any detriment to me doing my job well and safely.

Have a safe and happy new year.


----------



## SSmith (Dec 31, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> Speaking of apples to apples. . .you're comparing the belief structure of the whole of organized religion known to mankind to bagging leaves on a rainy day, of which you attempt to believe said day is in fact not rainy!?
> You're comparing something that cannot be proven nor unproven, to something that can be ascertained by looking out your window. Hardly a valid comparison.


Um, no. I was making the comparison of having a belief structure that only half aligns with what people already know is sensibly right. Back to my example--If I want to believe it is rainy outside, my FIRST action is to look outside to see if it's rainy. I don't say "well I believe it's rainy" and never look outside because I have a new found belief that it is raining. That is I am going to evaluate the evidence first, then make sure my belief system aligns with what is empirically true. Not the other way around.

Lets put the creation discussion aside for a minute. Here is a short list of things that people have called me crazy for not believing:

1. Man can walk on water.

2. 2 loaves bread/5000 servings &gt; 2 loaves of bread

3. Man can live in the belly of a fish for 3 days. (Are there even fish that large that live in the shallow water regions?)

4. Man came before dinosaurs. (But Adam named ALL the beasts of the field.)

How any engineer can believe any 1 of the above 4 things scares me. I just hope they don't apply the same level of faith to their work.


----------



## tymr (Dec 31, 2008)

mary:) said:


> God bless all of you.






Chucktown PE said:


> I suppose what I don't understand in all of this is why it bothers some of you so much for some of us to believe in a God. It certainly doesn't bother me that some of you choose not to believe.






chaosiscash said:


> Wow. If you knew what I did and what I believe (along with a great many of the people I work with) you'd really freak out. I don't think my beliefs are any detriment to me doing my job well and safely.
> Have a safe and happy new year.


Ditto. I would say Holy Cow but I think that's hindu. I am having trouble discerning if the "opposing" side is vehemently angry or not. I must admit that I tiptoed over here against my better judgment.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Dec 31, 2008)

SSmith said:


> When we are talking amongst those who build our nation's bridges, design our city's buildings, electrical and road infrastructure, that engineer our nation's defense, it bothers me greatly that there is a part of them that puts reason and sanity aside for whatever reason.



You're rather arrogant to 1) think that only those who are agnostic are capable of being engineers 2) to think that we're insane for believing in God and 3) think that there is no possible way in the universe that you may be wrong. I have to infer from your post that for some reason you think that I put Newtonian physics aside when I'm designing a wastewater plant and just trust that God is going to take care of it. Believe it or not, those of us who are Christians are not simple mindless myrmidons that ignore the natural world around us and believe that the earth is flat. This probably sounds ridiculous but when I see billions upon billions of microbes all performing a function seamlessly I think that all of that order couldn't possibly occur spontaneously and I haven't heard modern science deliver an explanation for that among many other things. I was a Christian long before I went to school to become an engineer and during school/academics I didn't find anything that contradicted my belief in God. It bothers me that there are people out there that refuse to open their minds to the possibility that they may be incorrect about something.

I can't explain Jonah and the whale, the dinosaur issue, or the loaves feeding 5000. I also can't explain where matter came from or string theory. Let's just accept the fact that in religion as in science, there are some things that have to be taken on faith.


----------



## SSmith (Dec 31, 2008)

Chucktown PE said:


> I have to infer from your post that for some reason you think that I put Newtonian physics aside when I'm designing a wastewater plant and just trust that God is going to take care of it.


So how did man walk on water if you don't put Newtonian physics aside? Asked a different way--when do you decide to put Newtonian physics aside to create a situation where man walking on water aligns with something different than what is empirically true?



Chucktown PE said:


> You're rather arrogant


Name calling now? Anyways--Arrogant? Probably not. Vocal? Most definitely.


----------



## EM_PS (Dec 31, 2008)

SSmith said:


> Um, no. I was making the comparison of having a belief structure that only half aligns with what people already know is sensibly right. Back to my example--If I want to believe it is rainy outside, my FIRST action is to look outside to see if it's rainy.


And see that's my point. You can't look back into the 20 - 30 AD time, and ascertain whether Peter truly walked on water. Were they on a sand bar? was there flotsam &amp; jetsom that he may have actually stepped upon? Or maybe, just maybe, being in the presence of God, at the command of God, did he truly walk on water? Moses did many 'engineering defying' things at the command of &amp; through the power of God. This takes me back to the post i made on page 1 (#46) where i stated you pretty much take the leap of faith from sentence one in the Bible. Can you disprove any of it? Of course it doesn't make sense by the laws of physics as we know it, but either God can do these things, and if he created the heavens &amp; the earth, i'd have to say he could, or you simply don't believe in God in any way shape or form. That said, see the following. . .



SSmith said:


> 1. Man can walk on water.2. 2 loaves bread/5000 servings &gt; 2 loaves of bread
> 
> 3. Man can live in the belly of a fish for 3 days. (Are there even fish that large that live in the shallow water regions?)
> 
> ...


Does it really matter what you pick out of the bible to support your argument? If you don't believe in God at jumpstreet, what possible consequence are any subsequent passages within the bible? Did Eve truly eat of the apple (or was it actually Adam slipping up)? Did Cain truly murder Abel? Was Lot's wife really turned into a pillar of salt? Does it really matter if the underlying belief in God the creator isn't there at all?

You're being combative &amp; challenging (IMO) when you throw in the statement about being scared of engineers who believe, and hoping our work isn't somehow subpar based on our spiritual faith. I for one, do not question your work or ability to engineer based on what you've stated in our little online community - I guess i would respectfully ask that you hold your armchair judgement of your peers to yourself out of the lack of tangible data you actually have available to make such a judgement.

Happy New Year!


----------



## SSmith (Dec 31, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> Can you disprove any of it?


See that's exactly the point. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, not with those who are saying it doesn't make sense.

If I said I could fly, you would naturally say "prove it!" You would throw the BS flag with such a quickness if I just responded by saying "well you can't prove that I can't fly."


----------



## EM_PS (Dec 31, 2008)

SSmith said:


> See that's exactly the point. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, not with those who are saying it doesn't make sense.
> If I said I could fly, you would naturally say "prove it!" You would throw the BS flag with such a quickness if I just responded by saying "well you can't prove that I can't fly."


Hmm, i see your point - but typ, the burden of proof actually lies with those who challenge what has been written &amp; recorded historically from the dawn of civilized time, and what whole cultures &amp; societies practice &amp; believe in. Imagine if things were the other way around - organized religion as we know it never existed; no Bible, Torah, Quran, etc. Then along comes a group who begin to talk about the existence of a divine creator. Who does the burden of proof lie with then? Why would it be any different for nonbelievers trying to 'debunk' the existence of God, despite 1000's of years of written texts and cultural history? You're basing your argument strictly on what you know of science, phyics, and engineering today. . .does that mean 1000's of years of history was all just convenient myth &amp; legend? where then is your proof. . .


----------



## SSmith (Dec 31, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> Why would it be any different for nonbelievers trying to 'debunk' the existence of God, despite 1000's of years of written texts and cultural history? You're basing your argument strictly on what you know of science, phyics, and engineering today. . .does that mean 1000's of years of history was all just convenient myth &amp; legend?


So if I write it down that I can fly and repeat it through my family for generations to the point that I'm given the nickname "Flying Smitty", that means I could actually fly? Absolutely not. Regardless of the degree of acceptance of the falsehood, it doesn't change the fact that it never occurred. The ones making the claim that "Flying Smitty" actually flew have to prove that it indeed occurred.

The very same rules apply here. Except for when its inconvenient to apply them.


----------



## EM_PS (Dec 31, 2008)

SSmith said:


> So if I write it down that I can fly and repeat it through my family for generations to the point that I'm given the nickname "Flying Smitty", that means I could actually fly? Absolutely not. Regardless of the degree of acceptance of the falsehood, it doesn't change the fact that it never occurred. The ones making the claim that "Flying Smitty" actually flew have to prove that it indeed occurred.
> The very same rules apply here. Except for when its inconvenient to apply them.


Its complicated. Belief in God (or a divine creator if you will) doesn't mean blanket acceptance or belief in all things irrational. I believe in God. i believe a man named Jesus Christ walked this earth &amp; I believe he was truly man, truly God. I believe in a non-literal interpretation of the bible &amp; have faith in the accounts contained within it. I do not believe _you_ could fly, or any man could walk on water, or part the seas, turn rivers to blood, etc outside of that which has been chronicled in the Bible. Is God alive &amp; well today? I hope so. . .could modern day Peters &amp; Moses truly be performing similar miracles through the power of the Lord? I don't know. . . i think i'd be in your camp, and want somebody to "show me". Something happened significantly enough way back in the annals of time for these 'legendary stories' to be recorded thru time. . .i would think if something similar today occured, the evidence or proof of it would be at least as signicant(?)

I dunno. . .time to watch a movie &amp; wait for midnite - this thread is fun

take er easy, Flying Smitty :beerchug: see ya in the New Year!


----------



## Chucktown PE (Dec 31, 2008)

SSmith said:


> So how did man walk on water if you don't put Newtonian physics aside? Asked a different way--when do you decide to put Newtonian physics aside to create a situation where man walking on water aligns with something different than what is empirically true?
> 
> Name calling now? Anyways--Arrogant? Probably not. Vocal? Most definitely.



It's very convenient how you take one or two comments in a post out of context and then try to use that against whoever posted it. I said I don't put Newtonian physics aside when I'm designing a wastewater plant. And there are some things I can't explain which is where faith comes in. And yes, you are arrogant (which isn't name calling) to believe that some how you are the arbiter of who is or is not a good engineer based on their person spritual beliefs.


----------



## maryannette (Dec 31, 2008)

Since miracles have been mentioned, I thought I would share what I consider a miracle.

A friend, JB, who was in his early 50's at the time, had a routine check-up and was scheduled for a colonoscopy. Routine. That's all. Well, during the colonoscopy, the doctor found a growth in JB's intestine. Further tests revealed that JB had a large malignant growth in his abdomen which could not be totally removed because it was wrapped around intestines and organs. Surgery was done to remove as much of the tumor as possible and a section of his colon. After the surgery, we found out that the doctor's diagnosis was stage 4 colon cancer which had metastisized to pancreas, liver, and lymph system. This meant that JB would probably not live a year. He went through 2 rounds of chemo and a second surgery and is now 100% cancer-free. He got past the 5-year mark.

I know that science is advancing medical treatments. My way of looking at it is that science has to evolve to keep up with what God can do. There are new scientific theories all the time. So, where is the limit for science? When circumstnaces exceed what science can explain, what then?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 1, 2009)

mary:) said:


> Since miracles have been mentioned, I thought I would share what I consider a miracle.
> A friend, JB, who was in his early 50's at the time, had a routine check-up and was scheduled for a colonoscopy. Routine. That's all. Well, during the colonoscopy, the doctor found a growth in JB's intestine. Further tests revealed that JB had a large malignant growth in his abdomen which could not be totally removed because it was wrapped around intestines and organs. Surgery was done to remove as much of the tumor as possible and a section of his colon. After the surgery, we found out that the doctor's diagnosis was stage 4 colon cancer which had metastisized to pancreas, liver, and lymph system. This meant that JB would probably not live a year. He went through 2 rounds of chemo and a second surgery and is now 100% cancer-free. He got past the 5-year mark.
> 
> I know that science is advancing medical treatments. My way of looking at it is that science has to evolve to keep up with what God can do. There are new scientific theories all the time. So, where is the limit for science? When circumstnaces exceed what science can explain, what then?


That's the great thing about science, it can explain a lot of nature, and fix a lot of problems. Cancer treatment has made fairly recent advancements in our society, so it may still seem like a miracle to people that cancer can be cured. In 100 years, it will probably be as exciting as putting neosporin on a cut to make it heal faster. For an example of this, see Ra, the sun god to the ancient Egyptians. Ra was used to explain the rising and setting of the sun every day because people hadn't discovered the rotation of the planet yet. Now it seems ridiculous to believe that a deity hauls the sun into the sky in his barge every day.

What if doctors had simply just prayed for JB to get better? Do you think that simple faith in God would have saved his life without the two surgeries and chemotherapy? I think the increase in life expectancy from, say, 100 years ago proves that advances in science and medicine have proven to be more useful than faith in God.


----------



## SSmith (Jan 1, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> It's very convenient how you take one or two comments in a post out of context and then try to use that against whoever posted it.


Most people would say responding to comments provided by another with a different perspective is called a _discussion_. If _you_ don't want to be a part of that discussion, then _you_ probably shouldn't throw your comments into said discussion. But it is certainly not a fault for those that choose to participate in that discussion.



Chucktown PE said:


> I said I don't put Newtonian physics aside when I'm designing a wastewater plant. And there are some things I can't explain which is where faith comes in.


That was why I asked where you draw the line between where Newtonian Physics applies and where it doesn't. Very much in context of how _you_ used it.



Chucktown PE said:


> And yes, you are arrogant (which isn't name calling) to believe that some how you are the arbiter of who is or is not a good engineer based on their person spritual beliefs.


Again, this is you adding value where I have not. We are all arbiters of what makes an engineer "good" or "bad" as that gauge is as personal as the sum of our experiences to that point in time. I am simply expressing my perspective on the matter as it relates to the discussion at hand.

If you can't see how calling someone arrogant is calling them a name, then  .


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jan 1, 2009)

SSmith said:


> Most people would say responding to comments provided by another with a different perspective is called a _discussion_. If _you_ don't want to be a part of that discussion, then _you_ probably shouldn't throw your comments into said discussion. But it is certainly not a fault for those that choose to participate in that discussion.
> 
> That was why I asked where you draw the line between where Newtonian Physics applies and where it doesn't. Very much in context of how _you_ used it.
> 
> ...


I don't have a problem if you comment on my post as a whole, it's taking one half of one sentence and then trying to use that to contradict something else I wrote is what I have a problem with. That is the definition of taking something out of context.

And we are not all arbiters of what makes an engineer "good" or "bad". There are State boards established for that so until you find yourself in one of those seats, or there are laws on the books that say you can't sit for the PE unless you profess to be agnostic I'd say you can keep your opinion that some of us aren't good engineers because we believe in a God to yourself. And once again, it is very arrogant for you to think you can judge the quality of some of our work that you have never seen based on whether or not we do or do not believe in God.

I have explained the Newtonian physics issue well enough. If you don't understand where I draw the line then it seems to me you are being purposely combative.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 1, 2009)

Happy 2009!

Literal intreptation of the bible leads down no path of beneficial consequence. Remember the Hebrew origins &amp; authors of the bible.



> Throughout the centuries, the christian church has been influenced by Greek thought, which packages "truth" in propositions with which we can argue, agree or disagree - Two common examples:
> 1. The bible was dictated by God to the writers and is therefore inerrant. By using reason, we can deduce fundamental propositions which must be accepted:
> 
> - doctrines that we must believe.
> ...


FWIW, Lutheran teaching defends Hebrew thought over Greek thought.


----------



## chaosiscash (Jan 1, 2009)

SSmith,

As far as the "using or setting aside of Newtonian Physics to do design work" argument goes, I can tell you how I look at it.

Two of my most basic beliefs (which I realize some may not agree with, but I'm telling you what I believe) are:

1. There is a God.

2. I'm not him.

Just because I believe that God has the ability (Omnipotence is one of the basic tenants of many organized religions, Christian in my example) to suspend the laws of physics in order to accomplish His will, doesn't mean I think I have the same power.

Basically, I believe that God, as an all-powerful entity, has the ability to accomplish the miracles that you pointed out (feeding of the 5000, walking on water, etc) as well as anything else that is part of His plan. I don't believe I have these powers, so when I design a facility, I stick with the rules.

I understand you don't believe the way I do, and thats fine by me. I think everyone has the right to believe what they want. I also realize that you probably disagree with item 1 of my beliefs above, and will require "proof" of it. All I can say to that is, a person either has faith, and understands what that means, or they don't. If you have any more questions about faith and my personal beliefs, feel free to PM me, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

However, while I encourage your questioning attitude and fully support your right not to believe, I do take offense to your statements that imply that only nonreligious engineers are competent in their jobs. To me, thats similar to saying that a persons ability to perform their engineering job safely or competantly is dependant on their race or sex. I just don't believe those factors apply to a person's job skills. I'm no GT_ME, but I'd be happy to compare my ability to perform my job with a group of random nonreligious engineers. I'd be willing to bet that I would perform worse than some, and better than some. Just as I feel that if you compared 1 random nonreligious engineer to a group of random religious engineers, that individual would also fall somewhere in the middle. I just don't see how one's religious beliefs (or race, sex, etc for that matter) impacts their ablility to do their job competantly.

Good luck in your search for information. I hope you at least see the position I am coming from, even if you don't agree with it. I definately understand how it would be hard (if not impossible) for one without faith to understand miracles. I just don't understand why you think it applys to one's job performance.


----------



## benbo (Jan 1, 2009)

It is hilarious that atheists cannot understand how believers can separate their belief in a God or creative force in the universe, from using the laws and theories of physics. Most believers attribute the creation of those laws to the supreme being.

The originator of the Big Bang theory was a Roman Catholic priest. Even Einstein, although he did not believe in a personal religious God, was probably a deist, and at least an agnostic. Likewise, Faraday and Pastuer, and numerous other scientists in history held beliefs in a creative God. Most of the framers of the Constitution were at least deists, and I don't believe they threw reason and sanity out the window in the performance of the duties of their daily life.

I can certainly understand rejection of organized religion, although, although i am a practitioner of one. I can also understand the notion of agnosticism - actually, I waiver between belief and agnosticism myself. But a confirmed atheist is relying on faith and belief just as much as anyone else. And a person who ridicules any possibliity of the existence of God must certainly be confirmed in their belief of His non-existence.

And the term "arrogance" is no more pejorative than the term "superstition."


----------



## SSmith (Jan 1, 2009)

benbo said:


> It is hilarious that atheists cannot understand how believers can separate their belief in a God or creative force in the universe, from using the laws and theories of physics. Most believers attribute the creation of those laws to the supreme being.


So if the laws sometime apply or if your God is able to turn them off, doesn't that mean they aren't laws then? All it takes is 1 point of data to disprove a physical law as they represent the sum of human existence knowledge for that specific phenomena. So if man did walk on water, then the scientific law (Archimedes' principle in this case) is not a law. Belief that laws sometime don't apply necessarily means (albeit weakly) that laws aren't laws at all. This is exactly the reason I can't understand how someone can be a good engineer and be religious.



benbo said:


> And the term "arrogance" is no more pejorative than the term "superstition."


The word applies aptly. Superstition: an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear.


----------



## benbo (Jan 1, 2009)

SSmith said:


> So if the laws sometime apply or if your God is able to turn them off, doesn't that mean they aren't laws then? All it takes is 1 point of data to disprove a physical law as they represent the sum of human existence knowledge for that specific phenomena. So if man did walk on water, then the scientific law (Archimedes' principle in this case) is not a law. Belief that laws sometime don't apply necessarily means (albeit weakly) that laws aren't laws at all. This is exactly the reason I can't understand how someone can be a good engineer and be religious.
> 
> The word applies aptly. Superstition: an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear.


Arrogant also applies to you. def. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others.

You obviously believe your "logical" way of thinking is superior to others.

Like most atheists, you tend to infantilize religious arguments, reducing them to things like faith healing. And if you think that the current "laws" of science explain every phenomenon in the universe and will explain every phenomenon in the universe that will arise, then you are far more of a "believer" than me. And you have disregardd the history of physics, as somebody tried to explain to you. If you think Mr. Newton's "laws" apply in every referecne frame, as they did in his time, perhaps someone should introduce you to Mr. Einstein. "Logical" people now know that these "laws" only apply in certain inertial reference frames, but that knowledge is fairly recent historicaly. Did the knowlege of relativistic exceptions to Newton's laws, negate them in whole (as you state here)? Not as far as I know.

People can separate their beliefs in miraculous events which fall outside the norms of our intertial refernce frame, with the use of laws and theories in their daily lives. You either simply cannot or will not understand this, so it is pointless to argue it.

Then you insult people by saying they cannot do their jobs because they beliveve, although countless creative and briliant people through history have believed. I'm sure your contributions doing whatever it is you do far exceed those of people such as Faraday.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 1, 2009)

SSmith said:


> So if the laws sometime apply or if your God is able to turn them off, doesn't that mean they aren't laws then? All it takes is 1 point of data to disprove a physical law as they represent the sum of human existence knowledge for that specific phenomena. So if man did walk on water, then the scientific law (Archimedes' principle in this case) is not a law. Belief that laws sometime don't apply necessarily means (albeit weakly) that laws aren't laws at all. This is exactly the reason I can't understand how someone can be a good engineer and be religious.
> 
> The word applies aptly. Superstition: an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear.


Who / what created all things as we know them to exist? Not Archimedes. . .not Newton. . . Einstein. . . Heisenberg etc etc - If a deity created the heavens &amp; earth, why why why can't you wrap your head around said deity having the ability to manipulate the very universe &amp; all "laws" of whatever science as we know them to exist?

Who made law? Who calls them law? Mankind, right? Does mankind know all things? I certainly hope you don't think that you &amp; everything you know in your little sphere of existence in this grand universe we live in is the be all, end all limit of all things worth knowing. It is now you sir, who alarms me in your ability to be a good engineer when you try to explain the things you speak of WITHOUT the existence of deisitic or theistic hypothesis. You are coming across as boorish &amp; incredibly narrowminded when you discount the idea of a grand architect, yet try to solicit explainable solutions to the stories that are based on a deity. Far greater men than you have accepted or adopted ideas of deism &amp; theism. . .your absolute steadfast refusal to even consider these things in my mind makes you far less worthy of the type of mind I would want representing the health &amp; welfare of society at large.


----------



## maryannette (Jan 1, 2009)

I will just say, God bless all of you. I mean no disrespect or harm to anyone, but I am a Christian and I'm pretty sure that a discussion will not change that. I'm also pretty sure that it will not convert anyone who does not want to be a Christian. I still hope God blesses you.

Happy New Year!!!


----------



## benbo (Jan 1, 2009)

mary:) said:


> I will just say, God bless all of you. I mean no disrespect or harm to anyone, but I am a Christian and I'm pretty sure that a discussion will not change that. I'm also pretty sure that it will not convert anyone who does not want to be a Christian. I still hope God blesses you.
> Happy New Year!!!


Agreed Mary. I don't think I could ever change anybody's mind. And I frankly don't care. I do not believe that in general people can be "convinced" into or out of religious faith. I just don't dig it when atheists insult huge groups of people saying they cannot do their jobs because they are religious. I believe historical facts prove this to be completely invalid.


----------



## maryannette (Jan 1, 2009)

benbo said:


> Agreed Mary. I don't think I could ever change anybody's mind. And I frankly don't care. I do not believe that in general people can be "convinced" into or out of religious faith. I just don't dig it when atheists insult huge groups of people saying they cannot do their jobs because they are religious. I believe historical facts prove this to be completely invalid.


I agree with you, benbo, but I guess it doesn't bother me as much. I don't get mad, I just forgive them ... and pray for them.


----------



## benbo (Jan 1, 2009)

mary:) said:


> I agree with you, benbo, but I guess it doesn't bother me as much. I don't get mad, I just forgive them ... and pray for them.


I know. I've got to work on that. One resolution blown already! :brickwall:


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 1, 2009)

It has been my MO not to stick my faith or beliefs to others. You...me... WE... have free will and that means you can believe whatever we want. I heard someone saying once that people hide after religion, faith or whatever you want to call it, to give themselves hope because they are just losers. They think that God will come down of his throne and make a miracle to fix their pathethic lives.

I do not believe that. I choose to have faith no matter what. Reasons? I just want to and that is the way I have raised my kids. For years I have heard the way my In Laws compare my kids with their other grandkids, specially my FIL(a person that I love since he trully is a father to me). They have pointed to the social life of their other grandkids and how much fun they have. They say that my kids are shy, antisocial etc.

My kids, I realize, are not what you would call tipical kids. They are very close to us and have only few friends. They will prefer to spend their free time in family than going out with their friends, which they do every now and then. We, actually, encourage them to go out since we know their friends and their families.If you check my oldest son's I-Pod 90% of the songs are Christian songs. Him, by his own choice(we do not attend any church) decided to surround himself with Christian friends. His social group in college is the Christian Group. Again, him, the antisocial childish kid(he has been called like that by his Grandpa) decided to be that way in contrast of my FIL's oldest Grandson, who goes out with his friends in boats, hangs out in Pubs for Christmas and New Year Eve and is with beautiful girls all the time. I have seen his pics in MySpace ad Facebook.

Not so long ago my BIL had to go and pick up his son at the Police Station. He was drunk and coming back from a Pub totalled his Dad's SUV. It was a *miracle*, and I mean it, he was not injured. The only reason he walked away of the incident without DUI charges was because no one was injured, the only damaged property was my BIL's SUV, and the police officer's Dad is a detective and neighbor on the exclusive sub-division my BIL lives. I will take my shy, antisocial and childish behavior of my kids anytime better than having to go to pcuk up any of them at a police station or at a hospital because they were wasted with their friends. My In Laws can keep comparing them and saying how much better the others are over my kids. I don't give a hoot about it.

You might think is irrelevant but I bring this because there are different behaviors based on different beliefs here. Again, you can believe whatever you want but, as it was written in Joshua's, me and my house will serve the Lord. I respect what other people believe, even if it is not the same thing I do believe. But, I am convinced, there is a God. There are people that go to church because the fish and the bread. They think that going to church is a shield against bad things an they will become wealthy and will never suffer in life. Good Luck with that if you are in that group.

Did I see the Red Sea splitting?....Nope. But I believe it happened.

Did I see Jesus walking on water?...Nope. But I believe it happened

Did I see an empy tomb?...Nope. But I know is empty because he raised.

Can anyone see the electric current? Nope. But go and stick a fork inside an electric outlet. I can guarantee...you are going to feel it.

Do I see the wind?...Nope. But I feel it the same way I feel God is out there and....is a heck of an engineer.


----------



## SSmith (Jan 1, 2009)

benbo said:


> Arrogant also applies to you. def. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others. You obviously believe your "logical" way of thinking is superior to others.


At _no_ point in this thread have I claimed to be a good engineer--just that I didn't understand religious engineers. That argument is a false dichotomy fallacy that I am sure you are aware of.



benbo said:


> Like most atheists, you tend to infantilize religious arguments, reducing them to things like faith healing. And if you think that the current "laws" of science explain every phenomenon in the universe and will explain every phenomenon in the universe that will arise, then you are far more of a "believer" than me.


It is the role of science to explain phenomena we don't understand. The current laws may be wrong, but it would take observable and repeatable experimentation to replace them.



benbo said:


> And you have disregardd the history of physics, as somebody tried to explain to you.


Not really sure how the history of physics is important to any part of the discussion here. In particular the religious views of people who lived several hundred years ago.



benbo said:


> If you think Mr. Newton's "laws" apply in every referecne frame, as they did in his time, perhaps someone should introduce you to Mr. Einstein. "Logical" people now know that these "laws" only apply in certain inertial reference frames, but that knowledge is fairly recent historicaly. Did the knowlege of relativistic exceptions to Newton's laws, negate them in whole (as you state here)? Not as far as I know.


Newton's Laws aren't invalidated, but only have their reference frame adjusted. Instead of applying to all reference frames, they now apply to constant mass reference frames. Not sure the point here either.



benbo said:


> People can separate their beliefs in miraculous events which fall outside the norms of our intertial refernce frame, with the use of laws and theories in their daily lives. You either simply cannot or will not understand this, so it is pointless to argue it.


Fair enough. How do you define a "miraculous event"? Is there a constant definition or does it apply to everyone's different reference frame?



benbo said:


> Then you insult people by saying they cannot do their jobs because they beliveve, although countless creative and briliant people through history have believed. I'm sure your contributions doing whatever it is you do far exceed those of people such as Faraday.


Again, this is you adding value to what I said that wasn't there. I never said religious people couldn't do their jobs. I'm sure you are aware that Faraday's reference frame is much different than ours. He also came from a time/place that disenfranchised people and had debtors prison, perhaps we should also adopt those beliefs as well?


----------



## benbo (Jan 1, 2009)

SSmith said:


> Again, this is you adding value to what I said that wasn't there. I never said religious people couldn't do their jobs. I'm sure you are aware that Faraday's reference frame is much different than ours. He also came from a time/place that disenfranchised people and had debtors prison, perhaps we should also adopt those beliefs as well?


As far as arrogance, your arrogance is with regard to the superiority of your belief or non-belief system, not with whether you are a superior engineer.

Obviously, many people here inferred from your post that you were implying religious engineers couldn't adequately perform their jobs. That was what I inferred. And all this stuff about debtors prison, I don't know what that has to do with anything. THere were believing engineers then, there are believing engineers now.

I believe you implied that religious people could not be good scientists or engineers because their "superstition" would get in the way of logic. I am saying that obviously there is an exception to the rule because Faraday and many others were able to separate those beliefs. What difference does it make that people were disenfranchised? I completely don't understand that point. And it is the same now, at least in some cases, because I have been working as an engineer for many years, as have many of the people posting here. THese are people who perform complicated successful design, have patents to their names, and are well regarded in their profession. My bosses seem to understand that I can do my job fine, for some reason it doesn't matter to them what I believe.

I am not saying there are not universal laws. I am just saying that man does not yet, nor will he probably ever, understand all the nuances and exceptions to those laws.

I'm done, I wish I never got started in this discussion. It is completely pointless.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 1, 2009)

Ssmith -

I accept the fact that you do not accept a theistic hypothesis in your walk of life. I cannot understand why you seek then to try to explain accounts from the Bible without predication of the theistic hypothesis of which the book is based on.

I can accept your point of view and in so doing, i would (stochastically speaking) accept the null hypothesis; that is that there is no, nor ever has been, a God. In accepting this null hypothesis, i discount the whole of organized religion &amp; all texts therein. I would not, could not, trip up on trying to explain passages from a book of which i don't even believe in.

Obviously, i accept the theistic hypothesis, reject the null hypothesis, and in so doing am comfortable in the accounts and passages contained in the Bible. My point is that trying to explain the accounts of biblical text without accepting the theistic hypothesis (there IS a God) is "striving after wind" as Solomon put it.

Its fine, your beliefs - you've demonstrated a persistent narrowminded approach to analyzing a situation. you refuse to accept the only hypothesis that can support the situation, yet point to those who do accept it as being questionable in their vocations; when in fact you've spotlighted yourself as being limited &amp; judgemental in your approach to problem solving.


----------



## maryannette (Jan 1, 2009)

benbo said:


> I'm done, I wish I never got started in this discussion. It is completely pointless.


I'm absolutely sure it was not pointless. :th_rockon:


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 1, 2009)

Arrogant, boorish, narrow-minded, infantile, judgmental. Just some of the words that caught my eye as I skimmed through this thread.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 1, 2009)

mudpuppy said:


> Arrogant, boorish, narrow-minded, infantile, judgmental. Just some of the words that caught my eye as I skimmed through this thread.


Yeah, I really wish it was possible to have a civil discussion about religion, but it is just such a passionate topic for people (either for or against) that it almost always degrades into name calling before any meaningful discussion can take place.


----------



## benbo (Jan 1, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Yeah, I really wish it was possible to have a civil discussion about religion, but it is just such a passionate topic for people (either for or against) that it almost always degrades into name calling before any meaningful discussion can take place.


I must be different than most people (well, I am pretty sure that's true). I find those words pretty tame, and this discussion fairly reasonable and interesting on both sides. Especially compared to some stuff I've read.

And that's even after being accused of abandoning my sanity.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 1, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Yeah, I really wish it was possible to have a civil discussion about religion, but it is just such a passionate topic for people (either for or against) that it almost always degrades into name calling before any meaningful discussion can take place.


i tried, Lord knows i kept it friendly on my end for purpose of civil discourse. . .dude wouldn't drop the implication that being religious somehow precludes one from being a worthy engineer, nor can he seem to get a grip on the fact that there are of a surety powers out there far greater than we can comprehend in our current state of 'knowing'. dude's got all the answers apparently.

- so much for the exhaustive analysis of possible explanations &amp; hypotheses an engineer typically brings to the table - hello narrowminded, inside-the-box way of thinking  .


----------



## SSmith (Jan 1, 2009)

Ive been out doing family stuff the past few hours (about to go back out again); but judging from the tenor of the last few posts, it sounds like the point-counterpoint discussion has ended. It was a good run while it lasted, but maybe its time to close the thread? Can I get a second?


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jan 1, 2009)

For whatever reason, the following joke by Emo Phillips is what runs through my head any time the subject of religion comes up:



> * I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said,
> "Stop! Don't do it!"
> 
> "Why shouldn't I?" he said.
> ...


----------



## maryannette (Jan 1, 2009)

SSmith said:


> ... maybe its time to close the thread? Can I get a second?


It will just go back into the archives and somebody will drag it back up in the future. And, I expect I will still be here offering my illogical, undefendable witness.

God bless us.


----------



## benbo (Jan 1, 2009)

SSmith said:


> Can I get a second?


Amen.

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 1, 2009)

SSmith said:


> Ive been out doing family stuff the past few hours (about to go back out again); but judging from the tenor of the last few posts, it sounds like the point-counterpoint discussion has ended. It was a good run while it lasted, but maybe its time to close the thread? Can I get a second?


This thread died a fairly quick death the first time, then got drug up again a few days ago. I still think it's fun to discuss, even if it can't remain civil for more than a few hours at at time.


----------



## SSmith (Jan 1, 2009)

benbo said:


> Amen.
> Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.


When you throw a hanging changing-up high and over the center of home plate, you got to expect the batter to swing away.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 1, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> This thread died a fairly quick death the first time, then got drug up again a few days ago. I still think it's fun to discuss, even if it can't remain civil for more than a few hours at at time.


Yeah, was surprised to see this thing get legs right during the New Year's holiday as it did - and it was fun. . .but I think Ssmith musta just been trollin' for his own chuckles on this one - he throws out statements like:



SSmith said:


> When we are talking amongst those who build our nation's bridges, design our city's buildings, electrical and road infrastructure, that engineer our nation's defense, _it bothers me greatly that there is a part of them that puts *reason and sanity* aside for whatever reason_.


and



SSmith said:


> This is exactly the reason I can't understand how someone can be a *good engineer and be religious*.


in an engineering forum in which he knows full well he's offending a significant percentage of the members here. When opinions are overly prejudiced, biased, ignorant, or based on refusal to accept or consider explanations or hypotheses outside of one's comfort margin, inflammatory commentary maybe should be held in check, as it certainly contributes nothing gainful to the conversation as a whole.

two things are definitively certain throughout all of history:

1.) You cannot prove the existence of God.

2.) You cannot disprove the existence of God.

no camp is less sane or reasonable than the other, in my book anyways - clearly isn't the case w/ all enquirers


----------



## maryannette (Jan 1, 2009)

SSmith said:


> When you throw a hanging changing-up high and over the center of home plate, you got to expect the batter to swing away.


And, I think in heaven, I'll be able to knock that one out of the park.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 1, 2009)

error_matrix said:


> he knows full well he's offending a significant percentage of the members here. When opinions are overly prejudiced, biased, ignorant, or based on refusal to accept or consider explanations or hypotheses outside of one's comfort margin, inflammatory commentary maybe should be held in check, as it certainly contributes nothing gainful to the conversation as a whole.


That would rule out a huge number of posts on this board. Just because some or most of the members find something offensive doesn't mean it should be censored. Heck, I find most of DVINNY's political propaganda and Chucktown's bailout rants to be offensive, but I just ignore them. I'm sure I could argue they are overly biased, ignorant or prejudiced but they represent the opinions of intelligent colleagues that I respect and I don't feel they should be censored.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jan 1, 2009)

mudpuppy said:


> That would rule out a huge number of posts on this board. Just because some or most of the members find something offensive doesn't mean it should be censored. Heck, I find most of DVINNY's political propaganda and Chucktown's bailout rants to be offensive, but I just ignore them. I'm sure I could argue they are overly biased, ignorant or prejudiced but they represent the opinions of intelligent colleagues that I respect and I don't feel they should be censored.



Chucktown got a shout out as an intelligent colleague. Hey Oh. I thought I was both unreasonable and insane after yesterday.

arty-smiley-048:


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 1, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> Chucktown got a shout out as an intelligent colleague. Hey Oh. I thought I was both unreasonable and insane after yesterday.
> arty-smiley-048:


That still may be true...just not because of your religious beliefs.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 1, 2009)

mudpuppy said:


> That would rule out a huge number of posts on this board. Just because some or most of the members find something offensive doesn't mean it should be censored. Heck, I find most of DVINNY's political propaganda and Chucktown's bailout rants to be offensive, but I just ignore them. I'm sure I could argue they are overly biased, ignorant or prejudiced but they represent the opinions of intelligent colleagues that I respect and I don't feel they should be censored.


Yeah, i get that, and no where did i suggest or condone censoring. . .my suggestion was to not be deliberately inflammatory so discussion doesn't go off-kilter, as it clearly did. And none of your examples carried the implication that those w/ opinions counter to said examples were somehow not worthy engineers (this is an engineering forum, right?) as Ssmith has done. He leaps to a kneejerk assessment based upon no credible, tangible data about _peers_ he knows next to nothing about? This guy is really a professional engineer representing safety &amp; welfare of the public at large? With those inductive reasoning "skills"? Yikes!

I don't know if Ssmith was intending to be deliberately incendiary by throwing those barbed comments in there, as GT_ME or T-McK has, or if he truly was just coarsely &amp; bluntly speaking his opinion, devoid of credible data as it may be. Whatev, i've said my piece on this - there are no grudges here


----------



## SSmith (Jan 2, 2009)

error_matrix said:


> if he truly was just coarsely &amp; bluntly speaking his opinion, devoid of credible data as it may be. Whatev, i've said my piece on this - there are no grudges here


You guys have fun continuing to pat each other on the back.

But if you honestly with a straight face believe that it is both sane and rational to think that a man walked on water, then more power to you. I don't and will continue to not understand how any engineer could. If you honestly believe that is is both sane and rational to believe that 2 loaves of bread divided amongst 5000 people some number greater than 2 loves of bread, then more power to you. I don't and will continue to not understand how any engineer could.

You can call that coarse, blunt, or lacking 'data' (whatever that means in this context), but the burden of proof that those things occurred lies on those making the claim that they happened. And to that end, the missing credible data does not lie on this end.



error_matrix said:


> This guy is really a professional engineer representing safety &amp; welfare of the public at large? With those inductive reasoning "skills"? Yikes!


Isn't this exactly the same argument I posed, in reverse? Interesting...


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 2, 2009)

SSmith said:


> But if you honestly with a straight face believe that it is both sane and rational to think that a man walked on water, then more power to you. I don't and will continue to not understand how any engineer could. If you honestly believe that is is both sane and rational to believe that 2 loaves of bread divided amongst 5000 people some number greater than 2 loves of bread, then more power to you. I don't and will continue to not understand how any engineer could.





error_matrix said:


> Ssmith -I accept the fact that you do not accept a theistic hypothesis in your walk of life. I cannot understand why you seek then to try to explain accounts from the Bible without predication of the theistic hypothesis of which the book is based on.


And i say it again, i cannot understand why you seek legitamization of accounts from a book without accepting the theistic hypothesis upon which the totality of it is predicated on. :screwloose:

Here's my straight-faced closing - I cannot legitamize the accounts chronicled within it without accepting the theistic hypothesis it is predicated on - no person can.

You're overdue for this :deadhorse:


----------



## benbo (Jan 2, 2009)

Like I said, I'm done arguing the faith vs non-faith issue. That's pointless. But I am concerned about SSmith's worries about engineers, since I'm certain he is probably spending a lot of time checking the religious beliefs of the people who design, build, and service the public conveyances he uses. I want to try to put his mind at ease.

Even assuming somebody believed in all the Biblical stories, engineers do not design based on one instance of history and one individual. No engineer sits down and bases his or her designs on Shaquille O'Neill, or David Blaine. No one can honestly think that religious engineers sit down and think "Well, I won't bother worrying about the strength of that footbridge, because as we know, eveybody can walk on water" No engineer is going to design a bridge that only a Biblical Jesus could safely use.

Despite any prejudices you may have to the contrary, religious people are able to compartmentalize just like everybody else. Just as other people put aside their philosophical beliefs, emotions,and passions when necessary, so do religious people. Much like jurors, who daily put aside beliefs, many correct, to judge cases based on the law, so do religious people. Granted, some kooks may not, but that is true of anybody who has any philosophical or personal belief or prejudice.

So if you are truly worried about the safety of designs, as you stated, you can start using roads and elevators now.


----------



## benbo (Jan 2, 2009)

To add one point. I know of no 100% logical person, except possibly Mr. Spock and that robot from "Lost in Space." And I'm glad of that. I know of people who believe in aliens from outer space, and that the FreeMasons control the world. There are probably some people on this website that believe those things. I don't believe it, but I won't fully discount it. And I don't assume those beliefs influence how they perform their technical work.

I have no logical or rational basis for the love I feel for my family, but it exists nonetheless and I'm better for it.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 2, 2009)

For grins, the reverse inane argument:

Christian vs Atheist:

Christian: Hey dude, got a sec?

Atheist: Hmm, alright.

Christian: What are your thoughts on the Bible?

Atheist: I don’t believe in God or his existence, therefore Bible is just historical myth &amp; legend. A glorified ‘Beowulf’ if you will.

Christian: Cool, I certainly love me some fiction! Ok, so how is it that God created the heavens &amp; earth out of nothingness?

Atheist: Dude, I told you, God doesn’t exist. . .no God, no Grand Creator.

Christian: Oh, right. So how then did Moses do all his feats with God's power, pretty crazy huh?

Atheist: Couldn’t have happened, remember, no God, thus no magical feats performed by Moses.

Christian: Right, right. So when God &amp; Satan were quarrelling over Job. . .

Atheist: Stop. No God, no Satan. Seeing the pattern yet?

Christian: Hmm, makes sense – So, when Christ was born, and a multitude of heavenly host appeared. . .

Atheist: No God, no son of God! You’re not quite getting this are you?

Christian: Christ was just a man then? Ok, so how did he feed the masses w/ 2 loaves of bread?

Atheist: Dude, seriously? There is no God, no Son of God, Jesus had to be just a man, He could not have done that!

Christian: Sheesh, ok, ok. So how then did he walk on water? No wait, how did he enable a mortal man to walk on water then, huh?

Atheist: Auuuughhhgghhhhhhhhh!

Christian: You’re not being very sane &amp; rational are you?


----------



## SSmith (Jan 2, 2009)

error_matrix said:


> For grins, the reverse inane argument


Too funny!


----------



## Dleg (Jan 4, 2009)

Damn, I sure missed a firestorm in this thread over the holiday weekend!

I feel the need to throw in my Grand Theft Auto metaphor again:

I had a revelation while playing Grand Theft Auto, Vice City on my PS2 a few years ago. Yeah, I know, you can't get much farther from good religious ideals than that game. But this was my revelation, which to me suddenly explained, in terms an engineer can understand, how there could possibly be such a disconnect between a created universe and its creator:

Imagine if you were one of the "innocent civilians" walking or driving around in the Grand Theft Auto world. Let's say it's Grand Theft Auto 99 - the 99th version where the innocent civilians have more sophisticated AI and can learn things on their own. You are a fully simulated little person. For all you know, the world you live in and see is all that exists, and you are free to come and go as you please. If you wanted to, you observe and deduce laws of physics that apply to things you see in this world. In fact, thousands of other AI bots that came before you have done so and have worked it out to the point that you believe there isn't much doubt that your universe has existed the way it has for a long, long time. They've even gotten so far that they've figured out that even the subatomic particles are composed of even tinier things called "strings" that appear to have no mass. Yep, they've figured out that even mass is just an illusion, a manifestation of energy.

Of course, the programmer(s) look at these deductions and are impressed with their design work - these AI bots are perilously close to discovering that the "strings" are actually just bits of data, corresponding to nothing physical whatsoever. The "universe" the AI bots live in is the result of hundreds of iterations of program design and refinements (remember that cheesy "Dinosaur World 2500" game series? Yeah they used the world model from that piece of crap), and at any given time, on any number of the thousands of PS1000's in existence, the universe in any particular game of Grand Theft Auto 99 could be as old as a few minutes, or several weeks, depending on when that particular game was booted up (i.e., sprang up from nothingness). And of course, some bots are actually controlled by real people, and the AI bots sometimes get all flustered trying to figure out these strange, unexplained events and remarkable "people" who spring up throughout their history to play games of "War" or "Rule the World" or "Investment Bank ing Tycoon" or just go around randomly killing bots and destroying things. And even more rarely, the moderators of the game will let a bad player slip through who uses cheats, to either play "God" and try to start a new religion, or just zip around seeing the sights, confusing the hell out of the AI bots, who think they've seen an alien spaceship that can defy the laws of physics.

So if you want an engineering explanation of how a man walking on water can be explained, you could try thinking along those lines. Kind of Matrix-ey, I admit, but it goes even farther. "There is no spoon." But they really mean it this time.

Maybe I should get back to work now.


----------



## Road Guy (Jan 6, 2009)

I converted to scientology a while back, good stuff...//...//...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 6, 2009)

I'm still convinced ElRon did that as a joke.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jan 6, 2009)

^ I can't remember which story he did it in, but he posed a theory that a very fast way to make yourself VERY rich would be to establish a religion with yourself as the deity. I think the empirical evidence speaks for itself.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 6, 2009)

He had a pretty wicked and subtle sense of humor. battlefield Earth was full of funny stuff if you read it right. Like the Selachees, a race of sharks that were all lawyers.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jan 6, 2009)

^I may have to read that one again. I think I read it 20 years ago. Any time I think of Hubbard, the Douglas Adams character spending a year dead for tax purposes comes to mind. There's another series I last visited 15 years ago.......


----------



## BluSkyy (Jan 6, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> He had a pretty wicked and subtle sense of humor. battlefield Earth was full of funny stuff if you read it right. Like the Selachees, a race of sharks that were all lawyers.


subtle might be a stretch.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 6, 2009)

Yeah, but you have to remeber I was seventeen or so the first time I read it.

Time for a nice bowl of kerbango.


----------



## Dleg (Jan 6, 2009)

've always wanted to start a cult. For many years I have thought that my proximity to the deepest point of water on earth is something I should capitalize on. "The Church of the Marianas Trench."

Obviously my video game theory would make a good, logical basis for a new cult. But it has nothing to do with the trench. Any other ideas?


----------



## csb (Jan 7, 2009)

I think a lot of people would join a church if it marketed its large wet crevice.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 7, 2009)

csb said:


> I think a lot of people would join a church if it marketed it's large wet crevice.


Do what now?


----------



## csb (Jan 7, 2009)

See? You've already got interest for the Church of the Marianas Trench!


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 7, 2009)

csb said:


> See? You've already got interest for the Church of the Marianas Trench!


Sorry, I'm already a Pastafarian and a follower of the IPU.


----------



## Dleg (Jan 7, 2009)

I worked out the details of my Church of the Grand Theft Auto plan last night in my head (boring night - everyone else fell asleep early).

But now that csb's come up with an unbeatable advertising pitch for the Church of the Trench, I may need to to shift gears.


----------



## csb (Jan 7, 2009)

Sweet! My MBA wasn't a waste.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jan 7, 2009)

^ What was your concentration in, double entendres?


----------



## Dleg (Jan 7, 2009)

I caught the 2-hour NOVA special about the Dover, KS "Intelligent Design" trial. Very well done episode - I had honestly never heard much of what the proponents of ID were trying to put forward, and nor had I heard much about evolution and the scientific defense (I never took a biology class outside High School). Judge what's-his-name is my hero for listening to the facts and coming down on the side of science and progress.

I'm so glad I was raised as an Episcopalian, so I never had that kind of pressure from our church to reject what I was being taught in school. Some of the folks on the ID side sounded very similar, in my opinion, to islamic fundamentalists in terms of how strongly they believed science should be repressed in the interest of imposing their personal religious views on society.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 7, 2009)

Ok, I had vowed to stay out of this discussion but now that ID has been brought up, let me just say this:

When I first heard of ID I was intrigued and excited, as it sounded like a pretty cool concept. So I ordered a couple books on the subject and was very disappointed in the lack of substance behind the theory.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jan 7, 2009)

I read about that case a while back. I didn't think the school was trying to teach ID. My recollection is that they wanted a statement read to make the students aware that Darwinian evolution is a theory and that there are other ideas out there. They then stated there was a book available to the students if they wished to explore the subject further. That's a long way from teaching ID in the school.

There are some total nutters on both sides of this issue. I don't think they represent the majority of the people on either side but they do make for great television. If the school board was trying to force religious beliefs to be taught in the public school, I'd have a problem with it. I don't quite see making a statement that there are other theories out there as promoting religion.


----------



## Dleg (Jan 7, 2009)

You should see the NOVA special. During the trial, the plaintiffs uncovered evidence that convinced the judge that ID was the product of an attempt by (can't remember the name of the group) to put the Bible back into the classroom and expel the teaching of evolution forever. The plaintiffs discovered a "secret" strategy document produced by this organization called "The Wedge", which was their detailed plan of attack.

Part of the strategy was to get an ID textbook written, which they did, and a box was delivered to the Dover school board. The plaintiffs were able to show that the ID book was always intended to promote the teaching of Genesis, specifically, but had been edited at the last minute to remove such references as a result of the trouble that was brewing. There were a few typos in the textbook that gave this away - "creationism" was changed to "intelligent design" very sloppily at one point, leaving something like "cintelligent designnism"


----------



## Dleg (Jan 7, 2009)

Flyer_PE said:


> I don't quite see making a statement that there are other theories out there as promoting religion.


Except that ID isn't a scientific theory - it's just an idea, that was "proven" in the case to be untestable and untested, and thus the very opposite of science.

I agree that it's not a big deal to tell kids that their science curriculum may conflict with their family's religious beliefs, but I think it is a step backward for education in this country to try to parade religious belief as an alternative science in itself.

And at least two of those "total nutters" you speak of made it to the Dover School Board. I'm serious - watch the special, and listen to them tell their side in their own words.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jan 7, 2009)

Memo to any organization contemplating skulduggery:

*DON'T PUT THE SECRET PLANS ON PAPER!*


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jan 7, 2009)

Dleg said:


> And at least two of those "total nutters" you speak of made it to the Dover School Board. I'm serious - watch the special, and listen to them tell their side in their own words.


School board members are elected officials. Are you expressing surprise that a total nutter would find themselves in an elected position? The people we repeatedly elect to congress is a pretty good indication that "nutterhood" is not a disqualifying characteristic for public office.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 9, 2009)

WOW, I've not been to this thread in quite sometime, and after reading many of these posts, I probably should have stayed out.

but...

For discussions sake, I must ask the 'scientists, evolutionists' or whatever you call yourselves

*"What scientific evidence can you show that living objects have ever been produced from non-living objects?"*

Since I've heard about "THE EVIDENCE", I'm looking for an example of a tree growing without a seed, or an animal without parents? Can you find one?

Also, *if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?*

*Where did the first monkey come from?*

I think these are valid questions, and I'd love to discuss valid answers.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 9, 2009)

If any of you nay-sayers are really open to listening to the other side and like to read, check out this book. it's from Kenneth Poppe.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0736921257..._pt#reader-link

While, I can't prove that creationism happened without the blind faith that it happened, this book shows how nobody can prove evolution happened without the same blind faith that it happened.

Very interesting.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 9, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> WOW, I've not been to this thread in quite sometime, and after reading many of these posts, I probably should have stayed out.
> but...
> 
> For discussions sake, I must ask the 'scientists, evolutionists' or whatever you call yourselves
> ...


Scientific theory is not perfect (hence it is called theory instead of fact...Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory). The difference is that scientific theories are constantly tested against new evidence and either invalidated or confirmed by new investigation techniques. That's why I always bring up the sun god example when I have religious debates. In ancient Egypt, nobody understood how the planets moved, so they just explained the rising and setting sun with a religious tall tale, and people used their faith to believe it. When the early astronomers posed theories about how the planets moved, some were executed for heresy. They based their theories on the observations and calculations available to them at the time, and they were proven right over the centuries by more modern technologies and space travel (direct investigation).

My point is this, the current theories do not perfectly explain the beginning or evolution of life on this planet, nor the creation of the planet/universe as a whole. But why, given the history of faith versus the scientific method are people so quick to look to faith to explain the currently unexplained?


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 9, 2009)

So if I call it the Theory of Creationism, its all good?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 9, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> So if I call it the Theory of Creationism, its all good?


From the Wikipedia page on the word "Theory":



> The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes *falsifiable* or *testable* predictions.


If you can figure out a way to either falsify or test for the existence of God, then by all means, present your theory.


----------



## MGX (Jan 9, 2009)

I hate it when people theorize aliens populated Earth to explain life on the planet. It doesn't explain anything, only displaces the question to another planet/solar system/galaxy/etc.

On a side note, evolution doesn't explain why, where or how life sprang into being and creationism requires a huge leap and tends to fall into the 'god of the gaps' explanation.


----------



## benbo (Jan 9, 2009)

I don't personally believe ID should be taught in school, paricularly not in science class. But I do believe all the inconsistencies with all scientific theories should be thoroughly investigated at all levels of public school. Which they most certainly are not in most schools. I was basically taught that evolution was law. Even though it was called the "Theory of Evolution" it wasn't taught to me that way, and it wasn't taught to my kid that way.

I call it the ultimate in faith to assume what you see on some public broadcasting special is not presented in a biased manner. Most ID people simply define intelligent design as meaning that things were created by an non-random logical external force, as opposed to random natural selection. They point to the problems with Darwinism as part of the explanation of that belief. But people like to take the most ridiculous extremes and parade them around in their arguments.

When somebody can point out the terrorism perpetuated by believers in intelligent design, then I'll accept it is similar to islamic fundamentalism. On the other hand, if you would like to know some of the ways Darwinism has been used by some of it's faithful proponents, perhaps you'd like to look up Darwin's cousin, Thomas Galton, and the wonderful idea of eugenics. You can always find a nutter on any side of an issue.

Or if you want a more modern example, try Peter Singer, a Princeton academic and super Darwinist who basically believes Down's syndrome children are of less value than intelligent monkeys (I'm paraphrasing). Wonderful science, wonderful academia at their best.


----------



## benbo (Jan 9, 2009)

One added point. I believe there should be a difference noted between the "hard" sciences, such as pure chemistry, genetics, or physics, and things such as anthropology, psychology and archaeology. I am constantly amazed at all the varied and complete dinosaurs, and the knowlege of their entire lifestyle, that has been educed by these "scientists" from what I think are a very few complete skeletons. When I was a kid I always thought they were pulling complete dinosaur skeleton after skeleton out of the La Brea tarpits. And I wasn't alone. Turns out they were basically getting woolly mammoths and sabre toothed tigers and ice age animals.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 9, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> If you can figure out a way to either falsify or test for the existence of God, then by all means, present your theory.


As soon as you can show me that evolution can happen.

I believe in natural selection. It's where the slowest running antelope get eatin by the lions. So after time, the antelope as a whole become faster. But, they do it by getting rid of the slowest antelopes in their gene pool. So as a whole herd, it becomes faster.

Fair enough.

Show me any proof that allows the single fastest antelope in the herd to become any faster as a result of this. Or better yet, after thousands of years, the fastest antelope stand up, read the newspaper, and wipe their own ass.

I'd love to see that theory presented as well.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 9, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> As soon as you can show me that evolution can happen.
> I believe in natural selection. It's where the slowest running antelope get eatin by the lions. So after time, the antelope as a whole become faster. But, they do it by getting rid of the slowest antelopes in their gene pool. So as a whole herd, it becomes faster.
> 
> Fair enough.
> ...


Well, there are skeletons that have been discovered of Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and several other "links in the chain". Can you explain why those creatures no longer exist and we do? Maybe that chain doesn't link back to monkeys (or primates in general), but it's pretty hard to deny that humans have been evolving for thousands of years.

Anthropology and carbon dating are the two ways that evolution can be tested. As technology allows, it can be investigated further and either proven true or false. I'm comfortable with it either way. I still have not seen a valid way to test of the existence of God that doesn't require a healthy dose of faith.


----------



## engineergurl (Jan 9, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> I believe in natural selection. It's where the slowest running antelope get eatin by the lions. So after time, the antelope as a whole become faster. But, they do it by getting rid of the slowest antelopes in their gene pool. So as a whole herd, it becomes faster.


I use this theory as an explination when I drunk... the alcohol will only kill the stupid slow brain cells...


----------



## Dleg (Jan 9, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> If any of you nay-sayers are really open to listening to the other side and like to read, check out this book. it's from Kenneth Poppe.
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0736921257..._pt#reader-link
> 
> While, I can't prove that creationism happened without the blind faith that it happened, this book shows how nobody can prove evolution happened without the same blind faith that it happened.
> ...


That guy was all over the NOVA special, as well as his book. Check out the NOVA special. Plenty of argument from both the ID PhD's and the Evolution PhD's. What would you or I have to add to that discussion?



benbo said:


> I call it the ultimate in faith to assume what you see on some public broadcasting special is not presented in a biased manner. Most ID people simply define intelligent design as meaning that things were created by an non-random logical external force, as opposed to random natural selection. They point to the problems with Darwinism as part of the explanation of that belief. But people like to take the most ridiculous extremes and parade them around in their arguments.
> When somebody can point out the terrorism perpetuated by believers in intelligent design, then I'll accept it is similar to islamic fundamentalism. On the other hand, if you would like to know some of the ways Darwinism has been used by some of it's faithful proponents, perhaps you'd like to look up Darwin's cousin, Thomas Galton, and the wonderful idea of eugenics. You can always find a nutter on any side of an issue.
> 
> Or if you want a more modern example, try Peter Singer, a Princeton academic and super Darwinist who basically believes Down's syndrome children are of less value than intelligent monkeys (I'm paraphrasing). Wonderful science, wonderful academia at their best.


Give me a break, benbo! I know you usually just like to argue for the fun of it, so I'll give you that, and play along: If you think that it takes "the ultimate in faith" to believe what I hear from a couple dozen PhD's on both sides of the issue, as reported through a long-running science documentary series on PBS, then you must also have taken that ultimate leap of faith in believing what those bastards in the textbook publishing companies told you about electrical engineering!

As far as the terrorism goes, watch the NOVA special - death threats against the teachers, the expert witnessses, the new school board members who replaced the ID members (in a popular election), and the federal judge in the case. Is threatening to kill someone because they don't share your beliefs not terrorism? Is it only terrorism if those threats are carried out? I'd be interested to know where you draw the line on "extremism".

I find it very difficult to condone any view that would suppress the progress of science in the name of religion, unless there was some direct harm that came of such science (like experimenting on live humans, including fetuses). I don't think the study of evolution or paleontology has anything to do with engineering, so I won't hold such medieval attitudes against anyone in our profession, but when it comes to the fields of science, and more importantly, to the field of politics, where politics influence the direction and funding of science and science education, then I do believe such attitudes put our society on an equal footing with muslim fundamentalists (I didn't say extremists), communist dicatorships, the Spanish Inquisition, or any other society which repressed legitimate science in the name of their beliefs and ideology.

Personally, I believe it is very possible that we live in a created universe. However, I also believe that the undeniable evidence provided by geology and paleontology and cosmology - things any one of us can actually observe ourselves - shows that a literal belief in Genesis is unsupported. As our episcopalian priest told me when I pestered him about this in junior high, maybe Genesis was presented as a very broad and simplified story to the first writers of the bible. Maybe it was like "...then I created the strong sub-atomic force, which allowed gluons to.... oh nevermind, let's just say it happened like this:" Or maybe Genesis is a complete work of fiction by some early politician who thought a new religion would be the best way to restore order to his tribe. Either way, as I've stated before, a purely rational examination of all the facts would not prove or _disprove_ the existence of a creator God - atheism is as much a "belief" as any religion.

So as long as one's religion isn't harming humanity, I don't see a problem with it. And if people want to have religion as an elective or even mandatory high school subject, then I have no problem with teaching theology in schools, as long the brand of theology is left up to the students to choose. And a major compnent of any theology class, I would hope, would be that religion's idea of creation, or ID if the kids were allowed (I would hoep) to take a class that surveyed various religions of the world (cuz you all got to admit, _someone_ must be wrong...)

But ID is not science. Leave the science curriculum alone.


----------



## SSmith (Jan 9, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> If you can figure out a way to either falsify or test for the existence of God, then by all means, present your theory.





DVINNY said:


> As soon as you can show me that evolution can happen.


False dichotomy argument.

Just because one side is perceived as 'wrong,' doesn't prove the other side is right.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 9, 2009)

SSmith said:


> False dichotomy argument.
> Just because one side is perceived as 'wrong,' doesn't prove the other side is right.


That can't be true because I don't believe either side is 100% correct. I just think that evolution has far more supporting evidence than creationism.

All I was doing with the Theory discussion is to hold both ideas to the same standard. Evolution is testable through currently available technology and techniques. Creationism is not. In the future, maybe the technology will exist to prove the existence of God, and someday technology may reveal that evolution is complete bunk. Neither has happened yet.


----------



## SSmith (Jan 9, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> That can't be true because I don't believe either side is 100% correct. I just think that evolution has far more supporting evidence than creationism.


I was talking about DVINNY's argument. You were stating your position why you don't think creationism is a theory.


----------



## benbo (Jan 9, 2009)

Dleg said:


> Give me a break, benbo! I know you usually just like to argue for the fun of it, so I'll give you that, and play along: If you think that it takes "the ultimate in faith" to believe what I hear from a couple dozen PhD's on both sides of the issue, as reported through a long-running science documentary series on PBS, then you must also have taken that ultimate leap of faith in believing what those bastards in the textbook publishing companies told you about electrical engineering!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSmith (Jan 9, 2009)

benbo said:


> What controlled experiments have been conducted to prove anything about evolution?


Again, even if evolution is wrong, that doesn't prove creationism is right.


----------



## benbo (Jan 9, 2009)

SSmith said:


> Again, even if evolution is wrong, that doesn't prove creationism is right.


I don't disagree with that. If I implied that I had somehow "proven" creationism correct, that's not what I meant.


----------



## engineergurl (Jan 9, 2009)

so if my nose is itchy does that mean i'm gonna kiss a fool? I don't think the hubby is a fool so maybe it's about one of the dogs....


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 10, 2009)

Dleg said:


> I caught the 2-hour NOVA special about the Dover, KS "Intelligent Design" trial. Very well done episode -


I have found this on YouTube, but it's in 12 parts, and I've only watched the first two so far. I have to argue about it being very well done from what I've seen.

It shows the fundamentalist religious types arguing that the earth is only 4,000 years old or so. They show the ID side only as the 'nutters' as you would call them. This does an injustice in my mind.

Funny thing is, Dover is only about 25 miles from where I grew up.

I don't think the earth is only 4,000 years old, and I don't think man was created as smart and exactly as we are today. Obviously, we are different than the humans that started this country just 200 years ago. We have advanced in technology and many other areas, so over the coarse of 100,000 years, I will accept that we have 'evolved' so to speak.

What I DO NOT accept is that lightning hit something, turned it into an ameoba, then it grew into a fish, flopped on shore, turned into a monkey, then into us today. It's B.S.

And those that say they are enlightened and believe in evolution, etc. but not that there can be a greater force out there are the ones who are close minded and small minded in my opinion.

(How can those small minded people be engineers in our society? wink, wink)

They are small minded in the fact that they think there is nothing greater than us in this universe.

We've all seen the movie Men in Black, where an entire galaxy is hanging from the cat's collar. I'd be small minded to think that our Milky Way galaxy isn't possibly in a speck of dirt on that galaxy hanging from the cat's collar. And if so, how great of a being is out there beyond that?

It's bigger than I can fathom or explain, but of course, I'm not a scientist trying to prove that I know it all.


----------



## benbo (Jan 10, 2009)

I will agree that there are religious people with ulterior motives who sabotage the valid points of ID theory because their ultimate motive is to press a single religion, in most cases Christianity. And although I am a Christian, I believe that some sort of evolution and an intelligent directing force are not mutually exclusive. I am not trying to prove that external force, I accept that on faith as I have said.

But what I really believe is that this "freak out" over possible religious incursion has the effect of stultifying questions into scientific theories. Constant questioning of theories is part of the scientific method, and can only make the theories stronger. And I believe this questioning should be done at all stages of education, and I don't think it is.

When I previously stated there were no experiments into evolution, I actually know that not to be true. But the experiments often go without significant questioning, IMO. I think it is generally assumed that evolution contends that environmental chemicals in the early atmosphere underwent mutation by some random event, and along with natural selection were built first into amino acids, then proteins, then cells, then organims which ultimately evolved. All of those steps are open to mulitple questions.

Case in point - I am aware of an experiment condcted by Harold Urey where he put together a bunch of chemicals supposedly mimicking the early atmosphere, and zapped it, and produced some amino acids. Now even I will admit that is pretty remarkable. I remember this because he was a professor at my school (much later in life) and had a building named after him. But it turns out there were many questions about this experiment - he used somewhat different chemcals, he produced the wrong kind of amino acids, etc etc. It was still an impressive experiment. But those caveats were never stresed in my classes.


----------



## Dleg (Jan 11, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> And those that say they are enlightened and believe in evolution, etc. but not that there can be a greater force out there are the ones who are close minded and small minded in my opinion.(How can those small minded people be engineers in our society? wink, wink)
> 
> They are small minded in the fact that they think there is nothing greater than us in this universe.
> 
> ...


We may not agree on everything, but that ^^ almost 100% explains how I feel about all of this. I agree that it's awfully small minded to completely reject the idea of a "creator" on the basis of evolution or any other scientific fact that contradicts the Bible (or Koran or Bhudda or whatever). Just as it is equally small-minded to press a literal interpretation of Genesis on others or fight against any science that would contradict it. (in fact, I'd say to those people that the God I believe in is far more powerful than theirs, on the basis of what science has shown us so far, anyway. Ha ha - mine is bigger than yours!).

Once again, I honestly think that an objective, rational, intelligent look at the facts can not rule out the existence of a creator. Those who stop at simply contradicting the Bible to declare "there is no God" are either not fully utilizing their intelligence, or just simply aren't that intelligent to begin with.

Oh, and I agree with Benbo - there is too much stigma associated with holding such beliefs among scientific circles, which of course stifles discussion and triggers over-reactions.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 11, 2009)

Dleg said:


> Once again, I honestly think that an objective, rational, intelligent look at the facts can not rule out the existence of a creator.


Nor does it confirm the existence of a creator.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 11, 2009)

error_matrix said:


> two things are definitively certain throughout all of history: 1.) You cannot prove the existence of God.
> 
> 2.) You cannot disprove the existence of God.





wilheldp_PE said:


> Nor does it confirm the existence of a creator.


point made, presumed accepted. . .

:deadhorse:


----------



## maryannette (Jan 12, 2009)

How do you explain that air exists to a child without any scientific understanding? Air is invisible. A child does not see anything or understand the physics. Yet, most children will have the trust to believe that air is more than nothing.

I guess I'm a child in some ways. I don't have the understanding to prove the existence of a Divine Creator. But, if I pray and receive better understanding through answered prayers, I'm like a child blowing up a balloon and knowing that there has to be SOMETHING inside of it. When I need comfort and get it without any human interaction, it's like a child watching a windmill. Something is moving the blades, but what and how?

I accept that there is a God just like children accept that there is air. I know that there are ways to prove that air exists. Maybe sometime there will be a way to prove that God exists. Meantime, I'll keep praying. And I hope that children keep breathing.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 12, 2009)

mary:) said:


> How do you explain that air exists to a child without any scientific understanding? Air is invisible. A child does not see anything or understand the physics. Yet, most children will have the trust to believe that air is more than nothing.
> I guess I'm a child in some ways. I don't have the understanding to prove the existence of a Divine Creator. But, if I pray and receive better understanding through answered prayers, I'm like a child blowing up a balloon and knowing that there has to be SOMETHING inside of it. When I need comfort and get it without any human interaction, it's like a child watching a windmill. Something is moving the blades, but what and how?
> 
> I accept that there is a God just like children accept that there is air. I know that there are ways to prove that air exists. Maybe sometime there will be a way to prove that God exists. Meantime, I'll keep praying. And I hope that children keep breathing.


It is just that kind of analogy that infuriates me about religion. If something is currently unexplainable, just chalk it up to God. Why? Why not do some investigation and try to explain it? If the early scientists had been content with the explanation that air/wind simply comes from God, then we wouldn't know that is made up of various elements, or that we need it to breathe, or that plants produce the oxygen component of that air, or any number of other very important discoveries.


----------



## SSmith (Jan 12, 2009)

Comparing the physical to the supernatural is quite a stretch...

When I was a child, I also thought cartoons were real. So clearly that means god is real.



mary:) said:


> How do you explain that air exists to a child without any scientific understanding? Air is invisible. A child does not see anything or understand the physics. Yet, most children will have the trust to believe that air is more than nothing.
> I guess I'm a child in some ways. I don't have the understanding to prove the existence of a Divine Creator. But, if I pray and receive better understanding through answered prayers, I'm like a child blowing up a balloon and knowing that there has to be SOMETHING inside of it. When I need comfort and get it without any human interaction, it's like a child watching a windmill. Something is moving the blades, but what and how?
> 
> I accept that there is a God just like children accept that there is air. I know that there are ways to prove that air exists. Maybe sometime there will be a way to prove that God exists. Meantime, I'll keep praying. And I hope that children keep breathing.


----------



## maryannette (Jan 12, 2009)

Maybe some people just are not spiritually mature enough to understand that the supernatural or unexplained could be real.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 12, 2009)

Mary, I get your point.

Thing is, they never will. Some people don't want to, or simply can't accept that some things can't be explained. At least not in our lifetime they won't be.

Scientists can't explain what's past our galaxy, they can hypothosize all they want. However, unlike wilheldp, I'm not infuriated by it. I accept that scientists don't know, and I move on.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 12, 2009)

I kinda like the idea that Genesis isn't literal but the general idea behind it is correct. It does reflect evolution in a way.

Evolution can easily be seen in a few generations of bacteria and watching them adopt to environmental changes. Shoot, look at us. we're taller and more robust that we were in the 1850s.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 12, 2009)

Dleg said:


> Once again, I honestly think that an objective, rational, intelligent look at the facts can not rule out the existence of a creator. Those who stop at simply contradicting the Bible to declare "there is no God" are either not fully utilizing their intelligence, or just simply aren't that intelligent to begin with.


We still laugh at this one, but when my daughter was 2 years old, she was saying how monkeys liked bananas. I said, well your Mom really likes bananas too. She said "then Mommy is a Monkey". We thought that was funny. But it shows that a 2 year old can use deductive reasoning like scientists do. It just doesn't make them right. 



Dleg said:


> Oh, and I agree with Benbo - there is too much stigma associated with holding such beliefs among scientific circles, which of course stifles discussion and triggers over-reactions.


You mean they get infuriated?

LOL


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 12, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Evolution can easily be seen in a few generations of bacteria and watching them adopt to environmental changes. Shoot, look at us. we're taller and more robust that we were in the 1850s.


But we are shorter, and 30% LESS bone density than cro-magnon

just saying.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 12, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> Mary, I get your point.
> Thing is, they never will. Some people don't want to, or simply can't accept that some things can't be explained. At least not in our lifetime they won't be.
> 
> Scientists can't explain what's past our galaxy, they can hypothosize all they want. However, unlike wilheldp, I'm not infuriated by it. I accept that scientists don't know, and I move on.


I can easily accept that things will remain unexplained throughout my lifetime, and quite possibly many lifetimes beyond that. But that does not mean that I feel the need to assign some fictional belief system to that which I cannot explain.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 12, 2009)

> But that does not mean that I feel the need to assign some fictional belief system to that which I cannot explain.


Neither do I.

I am not a Christian because I feel the need to explain the Universe.

I am one, because I can feel a presence within my existence.

I don't feel like I am alone in this unexplained universe.

I put positive energy and prayers toward something and it realizes.

Some people call it intuition, some call it 'listening to thier spiritual guide',

Some people call it "THE SECRET", I call it a greater power. God if you will.

My parents did not raise me this way. My parents do not attend church, although both claim to believe in God, I was not raised this way. It comes from a feeling within.

I have a personal story that really confirmed to me that there is something out there bigger than me, but I don't think those experiences are necessary for one to have faith.

I do feel sorry for anyone that thinks they need to try and disprove or argue anyone else's beliefs.

It reminds me of the radical muslims that feel if you don't think the way they do, they must blow you up.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jan 12, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I can easily accept that things will remain unexplained throughout my lifetime, and quite possibly many lifetimes beyond that. But that does not mean that I feel the need to assign some fictional belief system to that which I cannot explain.



You assume it's fictional, I assume it's true. Makes a big difference in the statement above. Also, I don't assign my belief system because there are things I can't explain. I have a belief sytem or faith that I chose and I believe that God chose me and I accept that there are some things that both my faith and science can't explain in this life.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 12, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> I am not a Christian because I feel the need to explain the Universe. I am one, because I can feel a presence within my existence.
> 
> I don't feel like I am alone in this unexplained universe.






Chucktown PE said:


> You assume it's fictional, I assume it's true. Makes a big difference in the statement above. Also, I don't assign my belief system because there are things I can't explain. I have a belief sytem or faith that I chose and I believe that God chose me and I accept that there are some things that both my faith and science can't explain in this life.


That's fine, and I don't have a problem with either one. One of the few problems I have with religion is when it is used to explain the currently unexplained. If having a personal relationship with your deity of choice gives you a warm fuzzy, then by all means, have at it. But please don't try to stifle scientific or technological advancement because a story in the good book contradicts some recent findings.

If you're curious, the other parts of religion that bother me are the wars fought in the name of God, and the fact that organized religions are nothing more than multinational, multi-billion dollar corporations.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jan 12, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> That's fine, and I don't have a problem with either one. One of the few problems I have with religion is when it is used to explain the currently unexplained. If having a personal relationship with your deity of choice gives you a warm fuzzy, then by all means, have at it. But please don't try to stifle scientific or technological advancement because a story in the good book contradicts some recent findings.


In what way does a belief in God stifle scientific research. I am not asking the scientific community to abandon carbon dating because we perceive that it may contradict Genesis. My personal belief is that there are no contradictions between the scientific world and the Bible and when we get to heaven this will all make sense. The engineer in me is really looking forward to that moment.



wilheldp_PE said:


> If you're curious, the other parts of religion that bother me are the wars fought in the name of God, and the fact that organized religions are nothing more than multinational, multi-billion dollar corporations.


There are evils associated with science as well and there is quite a bit of money to be exploited in the scientifc community.

Yes, you can find bad parts of organized religion but I'd say your only looking for the bad if that's all you see in organized religion. I know for a fact that my church and my denomination is not a multinational, multi-billion dollar corporation. I know how much the pastors make and how much money the church brings end and gives away. I also see and know how much good we do in this community and around the world through missions, charity, etc.


----------



## maryannette (Jan 12, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> But please don't try to stifle scientific or technological advancement because a story in the good book contradicts some recent findings.


On the same note, please don't try to stifle religious beliefs because a miracle has been explained by a scientific principle.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 12, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> I also see and know how much good we do in this community and around the world through missions, charity, etc.


Same here, I know that my church alone fed dozens and dozens more people over Thanksgiving and Christmas than the local scientific research facilities did. How evil those organized religous types are.


----------



## maryannette (Jan 12, 2009)

There are hundreds of religious groups in Texas (and probably still in Mississippi) helping people to put their lives back together after storm damage. I went on one of those trips. My husband has been on many.

I guess that is pretty illogical ... driving 2 days to get to a location where you will do hard manual labor for people you have never met. Oh, and using your earned vacation time for it.

Anybody got a logical explanation for this?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 12, 2009)

mary:) said:


> Anybody got a logical explanation for this?


Nope...must be a miracle.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 12, 2009)

I can list things all day long that our church does that is helpful to all. We sent people to build for Habitat after Katrina as well.

However, I must concede to wilheldp that there are corrupt churches, there are those who are only after collecting money, there are many bad TV evanlegists, etc. etc.

My wife was born and raised Catholic, and I married her in the Catholic church, but she has now been United Methodist for the last 4 years, and she even stated that after seeing all the things our local church does, she can't name a handful that her old Catholic church did for the local community.

So it is different from church to church, and there are some bad apples. But wilheldp, don't let those bad apples be the example of what the whole big picture is. that is selling it short.


----------



## csb (Jan 12, 2009)

Hey now...let's not go hating on the Catholics 

This was in the paper yesterday and it made me think of a few pages back:


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 12, 2009)

remember the episode of the Simpson's, where Homer got really smart? He somehow proved the non-existence of God, and gave his findings as a paper report to Flanders - who ultimately conceded he had done it, and then burned the report? Funny ass stuff! IMO, religion needs a hell of a lot less Flanders stigma [edit: in no way am i saying anybody here is a 'Flanders']

. . . .

(it was searching for above images that resulted in homer "tattoo" posted in funny pic thread - it is afterall, pretty funny)


----------



## benbo (Jan 12, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> I can list things all day long that our church does that is helpful to all. We sent people to build for Habitat after Katrina as well.
> However, I must concede to wilheldp that there are corrupt churches, there are those who are only after collecting money, there are many bad TV evanlegists, etc. etc.
> 
> My wife was born and raised Catholic, and I married her in the Catholic church, but she has now been United Methodist for the last 4 years, and she even stated that after seeing all the things our local church does, she can't name a handful that her old Catholic church did for the local community.
> ...


I'm not sure how active your wife was in her church, or how active that particular parish was.

I am Catholic and my church passes out food to the homeless every morning. In the bulletin there are at least 10 outreaches to the poor, sick, and dying every week, plus entire groups devoted to it. Plus we visit orphanges in Tijuana every month to help. We are constantly donating money for assistance throughout the world. I think if you will look at the number of schools and hospitals the Catholic Church has built around the world you might be surprised. Not to mention that whole Missionaries of Charity - Mother Teresa thing.

Granted, there are a lot of things my Church does and says that infuriate me, but I don't think you can fault the Catholic Church overall on charity.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jan 12, 2009)

The Catholic church is still taking heat for the pope Leo X selling indulgences to build St. Peters Basilica in 1571. Seriously, that is what a lot of atheists point to as being what is wrong with organized religion because they remember this from their high school wester civilization class. I look at that and see all the good that came from it, the Protestant reformation. Think about all the believers that have been brought to through the reformation. Both Protestants and Catholics have done some bad throughout human history but IMHO the good far outweighs the bad.


----------



## benbo (Jan 12, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> The Catholic church is still taking heat for the pope Leo X selling indulgences to build St. Peters Basilica in 1571. Seriously, that is what a lot of atheists point to as being what is wrong with organized religion because they remember this from their high school wester civilization class. I look at that and see all the good that came from it, the Protestant reformation. Think about all the believers that have been brought to through the reformation. Both Protestants and Catholics have done some bad throughout human history but IMHO the good far outweighs the bad.


I would never criticize another person's specific church or belief or lack thereof. I might criticize particular aspects of a specific church's *actions* (including my own), but not the belief system overall. The truth is that in general I even try to avoid this, because I realize I am operating from a certain point of view, and often without full information. I never try to convert anyone, because I didn't dig that when I was agnostic. I also find that people usually pick out specific things and use that to condemn the whole. I don't care if someone is Muslim, Jew, atheist, agnostic, or Jain. I just ask the same from others. I don't think we need any thought police.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 12, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> But we are shorter, and 30% LESS bone density than cro-magnon
> just saying.


Oh, I know. that's evolution as well.

My point is that evolution is possible even with a Creator.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 12, 2009)

Damn you religious types get all worked up. I said HER old Catholic church, not the whole church in general. geesh.

Fact is, it is a huge church in our area, but does not contribute the way _that I_ feel that it should. That's all. Just my opinion, it means very little.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 12, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> My point is that evolution is possible even with a Creator.


I would agree.

I've stated earlier, I believe we evolve to meet the demands of our environment, etc. I just will not believe that we came from single cell ameoba.

Doesn't mean I'm right either, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## benbo (Jan 12, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> Damn you religious types get all worked up. I said HER old Catholic church, not the whole church in general. geesh.
> Fact is, it is a huge church in our area, but does not contribute the way _that I_ feel that it should. That's all. Just my opinion, it means very little.


Yeah, that's what I thought you meant, but I wasn't sure. Actually, I wasn't that worked up about it, although maybe it seemed that way.

Similarly, our local Methodist Church is sort of a slacker.

j/k I don't know anything about it.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jan 12, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> Damn you religious types get all worked up. I said HER old Catholic church, not the whole church in general. geesh.
> Fact is, it is a huge church in our area, but does not contribute the way _that I_ feel that it should. That's all. Just my opinion, it means very little.



I wasn't firing off on you either DV. I was more responding to wilheld_PE's comment that "organized religions are nothing more than multinational, multi-billion dollar corporations." which is total horse squeeze and commenting that the catholic church is still taking a lot of heat for something that happened 500 years ago.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 12, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> the other parts of religion that bother me are the wars fought in the name of God, and the fact that organized religions are nothing more than multinational, multi-billion dollar corporations.


keeping the lines of agreeing to disagree' open here - there have been far more horrific wars fought having nothing to do with God (continuing to today). The root is always mankind's inhumanity to humanity (recognizing some wars Have to happen) - don't delude yourself into believing war, genocide, atrocities wouldn't occur if God &amp; religion were historically absent


----------



## benbo (Jan 12, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> If you're curious, the other parts of religion that bother me are the wars fought in the name of God,


That's true, but far more people have been killed by Communist atheists - like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao's Cultural Revolution. People will always find a reason to fight and kill each other.

I've got to stop looking in this thread. I think I'm repeating myself. This horse is dead and already turned into Elmer's glue.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 12, 2009)

^ Lol, Jinx buy me a coke! - w/ Jack please


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 12, 2009)

benbo said:


> Yeah, that's what I thought you meant, but I wasn't sure. Actually, I wasn't that worked up about it, although maybe it seemed that way.





Chucktown PE said:


> I wasn't firing off on you either DV.


I know, I was just kiddin' around with the poke of mine as well.

For the most part, I see this thread as a dead horse as well. Other than the occasional, _well if I don't agree with your idea, yours must be bad or wrong _post, I see nothing left to gain here.


----------



## csb (Jan 12, 2009)

[No message]


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 12, 2009)

[No message]


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 12, 2009)

benbo said:


> That's true, but far more people have been killed by Communist atheists - like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao's Cultural Revolution. People will always find a reason to fight and kill each other.


While it is true that those people were Atheists, the wars that they participated in were not based in religion (or lack thereof). The Crusades and Spanish Inquisition were fought/enacted based solely on religion. Can you point to a group of atheists that started an armed campaign against deists in order to spread their anti-religion?

As to the money question, while the Catholic church is the most egregious example of using money for non-noble causes (they even own/run their own city/country for goodness sake), there are many other religions that have strong, central cores that are run just like businesses. While individual churches may not subscribe to the policies of the central church, they still get that perception from me because of their association-by-name.

I also believe that all-to-often, people lean on religion as a crutch to make them feel good about their own ethical guidelines or charitable giving because they try to follow the lessons taught in the Bible and they tithe. Well, I consider myself to have a very strong foundation in ethics, and I give to charity outside of religion (although I would give a lot more if I could opt out of government-sponsored charity, but that's a whole 'nother discussion).


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 12, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> While it is true that those people were Atheists, the wars that they participated in were not based in religion (or lack thereof). The Crusades and Spanish Inquisition were fought/enacted based solely on religion. Can you point to a group of atheists that started an armed campaign against deists in order to spread their anti-religion?


not trying to pick on you Dan, but my goodness! does it really matter that the atrocities caused by atheist or non-religious regimes weren't based soley on trying to spread anti-religious message / ideology? And actually in the case of the communist regimes that is very debateable (witness wonderful society of China &amp; N. Korea).

Anyways, its like you're excusing or more tolerant of the far more numerous instances of war / genocide in non-religion based instances because of your bias against religion &amp; the unfortunate wars / crusades / inquistions that occurred based strictly on that ideology.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 12, 2009)

error_matrix said:


> not trying to pick on you Dan, but my goodness! does it really matter that the atrocities caused by atheist or non-religious regimes weren't based soley on trying to spread anti-religious message / ideology? And actually in the case of the communist regimes that is very debateable (witness wonderful society of China &amp; N. Korea).
> Anyways, its like you're excusing or more tolerant of the far more numerous instances of war / genocide in non-religion based instances because of your bias against religion &amp; the unfortunate wars / crusades / inquistions that occurred based strictly on that ideology.


Wait a sec...I was simply refuting a point made specifically by benbo.  I made the point that there have been wars fought only for/in the name of religion, and benbo said that atheists have fought wars. I don't dispute that fact, nor do I dispute that more wars have been fought over oil, money, power, imperialism, etc. than religion, but that still doesn't refute my original point...

Wars fought in the name of God/Religion = Some

Wars fought in defense of Atheism = None

I seem to be getting a heavy dose of argument from priority. You are saying my arguments are invalid because there are other, greater ills in the world. That may be true, but it doesn't contradict my point.


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 12, 2009)

The day will come when men will realize that it is not religion what they need, but the presence of God in their lives.


----------



## maryannette (Jan 13, 2009)

Dark Knight said:


> The day will come when men will realize that it is not religion what they need, but the presence of God in their lives.


Amen, DK.

I just have to say one more thing, since we're beating dead horses.

I LOVE GOD. And I believe that God loves me.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 13, 2009)

Heck, we all love you Mary, so I'm sure he does.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 13, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Wars fought in defense of Atheism = None


It could be argued that any war started to spread communism was a war to spread atheism. Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan spring immediately to mind.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 13, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Wait a sec...I was simply refuting a point made specifically by benbo. I made the point that there have been wars fought only for/in the name of religion, and benbo said that atheists have fought wars. I don't dispute that fact, nor do I dispute that more wars have been fought over oil, money, power, imperialism, etc. than religion, but that still doesn't refute my original point...
> Wars fought in the name of God/Religion = Some
> 
> Wars fought in defense of Atheism = None
> ...


Ok - point accepted; religion has been the sole cause of a # of wars thruout history &amp; continuing to this day &amp; very likely into the future. I didn't say anything about your statements being invalid, was simply searching for clarity on your stance. Lighten up Francis.

In modern history, i would say atheistic ideology / regimes (former USSR, Vietnam, present day Korea / China) have arguably had commensurate societal oppression attributable.


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 13, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> Heck, we all love you Mary, so I'm sure he does.


Darn right DV.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 13, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> It could be argued that any war started to spread communism was a war to spread atheism. Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan spring immediately to mind.


I would like to see that argued because everything that I have ever heard or read about communism points to it being purely a socioeconomic theory and system of government. It is completely devoid of religious language, either for or against. You may have associated the two in your head because some of the biggest proponents of communism in history have been atheists, but that does not mean that it is a part of the theory.



error_matrix said:


> Ok - point accepted; religion has been the sole cause of a # of wars thruout history &amp; continuing to this day &amp; very likely into the future. I didn't say anything about your statements being invalid, was simply searching for clarity on your stance. Lighten up Francis.
> In modern history, i would say atheistic ideology / regimes (former USSR, Vietnam, present day Korea / China) have arguably had commensurate societal oppression attributable.


I think you and the Cap'n are confusing Secular governments with Atheistic governments.


----------



## roadwreck (Jan 13, 2009)

Man, I avoided opening this topic until now (b/c I don't think anything can be gained by joining in this subject of conversation) but it looks like I missed some entertaining stuff. I guess I know what I'll

be reading today.

opcorn:


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 13, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I would like to see that argued because everything that I have ever heard or read about communism points to it being purely a socioeconomic theory and system of government.


From a purely theoretical point, you're right. But in practice the commies have been quite active against organized religion.


----------



## maryannette (Jan 13, 2009)

roadwreck said:


> Man, I avoided opening this topic until now (b/c I don't think anything can be gained by joining in this subject of conversation) but it looks like I missed some entertaining stuff. I guess I know what I'llbe reading today.
> 
> opcorn:


Feel free to add comments, roadwreck.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jan 13, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I would like to see that argued because everything that I have ever heard or read about communism points to it being purely a socioeconomic theory and system of government. It is completely devoid of religious language, either for or against. You may have associated the two in your head because some of the biggest proponents of communism in history have been atheists, but that does not mean that it is a part of the theory.
> 
> I think you and the Cap'n are confusing Secular governments with Atheistic governments.


You are mistaken whilheldp_PE, Communism seeks to eliminate religion and absoulte morality. Communism has contradictions with both and in order for the State to assume its rightful place in a communist society all religious institutions must be removed from the social framework. That's paraphrasing Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto and The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 13, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> From a purely theoretical point, you're right. But in practice the commies have been quite active against organized religion.


That may be, simply because organized religion is a direct threat to the sovereignty of the government. You can see evidence of this in our latest presidential campaign. All of the candidates went out of their way to express their faith in order to get organized religion on "their side" in the election. If the candidate was indifferent, or outright atheist/agnostic, they wouldn't have stood a chance in the election.

The central theme of Communism is an all-powerful government. The spread of communism was simply a way to make that government bigger. Not only would it seek to shut down organized religion, but it goes after businesses of any sort...all money must pass through the hands of the government.


----------



## roadwreck (Jan 13, 2009)

mary:) said:


> Feel free to add comments, roadwreck.


okay, does this help the conversation?


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 13, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I think you and the Cap'n are confusing Secular governments with Atheistic governments.


Please, the US fits the definition of a secular government; not Korea, China, former USSR! Atheistic states officially oppose ALL religious beliefs &amp; practices, which [suprise!] is a demonstrated &amp; observable phenomenon with all of the totalitarian communistic regimes i mentioned - they all practice(d) extreme militant atheism (or atheistic ideology if you want), history don't lie.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 13, 2009)

error_matrix said:


> Please, the US fits the definition of a secular government; not Korea, China, former USSR! Atheistic states officially oppose ALL religious beliefs &amp; practices, which [suprise!] is a demonstrated &amp; observable phenomenon with all of the totalitarian communistic regimes i mentioned - they all practice(d) extreme militant atheism (or atheistic ideology if you want), history don't lie.


You show me some ethnic cleansing of all religion under those regimes a la Spanish Inquisition or Jews under Nazism, and I will concede the point. Otherwise, we can all start making baseless claims and present them as fact.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Jan 13, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> You show me some ethnic cleansing of all religion under those regimes a la Spanish Inquisition or Jews under Nazism, and I will concede the point. Otherwise, we can all start making baseless claims and present them as fact.



Again, read the communist manifesto. While there may not be purges, that isn't what you were talking about. Now we're arguing about whether a communist government is in face atheistic. According to the founder of communism, Karl Marx, they are intensely atheistic and do their damndest to stomp out organized religion. However, you are correct in saying that there haven't been any wars fought (at least that I know about) in order to convert people to atheism. Although, there have been countless numbers of Christians, Jews, and followers of other religion who have been persecuted by governments that were atheistic.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Otherwise, we can all start making baseless claims and present them as fact.


I have stayed out of this thread so far because I don't think typing my thoughts/feelings/beliefs in an internet thread sufficiently conveys the complexity of what I think/feel/believe. I am sure the same is true for each and every poster in this thread depending on where you fall within the spectrum of faith, as it were.

I do feel obligated to say one thing - most of the posters have attempted to set-up straw men in order to validate their claim. I don't see how this progresses the discussion other than inflame or trample on others' feelings or beliefs. Rather than continue to throw out fodder for the cannon, why don't we agree that:

1. Application of logic where logic does not apply isn't going to bridge the gap between faith and specific claims from the bible (e.g. water to wine, walking on water, 2 loaves of bread to feed 5k);

2. The issue of faith is very complicated and even amongst like-minded individuals (say christians) there will still be differences of opinion as to how faith is applied to them individually or within their family or congregation (place of worship); and

3. We all have different experiences that have made us into the people that we are today. We will continue to have experiences that will in turn evolve the way we think about spirituality and faith (or the lack thereof), so trying to put a box (constraint) around what faith is or how it applies is really quite meaningless since it always changes.

:2cents:


----------



## maryannette (Jan 13, 2009)

God bless all of us.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 13, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> You show me some ethnic cleansing of all religion under those regimes a la Spanish Inquisition or Jews under Nazism, and I will concede the point. Otherwise, we can all start making baseless claims and present them as fact.


concede what point? That atheism positively without doubt contributed to the suppression &amp; oppression of entire soviet and asian cultures? Btw, the answer is yes, it indeed has, in as much as you hold religion accountable in your examples.

I know where you're coming from Dan - you're saying atheism by itself (or the individual practice thereof) has never led to the horrific historical examples you've given, as clearly religious ideology has. My point, or where i'm coming from, is that it is and always will be, the men, groups, societies, etc that practice or try to flex their ideology to the detriment of fellow mankind that are held accountable in these instances; not religion as an institution; and certainly not atheism as a. . .whatever it is  .

When society as a whole oppresses or persecutes one for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, clearly bad things happen - i think thats the crux of it all. :beerchug:


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 13, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> Again, read the communist manifesto. While there may not be purges, that isn't what you were talking about. Now we're arguing about whether a communist government is in face atheistic. According to the founder of communism, Karl Marx, they are intensely atheistic and do their damndest to stomp out organized religion. However, you are correct in saying that there haven't been any wars fought (at least that I know about) in order to convert people to atheism. Although, there have been countless numbers of Christians, Jews, and followers of other religion who have been persecuted by governments that were atheistic.






error_matrix said:


> concede what point? That atheism positively without doubt contributed to the suppression &amp; oppression of entire soviet and asian cultures? Btw, the answer is yes, it indeed has, in as much as you hold religion accountable in your examples.
> I know where you're coming from Dan - you're saying atheism by itself (or the individual practice thereof) has never led to the horrific historical examples you've given, as clearly religious ideology has. My point, or where i'm coming from, is that it is and always will be, the men, groups, societies, etc that practice or try to flex their ideology to the detriment of fellow mankind that are held accountable in these instances; not religion as an institution; and certainly not atheism as a. . .whatever it is  .
> 
> When society as a whole oppresses or persecutes one for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, clearly bad things happen - i think thats the crux of it all. :beerchug:


The point that I am still arguing is that wars have been fought in the name of religion/God, but have not been fought in the name of atheism. People of various religions are always being persecuted/oppressed/suppressed somewhere in the world, but they aren't being killed in large numbers in order to purge or "cleanse" large areas of these religions. Whoever is in charge will inevitably try to push their belief system on their underlings, but shutting down churches and throwing people in jail for their choice of religion is a far cry from torturing/executing them or invading another country and killing entire populations over the same thing (which you did address in your post, EM).


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 13, 2009)

jregieng said:


> I have stayed out of this thread so far because I don't think typing my thoughts/feelings/beliefs in an internet thread sufficiently conveys the complexity of what I think/feel/believe. I am sure the same is true for each and every poster in this thread depending on where you fall within the spectrum of faith, as it were.


I agree with all of your points, and I realize that you are trying to be the "sober voice of reason" in this thread. But I really enjoy discussing this topic as long as it can remain civil, and I think it has been civil since the SSmith uproar a couple weeks ago.

As I have stated previously (yet realize that my posts do not seem like it), I am still undecided about religion, and remain Agnostic. I try to connect the dots between the logical leaps in religion, but as of yet, haven't been able to reconcile everything in my brain. I refuse to accept the "just have faith" argument because my brain won't allow it. I have tried to stay away from the bible contradiction arguments, but I do think they are a legitimate beef with Christianity. If you don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, but you do believe in Creationism and say that the Bible is the gospel word of God, how does that make sense?


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 13, 2009)

Religion, or more succinctly, one's beliefs or ideology, is the most self-righteous reason man can elicit as an excuse to wage war - the sad thing is, man has never had lack of motivation or incentive to wage war on each other ($$, empire, power, etc) - i think religion became a convenient enough rationale to be used as much as it has :sniff:


----------



## SSmith (Jan 13, 2009)

So another question--do Christians believe Adam 'named' all the _dinosaurs_ and _all_ the fish? I overheard a conversation at work that explicitly said he did.

If true, then this is even a greater stretch than man walking on water IMHO.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 13, 2009)

again with the walking on water thing. Damn.

No. Adam didn't name all the fish and dinosaurs. I did that. Back in college after having mushrooms on my burger. Yup, that's the ticket.


----------



## cement (Jan 13, 2009)

this is why we don't talk about religion at thanksgiving.

or politics.

how 'bout them broncos?


----------



## SSmith (Jan 13, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> again with the walking on water thing. Damn.


Ive thought the same exact thing the times Ive been called crazy for not believing it.



DVINNY said:


> No. Adam didn't name all the fish and dinosaurs. I did that. Back in college after having mushrooms on my burger. Yup, that's the ticket.


Poke fun at the question all you want--it actually came from an actual discussion I overheard in the break room amongst believers (guessing here). I'm just trying to figure out how representative the idea is.


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 13, 2009)

Where are we going with this thread? Wil-h is not going to start to believe, Mary will not become an atheist over night, etc,, etc.

It is trully :deadhorse: .

What is next? To argue if Jesus did exist? Was he born from a virgin? Did the Romans used a cross or just a log to kill him?

I realize that with few exceptions most of the people here give a darn about what I post but have to say this:

Religion is the main cause for this world to be so messed up. People look after the religion that better fits their preferences. They listen to whoever comes and say that "if you believe in God you will become richer and will never go thru difficulties. That is what I call religious convinience or....hypocresy.

Most of the religious leaders are out there trying to be greater than the other one and even greater than God. "My church has to be the biggest and better than the other preacher's" The Vatican is the richest state in the whole world(or at least it used to be). It is not that funny? Many of the psychos used RELIGION as a shield to do evil. Millions have been killed in the name of RELIGION.

Did Jesus walk on water? I believe he did. Did he perform miracles? I believe he did and still does. But that just me. I have free will to believe whatever I want to and so do you. Does believing Jesus walked on water make me a bad professional? I did meet a prominent engineer in TN who is/was a heck of a Bible teacher. Was he a bad engineer because his faith? He was/is the VP of an important company. He was not preaching 24/7. Was he a bad Christian?

Many of the ones that say they do not believe in God are the first ones who will cry for him when things in their life go REALLY bad( I am not wishing that for anybody here). The beauty on this is that, no matter what, he will be there for you the day that happens...no questions asked....no hard feelings. Actually...he is waiting for you with open arms.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 13, 2009)

Dark Knight said:


> To argue if Jesus did exist? Was he born from a virgin? Did the Romans used a cross or just a log to kill him?


My thoughts, yes, no, cross (but it looked more like a capital T instead of lower-case, and the upright was permanently driven into the Earth).

Do you guys know how the Bible was created? I've watched a couple of History channel specials about it and the exclusion of the Gnostic Gospels. Fascinating.


----------



## Dleg (Jan 13, 2009)

^I've read three of Bart Ehrman's books about it. Let's just say it confirms my own way of believing. Which is to say, not in a literal interpretation kind of way.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 14, 2009)

DK is right, we can go on and on. it won't matter.

I have my own thoughts about the creation of the bible, and of course they differ from the teachings of my church, etc. But that is for my beliefs.

I personally have different thoughts of the New Testament vs. the Old Testament. I won't get into it, but I would assume everyone has developed their own level of interpretation.

I'd be silly to sit in here and try to convince anyone that mine is right, or thiers is wrong. Be a waste of time.

Example: Let's just look at the difference between Christians and Jews:

Christians think Jesus is the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, etc. etc. and Jews think he did exist and was a profit. Not the Son of God. Jesus was a Jew.

If these two religions differ that greatly on his status, and they haven't been able to work it out, I have ZERO hope that EB.com is going to solve this one.

We can do alot of things on this board....... but we must admit our limitations here.


----------



## maryannette (Jan 14, 2009)

I make a motion that the thread be locked.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jan 14, 2009)

I don't think it should be locked. Eventually, the :deadhorse: will end on it's own and the thread will fade into history. So far, the worst that I've noticed in this thread is an opinion that religious belief is evidence of substandard engineering ability. Having run maintenance crews in a union shop, I've had far worse than that hurled at me in person. I'm not going to get too wound up over anything said on an internet message board.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 14, 2009)

cement said:


> this is why we don't talk about religion at thanksgiving.
> or politics.
> 
> how 'bout them broncos?


Its funny because I've been on other message boards where the following arguments were argued as passionately:

Should the YB-49 have been chosen over the B-36?

688I vs Sierra class...who would win.

Prius vs Volt.

Ar-234 vs P-80, which was better?

I guess we gotta try to convince others towards our views, but it never happens and people end up with hurt feelings.


----------



## BluSkyy (Jan 14, 2009)

mary:) said:


> I make a motion that the thread be locked.


perhaps everyone could be adults and just let the thread die?


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 14, 2009)

^ what if you believe in the 'hereafter'?

:lmao:


----------



## BluSkyy (Jan 14, 2009)

perhaps i do 

But at a certain point, it might be best to stop arguing for a while and move on to other topics.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jan 14, 2009)

BluSkyy said:


> perhaps everyone could be adults and just let the thread die?


It's already done that twice, but just like the messiah, you just can't kill it.


----------



## csb (Jan 14, 2009)

cement said:


> this is why we don't talk about religion at thanksgiving.
> or politics.
> 
> how 'bout them broncos?


Did they scout new coaches at the local elementary schools? Cripes that guy is young! It's a miracle he got the job.

Or it was a logical determination based on hypothesis testing.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 14, 2009)

BluSkyy said:


> perhaps i do  But at a certain point, it might be best to stop arguing for a while and move on to other topics.


Whence things have their origin,

Thence also their destruction happens,

According to necessity;

For they give to each other justice

and recompense For their injustice,

In conformity with the ordinance of Time.

~Anaximander


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 14, 2009)

DVINNY said:


> Example: Let's just look at the difference between Christians and Jews:
> Christians think Jesus is the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, etc. etc. and Jews think he did exist and was a profit. Not the Son of God. Jesus was a Jew.
> 
> If these two religions differ that greatly on his status, and they haven't been able to work it out, I have ZERO hope that EB.com is going to solve this one.
> ...


Interesting that you pick these points to illustrate differences in religion. Along the same lines, Muslims believe Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and will return to defeat the Antichrist. These two religions _agree_ on these points, and yet can't seem to get along very well.


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 15, 2009)

mudpuppy said:


> and will return to defeat the Antichrist.


Had to bring Obama into this eh?

LOL


----------



## tymr (Jan 15, 2009)

:woot: :appl: :appl: :appl:


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 15, 2009)

Anyone into the Battle Star Galactica series? I just got back into it, after missing at least 3 seasons, and i'm trying to catch up before season returns tomorrow on Sci Fi channel.

Anyways, its so interweaved w/ theism - deism - atheism, its really quite complex &amp; extraordinarily done. The humans believe in a poly-theistic 'religion', and the cylons (yes cyborgs or whatever) believe in mono-theistic 'religion' (the one true god), while a few in charge folks are atheistic in their beliefs. In the mean time, there are astrological cues &amp; tons of biblical tie-ins or innuendo if you will. Its a fun series which loosely touches on many of the same topics &amp; arguments. And shits gets blowed up, which is always cool


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jan 15, 2009)

^ DVR is programmed to pick up the new episodes any time they air. There was a 2-hour movie they put together a while back that I didn't even know they did prior to it showing up on my recorder. That series is very well done.


----------



## EM_PS (Jan 15, 2009)

^ I got all of season 4 on my Zune (.wmv format) - the episodes are commercial free &amp; only run like 44 min. each. Its been a great way to catch up, but boy I'm looking forward to watching the DVR ones on my 60-in Sony!


----------

