Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[--Pete]

Hi,

Something as common as a modern flashlight would be a miracle to people 2000 years ago.

Clark's third law. However, I don't see the parallel. Are you implying that Christ was resurrected by some advanced technology that existed two thousand years ago but which we don't understand?

Is it so hard to conceive of a person who seemingly dead to be "resurrected"?

No. People mistakingly thought dead have 'come back to life' on many occasions. This is common in cases of death by hypothermia, hence the expression, "they're not dead till they're warm and dead." However, think it through; if he was only "seemingly dead" then he wasn't "resurrected". If that is what you intended to imply by the quotes around 'resurrected', then you are accepting the possibility that the central thesis of Christianity (that Christ, be he man or god, died for our sins) is false. How can any belief system founded on a false thesis be true? If it contains truths, then isn't that in spite of rather than because of its basis? And shouldn't it be replaced with a new system, one that is based as much as possible on truth and that incorporates the truths of the discredited system?

The deification of Christ is something that happened a couple hundred years after his time of walking around performing the "miracles" of healing. Look at the myths that have arisen around Saint Nicholas.

Again, you seem to be implying, quite strongly, that Christianity is false, based on myths. Apparently, your definition of 'Christianity' is as idiosyncratic as your definition of 'Christians'. Perhaps you are thinking in terms similar to Jefferson's? I think that, while his opinions were very advanced for the start of the nineteenth century, he lacked the foundation of modern science to give him an alternative basis for his world view.

When these events were transpiring 60 some generations ago, your and my ancestors were building henges and huddling around fire pits in crude huts afraid of the dark.

Actually, my ancestors of that time were living in centrally heated houses with running water. They were growing grapes and making wine on homesteads, many of which were granted to them as a reward for military services under one Gaius Julius Caesar.

If you change your perception of "miracle" to something not yet explained by our current understanding, you will begin to understand better.

There you go again, redefining terms to suit your opinions. While it is common to use the word in colloquial phrases like "It's a miracle the Red Sox won the series.", the strict definition of a miracle is a supernatural occurrence which cannot be explained by natural causes (even if we don't know what those causes could be). For things which are not yet explained by our current understanding, I prefer 'ignorance', it's more honest, since it doesn't imply the pseudo-knowledge that 'miracle' does.

I've witnessed things I cannot explain with science first hand, which does not mean anyone should quit their job and become a hermit.

I had a friend who would sometimes answer a question sarcastically with, "I don't know. Nobody knows." Since you couldn't explain a phenomenon with science, that phenomenon was not explicable by science is an implication that should only be made in jest.

But, I do think that limiting the scope of reality to what you believe is a bit restrictive. I feel that you consider anyone who speculates on a reality that is more complex than yours is being foolish. I think it is the opposite. A seeker of truth will open their mind to any possibility if it leads to a better and higher understanding of the truth. This is not a blind adherence to any dogma, of science, or of religion.

First, a belief in the supernatural is not more complex, it is less so. Rather than trying to understand the universe, it is sufficient to attribute everything to a god. Lightning? Which is the complex answer? Zeus? Or the static charges built up by the movement of air molecules until the potential difference is enough to overcome the dialectic constant of the intervening air? And, incidentally, which leads to a lightning rod?

Second, a mind needs to be open, yes, but it also needs to be skeptical. The bigger a claim, the bigger the proof needed to substantiate that claim. I don't reject pyramid power because it is paranormal, I reject it because, in every controlled test reported, it has failed. Very similarly, I reject cold fusion. If either is ever supported by a repeatable successful test, then I will revise my opinion.

The second after the big bang occurred space and time began to exist. We are bounded by a 3 dimensional space, and are bounded by time. How many dimensions are there? The Kaluza–Klein theory predicts there are five dimensions. According to string theory and M-theory there may be 10 or 11 dimensions, but no physical proof of them exists. My point being that the universe is a pretty big complex place, and neither of us know a whit about it or even how we got here in the first place. The big bang seems pretty miraculous to me.

Sorry, this is the god of the gaps argument. In grad school, we used to jokingly describe problems as 'impossible' and 'trivial'. As soon as an impossible problem was solved, it became trivial. You appear to be doing the same thing with 'miracle' and 'scientific'. When something is explained, it transitions.

You are right, we don't know what caused the big bang, or even what it really was. Many people are thinking about it, trying to get a better answer than 'god did it'. An answer that may be testable, that may lead to something like a lightning rod. That might actually increase our knowledge rather than keeping us in the comfort of our superstitious ignorance. As for the rest, we have a pretty good handle on how our universe evolved, how our galaxy formed, how the solar system came to be, how the earth moon system happened, how life started, how we got to where we are now. The broad strokes are pretty clear, many of the details are fuzzy. But as for god, I'll go with Lagrange, I have no need for that hypothesis.

My statement about religion is that as a social construct that when properly used leads to building people of morality and good character. The atheist version of this as far as I can tell is the Unitarian Universalist denomination.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how teaching people a world view based on a lie can be good. What it does do is give the resulting people a false sense of certainty in their beliefs. Unlike the scientific viewpoint which is built on uncertainty and doubt and which allows for the existence of conflicting viewpoints, religious indoctrination allows no contradiction. Once one is truly convinced that he is doing god's will, then any opposition must be destroyed and any action is justified. The stronger the belief, the less room there can be for tolerance, for acceptance, for mercy.

It is human nature to be anti-social, or immoral, and so blaming the failure of people on the various positive social constructs, like religion, is wrong headed.

Where do you get this crap? Most primates are social. Everything we know of primitive man indicates that he lived in groups, at least family sized and often bigger. Every primitive society we've come into contact with has been social. As to immoral, that is a religious concept. Is human sacrifice immoral? I know of no cases of it other than by psychopaths and the religious. The only reason anything is 'immoral' is because there is a consensus, and most of the things considered immoral are so considered on the basis of religion.

For example, if a vegetarian eats a hamburger does it permanently undo their belief, or can they be redeemed? If it happens all the time, well, then they aren't a very good vegetarian.

Why is this person a vegetarian? For religious reasons? If so, then unless his religion has some form of atonement and forgiveness, he can't be redeemed. For respect for animal life? No redemption necessary. For health reasons, such as fear of transmitted diseases or a need to reduce cholesterol? Get real.

Were it not for certain societal constructs bringing out our better nature, we'd be 6 billion monkey's flinging poo at each other.

Funny, I seem to have missed that part of the social life of chimps and gorillas. Or have they all converted to Christianity?

--Pete