Post: #151

I believe that Roosh is mistaken about evolution. I won't argue in detail as others have made detailed and cogent critiques. What concerns me is that others seem to so readily be following Roosh's lead as his opinion obviously carries a lot of weight around here.

Roosh and this place have added a lot of value over the last few years. It would sadden me if it devolved into a reactionary, pseudo-religious cult.

Post: #152

(06-06-2015 09:56 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Scorpion, can you describe a proof scenario whereby you would no longer believe the world was created by a deity?

To add some more to this, if you truly follow a deity this scenario is impossible.

Using the Christian faith as an example - By definition a Christian is someone who has "given themselves" to Christ in the belief that He is ultimately worthy of leading their life.

This means that God is the ultimate authority to their reasoning, therefore reasoning them selves out of the religion is impossible.
This is also why no amount of evidence at all will work on religious people.

To where do we usually associate the word evidence? A court of law.
When you give them evidence against God; who is the judge (them), and who is on trial? (God).
Since God is the ultimate authority to their reasoning, they go to his word for an answer.
"Do not test the lord your God".

Which is why I'm skeptical of people who have "left the church" or "become an atheist" after being a Christian.

Also, "I used to love my mother but now I don't believe she exists" doesn't really make sense.

When you ask the same question to a stone hardened atheist, "If God came down from heaven tonight and proved to you he existed, would you follow him?". The answer is often no.

Post: #153

(06-06-2015 02:27 PM)Roosh Wrote:  .....
If I am to believe that highly intelligent life came from organic soup, why hasn't life been spontaneously created in 4.5 billion years at any other time?

(06-06-2015 03:56 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  The bigger question is: why did it only happen once on Earth? Shouldn't we have other life origination events if it's all the result of a primordial soup?....

Let us take it one step further, given what we know about phylogenetic trees, why is it that in this modern times we DO NOT see around us human predecessors: Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo erectus, Homo Habilis?

Afterall, these beings are the precursors of modern Homo Sapien Sapien(modern humans). Why are they not constantly evolving from monkeys, Apes and other Simian species in this present day?

It is not like you can add the right ingredient, trigger a biological reaction and get results, but somehow, when you have all the ingredients and the right conditions all over again, nature somehow mysteriously refuse to yield the same result. Biological processes has no volitional power to abruptly stop a reaction cascade.

When evolutionary biological process are performed in the laboratory, once the experiment is started the sequence continues unabated until is completion. If the earth is one giant laboratory, why isn't that happening with these predecessors of humans? Constantly churning them out, especially since climate conditions makes it suitable.

If it takes X billions of years to make the first precursor of humans from Simians, why stop making them at X +1? or X + 2? or X + 3?....and so on and so forth? Why stop after generating humans(Homo Sapien Sapien)?






^^^

We should be seeing these beings all around us now.

I will find some evolutionary biology forums and post these questions, and see what answers they provide.

(06-06-2015 07:57 PM)RawGod Wrote:  ....What concerns me is that others seem to so readily be following Roosh's lead as his opinion obviously carries a lot of weight around here....

If anybody is that that weak-minded and cannot make up their own mind, and the person need some kind of alpha leader to teach them left from right. That is their problem. Blindly following Roosh only means the person completely miss the point of being at RVF and hasn't internalized the lessons of RVF.

Be well,

Dark Lord of Pussy

Post: #154

(06-06-2015 08:29 PM)Sooth Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 09:56 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Scorpion, can you describe a proof scenario whereby you would no longer believe the world was created by a deity?

To add some more to this, if you truly follow a deity this scenario is impossible.

Using the Christian faith as an example - By definition a Christian is someone who has "given themselves" to Christ in the belief that He is ultimately worthy of leading their life.

This means that God is the ultimate authority to their reasoning, therefore reasoning them selves out of the religion is impossible.
This is also why no amount of evidence at all will work on religious people.

To where do we usually associate the word evidence? A court of law.
When you give them evidence against God; who is the judge (them), and who is on trial? (God).
Since God is the ultimate authority to their reasoning, they go to his word for an answer.
"Do not test the lord your God".

Which is why I'm skeptical of people who have "left the church" or "become an atheist" after being a Christian.

Also, "I used to love my mother but now I don't believe she exists" doesn't really make sense.

When you ask the same question to a stone hardened atheist, "If God came down from heaven tonight and proved to you he existed, would you follow him?". The answer is often no.

I would disagree with this. I'm a Christian, but I wasn't born a Christian. I converted based on what I thought was better evidence. I would become an atheist if two conditions were met. First, show that the universe popped into existence out of absolute nothing. I'm not talking about "nothing" in a physics sense (quantum vacuum). I'm talking about nothing as the absence of anything. The most fundamental metaphysical principle is ex nihilo ex fit, out of nothing nothing comes. I'd have to be shown that the universe violates that.

The second condition is that I'd have to be shown that Jesus did not rise from the dead. That means either a) producing the body of Jesus or b) showing that the resurrection was a lie propagated by the apostles and the early church. Alternatively, if someone could prove to me that Jesus never existed, I'd have to seriously question my belief in a theistic god (deism would still be a live option, though). However, seeing as how most of the mythicist literature is nonsense that repeats the same uncritical claims, I don't think I'm going to be convinced. There's a reason that 99.9% of New Testament scholars, classicists, and historians of Christianity believe that a historical Jesus existed.

Post: #155

This is a fascinating thread because it touches on three essential subjects: biology, history, and religion. How do they intersect, and how has one influenced the other?

The historian can be seen, in many ways, as a biologist. He examines the activities of one organism: man. So the historian, almost unwittingly, becomes a biologist from his survey of the historical processes. Just by observing the behaviors of tribes, men, and nations, one learns about biology.

(Geography and climate are also major influences on history, but that is a subject for another day).

And what has the study of history taught me of biology?

1. Competition is essential. There is no peace in Nature. All organisms compete with each other for food, water, mates, and living spaces. Nations behave like individuals, in that they ceaselessly compete. The clash of nations and tribes reflects our primeval origins, where all life was a struggle for survival.

2. Nature selects the fittest. Some organisms are better adapted to survive than others, and these pass on their genetic inheritances. Out of a mass of organisms, some will adapt, and others will not. Concepts like "freedom" and "equality" are unknown in Nature. Nature is an aristocracy.

3. Nature prefers fertility. Organisms expand their number to fill their boundaries. When they burst their boundaries, they put ever farther outwards. Wealthy, civilized nations have low birthrates; they attract the hungry mouths of the more savage nations, and so are subject to infiltration and invasion.

The Chinese fought a losing battle to keep out the Mongol barbarians of its north; the Romans in vain sought to contain the Germans on their side of the Rhine; the Arabs were crushed under the heels of the Tartars in the late Middle Ages; and the Americans presently labor to control their southern border (with equal lack of success).

And what of religion? I've written of this before and wanted to emphasize a few salient points here.

It is perfectly acceptable for the man of reason to pledge his allegiance to both science and religion. Both has a place in the life of man, and in the trajectory of history. To be a complete man, I need both.

Religion has proven to be one of the most vital and resilient forces in history. Cut it down, and it grows again. All attempts to snuff it out have been in vain.

So the Communists labored fruitlessly to uproot the Orthodox Church in Russia from 1917 to 1989. So the Egyptian pharaoh Ikhnaton tried in suppress the religion of Amon; but as soon as the pharaoh died, it came back stronger than ever. The persecutions of Diocletian and later emperors only made Christianity stronger. The French Revolution tried to eradicate the Catholic Church, but it came back stronger than ever once Napoleon signed a concordat with the Papal See in the early 1800s.

Religion is the repository of morals and the imaginative life of the people. No society in history has ever been able to function for long without the aid of some organized faith. Religions, with their myths, moral stories, admonitions, rituals, pageants, and works of art, have been the sources of inspiration and discipline for man for many thousands of years. Man's impulses cannot be held in check without the discipline of religion and its codes of conduct.

We don't like to admit this is true (the atheist becomes enraged to hear this), but history bears it out.

And this is what the thoughtful man finds so objectionable in the atheist. The atheist lacks a deep understanding of the psychology of man and of history. He believes that his books of science, that his charts, tables, and computers, can explain all. And we should give him his due. The achievements of science are just as impressive, and just as powerful, as the beauties of art, literature, and organized faiths.

But when all is said and done, the common man prefers to listen to the call of religion. He grows tired of the exertions of thought. He grows tired with the relativism of everything, and the incredibilities of science. The deeper we go into science, the more uncertain we become of everything.

Science, for all its grandeur, has little to offer in the way of spiritual consolation. It tells us that this existence is nothing but a meaningless struggle of man against man, signifying nothing, and which ends in a cold death. Is this the ethic that will inspire man? No. Science provides little nourishment for the soul.

A cynic may even go farther: science has brought us only an enervating relativism, the poisoning of the air, soil, and seas, the fake "equality" between the sexes that has destroyed the family and ruined the position of men in Western culture. Science has brought us birth control that has taken away from man much of his power. The consumer culture has destroyed all the old institutions, but given us what? Caitlyn Jenner? Feminism? Social decay?

The victory of science over the soul of Western man began with Copernicus, gained speed during the Industrial Revolution, and now appears complete.

But the battle is not won yet. History, as it moves with glacial slowness, has surprises in store for us yet.

As Western man grows more disillusioned with the false promises of science, and as the fertility of the simple overwhelms the sterility of the privileged few, and as the influx of immigrants of religious backgrounds continues, we may see the advent of a new Age of Faith. If Western society does indeed disgrace itself--if science disgraces itself--with social ruin and economic collapse, we may indeed see some sort of religious revival.

Parents will call on the help of religion to discipline their young; governments will seek the aid of organized faiths to stem the tides of discontent, of sexual depravity, and of barbarism.

This has happened before in history, and it can happen again. We await developments, and do the best we can in the meantime.

.

Post: #156

(06-06-2015 09:46 PM)CuntLord Wrote:  Let us take it one step further, given what we know about phylogenetic trees, why is it that in this modern times we DO NOT see around us human predecessors: Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo erectus, Homo Habilis?

Afterall, these beings are the precursors of modern Homo Sapien Sapien(modern humans). Why are they not constantly evolving from monkeys, Apes and other Simian species in this present day?

It is not like you can add the right ingredient, trigger a biological reaction and get results, but somehow, when you have all the ingredients and the right conditions all over again, nature somehow mysteriously refuse to yield the same result. Biological processes has no volitional power to abruptly stop a reaction cascade.

When evolutionary biological process are performed in the laboratory, once the experiment is started the sequence continues unabated until is completion. If the earth is one giant laboratory, why isn't that happening with these predecessors of humans? Constantly churning them out, especially since climate conditions makes it suitable.

If it takes X billions of years to make the first precursor of humans from Simians, why stop making them at X +1? or X + 2? or X + 3?....and so on and so forth? Why stop after generating humans(Homo Sapien Sapien)?

So I think I can answer one of those questions. Chances are, modern humans (our Cro-Magnon ancestors) either wiped out or interbred with the Neanderthal, making a hybrid species. Additionally, with the advent of civilization, we managed to develop a system that more or less put a stop to human evolution. The pressures that forced evolution earlier on are gone.

Post: #157

QC, that was an excellent post. I think that a religious revival will occur eventually. Personally, I fail to see Western Europe remaining this secular while Islam grows within it.

Post: #158

(06-06-2015 10:45 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  So I think I can answer one of those questions. Chances are, modern humans (our Cro-Magnon ancestors) either wiped out or interbred with the Neanderthal, making a hybrid species.

It doesn't matter since we have simian species around; nature should constantly generate more and more of these beings from these raw materials(simian species). Afterall they evolve from simians and simians are the raw material, and the raw material is still around.

(06-06-2015 10:45 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Additionally, with the advent of civilization, we managed to develop a system that more or less put a stop to human evolution.

This is not the case. Modern civilization didn't stop human evolution from simians. In fact, all these mutagens dumped into the environment should increase the rate of mutations and evolution from simians. Even if we are to grant the case that humans somehow stop simians from evolving into homo erectus or whatever. Why is this lack of constant evolution happening all across the phylogenetic trees? why are precursors of insects, whales, spiders, cows, etc not roaming around? Cows didn't create their own modern cow-society that prevents their precursors(Bos primigenius) from evolving from their pre-precursors(Bos acutifrons). So why don't we see the Bos acutifrons or the Bos primigenius walking around today?

(06-06-2015 10:45 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  The pressures that forced evolution earlier on are gone.

No they are not. Simians are still under the same pressure. gene flow, genetic drift, differential reproduction, natural selection are all still in effect.

Post: #159

(06-04-2015 05:55 PM)scorpion Wrote:  It's like believing that a car drove around the entire world without having any gas in the tank.

It's more like observing 15,000 miles of tire tracks from a single vehicle, where you can tell all manner of things about what happened to that vehicle in those 15,000 miles like where it stopped for gas, when it got a flat and had to switch to a spare and then a replacement, and how fast it was going, but you don't know who made the car or who was driving it.

And then you decide to just argue like those 15,000 miles of tire tracks don't exist and don't mean anything because you don't know who made the car.

Roosh Wrote:If I am to believe that highly intelligent life came from organic soup, why hasn't life been spontaneously created in 4.5 billion years at any other time?

I don't think we don't know that it hasn't. What if a single-cell organism spontaneously formed yesterday then died within 10 minutes left no trace it ever existed?

Post: #160

(06-06-2015 11:34 PM)Blaster Wrote:  I don't think we don't know that it hasn't. What if a single-cell organism spontaneously formed yesterday then died within 10 minutes left no trace it ever existed?

We will know because it will leave fossil records. It will leave behind genetic traces, cellular fragments, etc. and radiocarbon dating will confirm its evolutionary date.

On top of that, there will be mass quantity of them. Not just a few. It will occur en masse.

Post: #161

Evolution is not based simply on mutation. Evolution is also based on natural selection, which largely deals with pressures from the outside world. Humans today largely don't have issues like being eaten by large, dangerous animals or not having enough to eat for weeks at a time.

Civilization has only been around for about 10,000-12,000 years. Humans as a species have existed for roughly 150,000.

Post: #162

(06-06-2015 11:40 PM)CuntLord Wrote:  We will know because it will leave fossil records. It will leave behind genetic traces, cellular fragments, etc. and radiocarbon dating will confirm its evolutionary date.

On top of that, there will be mass quantity of them. Not just a few. It will occur en masse.

Fossils are incredibly rare. The fossil record doesn't have as many gaps as many would like to think, and we actually do have a fairly good idea of how amphibians evolved into primates.

Post: #163

I have a few thoughts to add, in particular to a few things about evolution, which I have had some interest in. Then, some more about Roosh's note and the existence of a diety.

The development of eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus and organelles, or separate "organs" with additional cellular membranes.) was always pretty interesting to me. Apparently, there is a lot of evidence that eukaryotes are actually a merging of several prokaryotes (cells without a nucleus).

There is a proposed theory for this called Symbiogenesis. Of particular interest to me were mitochondria and other organelles. The mitochondria are pretty import They have their own DNA, and they are only passed through the mother..

The organelles also have very similar characteristics to bacteria, and in some cases the cell cannot replace them on its own:

Quote:If a cell's mitochondria or chloroplasts are removed, they do not have the means to create new ones. For example, in some algae, such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate.

Quote:According to Keeling and Archibald, the usual way to distinguish organelles from endosymbionts is by their reduced genome sizes. As an endosymbiont evolves into an organelle, most of their genes are transferred to the host cell genome. The host cell and organelle need to develop a transport mechanism that enables transfer back of the protein products needed by the organelle but now manufactured by the cell. However, using the example of the freshwater amoeboid Paulinella chromatophora, which contains chromatophores found to be evolved from cyanobacteria, these authors argue that this is not the only possible criterion, another one being that the host cell has assumed control of the regulation of the former endosymbiont's division, bringing it in synchrony with the cell's own division. Nowack and her colleagues performed gene sequencing on the chromatophore (1.02Mb) and found that only 867 proteins were encoded by these photosynthetic cells. Comparisons with their closest free living cyanobacteria of the genus Synechococcus (having a genome size of 3Mb with 3300 genes) revealed that chromatophores underwent a drastic genome shrinkage. Chromatophores contained genes that were accountable for photosynthesis but were deficient in genes that could carry out other biosynthetic functions signifying that these endosymbiotic cells were highly dependent on their hosts for their survival and growth mechanisms.

There are interesting things going on at the cellular level that point at the possibility for these small organisms to work together. Who knows, it may have been as simple as a predator cell eating a cyanobacteria (that produces energy through sunlight via photosynthesis), but not breaking down it's cellular membrane, but instead feeding off of its byproducts. Then, boom, you have a much more complicated organism. For the same reason mitochondria could have been easier to be kept alive instead of being fully devoured by the host cell, and just fed nutrients that were easier to find.

As for Roosh's note on evolution not applying to modern humans, I agree in the sense that there are several feedback loops that are normally present in "evolution" as an idea that are entirely broken today. Roosh mentioned this in regard to the welfare state, and the fact that humans do not reproduce up to the limit of their food supply. This, in all appearances, seems to wreck the "survival of the fittest" idea, because the people that are reproducing certainly don't seem to be the most fit. Human beings seem to be the only creature able to modify their own environment to the extent, and communicate, such that they can think their way out of breeding. However, the fact that reproduction is being halted among many doesn't mean that this is the one and only reason we see the world as it is today. There is plenty of evidence that overpopulation of any species can trigger counterproductive behavior and disorder. This apparently has been mentioned on Roosh's commentary before, but I can't find direct information that Roosh mentioned these experiments in his blog posts, i.e. the John B. Calhoun experiments:

Quote:Initially the population grew rapidly, doubling every 55 days. The population reached 620 by day 315, after which the population growth dropped markedly. The last surviving birth was on day 600. This period between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against. After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed “the beautiful ones.” Breeding never resumed and behavior patterns were permanently changed.

The conclusions drawn from this experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.

Calhoun saw the fate of the population of mice as a metaphor for the potential fate of man. He characterized the social breakdown as a “second death,” with reference to the “second death” mentioned in the Biblical book of Revelation 2:11.[1] His study has been cited by writers such as Bill Perkins as a warning of the dangers of the living in an "increasingly crowded and impersonal world."

How much of this experiment is similar to our big cities in the West? How about Japan and the herbivore men? Aggressive women? All of the organism feedback mechanisms that got us to reproduce apparently start to go haywire above a certain population threshold. This may be a self-limiting part of an evolved feedback loop that ends up stopping growth beyond a threshold (not because it has a reason to stop it, that's just what happens). That said, I think that this threshold, if it is an evolved one, may be completely arbitrary and possible to manipulate by the human mind with technology. That doesn't mean that it'll be something that I or you may enjoy, however.

As for the existence of god, the formation of the universe, etc. etc., fundamentally all of that discussion just bores me. I strongly doubt in the existence of a god, even as I currently read the New Testament. And I do not understand the logical leap that goes:
I don't understand where the world/universe comes from ---> the Bible is an accurate reflection of a god I have never seen.
I may prefer the culture that developed around Christianity, as it is the culture I grew up in, and it is also the culture that has been the most individual-freedom oriented (or was), but I think that the good parts of the culture can be preserved, and have enough justification on their own without resorting to everything becoming hedonism in the absence of a god.

My reading of the New Testament has launched me into yet another study of the historical life of Jesus, as I simply could not find the miracles performed by Jesus and the Apostles as believable. I think, to understand both the Old Testament (which I haven't read as completely as the New Testament yet) and the New Testament, at least in regard to the truth of it, the history of the time has to be understood.

Some of the big issues I have with the New Testament:
The NT was written in Greek due to Alexander the Great sweeping through the area a few centuries before. This colors the atmosphere heavily.
Rome was expanding at the same time as the New Testament, likely due to the effects that the Greeks had, meaning the entire area was in a very hostile, wild political environment. From the death of Jesus to the gospel of Mark is four decades. That is a lot of time for only the politically favorable parts of his life to get written down, or colored appropriately to be politically tenable. See how our language and communication with big media is now. The same old narrative keeps getting hammered into your skull, if you let it, over and over again. If only a few people in power 2000 years ago were willing and able to write down information about certain events, whose opinions are really being reflected? And how much of a role did the leading world empires at the time have in this? My guess is, HUGE.

The same goes for the OT, although I am even less familiar with that text and time frame, but this whole study has conveyed to me the import of understanding the Bible as a historical artifact reflecting the political environment at the time.

In sum, I think there is still a lot unknown about history. This includes the formation of the universe, the Bible, evolution, and everything else. Our ignorance of history is going to be a given until time machines get invented (which I sincerely doubt will happen). I think that nature is going to have it's way with humans regardless, and to me that falls under the umbrella of just plain old nature. You can call it evolution, or "god" if to you "god" is simply the natural universe, but I don't see a reason for any kind of supernatural diety to be involved in any of this. I am happy admitting to myself that I do not know how the universe is formed. However, I think there may eventually be a better explanation of things, or possibly the contact with extraterrestrial life opens up our eyes to something completely different. There may be something fundamentally misunderstood about our science, like the constancy of the speed of light. Just that one assumption breaking down can change our whole view of the universe.

Post: #164

(06-06-2015 06:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 04:59 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  The Universe is inherently random. The fundamental way the Universe works, Quantum Electro-Dynamics [QED], is a probabilistic science. Every "particle" you are made up of is probabilistic. You can not deny this because it has been empirically observed over and over.

This is a metaphysical dogma with absolutely nothing to back it up. You may think it is random but how do you know?

If you believe in something and it cannot be falsified, it's no different than believing in a God.

This is what I was thinking too - how the fuck will you know if the universe is indeed random with our level of knowledge? Have we been suddenly able to map out and calculate movement of atoms and have we been travelling to thousands of solar system and checking out life on various stages of development?

What appears random to our eye - and that's pretty much all we have to "calculate" randomness - may have a superseding order to it all.

Post: #165

I thought about replying to several posts in this thread but decided that a rebuttal to any thoughts was counter productive. Instead I will post some of my own thoughts.

TPTB or the elite/illumaniti/olgliarchy/whatever you want to fucking call it, view the middle class as their greatest natural threat. To eliminate this threat they use the education system, the government and culture/entertainment to attack the middle class.

In this way they promote ideas that are destructive to their natural competition and retard attempts to compete with their supremacy.

They could also be doing this for a second reason in addition to the first - overpopulation. They are alarmed by population growth and they feel unchecked this could cause a problem to their control on the situation.

So they put forth idea's in the education system and culture that cause the middle class to destroy it self. In this way they eliminate all competition to resources(which include women and therefore evolution).

So many of our current behaviours are counter to evolutionary design because a subspecies on top of the pyramid has declared war on those lower on the pyramid.

Post: #166

(06-07-2015 01:19 AM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  My reading of the New Testament has launched me into yet another study of the historical life of Jesus, as I simply could not find the miracles performed by Jesus and the Apostles as believable. I think, to understand both the Old Testament (which I haven't read as completely as the New Testament yet) and the New Testament, at least in regard to the truth of it, the history of the time has to be understood.

Some of the big issues I have with the New Testament:
The NT was written in Greek due to Alexander the Great sweeping through the area a few centuries before. This colors the atmosphere heavily.
Rome was expanding at the same time as the New Testament, likely due to the effects that the Greeks had, meaning the entire area was in a very hostile, wild political environment. From the death of Jesus to the gospel of Mark is four decades. That is a lot of time for only the politically favorable parts of his life to get written down, or colored appropriately to be politically tenable.

If you approach the topic with a presupposition, you'll surly doubt everything you read.

You will read that a sea parted, a donkey talked, a man was raised from the dead - and you will say "impossible". Which is true, if there is no God.

This is why the answer from a Christian "because God said" or "It's a miracle" sounds ludicrous. You presuppose that no god exists and therefore miracles are impossible. They presuppose that he does exist and miracles are a given.

Suppose for a moment their God does exist. To a God who spoke the universe into existence with a single breath, who created the seas, the animals and humans, who sees all of time in a moment, the idea of a talking donkey or a man raising from the dead is trivial.

And this is why Christians don't care about how many languages, kingdoms or decades passed between the death of Jesus and the gospels. If the creator of the universe authored a book that was around before the universe, and was part of himself - what is 40 years?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - 1 John 1.

No matter what evidence you give them they are going to the bible for the answer.

Post: #167

(06-07-2015 04:34 AM)Sooth Wrote:  And this is why Christians don't care about how many languages, kingdoms or decades passed between the death of Jesus and the gospels. If the creator of the universe authored a book that was around before the universe, and was part of himself - what is 40 years?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - 1 John 1.

No matter what evidence you give them they are going to the bible for the answer.

This discounts the Catholics which account for a majority of the Christian population.

Whether or not most practicing Catholic's know it. The Roman Catholic church has decided it supersedes the bible and all it's teachings.

They believe that they are the final authority on earth.

Post: #168

Last couple of years since finding this forum and other manosphere sites have seen me being transformed from extreme liberal views and atheism to much more conservative and spiritual view of the world. When I realized I was being lied about the establishment about women, I started questioning the political sides, and realized I was being lied too. As I was also trying to find ailments for my health problems (psoriasis being number one) I realized I was being lied about my health.

Some of the lies are intentional ones mad to control me better, but I realize some are pure hubris. As through my studies on University I got deeper into Quantum Mechanics and Nanoelectronics, I began to saw the hubris part of it. So much of modern technology that we enjoy works because of the concepts that are so mind boggling, that you just can't ignore it. The disconnect between micro and macrocosm is so big that it I just couldn't keep the simple cookie cutter materialistic world view.

The point of this post is not to claim that there is a God because of Quantum Mehanics. It's just a small story about my journey from "knowledge" to questioning.

Post: #169

(06-07-2015 05:20 AM)FilipSRB Wrote:  It's just a small story about my journey from "knowledge" to questioning.

This is the beginning of the journey.

Not accepting the "authority" as the truth, but truth as the authority.

It's a scary journey for any man, but I think that to be considered a man you have to be willing to take the journey.

Post: #170

Quote:Whether or not most practicing Catholic's know it. The Roman Catholic church has decided it supersedes the bible and all it's teachings.

They believe that they are the final authority on earth.

False, the Catholic church didn't decide to "supersede" anything. Please research the following at your own leisure:

- Apostolic tradition vs. sola scriptura; What is the basis of Christian authority, Scripture or the traditions of early leaders?
- Salvation through faith vs. salvation through good works; What determines salvation, faith alone or specific acts/behaviors/rituals?
- The role of the Apostle Peter (or Saint Peter for Catholics) in the Church's foundation; Why is he viewed as the founder of Catholicism?
- The line of succession, organization, and traditions of Christ's first followers; Who formed the community, how were they organized, what did they do immediately after Jesus' death?
- The key theological differences between Christian denominations (Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, etc.); What caused the Reformation? Did it have anything to do with the points above?

This is complex subject matter for even well-read theologians, but without an understanding of the basics, it's impossible to understand Western thought and history.

Post: #171

(06-07-2015 05:20 AM)FilipSRB Wrote:  As through my studies on University I got deeper into Quantum Mechanics and Nanoelectronics, I began to saw the hubris part of it. So much of modern technology that we enjoy works because of the concepts that are so mind boggling, that you just can't ignore it. The disconnect between micro and macrocosm is so big that it I just couldn't keep the simple cookie cutter materialistic world view.

One of my pivotal moments was sitting in a Calculus lecture and learning of Euler's Identity.




It unites the 5 most important aspects of mathematics. Zero, One, pi, e and i (the square root of minus one).

I remember the moment I understood it and the same moment I thought "you're fucking joking".

Post: #172

(06-07-2015 05:35 AM)Sooth Wrote:  One of my pivotal moments was sitting in a Calculus lecture and learning of Euler's Identity.




It unites the 5 most important aspects of mathematics. Zero, One, pi, e and i (the square root of minus one).

I remember the moment I understood it and the same moment I thought "you're fucking joking".

Yes, yes, absolutely! It's even more beautiful when you see all the applications of it, you don't even have to go to QM, just look at the way alternating currents are described with complex sine functions. Or the famous result (or to be precise, its assigned value) of sum of all positive integers being -1/12, used in physics.

A famous Heisenberg quote is quite apt here:

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."

Post: #173

(06-07-2015 05:35 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:Whether or not most practicing Catholic's know it. The Roman Catholic church has decided it supersedes the bible and all it's teachings.

They believe that they are the final authority on earth.

False, the Catholic church didn't decide to "supersede" anything. Please research the following at your own leisure:

- Apostolic tradition vs. sola scriptura
- Salvation through faith vs. salvation through good works
- The role of the Apostle Peter (or Saint Peter for Catholics) in the Church's foundation
- The line of succession, organization, and traditions of Christ's first followers
- The key theological differences between Christian denominations (Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, etc.)

This is complex subject matter for even well-educated theologians, but without an understanding of at least the points listed above, you'll never truly understand Western though and Western history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
http://www.eaec.org/cults/romancatholic.htm

TLDR:The Roman Catholic church departed from the teaching of the bible long ago.

This is why the various schisms of Christianity came about. This is probably one of the most least understood things in history today. Nobody has a clue about how the Roman Catholic church evolved, why it adopted paganism into almost all of it's most holy day's and why the church fractured into a thousand pieces.

Post: #174

Quote:TLDR:The Roman Catholic church departed from the teaching of the bible long ago.

You're only proving my point.

You hold the Bible to be the ultimate, exclusive, and final law, Catholics do not, and never have. Apostolic tradition (to include Papal instruction) and Scripture together form the basis of Catholic doctrine. Your argument is structured around common presuppositions.

The Reformation took place because Martin Luther believed the Bible to be the ultimate and exclusive source of Christian authority (sola scriptura), while rejecting many elements of Apostolic tradition he believed violated Scripture (but not all). He made a compelling case for it, one I personally believe to be a closer reflection of the truth than Catholic doctrine of the time.

For a general timeline:

Post: #175

Quote:Last couple of years since finding this forum and other manosphere sites have seen me being transformed from extreme liberal views and atheism to much more conservative and spiritual view of the world.

Same with me. The only issue is that I'm not seeing any red lights or caution signs as I move rightward. It seems that a lot of us, as society moves farther left, move even more to the right as a counter-balancing force. It's no surprise that a lot more rightward ideas are coming out of the forum in the past 2 years during a time when society has moved more abruptly to the left (particularly with homosexual/tranny acceptance and "rape culture").