Does anyone write atheist based songs?

[barefoot]

Why can't you accept the notion that there is a force that is bigger than you and you are not capable, much less ready to understand how and why things happen?.

But synergy, you have it all wrong.

The reality is that we are controlled by a huge number of tiny little forces, all acting independently, each of which we can never detect and never understand. They're called gremlins. Why can't you just except it?

I'm not saying this to be sarcastic (not completely ). I'm just trying to illustrate how arbitrary your statement is. What evidence do you have of this higher power? Name one scientific theory which falls apart because it doesn't include your higher power? Or name one questionable scientific theory for which there aren't a hundred other plausible explanations other than a higher power?

Evolution is being debated here. Don't think the earth's fossil record supports the theory? Ok, I agree. But I believe that a complete evolutionary fossil record exists on another planet whose inhabitants came to earth and transplanted life. Prove me wrong?

I don't really think gremlins rule the universe or space aliens populated the earth, but they are every bit (if not more) plausible than your higher power. Scientific theories last because they work - time and time again. Those that don't work don't last. And some long established theories are almost sure to fail. But this is no reason to jump to your arbitrary conclusion.

barefoot

 

[tribalbeeyatch]

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
The supposed "lack of transitional fossils" is an oft-repeated fallacy.

Originally posted by atomictoyz
This is still an open issue in the origins debate, so Ill save this for later. I have some material, but not on hand, from known paleoentologists who do not agree with the interpretations of the data.

If you have citations in which paleontologists assert that the fossil record doesn't support the theory of evolution writ large, then I'd love to see them. If your quotes are more along the lines of "no, we think that fossil x belongs in clade y and not clade z", then I can't say that I'm very interested. That transitional fossils exist is really not an open issue. There will always be gaps between certain intermediates due to the rarity of fossilization, but that doesn't change the fact that the fossil record abounds with intermediate forms.

"[E]specially in the scientific community"? What makes you think that? Again, Gould and Eldridge predict that the fossil record will show long periods of minor modifications puctuated by short bursts of rapid change. They are well aware that many transitional fossils have been found.

The word predict means there was an assumption made in the process of developing the theory, I can argue that a prediction is tightly bound to hope.
The "especially in the scientific community" comment reflects the financial aspects of research and govermental funding. Punk Eek (PE) deals with Stasis, long periods of nothing happening morphologically to a species. The nature of fossils typically do not reveal any genetic information to prove or disprove changes that are not morphological. This actually is a debate between Gradualists and Punk Eekers that continues on everyday. The molecular Biologists get frustrated because PE from a genetics standpoint is unprovable, with the deleterious mutation tolerance being so low in observed experiments for a vast number of species. One thing I discovered in doing research in the origins debate is the total lack of recognizing we only have a miniscule amount of data to analyze over such a short period of time. To say something is consistant or reliable is risky at best. Id lose my job if a made an assumtion that required an inverted extrapolation<spell check>over a theoretical amount of time nearing infinity minus 1. Speculation is fun anyhow.

Let's see (I'll try to make this succinct so as not to drag this OT thread any farther afield):

Predictions don't demonstrate assumptions made in the development of an hypothesis; they are a means of testing the hypothesis through the establishment of criteria of falsifiability.

I really don't understand how government-funded research makes scientists hate being wrong any more than everybody else.

And, if I can be permitted a general observation...don't you find it strange that you, an admitted amateur in this field, have recognized something that professionals in the field have not (re: the scarcity of data)? Do you think that it's more likely that the pros are unaware of the scarcity of data or that you are unaware of the vastness of it?

Do you mean the Popperian Criterion of Falsifiability?

I will say yes to keep the answer simple:0)

Dammit, man, with one deft maneuver you avoided my unabashed attempt to bait you into providing a stale quote from Popper about evolution not being a scientific theory. I demand satisfaction!

I see that you're in Seattle, atomictoyz. You aren't at the UW by any chance?

Nope, I have a sister and an Aunt who work there. I have a few friends who are practicing scientists with Phd's and an Uncle who works for the Government as a Phd in Geology.
I got my scientific training in special schools and have been involved in origins debate for 8 years or so. I used to believe evolution was fact, I have a library of books. I also have a pretty good selection of "creationism" books. Im a thorn in the side of both creationist and evolutionists. Bad science is bad science, its becoming more and more of a problem, just recently some Washington State scientists got busted for tainting and National Geographic is in its second frying pan this year for improperly representing data and doctoring images. What do you expect from the media right? I hope I didn't forget something here, its easier when Im at home with all my stuff.

Well, far be it from me to introduce new complexity to the topic, but evolution exists both as a fact (change in allelic frequency within a population) and a theory (common descent). At any rate, I'm glad to see that you are actively investigating the topic of evolution. That's a good thing. Without skepticism, science would never get anywhere.

 

[synergy]

barefoot,

Let me provide an analogy:

Black is to white as science is to faith.

What evidence do you have of this higher power?

Faith, by definition, is to accept something, even when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. Science attempts to provide a reason behind things that we, as humans, can understand. In other words, faith and science are opposites. Faith is not an easy concept, and the word is often misused. I DON"T have faith that the sun will rise tommorrow morning, I draw upon my past experiences and my personal knowledge that the sun has never failed to rise. "Trust" is a better word to use in this case. You place your trust in science, which, in my eyes, is full of false conceptions, amplified by human arrogance. To you, my faith in a higher power may seem just as foolish.

I don't mean to sound like a pompous jackass, but, in the end, I lose nothing by believing and being wrong, but if I am right, all is lost for you.

 

[Henri Devill]

I think therefor I am...If I belive ,all is possible..If I am wrong, I am but a dream..And there is no exsistance..



To me that is faith..



Don

 

[atomictoyz]

And, if I can be permitted a general observation...don't you find it strange that you, an admitted amateur in this field, have recognized something that professionals in the field have not (re: the scarcity of data)? Do you think that it's more likely that the pros are unaware of the scarcity of data or that you are unaware of the vastness of it?
Well, far be it from me to introduce new complexity to the topic, but evolution exists both as a fact (change in allelic frequency within a population) and a theory (common descent). At any rate, I'm glad to see that you are actively investigating the topic of evolution. That's a good thing. Without skepticism, science would never get anywhere.

I have been given the amatuer/pro observation many times. And its usually no more than "Im smarter than you so go away" comment. Not that your saying that, but its been literally thrown in my face. Dr. David Eakin<spell?>, was told for him to receive his doctorate from the University of Kentucky he had to believe evolution was a fact or prove otherwise. The quotes Im looking for in my files are not merely disagreement in a fossils placement on a cladogram. While you don't want to bring new complexity into this discussion, microevolution as defined by changes in allelic frequencies. Why not bring up a counter argument to Haldanes Dilemma of the Cost of Substitution within mammilian species. Lets not play games with the Peppered Moths and sterile antiquated arguments. While a good portion of science has been relugated to pumping data into the 2 popular theories at a breakneck pace, I review and skeptically analyze everything. My job demands that I have the ability to do that very thing, and it just so happens that ability is very useful in other fields. I don't care really one way or the other because the ultimate origins debate is really outside of the scientific process. I use the scientific process every single day, the complexity of the issues I deal with do not have the margin of error I would like, when I screw up people die. Ive spent most of my career in little black holes inventing and creating things a college won't get wind about for decades. You must realize the amount of indoctrination that occurs to students studying science in a 4 year college or even to the masters level, regardless of your personal beliefs. When I got dumped into the underworld of DOD projects I was literally told to forget what I thought I knew, and open my mind to the impossible. Only after you open you mind and try to truely dismantle a theory, offering up alterative explainations for the observed will you see the disparity between reality and theory.

My sister still can spew and quote nearly every piece of evolutionary ear candy as if she was reading it, go outside the box, well..she can't. Im not saying Creationists are in their right mind because they spew the same garbage spewed 20 years ago. In fact some creation scientists have quit talking to me, because Ive questioned them on the same things I question in evolution. I have a book of 2 sided arguments I keep, its quite sad Im must say. Each claiming hold of data that suits neither issue. Tribal, go to TalkOrigins and look for Plagerized Molecular Errors, it may have changed but none the less interesting.
Anyone else read Biotic Message or Darwins Black Box?

Two quotes:
"The more one studies Paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone. (T.L. Moor.p22)"
"..objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist Paleontology. The Darwinist approach has been consistantly been to find some supporting fossil evidence, claim it as "proof" for 'evolution', and then ignore all the difficulties. (Roger Lewin p84)"

Tribal, ask Chris Colby why he never replied to my email?

Peace,
Dennis

 

[tribalbeeyatch]

I have been given the amatuer/pro observation many times. And its usually no more than "Im smarter than you so go away" comment. Not that your saying that, but its been literally thrown in my face. Dr. David Eakin<spell?>, was told for him to receive his doctorate from the University of Kentucky he had to believe evolution was a fact or prove otherwise.

I think that you're really missing the point of the amateur/pro observation. If a scientist were able to formulate a real assault on evolution, his career would be made. I mean, there is no doubt that he would win accolades from the entire scientific community and be an instant "rising star". There's great motivation to demolish well-established theories. Were there gaping holes in evolutionary theory then evolutionary biologists, the people who spend their entire careers devoted to the study of this topic, would surely be more likely to find them than interested amateurs.

The quotes Im looking for in my files are not merely disagreement in a fossils placement on a cladogram. While you don't want to bring new complexity into this discussion, microevolution as defined by changes in allelic frequencies. Why not bring up a counter argument to Haldanes Dilemma of the Cost of Substitution within mammilian species. Lets not play games with the Peppered Moths and sterile antiquated arguments. While a good portion of science has been relugated to pumping data into the 2 popular theories at a breakneck pace, I review and skeptically analyze everything.

Microevolution? Good god, man, for a person who claims to be so skeptical, you sure have swallowed the creationist party line hook, line and sinker. "Microevolution" is just an attempt by creationists to dismiss a huge body of data that supports evolution. "Oh sure, allelic frequencies shift, but that's just microevolution." Every indication has it that so-called "macroevolution" is just "microevolution" writ large. And how exactly do you explain the many observed instances of speciation? Are these just "microevolution" too?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

My job demands that I have the ability to do that very thing, and it just so happens that ability is very useful in other fields. I don't care really one way or the other because the ultimate origins debate is really outside of the scientific process. I use the scientific process every single day, the complexity of the issues I deal with do not have the margin of error I would like, when I screw up people die. Ive spent most of my career in little black holes inventing and creating things a college won't get wind about for decades. You must realize the amount of indoctrination that occurs to students studying science in a 4 year college or even to the masters level, regardless of your personal beliefs. When I got dumped into the underworld of DOD projects I was literally told to forget what I thought I knew, and open my mind to the impossible. Only after you open you mind and try to truely dismantle a theory, offering up alterative explainations for the observed will you see the disparity between reality and theory.

Interesting, but I can't say that I'm swayed by this bald appeal to your asserted superior intuition/intellect.

My sister still can spew and quote nearly every piece of evolutionary ear candy as if she was reading it, go outside the box, well..she can't. Im not saying Creationists are in their right mind because they spew the same garbage spewed 20 years ago. In fact some creation scientists have quit talking to me, because Ive questioned them on the same things I question in evolution. I have a book of 2 sided arguments I keep, its quite sad Im must say. Each claiming hold of data that suits neither issue. Tribal, go to TalkOrigins and look for Plagerized Molecular Errors, it may have changed but none the less interesting.

Creation scientists? As near as I can tell, these people don't actually practice any science. Where would one go to see the results of creation science experiments? How exactly would you formulate creationism into a scientifically testable hypothesis?

Anyone else read Biotic Message or Darwins Black Box?

I've read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". The web abounds with refutations of the specific examples that Behe supplies as well as the fallacious argument from personal incredulity upon which his entire Intelligent Design assertion rests. You do know, of course, that Behe believes in evolution, don't you? Since he doesn't see his ID hypothesis as being contrary to evolution, I don't see why creationists are so excited by it.

Two quotes:
"The more one studies Paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone. (T.L. Moor.p22)"
"..objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist Paleontology. The Darwinist approach has been consistantly been to find some supporting fossil evidence, claim it as "proof" for 'evolution', and then ignore all the difficulties. (Roger Lewin p84)"

Your quotes have all the telltale signs of being regurgitated from a creationist website i.e.:

INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT CITATIONS -- First, what good does the page number do me if I don't know the title of the book in which it is found? Second, the "T.L. Moor.p22" quote actually comes from pp. 160-161 of L.T. More's book "The Dogma of Evolution".
http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3p.htm

SECOND-HAND REFERENCES -- with some searching, I find that the Moor quote might be a second-hand reference from a passage on p. 22 of a book entitled "Origins?" by Ranganathan.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/bias.htm

MISATTRIBUTION -- with some more searching, I find that the "Lewin" quote actually originates with the well-known lawyer and creationist mouthpiece Philip Johnson.
"Darwin on Trial", 2nd edition 1993, p. 86
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/buckna/eleven.htm

OUTDATED QUOTES -- with even more searching, I find that the "T.L. Moor" quote that you provided is from 1925. Not exactly the most contemporary opinion on the current state of evolutionary biology, wouldn't you agree?
Louis T. More, The Dogma of Evolution (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1925), pp. 160-161.

QUOTES ON TOPICS OUTSIDE OF ONE'S FIELD OF EXPERTISE -- The "Lewin" quote comes from the lawyer Philip Johnson, and the "Moor" quote comes from physicist L.T. More.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...esources/CMBergman.html+"Louis+T.+More"&hl=en

Now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't provide these bogus quotes to me knowingly, but you'll have to excuse me if I don't place much stock in your much-vaunted skepticism or implied objectivity. As it appears that your mind is made up in this matter, I shan't bother you with the facts anymore. I've got a lot to learn about songwriting/recording, so I'm going to bow out of this thread and focus on that more-fruitful endeavor.

Take care.

 

[tribalbeeyatch]

barefoot,
I don't mean to sound like a pompous jackass, but, in the end, I lose nothing by believing and being wrong, but if I am right, all is lost for you.

Ahh, I couldn't resist this...

First off, I don't choose my beliefs; I am compelled to them by evidence. I think that this is true of most people. To prove this to yourself, you might try maintaining the belief that you can walk through walls even after you've tried it a few times.

Do you think that I could fool God by just going through the motions as if I believe? If not, then there's really not much that I can do here. I don't believe because God hasn't supplied me the evidence that I need to compell me in that direction.

Do you really lose nothing if you are wrong about God? If there were only two choices -- God as you conceive of him or no God at all -- then you might argue that. I would point out your wasted worship and devotion to Him, but whatever. If there is a God and he isn't as you conceive of Him, then you have much to lose. Perhaps you will receive punishment everlasting for your worship of a false God.

Do I really lose all if I am wrong? As I've pointed out above, God hasn't supplied me with the evidence that I need to believe in His existence, so would a just and merciful God really punish me eternally for that? If a just and merciful God does exist, then I fully expect that I will be rewarded for living my life in adherence to strict ethical principles...or at the very least, I don't expect to be punished for it.

 

[atomictoyz]

DON”T EVER BELIEVE ANYTHING I SAY!

Tribal,
Even though you’ve said your going to go do other things, I will offer my pathetic reply. On the assumption that a scientist would win accolades for any real assault, I will disagree. The fact the any mention or even the remotest hint of disproving evolution opens up individuals for personal attacks as well as being banished from Universities makes it hard for anyone to really want to try enlarge. There is no great movement to demolish evolution, the creationists have tried and looks what has happened. It goes far beyond skepticism into prejudices. The very comment about people who have spent entire careers with something shows that you think people are willing to give up a work that they have built there live around. Typically these are the last people to give up anything.

Microevolution is not a term I typically use, my preference is genetic variation. And the Talk Origins article on Observed Instances of Speciation is at best a collection of hybrid experiments with sterile results, malformations and unviability. The definition of speciation is such that every mammal that sexually reproduces generates a new species. Come on man, Fruit flies are still Fruit flies. I know that we play this game over and over…query my qualifications and then say your unimpressed by my attempts to validate my opinions. That is a nice tactic biology professors teach their students, makes you look smarter and me ignorant. The game or circular reasoning never came up, and the fossil shift tactic, “fossilization is rare” and “vastness of it” depending on what your defending you shift positions. For fossils to be deemed rare you would need to know the total quantity of the species prior to the fossilization, an assumption of that magnitude is made out of the necessity to explain lack of data. Oh that’s right Gould never said there was a lack of intermediates. Older texts say that evolution is gradualistic, other text say it is not because of the sudden appearance of fully formed species. Now evolution is the shifting of allele (gene) frequencies. Evolution is not and individual property; only populations evolve according to today’s dogma of evolution. Anything that changes is deemed evolution. Cladistic ranking are typically done by analogy and supposition, mainly of the morphological sort.

The text definition of Evolution: “Individuals with heritable variations that render them more successful in survival and reproduction will contribute their hereditary material to the next generation to a degree that is disproportionate to their representation in the present generation.”

Or
Populations with mutations that render them more lucky enough to survival and reproduce will contribute their mutations to the next generation to a degree that is one billionth different to their representation in the present generation.

Although mutation is important as a source of genetic variability in a population, it changes gene (allelic) frequency very slowly and is not regarded as a significant “force” in effecting evolutionary changes”.
Let’s see…mutations don’t happen individually, they are spontaneous over a population? If individuals do not supply the mutations, where does the population get the variation? So since you’ve discovered the rate of beneficial and neutral mutations are too small and slow for evolution, you must find a reason for evolution elsewhere. Of course using illusionary fitness variables in math equations sound even more convincing when working with population genetics.

You can say what you want about “Creation scientists” but I do see evidence of design to a degree in which something intelligent was involved. Not merely a “natural law” or “force” which people try to refer to, trying not to get into the metaphysical aura of those ideas. I am a designer, I use the scientific method in my job, so I see design and function differently than non-designers, so based upon your expertise sensitivity, non-designers shouldn’t refute a theory based on intelligent design.

Michael Behe said he is not a creationist, but definitely in not an evolutionist. The Sub-title is called “The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” should give you clue to that.

My quotes were thrown out of a list from Talk-Origins website, the old Yahoo, cut & paste method to just tempt you, I’m sure those quotes are correct, the list I grabbed didn’t have the books listed, nor were the references noted in the list numbered correctly. Perfect, triple regurgitated outdated quotes just floating in a search engine. I typically hate quoting off the Internet because it’s easily tainted. If I can find an actual book I’m much happier. You caught me. That’s what you get for the Criterion of Science taunt.

Placing any stock in my skepticism or implied objectivity is something evolutionists do for evolutionists. Saying I have made up my mind on this matter is really calling the kettle black isn’t it. That’s ok.

I found it interesting that Darwin said “I wish that I had the eye of a breeder”, acknowledging an expertise he didn’t have, yet his theory is based on the usage of a self pronounced inability to see the slightest variation in a species. Carl Sagan made lots of comments outside his field of expertise without too much whining from evolutionists. The Wright Brothers were amateurs, flight enthusiasts doing bicycles but their contributions to aeronautical engineering are outstanding. You’re too close to the forest to see the tree's analogy only applies to creationists or intelligent design supporters. Why would I expect anything other than a double standard? Just to end this thread I will say that I am a nobody and therefore my thoughts and opinions are not worthy of expression. You are, like all evolution supporters, smarter and superior in every way. All those who do not believe evolution is a fact are ignorant, uneducated and biased. I am foolish for mentioning faith. I have no expertise in which you recognize. If a creationist has an advanced degree (doctorate) and has faith, then he is less intelligent than an evolutionist without an education (GED, BS or MS) by default. Yup…your right… Im wrong…sorry to cause any trouble in this forum. I decided to ban myself. Sort of nominating myself for extinction.

Peace and goodwill to all, have a happy holiday and don’t come back to this thread. Do some music.



Dennis

 

[barefoot]

... Faith, by definition, is to accept something, even when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. Science attempts to provide a reason behind things that we, as humans, can understand. In other words, faith and science are opposites. ...

But, I've just argued that science is based on faith in the very same way. Acceptance of empirical evidence requires a core of faith. And to say that the universe is orderly is an admission of faith. Despite the local orderliness that we observe at this particular time, there is no way to prove that our perceptions bare any relationship to the ultimate reality (if there is such a thing). Or that the order will not disappear tomorrow.

All we can say is that for many things there seem to be consistencies in our perception of them and we have faith that these consistencies will continue. This is faith. It's a belief which cannot be proven. But as I said, I think it' a more fundamental sort of faith than a faith in God.

... in the end, I lose nothing by believing and being wrong, but if I am right, all is lost for you. ...

In the end, from what I gather, it doesn't matter what any of us believe. But, I do think you loose in the hear and now. You loose the opportunity at a tiny glimpse of the truer glories of our world, which are far more mysterious and beautiful than myopic, anthropomorphizing glasses with ever reveal.

barefoot

 

[smellyfuzz]

Posted by synergy

I don't mean to sound like a pompous jackass, but, in the end, I lose nothing by believing and being wrong, but if I am right, all is lost for you.

Your making a BIG assumption that YOUR belief is the right one.

My farther-in-law is a form of born again Christian.
HE KNOWS that me, my wife, my wife's siblings, my siblings,
my wife's sibling's spouses, my parents, his parents, his wife's
parents, all jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, beer drinkers,
drug users, smokers, porn readers, thieves, prostitutes, & anyone
using a garden hose incorrectly are,
GOING TO DANCE WITH SATAN FOR ALL ETERNITY.

Now, I know that you can tell he is crazy.
I mean those "Born Agains", that's not even a real religion like
oh, Catholicism, or Judaism or Muslim... Right ?

Me personally, I do not believe in what religions
(any of them) teach.

This is in no way an attack on them or anyone who follows...

Hey, synergy, you may be right.

AND I wish I DID HAVE YOUR FAITH.
But you & many like you make another BIG ASSUMPTION,
I did not wake up one morning & say, "today I'm not going
believe in a god & put down anyone who does".
My faith deteriorated slowly though out years of meeting
many different types of people in my career.
Which is by definition, deals with the public in their homes.

I do have a kind of faith though...

My faith lies in the belief that we are not alone in the universe.
That we are not so unique as a people or individuals.
That we are a product of evolution and when we die... that's it baby.

I'd also like to say that I hope there is a god.
And if there comes a time when I should meet him,
I hope he understands my mistake.


Happy New Year,

Sean

 

[SamuelHauck]

Music is a form of worship, every piece carries some sort of message to the listener.

Therefore no composition can be athiestic because the definition of atheist is "without religion"

 

[records4u]

Ask the christian.

 

[Khompewtur]

Religious is a useful society tool

I do not practice any organized religion but I don't have a negative viewpoint on religions. Religion has proven itself time and again as a an effective way for society and goverment to guide the wills of their people.

Used for 1,000 of years since the first village elders met in council, till the present.

Think about all the rules and tenets of religion and imagine the need behind the mandate. Almost always they reflect a maintenance of a society's productivity. Here are some examples.

Tribe losing valueable swordsmen who defend the village from exterior threat due to internal infighting because tribesmen are sleeping with other tribesmens' mates. Elders ask shaman scare bejeezus out of village with"thou shall not commit adultery" mandate. Adultery down %22 adultery related murder down %40

Elders have begun to notice large amounts of food poisoning cases. The tribal think tank suspects the majority of them are originating from improperly prepared shellfish. Worker sick leave is up %3 and food poisining fatalities are avg. 6 per month. Council gathers and asks Shaman to declare shellfish a "holy No-No". Though some tribemembers miss the old shrimp cocktails, the accountants notice an increase in productivity.

U.S.A. Hamburger demand is 1/7 greater than hamburger supply. Pres Bush is terrified the world will find out that America can't sustain 7 day a week hamburger production. He gathers a veritable who's who of religious leaders + Al Sharpton and they declare Wednesdays to be "Holy Day of Reflecting on Hamburgers but Not Eating Them"

etc.. etc.. etc..

Plenty of people claim to have spoken to god. Sometimes a govt. allows them to become a prophet, but most of the time the govt. just send them to the loony bin.

 

[barefoot]

Good stuff Khompewtur

The problem with using religion as a basis for social order is that it tends to be stricken with dogma and intolerance. It may work for a while, but when faced with internal changes or external "challenges" the resulting conflicts often make up for the prior peace in full, and then some.

This is true not only for theocracies, but all ideologically based social orders. The libertarians of the American revolution and Marx and Lennon were ideologs as well. They built societies based on their beliefs about how people think and feel, and how societies "should" be. They're not based on any significant science of how we really are and how we really work.

The famous psychologist B.F. Skinner wrote a book titles "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" where he call for the development of an all encompassing "technology of behavior". He argues that we have been very successful at manipulating and controlling our physical world by developing using the principles of the physical sciences. When we build an engine or a computer we don't rely (for the most part) on ideology. We used the equations and principles that nature presents to us - the way things REALLY work. So, why should we not do the same when we build society?

He says that virtually everything we do is a complex result and interaction with our environment (society) and that freewill is an illusion. This being the case, we should structure our society such that this interaction promotes the greatest amount of happiness and healthiness for all. This 'maximization of happiness' is about the closest thing to ideology that he subscribes to.

The book goes into details about how mechanisms for self regulating governance would also need to be developed so that it is in no one's best interest (no positive reinforcement) to misuse authority.

Personally, due to the incredible complexities of human biology and culture, I'm skeptical that such a technology could ever be developed. Especially since WE would be the ones developing it. But it's an intriguing idea and raises some very serious questions about who and what we THINK we are. I highly recommended reading the book.

Anyhow, I doubt there is much hope for us to build our own truly workable society, but maybe we can hope for outside intervention? In the words of that Porno For Pyros song:

"Will there be another race to come along and take over for us? Maybe Martians will do better than we've done? We'll make great pets!"

barefoot

 

[jwarv]

Now it's my turn

Lowly creatures,
I've never written an "atheist" song but I've written plenty of
"ahumanist" songs. And well deserved, I might add.
Later,
God

 

[jwarv]

Now it's my turn

Lowly creatures,
I've never written an "atheist" song but I've written plenty of
"ahumanist" songs. And well deserved, I might add.
Later,
God

 

[getuhgrip]

Ya know, I wasn't gonna get drawn back into this, but (much to my Lord's dismay) I've had a few tonight and what the hell....here goes:

FWIW-

Raised by a mother who felt her eternity lay in the hands of catholic indoctrination, I had an early exposure to a belief in God. The God.
As I got older I came to an opinion of my own that was based pretty much on biblical assertions rather than 7 sacraments never mentioned in the bible, or a place called the vatican that has more artistic artifacts and valuble doo dadds in a vault than Donald Trump, somewhere in Rome.
I studied a bit on the "new" religions and the ways many self-serving entities delivered their inturpretations of God's manual (the bible) through our history. I adopted a really wild idieology on my own! I elected to seek the wisdom and theology of those who took nothing from, or added anything to...origional bible based scripture. What a concept.
Now, when I studied science, astronomy and marine biology in college, another thought process struck me: First of all...Nothing ever came from nothing. That is, the "Big Bang" theory is kinda weak in that while it suggests an explosion in the cosmos gave life and existance to our solar system and more, it never really goes beyond that to explain the origin of the cosmos in the first place. I'm an educated young man and I'm open to alternative veiws, but come on......
Ok, I admit I was already somewhat swayed from the Carl Sagen set from the onset.
As I got a little older I involved myself in some activities and lifestyles that weren't advocated by biblical approval and suffice to say, I've spent some time (if you get my meaning) contemplating the error of my ways. I, like many others called upon the name of the Lord to rescue me from my undoing. Well, the Lord is not to be treated like Barbara Eden in a bottle, but He has his moments when he humors the like of those that do.
I won't go into detail (and now you're thanking God!), but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck......
No, I don't think God is a duck. I do know that I was heard. I do know that the areas in my life that needed some fixing were fixed, and situations that I could have done nothing to resolve on my own, were resolved. I am also a fella that understands the concept of gratitude.
Did I need a "crutch" during those times? You betcha. Call it a crutch, call it a magic bandaid. I don't care. It was what it was when I needed it.
Am I an uneducated, frightened pathetic schmuck that needs a crutch in order to live today? Nope.
I am a man that realizes that nothing came from nothing and that magic is BS that you see on FOX. I also (in spite of my pride) know that there's things that were fixed in my life that I couldn't have had any effect on myself under any circumstance.

As to the "Why would a loving God allow such atrocities", I say, God deals with His creation the way He will. It's His gig and I have long since stopped trying to second guess or reconcile His plans. How could I possibly interpret the mind of He who reduces Carl to rookie status?

As to the "What if I'm right and You're wrong" argument, I should think folks might ponder that a bit further. Ok, a guy that says, "But what if I'm right?" might still lack conviction in his own mind and may be banking on a "swing ballot" come judgement. I don't know how this position will be veiwed. But doesn't prudence dictate that indecisivness as possible doom merit further consideration?

Religion....makes me retch for the most part. All I'm submitting is that intelligence compels one to examine the possibilities and origins of creation. If your evaluations and determinations don't yeild the possibility for a single creator, so be it. But even the most astute intellect owes himself the benefit of all conceivable perspectives.

Good life, and peace to all regardless.

 

[barefoot]

All I'm submitting is that intelligence compels one to examine the possibilities and origins of creation. If your evaluations and determinations don't yeild the possibility for a single creator, so be it. But even the most astute intellect owes himself the benefit of all conceivable perspectives.

Exactly. And the ideas of God or Creator are simply two of many conceivable possibilities.

We may not ever know what "started" the Big Bang, but there is no reason to jump to the conclusion of God. And even if we assume a god did initiate the creation of the universe, all the evidence seems to indicate that no further intervention was required.

barefoot

 

[Chris Shaeffer]

Holy cow, that was a lot to read through

The thread topic caught my interest and I thought I might have had something to add...

But by the time I got to the most recent post it doesn't even come close to the originally posted thoughts. I almost think this discussion belongs in the Cave.

Anyway, I thought I would offer a historical/anthropological perspective on the relationship between belief (of any sort) and music.

Music has long been a medium for spritual/religous/intangible information to be stored and transmited. Many native cultures that I have studied had "scared songs" that contained some deep beliefs coded into their metaphors and musical structures. Of course, you and I won't recognize it because we don't understand how their metaphors and beliefs work.

Music can be an intensely personal creative experience for the musician, as well as an intensely sensuous experience for the listener. People have been attaching religous fervor to those experiences for eons. Music isn't always just music- it contains the inspiration and emotion of the artist. But it also becomes something different in the ears of the listener since it has to resonate with their own inspritation and emotion.

Try this. What does this potential lyric mean?

"Creation and destruction exist all around us."

(My guesses at interpretations

Christian: Good and Evil, purity and sin are all around us. God, in his infinite love, gave us choice.

Atheist: Yeah, of course. Things are born and things die. So?

Animist: The flow of life continues in each moment like the rythmic tides: ebb and flow, night and day, life and death.

Ancient Roman: The godess Demeter and the god Hades are constantly vieing for the attention of Demeter's daughter- the one who causes the winter to fall upon us when she decends into Hades' domain.

Language alone is fun stuff: you can layer meaining into the words that you put together. Add the emotional overtones of the music and you have a powerful tool to deliver whatever message you want. Whether your audience hears the same message is another matter.

 

[tribalbeeyatch]

Re: Holy cow, that was a lot to read through

[...]
"Creation and destruction exist all around us."
[...]
Atheist: Yeah, of course. Things are born and things die. So?

With one fell swoop (or on topic post, rather), you've sucked me back in...

I think that this is a pretty uncharitable guess at an atheist interpretation of your lyric. Am I safe in assuming that you are a theist then, Chris? It's a common misconception that atheists throw any sense of wonder at the world around them, any awe of nature, the very poetry of living out the window along with the belief in god(s). This just isn't the case with myself or any of my atheist friends/family members. The thought that my very existence is owed to happenstance instills in me a great sense of wonder at the Universe that birthed me. In fact, my interpretation of your lyric would probably read more like the one that you attributed to the animist:

"The flow of life continues in each moment like the rythmic tides: ebb and flow, night and day, life and death."

In my lyrics, I've noticed a number of relevant themes:

The awe of living
The harmony in nature/life in contrast to its apparent chaos
The rare perspective of finding myself a philosophical minority immersed in a God-believing culture