Scott Mayers

I understand the issues in science here. I disagree with the interpretation of the cosmic background radiation as a proper confirmation because it is coincidental and very inevitably inferred (as a prediction) by many different possible interpretations regardless of how apparently 'fit' it seems. It is no different than how in religion that people sincerely believe that certain 'predictions' have proven sufficiently justified their belief. Worse, is that our Cosmology is NOT REPEATABLE upon such observations, as the CBR is. It is "inevitable" that such phenomena to BE 'true' for other reasons but we tend to place credit to those who simply first suggested the hypothesis when it conveniently favors us. This isn't the place to digress on this here for this thread, though. But religious origins often relate to questioning nature (as "science") with a similar secular origin but devolve into some latter religion of one sort or another in time. And they are always based on the boundaries of the present unknowns.

(3) I've read a lot of the Bible as with other works. In particular, I've invested in an overview of the whole works, including the in depth philosophical analysis by many related studies, like archeology, history, etc. So the next question has to be, WHAT is your particular sources since these matter considering other related religions and sects disagree with which works are appropriately 'valid' or trusted? Do you read an English version only? Do you accept the Jewish "Torah"? Do you use a "Christian" version that includes the New Testaments? Which one or ones do you particularly rely on? (4) Why should your particular religious scriptures be trusted as opposed to others?

You couldn't remotely compete with me on your delusions here, Betsy. I came in late to this discussion and admitted this up front. So if you are attempting to take on me, you'd have to accept this. If you want a sincere challenge, I can do that. AND, when I came in, I noticed that you had opted out from the last comments then and so offered to discuss this with another instead. But, if you're sincere, beginning with: (1) If a modern movie asserts the truth of its content, does this assure that it IS 'true'? What makes you think that you can have a source PROVE its own validity? I'm a logician in practice and not even any logic system can self-prove itself as valid. [Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem] So, how can the Bible "prove" itself? (2) Since you dismissed my own relatively short comments so far (as opposed having to discuss the whole Bible), how do you even expect me to trust that I or anyone should even require investing the time in kind to your own dismissal? If you actually expect others to read the bible as you value, read what others have to say to demonstrate your own sincerity first.

And nor will I waste any time with your ignorance. [unsubscribe]

Ages of those of ancient people were dated by "moons" (months). This accidentally became interpreted much later (like many today) as 'years', and why the ancients had such apparent great ages. To determine their ages depend on how many moons but was more locally reliable than to the year that had to be adjusted for. So take an asserted age of an ancient and then divide it by 12 (approximate) to determine their actual asserted ages.

By the way, "Eve" and "heaven" are words that referred to "after" in time. (G)od --> is where "odd" comes from [see also "Odin"]. These describe numbers too as Odd and Even. The sky represented the fact that as things died, they appeared to disappear into the air (Spirit) as fire, smoke, scents, vapor, wind, etcetera, go UP to. Thus it was assumed when we die, whether we are cremated or just left out to deteriorate, we 'disappear' and the sky was this secondary place we must go. Thus if Adam (think "Odd-am" for related roots) originates as '1', we then (2), die and is thus what is "Even" [(h)eaven] and leads to "Ever" (Ether --> "Earth" as another derived second following Aten [and Amun], the Sun and moon). The waters above and below were actually a common word we would now say is "fluid". They though of only that which holds shape (atom, atum, adam) were sincere matter, such as our "solids". Then 'god' (the source,....the ONE or 'odd'), separated the fluids. Prior to this, the world was assumed all of water for the likely evidence everywhere of fish and other non-existing creatures of water in the form of fossils found in high mountainous regions. This implied those had been under water. (notice their error was fair considering they did not know of plate techtonics.) The 'giant' dinosaur fossils found was the source of the giants, like Goliath, like the Titans prior to Zeus, etc. This and the fish fossils lead them to rationally conclude that the Earth was originally under water and that some event sometime had wiped out those giant creatures and the land rose OUT of the waters (the flood myths). Back to Genesis, when God separated the "waters" (= 'fluids'), this was the separation of Air to Water as both samples of Chaos [the word "gas" comes from this, by the way]. Since air was not able to be seen, it was most mysterious because it could still be sensed. This was what 'spirits' became and why the "Spirit of (God)" hovered above the 'waters below'. People would have rationally noticed that by keeping one from breathing this 'magical' spirit, you died. Thus this is the essence of the "spirit of gods". Amen! [meant "amun" --> "the moon" --> the End]

I wasn't here from the start and so must have missed your own claims. But by the time I got here, some had already mentioned on the last page or so that you hadn't been around to respond. So I began my own discussion with another. Let me take this one bit at a time. "*The Bible says, the universe has a beginning. Didn't science says the universe has a beginning? Yes or no?" Physics is unspecific about the details but I believe they do support this view. I disagree with it but still don't see the concern either way. In fact, I figure the Big Bang Cosmology has very serious flaws in it on this respect. I disagree in particular with the singularity as an actual 'beginning' but only as an appearance since the logic is amiss there. Not all religions assert a beginning though. My personal take on the Judaeo-Christian roots DOES originate in sincere early 'science' and rational thinking. I believe though that the original intended literature has evolved to BECOME more specifically religious through time. This is why I was pointing some of the links to other factors of the times relating to language roots. Example: that the original word, or words, for "God" acted as an unknown variable, just as we use "the Cosmos" or "the Universe" or, my favorite for me, "Totality". The English "God" actually assigned the virtue of "good" to this variable and where "God" as a word came from. Not all religions believed this. The "YHWH" word, meant an origin akin to birth from a cosmic egg, the Sun, and literal eggs on earth that derives all life. This likely was intending to think of an origin of Nothing and why it was "ineffible" to speak of. You can't point to an absolute nothing and so can't speak of it. Others adopted this source to require duality since how could 'good' exist without its contrast of 'evil'? Thus, it was opted by those to assert, as in Genesis, that for each action this Source did, it Commanded that it was "good". "*The Bible says the heavens is stretching. Didn't science says the universe is stretching - and that the correct term is indeed, "stretch?" Yes or no." I'm not aware of this particular claim. The term for science is "expansion" and it is NOT simply a 'stretch'. But as I mentioned above, multiple interpretations were given within the same collection (the Bible is a collection of written works like an encyclopedia). Just as above, some thought the origin entity was merely an unknown variable, an absolute nothingness, an unique absolute oneness and even infinity. This if fine if it is a secular collection of different works of that day by people. But I'm guessing you likely figure only one favorable interpretation and disbelieve one or more of the others. (What is your source reference on this, btw?) "*The Bible says the universe (and all in it) will "wear out like a garment." Doesn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics prove that? Aren't these true?" That's quite a vague interpretation of something most specific. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statement of a statistical probability in the ideal condition of a closed container as follows: Given a closed box, imagine it partly-filled with marbles. When sitting on the floor, all of them will settle on one side. This is like an 'ordered' condition such that ALL the marbles are on one side and none on the other (the top). BUT, atoms are always in constant motion, like if you were to shake the box. So now ask what the odds are if you should shake the box that all of the marbles would happen to mostly stick together as one block, the answer is less likely than to be scattered all over. THIS is what that law asserts. But notice that when the box is still, the marbles are 'ordered'. So this shows you that the law is specifically conditional. Movement of particles are what 'heat' energy is when randomly bumping in all different directions (chaotically). That's why this is a law of "thermo" (heat) dynamics. If you want to use "wear out like a garment" as some wonderful universal insight about everything, could you not interpret this as even ALL endings, including some future afterlife to be unordered and without cohesion? See how it can have multiple meanings. This guess could have been written by a child. " ... *The Bible says man is made from dust. Well, behold! 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of elements found in the earth's crust. Guess what..... .....if it's indeed a scientific fact that snakes used to have limbs.....then science also supports Genesis 3. The implication in Genesis 3 is that the serpent didn't slither on its belly." I take a less volatile take on religion even in my intellectual nihilism and atheism. I interpret they do actually contain bits and pieces of ancient wisdom including especially science. But they are not formally expressed and have been misinterpreted inappropriately. The story of Adam and Eve was a common multi-culturally accepted secular story given the way the words had other meanings. "Adam" was a cartooned character to represent mankind, and "Eve" as that of all humans who followed. The Garden of Eden (the place in the 'East' where the sun rises each day) was a caricature of our naive youth where as children we always dream about growing up wanting to know and have the power of adulthood. Yet once we come to "know" by our maturity of becoming adults, while our wishes to be as powerful as our parents is a 'seductive' curiosity, we are cursed to realize the RESPONSIBILITY of having to struggle for survival and face death. The 'rib' of Adam, was a euphemism for the source 'God' to give him a penis to initiate the seed that makes procreation possible. The snake too related to this but in an older youth of a female taking interest in sex and contemplating whether the act was sinful or not. Their nakedness realized was just the recognition that the 'truths' (of the Gods) they now have makes them now KNOW something they can no longer back out of and are thus cursed. Once you learn of the 'naked truth', you discover the very things that make you disappointed and wish you could forget and return to that naivete instead. It is regret and the death of the innocence. Can you see how this has as much a secular interpretation and when put in a story that is much easier to remember than simply the facts, helps pass on this information to future generations where writing was NOT a common everyday reality. Even most written works had to be read by special privileged people to the masses without them being allowed to learn to read and freely interpret. As such, the way such stories turned into religion is not surprising.

...Oh, then you're only preaching without substance. If you've already got your wisdom canned up, why not just open a post with a link to your wisdom rather than feign you want to be challenged?

P.S. Thanks jacee for adding the extra reference link. I originally commented on this but hadn't 'signed in' and so lost that post and thought I'd come back later to do so. I WAS focusing on the "hate" crimes but don't mind some of the digression as it can relate to this issue. But you're right that some of this discussion hasn't taken direct focus on this particularly yet. You're welcome to try.

This sums up what I believe too.

I am white and definitely HAVE been discriminated for jobs both for simply being relatively poor as those others in the same condition. It is an error to assume the foundational cause of discrimination IS ethnicity, race, sex, etc. because often these interpretations are due to noticing the largest groups of those ethnicities, sex, or race, who happen to have unusually large percentages of impoverishment is solely DUE to discrimination OF their ethnicity. While no doubt this does occur, this occurs universally even within every such group regardless, with most significance to those who embrace a pride in their 'kind' against all others. The same is likely for someone like yourself who probably IS doing better off and interprets your fortune as 'owned' by all of your ethnicity. Its poverty alone that provides the initial causes of discrimination and it is happenstance that there will always be some ethnic group(s) who represent large pluralities of both wealth and poverty.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Two_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms for reference in discussion.

Are "hate" crimes valid? They appear to be "thought" crimes in essence.

This may be 'true' of one who already believes. The argument of its authenticity is at question though if one argues that outsiders to that belief should read it. Note too, if you understand anything in logic, Godel's "Incompleteness" theorem technically addresses logic of a "consistent" nature and its second theorem asserts that no logical system can be used to prove itself. So your concern of primary authority was precisely what mathematicians of the past thought in a similar way as you are justly asserting. The potential 'solution' to this is to argue using an inconsistent logic, something that cannot be expected of us living in a specific world demanding it. For a person of religion, you could simply ask whether "consistency" matters but should they say no, while alright, they have to give up trying to argue the 'faith' with "consistent" types of reasoning. "Descended" in the cloud? Should this not be "ascended"? Perhaps this "lord" was a reference not to some god but to a real authority, often of the land? On a serious note to this, if you pay attention to the background of when or where these assertions in the Bible occur, plus giving the time and place of the Middle East back then, it was 'multi-cultural' and a transient trading/meeting place as such. When people came upon anyone, it was expected (and respected) that others had come from different backgrounds. Asking of 'which' god one is, is a means of asking who their tribal associations are and to determine in faith if they ARE indeed worthy of respect. To come upon a (land)"Lord" is of one who is transient to come to those asserting settlements. To which one has to interpret how or why one is asserting "Lord"ship over them (a right to be respected authoritatively). The Bible during Genesis and Exodus is about the adaptation of tribal life to civilization, settling the lands as opposed to being tribal hunters and gatherers. The conflict with those still in transition was very real because the concept of a 'right to OWN' was still new and odd to many. The Jews represented many of those from various backgrounds in the midst of settling. They initially disagreed with it. I'm digressing. But as to names, the heroes and characters, including the gods themselves, in the Bible, were understood in their day to reference secular life, not actual religious or literal characters. Its important to point these out to those using the Bible to defend some interpretation, especially, when it is used with modern obscurity like poetry. Imagine our political "Constitution" being interpreted two thousand years from now by people who lack the same language base we do. They might interpret "Constitution", as the name of some God's name we all believed in from our time! The word, "mankind", might be reinterpreted as a name of our first existing essence, as in, "In the beginning, our Lord, "Nature", created "Mankind" in his form (nature, that is!). Then Mankind demanded of Nature that it (he) could not persist without some future to look forward to. So, the Lord, Nature, provided this by giving him this future, and called this, "Ever". I'm just giving you an example. But when you demonstrate how significant records kept by most people deal with REALITY, it is likely that much of the Bible was just a collection of secular history that was designed to help pass on secular wisdom of the day, mixed with entertaining ways of doing so, like "The Simpsons", or "South Park", or an infinite other stories we have nowadays. [i chose those two because ancient times would have required a 'cartoon-like' way to teach or it would not be remembered as easily.

Yes, Burke's "Connections" is a big influence of my own approach. It's old to me now but I highly double recommend this too and prefer these type of approaches to learning. Note that Burke is one of the first film series that used this approach of history connections across various areas. But this was common in the early half of the last century and was heightened by those like Asimov, one of the last of the traditional jack-of-all-trade's approach to understanding.

From ?Impact: "I hope betsy gets back from purgatory soon, I am afraid I am not doing a good job holding up the Creationist side of the argument." DAMN, I hate when this ALWAYS seems to happen with the evangelical. And I wasted a post that I really WOULD like to see challenged! Maybe you could advocate on what I wrote, if at least for fun?

Problem (1): Any source asserting the authority of its written content is begging. If I wrote a book and began with, "What you are about to read is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Myself, because I'm 'God', and thus I would not lie to you." Problem (2): The term, "God" originates not from the Bible but from Northern European sources for the very word, "good", that itself derives from a common term to "pour" and is that which pours, especially of things like wine, representing 'good' fortune, etc. The original term(s) are El, and in respect to Genesis, Elohim, which is plural for "the gods" unspecified. "El" also meant "The(e)" when granted significance, meant "the ultimate 'thee' or the One". (Arabian evolution of this becomes, Al- or "Al-lah" (the One). Example, "Ba'al" or "Ba'el", meant "Father (or Best) of One" and often represented the most luxurious of things, as in the cow. "YHWY", "Ye- owey",..."Je- ova", all come from all the Middle East concept, meaning literally, "I, (the) ova", the egg, or generically, the 'source' derived from what was understood then as the most universal a 'perfect' shape, the circle, as represented by the literal Sun in the sky. From Egypt, the concept of 'shape' is aten (subjective) and atum (objective). The Aten, represented the SHAPE of the most perfect source, the Sun. The Atum, is the Earth and anything formed of solids of it. Thus this is where "Adam" also comes from. It was intended to mean by those back then as us beings made of the very Earth, just as is also indicated in the story of Adam being "Shaped from the Earth". "Eden" (or Eten) is the source where Aten rises each day, the Eastern Sun on the horizon. Thus why the 'Garden of Eden' is assumed to have derived from and another non-literal interpretation to signify our birth, youth, and naivete prior to becoming wise. "Eve", while represented as a female, just as Eve, as male, also meant ALL men/womenkind that FOLLOWED. Reference etymological links are to "even" and "ever". Note that "odd" is also a term that "God" is later applied to in Europe, where Oden, likely coming from Aten too, was commonly understood as the same. I'll leave it at this because this is most significant to start off with. If you need to appropriately investigate the Bible, you have to understand its roots within context of the times. Originally, Genesis had a mixture of common wisdom of many societies and the story(ies) had multiple meanings as in very clever cartoons intent on helping people remember key secular ideals and purposes.

I'm not sure what this means. Is this no prison? or some separate prison/(or section of) FOR them uniquely? or a form of house arrest?

A 'right' of something specifically addressed that is not a universal property always assures another's 'right' is taken away. That is, when you specifically have a law that addresses some 'right' to transgenders, as opposed to a law most general, like ALL people, a law that allows a transgender to CHOOSE which bathroom they go to is biased because it discriminates against all others to simply choose for the same 'right'. You also discriminate against those preferring those NOT welcoming transgenders.

I thought of a counter-argument though that might help here. Assume prisons. If one is a 'transgendered' women, should they be held in a men's prison and vice versa? AND, if simply given a choice (unforced), should one have a right to assert their gender and demand which prison they go to? Or should these too be co-ed? ...or require everyone perfect distinct personal spaces (cells and/or mandatory isolation)?

The only most sensible thing to do to satisfy all but social-butterflies who like company while they shit, is to have independent washrooms for all without qualifying them. End of problem. The "Coed" option is the only OTHER option, if providing these facilities requires necessary cost savings in infrastructure and upkeep.

AND, your own accusations are what psychologists call, "projection".

You are just playing games here. The Arab/Muslims ARE ghettoed in the the 'occupied' lands of Palestine (er..."Israel to be" by the Jewish sanctioned god-granted PREDICTIONS of them AND Christianity, to fulfill their seats in their heavens without heathens); the Jews were initially ghettoed in Germany and only when they FEARED doom, they opted to destroy those who would no doubt represent witness to their own hatred. Given time, the Jews would do this too IF THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT by efforts such as yours to successfully draw the world's eyes off them and transfer the hate completely onto the Muslims. "Stars" are not needed to identify the Muslim any more as we now have at LEAST DNA technology to be even MORE certain of who is or is not related to one's chosen roots. Yes, it bans them from holding public office and uses ISOLATION tactics with the settlements and checkpoints to physically divide them just as we brush our teeth to keep bacteria from 'organizing' with success! Also, Israel IS a JUDAIC STATE.

Yes, this is way off topic. But note you should check up with revenue Canada to get this. While it may seem trivial, it CAN be useful should someone have YOUR census to use for many troublesome things to both you and others. [stealing ID, for one!!] You should have gotten two at least by now in the mail.

And "De-legitimizing (Muslims') connection to the Middle East is disingenuous." ...perhaps? Those of your view are WHY such problems exist. You arrogantly believe in some X-Nationality or some set thereof, with some Anti-X-Nationality of some other set of people, treat ALL people everywhere as if all were as Nationalistic yourself, and then think the rest of us (majority) HAVE to found our own hatred-devised Nationalism in order to compete or die. It's sad. Because the Nationalist will always prevail at the expense of the great VARIETY of people (most people are mixed race, mixed traditions, etc), we are ALL forced to buy those guns we don't like if only to prevent the next wave of haters, and, most inevitably, BECOME the very haters you imposed upon us! So you should actually have nothing to complain about those Muslim 'terrorists' since it is YOU who created them in your likeness!