Merkabah

[sprinkles]

It was put on by the Creationism museum, so that's likely why other beliefs weren't included. I mean you can't deny the outright benefit that the Christian creationists are getting from it! I agree that the scope was limited, but I also think it'll get people talking and interested in the topic. Getting someone interested in science and understanding where we come from is the most essential part in them understanding and gaining knowledge about it.

I see it's purpose as being what TEDTalks do- except more accessible and relatable to the public.

I do wonder if there will be a backlash in the education system. Some people have been saying that Bill Nye might have done a disservice to the K-12 system and having evolutionary being taught....I don't know about the American system - as in Canada where I'm from, creationism wasn't taught - but it would be a shame if they limited the teaching of evolution even more.

I'm not talking about this one case, or TED talks. I am talking about the cultural meta sense that has been going on for decades. This is not a quest for information no matter how innocuous one single debate might appear to be.

This one innocent stone is part of a gigantic pile you know.

 

[LucyJr]

None of that is new and it generates nothing new. This was a stunt as always.

It's always science vs. 6000 year Christian creationism. That's not new. That's pigeonholing and it's some bullshit is what it is. Political stunting on both sides.

Where's Shinto? Where's Hinduism? What about the other creations? Why aren't they there? They aren't there because it's a set up because both sides are only interested in setting things up to knock them down.

They don't want you to look at new things. They want you to look at old things again so you don't forget!

How I generally understood the old "It's always science vs. 6000 year Christian creationism." is that because the other religions are not really a threat to materialism or naturalism. Take for example Hinduism. Its a religion of the Universe, our Universe. It doesn't have something outside, a Creator separated from Creation, that's why most intelectuals today see this as something that can be merged into naturalism. But theism is dangerous. Theism presupose some things, like a infinite and all-powerful God. And that's dangerous for naturalism or materialism.

 

[Quiet]

[MENTION=95]efromm[/MENTION] [MENTION=4956]charlene[/MENTION]

Yes. And I don't think it's necessary to overtly risk your life all the time either. But there's a thing to living that is just visceral. Not living in your head all the time.

I owned several cars when I was younger and I liked to drive them crazy some times. I'd peg my Escort GT turbo at over 100mph. That isn't really fast at all but there's still no questioning illusion or matter when you're blitzing around on wet roads with that cute little sporty engine hooked up to a 5-speed manual.

I get what you're saying here. Theres some stuff id like to say in regards to the questioning matter/illusion...not sure how to word it all and talk about it on a public forum. Will get there eventually.

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]
In regards to the creationism versus evolutionism debate... it is interesting ...its just can get frustrating that it always comes back to mainstream/commercial ideology... now for many people in our culture, the instant they see the word 'creationism' they think christianty, or when they see 'God', they think of some mean old man in the sky.
I've yet to see a honest dicussion about these things, rarely do each side understand another, or even their own side!

Personally i dont see how there is any contradiction between creation and evolution. And sometimes it makes it hard to talk about these things because people have hijacked the terms 'creation' and 'god'. These things can be distracting and limiting. My experience of 'God'...Goddess..Source, ALL THAT IS, Love, I AM, has nothing to do with the major world religions at all. These organised religions have a monopoly on perception this is distracting us and separating us from spirituality. What good is a priest, or guru, or laws...when every person already has the answers within.
And the ivory tower of science has been hikacked and bought and sold many times as well.
Sometimes it feels like everyone around the world is just arguing about nothing...if only they could stop and listen for a few minutes in stillness, shut off the incessant stream of thoughts...be utterly open and present...What a world they would find!

More id like to say, but gotta go...cranky 4 year old throwing a tantrum at me being on the computer...fair call

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]

Also at this point I don't think schools should teach either one! I think they should make them both sit in the corner until they learn to behave themselves!

Of course that's just coming from me after some 30 years of seeing this argument go on. It's old to me. Maybe it's new to somebody else. My question is though - why would you want to introduce anyone to this in the first place? What's so darn important about it that, by golly, the public needs to know about this?

You know why this is a thing? The iron fist of the church made it a thing. They pounded this into people so much that they think it has to be a thing! What is life without this question?? People have to know this! But then some members of the scientific community became the steel glove of science in order to have their own grip. They said "No, Church! I'm tired of your shit! This is how it is!" So now we have the iron fist of church vs. the steel glove of science. This is why these two views are so exclusively prevalent.

It's gotten to the point where they've shaped western society into the unwitting idea that these two notions are inherently worth looking at to begin with. They've made you believe perhaps without you even knowing it that these are two of the major questions of life and existence that society must discuss.

 

[say what]

I'm not talking about this one case, or TED talks. I am talking about the cultural meta sense that has been going on for decades. This is not a quest for information no matter how innocuous one single debate might appear to be.

This one innocent stone is part of a gigantic pile you know.

I still believe that if you recognize the intentions of the people behind the knowledge, you can still gain something from it. But we're going to disagree on this, because we're coming at it from two very different perspectives. I understand what you're saying here - but it doesn't connect with why we shouldn't discuss these ideas. They're two very prominent theories that the encapsulates the thinking of the majority of the world - Judeo-Christianity is still the most common belief around the world - and they focus on a topic that probably everyone has discussed at least once in their life. Just because they'll likely never be proven, doesn't me we should still discuss them!

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]
In regards to the creationism versus evolutionism debate... it is interesting ...its just can get frustrating that it always comes back to mainstream/commercial ideology... now for many people in our culture, the instant they see the word 'creationism' they think christianty, or when they see 'God', they think of some mean old man in the sky.
I've yet to see a honest dicussion about these things, rarely do each side understand another, or even their own side!

Personally i dont see how there is any contradiction between creation and evolution. And sometimes it makes it hard to talk about these things because people have hijacked the terms 'creation' and 'god'. These things can be distracting and limiting. My experience of 'God'...Goddess..Source, ALL THAT IS, Love, I AM, has nothing to do with the major world religions at all. These organised religions have a monopoly on perception this is distracting us and separating us from spirituality. What good is a priest, or guru, or laws...when every person already has the answers within.
And the ivory tower of science has been hikacked and bought and sold many times as well.
Sometimes it feels like everyone around the world is just arguing about nothing...if only they could stop and listen for a few minutes in stillness, shut off the incessant stream of thoughts...be utterly open and present...What a world they would find!

More id like to say, but gotta go...cranky 4 year old throwing a tantrum at me being on the computer...fair call

I do think it's a shame that they're often discussed by the two opposite ends of the spectrum. There are many people in between these two schools of thought that have different perspectives.

I do understand that these are mainstream ideologies- but as I said above, it's because they are the largest schools of thought. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with them, I'm just suggesting that the reason these two are discussed so much more than other sects is because they've been studied so much more, and are connected to the majority of the world- especially in America where Christianity is the primary religion. I just think that if we share with people that there are different perspectives, it'll might encourage them to understand more sides of the debate. If people begin to get interested and see there are other ways of seeing this topic, other ideologies may become more popular.


In the end- the video wasn't pushed down the public's throat, it was only there for the interested- so I don't see the harm, especially around controlling the media for the public. And I only posted it because I thought it would be interesting for anyone to see duelling perspectives debate - especially with entertaining debaters!

 

[say what]

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]

Also at this point I don't think schools should teach either one! I think they should make them both sit in the corner until they learn to behave themselves!

Of course that's just coming from me after some 30 years of seeing this argument go on. It's old to me. Maybe it's new to somebody else. My question is though - why would you want to introduce anyone to this in the first place? What's so darn important about it that, by golly, the public needs to know about this?

You know why this is a thing? The iron fist of the church made it a thing. They pounded this into people so much that they think it has to be a thing! What is life without this question?? People have to know this! But then some members of the scientific community became the steel glove of science in order to have their own grip. They said "No, Church! I'm tired of your shit! This is how it is!" So now we have the iron fist of church vs. the steel glove of science. This is why these two views are so exclusively prevalent.

It's gotten to the point where they've shaped western society into the unwitting idea that these two notions are inherently worth looking at to begin with. They've made you believe perhaps without you even knowing it that these are two of the major questions of life and existence that society must discuss.

They're part of the world's history! They're knowledge! If you're going to create a well-informed and critical thinker, you need to know more than just one perspective. Right or wrong, you should know other ideas, how they were formed, and the knowledge behind them. I see what you're asking and stating as being a completely different topic.

Yes Judeo-Christianity is the prominent ideology. Yes our society is shaped on it. Yes it's still what a lot of society practices. Science was largely shaped by this ideology! We can't get away from it- but just because I don't follow this belief, doesn't mean that there isn't value in me knowing it.

To be honest- I don't know why we're debating this or how that video spurred this on! The debate was with two educated individuals, and was open to the public if they wanted it- they didn't have to ingest it!

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]
Do you discuss something because you want to, or do you discuss something because somebody else thinks its a good idea to do so?

Is my view not equally worthy of discussion?

Also why is Christianity so prominent? Is it because it's just awesome, or is it because the state church of the Roman Empire made it a crime to be anything else?

 

[sprinkles]

They're part of the world's history! They're knowledge! If you're going to create a well-informed and critical thinker, you need to know more than just one perspective. Right or wrong, you should know other ideas, how they were formed, and the knowledge behind them. I see what you're asking and stating as being a completely different topic.

Yes Judeo-Christianity is the prominent ideology. Yes our society is shaped on it. Yes it's still what a lot of society practices. Science was largely shaped by this ideology! We can't get away from it- but just because I don't follow this belief, doesn't mean that there isn't value in me knowing it.

To be honest- I don't know why we're debating this or how that video spurred this on! The debate was with two educated individuals, and was open to the public if they wanted it- they didn't have to ingest it!

I wasn't debating anything. I said I wish they'd shut up. That's a personal thing. I could have easily left it there.

Who responded to it, and why did they?

 

[Love_Conquers_All]

Christianity is popular because deep down every person at their core desires truth. There is much truth in Christianity but their is also a lot of deception. Just as science has a lot of truth yet there is still much deception. It comes down to every person finding the inherent truth during their journey in their way. I believe in God not Christianity. I believe in science not evolution. If evolution is ever proven to my heart I will accept it. If Christianity is ever proven to my heart I will accept it. Christianity vs Evolution is a pointless, wasteful debate due to human arrogance and the need to always be right. It's sad that so many waste their lives trying to prove one over the other instead of just using their time here to learn to love others and grow as a person.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=7970]Love_Conquers_All[/MENTION]

Moreover, if little old me can drag a forum discussion in this direction on just a whim, then what do you think people with vast media powers and an agenda are capable of?

 

[Love_Conquers_All]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] you are always trying to mess with people, it is humorous in a way . As for media powers and what not, it's sickening that they hold sway over so many. That is what society has been trained for though. No surprise there sadly.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] you are always trying to mess with people, it is humorous in a way . As for media powers and what not, it's sickening that they hold sway over so many. That is what society has been trained for though. No surprise there sadly.

Yeah. I do mess with people. I think if you really want to think, you occasionally need to be jarred a bit. No?

It's too easy to get lazy. "Debates still have informational value." I suppose they do. Does it require the confrontational format? Is a contest necessary to convey the information?

What I'm challenging here is the very act of the argument itself, not necessarily the contents of either side. Motives and methods are what I'm questioning.

 

[just me]

I cannot help but wonder how many years Hugh Everett's followers will spend trying to prove Many Worlds Interpretation. If it is so widely accepted to be true, they sound more and more like philosophers than scientists.

One need not try the gun experiment, only think about it. To suppose the gun would not fire any cylinder(revolver) in another universe must be funded and proven to be scientific.

Anything that can happen, will? In some universe? Show me and prove it. Devil's advocate....

 

[LucyJr]

In regards to the creationism versus evolutionism debate... it is interesting ...its just can get frustrating that it always comes back to mainstream/commercial ideology... now for many people in our culture, the instant they see the word 'creationism' they think christianty, or when they see 'God', they think of some mean old man in the sky.
I've yet to see a honest dicussion about these things, rarely do each side understand another, or even their own side!

This debate, creationism vs evolutionism, is not just in christian cultures or communities, its in Islam countries, and pretty much all over the world. The main debate is between Theism vs Naturalism. Theism is the real threat to any other views, be it Naturalism, Hinduism and even Deism. The atheists don't find any threat in Hinduism or Buddhism, but any theistic religion is a big threat to naturalism, especially Christianity.

Personally i dont see how there is any contradiction between creation and evolution.

It depends of what angle one is looking. If your starting from the premises of Naturalism, there is no creation at all, just blind evolution. If you start from the premises of Hinduism, there is no Creation and no Evolution, there is just Everything. But in the Theistic framework, there is just Creation, and also what one might call micro-evolution.

And sometimes it makes it hard to talk about these things because people have hijacked the terms 'creation' and 'god'.

This is happening only to people who are ignorant. But the scientists and philosophers know very much what they are talking about.

These things can be distracting and limiting. My experience of 'God'...Goddess..Source, ALL THAT IS, Love, I AM, has nothing to do with the major world religions at all.These organised religions have a monopoly on perception this is distracting us and separating us from spirituality. What good is a priest, or guru, or laws...when every person already has the answers within.
And the ivory tower of science has been hikacked and bought and sold many times as well.
Sometimes it feels like everyone around the world is just arguing about nothing...if only they could stop and listen for a few minutes in stillness, shut off the incessant stream of thoughts...be utterly open and present...What a world they would find!

You say your philosophy has nothing to do with the major world religions, yet this is a form of classic Hisduism

 

[LucyJr]

I cannot help but wonder how many years Hugh Everett's followers will spend trying to prove Many Worlds Interpretation. If it is so widely accepted to be true, they sound more and more like philosophers than scientists.

One need not try the gun experiment, only think about it. To suppose the gun would not fire any cylinder(revolver) in another universe must be funded and proven to be scientific.

Anything that can happen, will? In some universe? Show me and prove it. Devil's advocate....

Well, the Many World Interpretation comes from philosophers, not from scientists. Its an idea that developed classicaly in analytic philosophy.
The idea is that there are many possible worlds, but not in a physical sense primary, rather in a "many parallel realities" sense. Its a very interesting idea. It states that there are different kinds of parallel realities, each one of them is potential in report with our actual world.

 

[sprinkles]

How I generally understood the old "It's always science vs. 6000 year Christian creationism." is that because the other religions are not really a threat to materialism or naturalism. Take for example Hinduism. Its a religion of the Universe, our Universe. It doesn't have something outside, a Creator separated from Creation, that's why most intelectuals today see this as something that can be merged into naturalism. But theism is dangerous. Theism presupose some things, like a infinite and all-powerful God. And that's dangerous for naturalism or materialism.

I don't know how this snuck in here without me seeing it and without me getting a notification, but let me tell you...

Theism is an attitude. There have been Hindu theists and Buddhist theists too! But in this venue in question they are not prevalent enough to be a force worth arguing against.

They're quiet because they're not part of the majority in question and they aren't large enough to threaten the majority under the purview of concerned parties. If they were, I assure you the arguments against them would be just as hard, if not harder! Because regardless of whether they're a 'threat' or not they would still be considered wrong wouldn't they.

But there's no incentive to really argue their wrongness is there? That's right, they're not considered a threat because they're to small in this part of society and they're not belligerent enough. Oh, they're still wrong, they're just not really big enough to make a thing of it. There'd be little to no benefit in controlling them. Isn't that right?

 

[LucyJr]

I don't know how this snuck in here without me seeing it and without me getting a notification, but let me tell you...

Theism is an attitude. There have been Hindu theists and Buddhist theists too! But in this venue in question they are not prevalent enough to be a force worth arguing against.

They're quiet because they're not part of the majority in question and they aren't large enough to threaten the majority under the purview of concerned parties. If they were, I assure you the arguments against them would be just as hard, if not harder! Because regardless of whether they're a 'threat' or not they would still be considered wrong wouldn't they.

But there's no incentive to really argue their wrongness is there? That's right, they're not considered a threat because they're to small in this part of society and they're not belligerent enough. Oh, they're still wrong, they're just not really big enough to make a thing of it. There'd be little to no benefit in controlling them. Isn't that right?

Not exactly. What I was saying is that by in large the atheist or naturalist comunity DOES NOT consider Hinduism a threat to Atheism, that's why they are not bother by these religions. But Theism is always a threat, because Theism states that there is a God OUTSIDE of the Universe, infinite in power and knowledge in all his attributes. That's why the debate of science today is "creation vs evolution". They don't consider other alternatives.

Take for example the classic saying of Carl Sagan: "The Universe is everything". Hinduism holds the same view, the Universe is everything, and Everything is God. You see, no big difference, these two views are almost the same. That's why the debate is not for Hinduism or Buddhism.
But Theism say that this Big Universe was created by a eternal God, and naturalists feel is in their duty to dismiss by all means this "myth". That's why the debate is centered around "creation vs evolution" for decades. Its not because Hinduism is not popular or the majority, its because Hinduism is a kind of Super Naturalism, its no big deal, it doesn't represent a threat, while Theism certainly does.
Thing of the old Carl: The Universe is Everything. But it looks like the Universe had a beginning, just like Theism states, and of course this is a pain for naturalists.

Theism is an attitude. There have been Hindu theists and Buddhist theists too!

Theism is worldview, not a attitude. Also there can't be Hindu theists or Buddhist theists, because Theism and Hinduism and Buddhism hold completely different worldviews.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

I'm talking about arguing what is 'correct', not the contents of the argument. Hindus have devas which would be a point of contention. Buddhism has reincarnation which is another form of contention, there are also celestial Buddhas which are like gods. The teaching of either of these as fact would fall under theism and should be just as argument worthy, especially since Christian doctrine would teach that these are wrong.

But instead of seeing debates that Jesus is the only way, or that you should have no other gods, we see this crap about the earth being 6000 years old because somebody added up the ages of people in the bible.

Naturalism should have nothing to do with this because by Christian accounts the naturalist explanation is still wrong and devas and celestial Buddhas would be even more wrong. Is this or is this not about facts??

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

I'm talking about arguing what is 'correct', not the contents of the argument. Hindus have devas which would be a point of contention. Buddhism has reincarnation which is another form of contention, there are also celestial Buddhas which are like gods. The teaching of either of these as fact would fall under theism and should be just as argument worthy, especially since Christian doctrine would teach that these are wrong.

Sorry, but I don't understand. How is that "The teaching of either of these as fact would fall under theism"???

But instead of seeing debates that Jesus is the only way, or that you should have no other gods, we see this crap about the earth being 6000 years old because somebody added up the ages of people in the bible.

Well yes, but I'm talking about intelectual debates, the one that is between science and religion, not the lay man debates.

Naturalism should have nothing to do with this because by Christian accounts the naturalist explanation is still wrong and devas and celestial Buddhas would be even more wrong. Is this or is this not about facts??

I kind of see that Naturalism plays a big part in this, because mainly the scientific community or the intellectual community today is formed by atheists, which hold either Naturalism or Materialism. That's why I say that they are not interested in Pantheism ( or Hinduism), because that's not a threat for their "science religion". However, Theism is a big threat, and especially Christianity and Judaism.

 

[sprinkles]

Sorry, but I don't understand. How is that "The teaching of either of these as fact would fall under theism"???

Because it's theism by definition! Belief in god or gods is theism! It might be preceded by a 'pan' or a 'poly' but it's still theism. Theism is not exclusive to only monotheism or Abrahamic theism.

Well yes, but I'm talking about intelectual debates, the one that is between science and religion, not the lay man debates.

And I'm talking about how I'm sick of hearing about it.

I kind of see that Naturalism plays a big part in this, because mainly the scientific community or the intellectual community today is formed by atheists, which hold either Naturalism or Materialism. That's why I say that they are not interested in Pantheism ( or Hinduism), because that's not a threat for their "science religion". However, Theism is a big threat, and especially Christianity and Judaism.

What about the other half? It takes two sides to debate. What's the other side culpable for? Why do they carry on?