kumquatq3

Would that not violate omnipotent status? He/she/it could automatically make the ones that make him best, as he already should know what suits him best. He/she/it knows everything.

Dawkins argues that there is no altruistic acts, in fact, one of his most famous books attacks the point. I don't have the time to spell out the argument, but basically he sees evolution as about the genetic level. Rather the group or individual. ...I don't think that makes sense as is, but I don't have time for 3 page paper.

sadly, if anyone goes, I'd say Jin. Eko can't die. Lone black man left on the show.

K, well, the IGN article also notes that "This game crashes far too frequently." So there is obviously something going on

The whole thing? The demo or the game?

Crappy too. She basically stole the presidency twice. "He's doing you a favor. You need the support of the military" She irks me.

Evolution is simply incompatible with certain religions, at least, the as far as the leaders of those religions would argue. As for Darwin, he was "agnostic" like Einstein. While he was unsure about a "god", maybe even outright believing in some sort of god (again, possibly in a far different way than many might take that), they seemed to be fairly sure that the "God" of the bible (hence the religion) was off. Darwin in reply to a letter: "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God". They, however, were not against faith in general. At least, not to my understanding of it. Anyone see it another way? Along those lines, as an atheist, I have no beef with the "god" of Einstein, a sort of force that kicked everything off but doesn't watch mankind and isn't "active" in our day to day lives. Likely not omni-potent either. The general spirituality that means you just think there is something grander than ones self (essentially animism) isn't what I see as what Dawkins is talking about.

IGN gives it a 7.0 http://pc.ign.com/articles/742/742365p1.html They gave MOO3 a 9.2, so this game must cause physical pain on their scale.

It seems your view is fast becoming one of a snow wall

What's the problem with nonliteral interpretations? Don't freak out when somebody puts something forth that's more than a fundamentalist strawman for you to tilt at. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nothings "wrong" with it. I'm fine with it if their all metaphors. Wasn't the point of that post either. However, if all the miracles if the stories are just metaphors (Jesus rising from the dead is really a metaphor for the religious spirit being renewed or something) than what are you really left with? And is it still sacred? If it's all metaphors, do the metaphors end, and the faith begin at some point?

I'm kinda curious here, how so? Because, on the surface, it's not evolution if it is "guided" by god (tho I'm prolly getting your meaning wrong).

Kor might send you some if you ask. Apparently he's got some to spare!

Maybe there's a god. Maybe it's the best way to deal with the unknown. Hard to say. Ideas? I have no specific argument here.

I posted an article about "new atheism" and the people behind it. Then Pidesco asked a question about whether certain famous borderline historical/mythical figures existed. You posted a response explaining that you thought that they did, but that the myths were decidedly improbable. Now I'm telling the people in this thread if you remove the faith requirements of the stories, what do you have left? As Dark Moth understood. I'm not sure where you got off track (or why your acting now), but I'd like you to stop.

Sure, if you throw out 99% of the story, that is what you get. You also throw out the "faith" requirement of these stories. It's not a miracle, it's just a metaphor. If you don't have a faith or supernatural requirement, then you just have a story about people walking through the desert with no facts to back it up. Or worse, a metaphor that is nothing more than simple morality tale. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why are you telling me what I should or should not believe? Why can't it be a "simple morality tale"? You mean like you telling Hurlshot that the story is only a metaphor? However, I highly doubt anyone will take my comments as me telling them what to think. Please refrain from flaming in a thread about a sensitive topic or I will notify Fio. I will NOT have a "mod" derail a topic after 11 pages.

To whom? To apparently everyone in this thread but you. As it is part of what we are debating. Who said I was worshipping any gods? Or lack of worship. If Hercules was half God, I'd want to know.

Sure, if you throw out 99% of the story, that is what you get. You also throw out the "faith" requirement of these stories. It's not a miracle, it's just a metaphor. If you don't have a faith or supernatural requirement, then you just have a story about people walking through the desert with no facts to back it up. Or worse, a metaphor that is nothing more than simple morality tale.

At least 2 religions have Hercules and Odysseus. In those stories they often visit factual places iirc. Would you assume because there are stories about them, statues even, that they actually existed in any form that resembles the story? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's an equivocation fallacy; but for the sake of your argument, yes, I would assume that they actually did exist. Whether their existence resembles what we have in stories today is irrelevant. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So you assume Hercules existed. However, you are incorrect, the stories resembling the reality of the person is VERY important. If Hercules is half God, don't you think you're worshiping the wrong Gods?

Perceived social value is entirely correct. It seems like we can both agree that the facts of their lives are less important than the message these stories bear. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't say message here. I also said entertainment. Entertainment purposes can be seen as a social value. However, if the stories are false, and are repeated for the message, what message is really being sent if all the miracles and such are false? Is Paul Bunion told because it has a deep message? Not only that, I don't believe it's a American myth. It was borrowed from another culture iirc.

This is actually what I thought, as I've heard it before. The thought it wasn't the Red sea, but some marsh that was prone to evaporation at times of the year, etc. However, the crossing of the red sea is important because it is supposed to depict a miracle. Crossing a marsh isn't much of a miracle. and I think another argument is that the Egyptians wouldn't record a loss (even tho they recorded other losses.) Penn & Teller did a Bull**** episode on it

Hercules and Odysseus were likely famous Greek warriors that, through oral traditions, became legendary figures. We have plenty of more recent figures that have become legends. Davy Crockett is an example. Sure, there is a chance that Odysseus is a completely fabricated character, but fiction usually reflects the truth. We can prove the Trojan wars happened, so it's not outrageous to think that famous generals arose. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yep, that's possible, and it is actually my point. However, that would likely mean these people are so far removed from the legends that speak of them that the fact they lived is meaningless. As the people being spoken of only bear a passing resemblance to them. The tails live on for entertainment or because of a precieved social value.

At least 2 religions have Hercules and Odysseus. In those stories they often visit factual places iirc. Would you assume because there are stories about them, statues even, that they actually existed in any form that resembles the story? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just out of curiosity Kum, have you actuallly researched this yourself? Abraham, I mean. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As I said last page, i can't speak to Abraham off the top of my head. Metas post wasn't talking about evidence, other than the guy appears in various texts. I was simply showing that isn't a basis for belief alone.

Why make up Paul Bunion and his big Blue Ox or John Henry. Entertainment? Morality tails? Maybe it would be close minded to discount their message, but not their "facts".

Just a link to a book cover, no overview or anything, can you fill us in?

At least 2 religions have Hercules and Odysseus. In those stories they often visit factual places iirc. Would you assume because there are stories about them, statues even, that they actually existed in any form that resembles the story?