Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[lemit]

Hi Bill,

 

I would have two quick comments on your questions. You wrote, "what would the significance be for how we run our lives on a daily basis?"

 

I am not a Christain per se but I would suggest that Luke 10:25-28 has the answer:

 

"Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus was asked. And Jesus said to him, "What is written in the law? how do you read it?" And he answered saying, "Thou shall love God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." And Jesus said to him, "Thou has answered right: this do, and thou shall live."

 

That covers "how we run our lives on a daily basis," in my opinion. I hope it's not too religious of an answer.

 

And, you asked, "or for what our long term social strategies are?"

 

Hmm. This isn't perhaps what a lot of Urantians would probably offer you, but while doing the above (loving your neighbor as yourself), The Urantia Book says:

 

134:5.17 With scientific progress, wars are going to become more and more devastating until they become almost racially suicidal.

 

Is that too "end-time" ish? What do you think when you look at the world situation, at how beligerent every nation and every faction is, and the continued development and deployment of advanced weapons? I don't know how much "long term" we have. I know a lot of people are in denial about it, but without a true, representative one world government of all mankind, it seems to me like we're doomed. Doomed, I tells ya. :QuestionM

 

Norm.

 

I had been working on a slightly longer version of TheBigDog's line about daily lives because I think if you take out all the backstory, that's what you should have left over: guidance for your daily life; a set of moral precepts and a framework into which to put them. It should be the equivalent of what family should be--the presence that surrounds and informs our lives.

 

As for the quote from the UB, no, it's not too "end-time" ish. It may be the lamest supposedly transcendent prophecy I've ever read, though. If you look at anything written in the last thousand or so years about war, it has that same prediction, in pretty much infinitely more poetic language.

 

I haven't read the UB. I got through the first sentence: "In the minds of the mortals of Urantia—that being the name of your world—there exists great confusion respecting the meaning of such terms as God, divinity, and deity." If there's one thing you can say about humans and our deities, it's that we're not confused. We know to a certainty that our own individual perception of the world and its creator is accurate, or as Mark Twain put it, "Man is the only animal with True Religion--several of them."

 

So my exposure to the UB, albeit limited, is not encouraging. I have a feeling, skimming through the foreword with its uniformly exotic names, that the thing was written by a bad science fiction writer. When I taught professional writing, I would have encouraged that particular author to try another profession.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. I didn't ever say anything as harsh as the above to any of my students. But then, they weren't soliciting donations, at least not until they became professional writers.

[Furchizedek]

... Someone today with a genetic 'flaw' may well end up being the most recent common ancestor of the entire human species in some fifty thousand years. What if they were not allowed to procreate?~modest

 

Some snippage above. And this post goes back to July of last year so I probably won't delve any farther back into the thread than that. I must say that Majeston guy sure is impressive, however. Good show.

 

Anyway, re the above quote, are you saying that the genetic defect of say, muscular dsystropy (MD) is a good thing, and that we should take no measures to eradicate it from the gene pool, and that people with muscular dystropy or carriers of the genetic defect should be encouraged to procreate and produce more wheelchair bound, intensive care people, who die at 25? Surely, if MD can be prevented in just one person, by restricting someone's procreation rights, that seems to me like it would be a good idea. Some of these genetic diseases are absolutely terrible. I wouldn't wish them on anyone. The human race would be better off breeding these defects out. It's a false sentiment and even a false liberty to say that everyone should be able to reproduce, regardless. Where does that idea come from? There are no absolute rights.

 

Norm.

[modest]

Read the thread. I'm not going to rehash everything for you.

Well, it's 40 pages. I'll work on it, but it seems like you should be able to make a simple statement, one sentence, about the eugenics material in the book.

 

One simple statement? One sentence? Well... alright, I suppose I can manage that for ya. Let me think :hihi: Ok, here we go:

The book has religious aspirations of eugenics.

 

... Someone today with a genetic 'flaw' may well end up being the most recent common ancestor of the entire human species in some fifty thousand years. What if they were not allowed to procreate?~modest

 

...Anyway, re the above quote, are you saying that the genetic defect of say, muscular dsystropy (MD) is a good thing

 

What do you think? Do you think I said MS is a good thing?

 

and that we should take no measures to eradicate it from the gene pool,

 

You think I said that, do you?

 

and that people with muscular dystropy or carriers of the genetic defect should be encouraged to procreate and produce more wheelchair bound, intensive care people, who die at 25?

 

Encouraged? You think people need to be encouraged to mate? I guess that's an interesting way of looking at things ;)

 

Surely, if MD can be prevented in just one person, by restricting someone's procreation rights, that seems to me like it would be a good idea.

 

Michelle Obama's father had MS. I'm thinking you won't have the best of luck telling the president of the United States that he can't mate with his wife

 

Ahhh... religions are funny :hihi:

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

And how do you know that?

 

Because absolutely none of the "science in the book of "urination" aligns with reality in any way. it makes absolutely no predictions about the universe that make sense what so ever. It's total Bull Butter. I call it the book of urination because that what it is, urine, the left overs after someone drank deep from the well of misconceptions and lies.

 

So what? Main stream science theory is a moving target. In the 1960s "they" said there were 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy. They knew precisely, because they had taken meticulous counts of star field photos and extrapolated from there. Now, however, "main stream science" says there are 400 billion stars in the galaxy. You probably overlook these changes, but you cannot. Now, "science" has recently admitted that it has NO IDEA what makes up 96% of the universe. (Google "dark energy") Isn't that amazing? They don't have any idea what makes up 96% of the universe on the one hand, but on the other hand they can tell you that the "Big Bang" happened 13.372 billion years ago, give or take 10 minutes.

 

Main stream science isn't religion, the dogma of religion state things have to be a certain way and no room is left for mistakes nor even checked against reality for accuracy. Science reviews it';s self and new information comes in science changes to become ever more accurate. Miscounting stars isn't a bad thing, it show science is self regulating. The writings of the book of urination is just dogma and bullshit or do you suggest we should accept the book of urination as the truth and wait for God to come and tell us it's true?

 

 

It remains to be seen who is wrong. Just because YOU say science is right and TUB (The Urantia Book) is wrong doesn't make it so.

 

Yes, it does remain to be seen but unlike the "book" science moves forward to ever more accurate descriptions of reality. The "book" is stuck with what it says no matter how far outside reality it becomes.

 

 

" Evidence is over rated and the term is abused. As noted, in the 1960s, "science" had solid "evidence" that there were 100 billion stars in the galaxy. They were wrong. George Tenent said it was a "slam dunk" and that the "evidence" showed that Saddam was about to launch a nuclear attack on the US on 45 minutes notice. New "evidence" is now proving the old "evidence" wrong concerning the nature of the dinosaur extinction. Science is a moving target and "evidence" changes from day to day. And what does referring to The Urantia Book as the Urination book get you? It makes you seem childish, and perhaps you have another agenda too. Are you a Christian? The Urantia Book really torques some fundie Christians off.

 

Norm.:hihi:

 

 

You really don't have a clue to what science is or how it works or what is says, it seems very interesting that like the urinations or what ever they call themselves always attack science because it disagrees with them but they never attack Christians on this site nor do the Christians bother to attack urinations only science. I guess the enemy of your enemy is your friend? Get a clue, find out what science really is then come back and grovel for forgiveness, maybe we'll grant you absolution for being so misinformed.

[Furchizedek]

I wrote:

Quote:

Surely, if MD can be prevented in just one person, by restricting someone's procreation rights, that seems to me like it would be a good idea.

 

And you replied:

 

Michelle Obama's father had MS. I'm thinking you won't have the best of luck telling the president of the United States that he can't mate with his wife :)

 

Ahhh... religions are funny :eek:

 

~modest

 

So, you shifted from MD and MD carriers, to MS without missing a beat? Well, they're all the same so what does it matter?

 

Never mind.

 

Norm.

[Furchizedek]

All Hail Science! :)

 

I think you have more agenda here than science as is evidenced by your use of the word "urination." It's childish at best and unnecessarily disrespectful.

 

I wouldn't mind having a discussion with you but in the face of such disrespect it's not going to be possible. And below, you make all manner of generalizatons about the science in the book, but no specifics. Perhaps those discussions have already taken place but I am not going to read two years of back logs. As it is, I am already familiar with most of the science issues that can be brought up.

 

And I just got here and have not had the pleasure of attacking any Christians, yet. I don't know who is a Christian here yet. I do have engagements with Christians in other venues, however, namely Yahoo Groups.

 

Anyway, I think you give good advice in one of your signature lines:

 

"Never wrestle a troll. You both get dirty and the troll likes it."

 

Well said.

 

My favorite is: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

 

Norm.

 

Because absolutely none of the "science in the book of "urination" aligns with reality in any way. it makes absolutely no predictions about the universe that make sense what so ever. It's total Bull Butter. I call it the book of urination because that what it is, urine, the left overs after someone drank deep from the well of misconceptions and lies.

 

Main stream science isn't religion, the dogma of religion state things have to be a certain way and no room is left for mistakes nor even checked against reality for accuracy. Science reviews it';s self and new information comes in science changes to become ever more accurate. Miscounting stars isn't a bad thing, it show science is self regulating. The writings of the book of urination is just dogma and bullshit or do you suggest we should accept the book of urination as the truth and wait for God to come and tell us it's true?

 

Yes, it does remain to be seen but unlike the "book" science moves forward to ever more accurate descriptions of reality. The "book" is stuck with what it says no matter how far outside reality it becomes.

 

 

You really don't have a clue to what science is or how it works or what is says, it seems very interesting that like the urinations or what ever they call themselves always attack science because it disagrees with them but they never attack Christians on this site nor do the Christians bother to attack urinations only science. I guess the enemy of your enemy is your friend? Get a clue, find out what science really is then come back and grovel for forgiveness, maybe we'll grant you absolution for being so misinformed.

[Furchizedek]

As for the quote from the UB, no, it's not too "end-time" ish. It may be the lamest supposedly transcendent prophecy I've ever read, though. If you look at anything written in the last thousand or so years about war, it has that same prediction, in pretty much infinitely more poetic language.

 

I don't read that one line as any sort of prophecy. And of course it differs from such statements over the last 1000 years because the nature of the problem is magnitudes different now. We have incredible weapons of mass destruction now that are advancing scientifically at a high rate, but we have the same beligerant human nature that we have always had, and we have no real world government to keep the lid on.

 

I haven't read the UB. I got through the first sentence: "In the minds of the mortals of Urantia—that being the name of your world—there exists great confusion respecting the meaning of such terms as God, divinity, and deity." If there's one thing you can say about humans and our deities, it's that we're not confused. We know to a certainty that our own individual perception of the world and its creator is accurate, or as Mark Twain put it, "Man is the only animal with True Religion--several of them."

 

I am not following you, above. In any case, you're saying we're not confused about our dieties, and TUB says we're confused about the "terms."

 

So my exposure to the UB, albeit limited, is not encouraging. I have a feeling, skimming through the foreword with its uniformly exotic names, that the thing was written by a bad science fiction writer. When I taught professional writing, I would have encouraged that particular author to try another profession.

 

I usually recommend new readers simply skip the Foreword. Start at Paper 1, or perhaps at Paper 121. Those are good starting places.

 

p.s. I didn't ever say anything as harsh as the above to any of my students. But then, they weren't soliciting donations, at least not until they became professional writers.

 

Not following you once more. Has some Urantian solicited donations from you? What students are you talking about? Sorry, I just got here.

 

Norm.

[Turtle]

All Hail Science!

 

Perhaps those discussions have already taken place but I am not going to read two years of back logs. As it is, I am already familiar with most of the science issues that can be brought up. ...

 

But you must read them. Seriously. Really. These are not "other" discussions, they are "our" discussions, Hypography discussions. Remember why and how you came here? Near the top of the search result were we? That's because these are not the usual discussions and we bring not the usual arguments.

 

If you have the wherewithal to read the Urantia in its entirety, then reading these two threads all the way through outa be a cake walk. :eek: Besides, it's not negotiable as Modest indicated when he said he was not going to rehash it all. There is a considerable amount discussed on the eugenics in the Hoax thread. :) :)

 

Urantia Book: Who Could've Hoaxed This?

[Moontanman]

Furchizedek, you have gall to say i am disrespectful, you come in on the tail end if a discussion and try to get everyone to rehash the same old bull **** we have gone through over and over for the last jackass who wanted to show how powerful the book of urination is. Show us some respect if you want it back. Read the entire thread, see where we specifically debunked every last detail the previous urination believers threw up. Then come up with some new stuff or refute what has already been discussed, do not think for one minute I am going to go over every detail again with you just because you are too damn egotistical to even read what we have already gone over. BTW, I came up with urination because my spell checker always gives me that for urantia.

[Furchizedek]

Furchizedek, you have gall to say i am disrespectful, you come in on the tail end if a discussion and try to get everyone to rehash the same old bull **** we have gone through over and over for the last jackass who wanted to show how powerful the book of urination is. Show us some respect if you want it back. Read the entire thread, see where we specifically debunked every last detail the previous urination believers threw up. Then come up with some new stuff or refute what has already been discussed, do not think for one minute I am going to go over every detail again with you just because you are too damn egotistical to even read what we have already gone over. BTW, I came up with urination because my spell checker always gives me that for urantia.

 

Sorry, but I'm taking your advice from your signature line:

 

"Never wrestle a troll. You both get dirty and the troll likes it."

 

Norm.

[REASON]

Anyway, re the above quote, are you saying that the genetic defect of say, muscular dsystropy (MD) is a good thing, and that we should take no measures to eradicate it from the gene pool, and that people with muscular dystropy or carriers of the genetic defect should be encouraged to procreate and produce more wheelchair bound, intensive care people, who die at 25? Surely, if MD can be prevented in just one person, by restricting someone's procreation rights, that seems to me like it would be a good idea. Some of these genetic diseases are absolutely terrible. I wouldn't wish them on anyone. The human race would be better off breeding these defects out. It's a false sentiment and even a false liberty to say that everyone should be able to reproduce, regardless. Where does that idea come from? There are no absolute rights.

 

Norm.

 

If it is true that "there are no absolute rights," then it follows that that no one, or no group, has the right to determine what genetic condition should qualify for eradication. In fact, it could therefore be argued that you have no right to make the claim that "there are no absolute rights."

 

What you apparently fail to recognize is that allowing some entity to determine who should be allowed to procreate lends itself to abuse. Once that door is opened, how long before it is determined that brown skin should be eradicated from the gene pool.

 

Your inherent presumption that the human race could properly control such authority, along with the ease at which you would suppress the basic rights of all individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are what I consider "false sentiments." In fact, I would say they are downright dangerous.

 

To me, your willingness to adopt such a position comes more from your desire to defend the UB than it does from any sense of fairness or justice that you may possess. It just goes to prove that once you have been indoctrinated into some form of dogma or strict ideology, you will forego reason in defense of it.

 

But who knows, maybe it will be determined that those whose minds have been corrupted by mythological doctrines are ones who should be slated for eradication. I wonder how quickly your position on this matter would change in such a situation.

 

In my world, you have the right to belive as you wish. But don't expect rational, objective, inquisitive, scientifically oriented, free thinking individuals to take the elaborate description of the nature of God as described in the UB seriously. All of the detail provided about God's existence has not a shread of evidence in support of it. It is nothing but pure conjecture and speculation that requires faith to believe. In that regard, it is no different than the God of Christianity or any other religion known to humankind.

 

It's just the one you've chosen to believe in.

[Furchizedek]

But you must read them. Seriously. Really. These are not "other" discussions, they are "our" discussions, Hypography discussions. Remember why and how you came here? Near the top of the search result were we? That's because these are not the usual discussions and we bring not the usual arguments.

 

If you have the wherewithal to read the Urantia in its entirety, then reading these two threads all the way through outa be a cake walk. Besides, it's not negotiable as Modest indicated when he said he was not going to rehash it all. There is a considerable amount discussed on the eugenics in the Hoax thread. :hyper:

 

Urantia Book: Who Could've Hoaxed This?

 

Hi Turtle,

 

The thing is, last night I was down to page 37 or 36 or something in the thread, working back, and I realized I was in posts that were posted in July of last year, 11 months ago. There's such a thing as replying to posts in a timely manner and my commenting on 11 month old posts would not be doing that. I would never do that on any Yahoo Group or any other group. People would scratch their heads and say, "WTF?" The world has moved on since July of 2008, and some of the posters and readers who were here then are certainly gone. Also, it seems that some here think that the issues with the science in TUB is all already settled and that you have won the discussion long ago. If so, what's there to talk about? I'm probably beaten before I start. And I am certainly not asking anyone to "rehash it all."

 

I typed in "Urantia" at the Hypography search and it shows up in a lot of threads. But it doesn't say (as far as I can tell) what posts in those threads the word is mentioned. And most of the threads seem to be long dead. I don't want go through an old, dead thread just to find the word "Urantia" mentioned in passing.

 

I don't really want to argue the science in TUB anyway, but I'd be happy to discuss a specific issue, if someone wanted to bring one up, currently. But what's the use in me going back to one or two or three year old posts? Let's start the discussion of one specific alleged science problem afresh, anew, with new vigor and a new open mind and with the personalities who are here now. And I have no interest in proving TUB via the science in it, but I daresay that the science in it is not as easily rebutted as some here seem to think. Prove me wrong. Put up one example. But note this please: One thing I will not agree to and that's the idea that if the current science du jour says one thing and TUB says another, then that automatically means TUB is wrong. It does not. Dale Essary uses that same system, as I mentioned in a previous post. If TUB disagrees with the "Bible" then that means TUB is wrong, according to him and to other "Christians." It doesn't work that way, not with the Bible and not with Science. In one thread I saw someone talking about the surface of the sun and how wonderful the spectroscopes are and how accurately they can tell what's there, and so on. Hello? Who has been to the surface of the sun to check it out? The map is not the territory. If spectography was so great, we would know what the 96% of the universe is that is currently not only "unknown" but is completely hypothetical. Science changes every day, but few notice. And some think that whatever science says today must be right and must be the final truth. Some Urantians however have made it a point to notice. They're keeping track. They call it convergence, and even over the course of a short 50 year period, the signs of science converging and moving toward TUB positions is clear. In the 60s, science said that the Red man crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia some 10,000-12,000 years ago. That's what they dated the Clovis Man at. The Urantia Book says it happened 85,000 years ago. NOW, science is moving the date farther back and the last time I heard an estimate from some science source based on new information was 45,000 years ago. Science is converging on TUB.

 

That's all I have for now. Take care.

 

Norm.

[Turtle]

Hi Turtle,

 

The thing is, last night I was down to page 37 or 36 or something in the thread, working back, and I realized I was in posts that were posted in July of last year, 11 months ago. There's such a thing as replying to posts in a timely manner and my commenting on 11 month old posts would not be doing that. I would never do that on any Yahoo Group or any other group. People would scratch their heads and say, "WTF?"

Ah but this is not Yahoo. Along with the discussion go logical arguments as well as links to sources that support them. If the thread is not closed it doesn't matter how old it is and if you find a particular point while reading which you think is in error or worth further discussion then bring it up. Moreover, I started the threads, have the book, read the book, and I'm here now talking to you.

 

The world has moved on since July of 2008, and some of the posters and readers who were here then are certainly gone. Also, it seems that some here think that the issues with the science in TUB is all already settled and that you have won the discussion long ago. If so, what's there to talk about? I'm probably beaten before I start. And I am certainly not asking anyone to "rehash it all."

I guess you have to read it to find out. Kinda like how you chastised some here for not having read the Urantia book. The foo is on the other shoot.

 

I typed in "Urantia" at the Hypography search and it shows up in a lot of threads. But it doesn't say (as far as I can tell) what posts in those threads the word is mentioned. And most of the threads seem to be long dead. I don't want go through an old, dead thread just to find the word "Urantia" mentioned in passing.

We have 2 main threads and I gave you the links. Use Advanced Search & click titles only before searching for Urantia. Word mentions of Urantia in other threads found after a general search will be highlighted in red throughout all the posts.

 

I don't really want to argue the science in TUB anyway, but I'd be happy to discuss a specific issue, if someone wanted to bring one up, currently. But what's the use in me going back to one or two or three year old posts? Let's start the discussion of one specific alleged science problem afresh, anew, with new vigor and a new open mind and with the personalities who are here now. And I have no interest in proving TUB via the science in it, but I daresay that the science in it is not as easily rebutted as some here seem to think. Prove me wrong. Put up one example. But note this please: One thing I will not agree to and that's the idea that if the current science du jour says one thing and TUB says another, then that automatically means TUB is wrong. It does not. Dale Essary uses that same system, as I mentioned in a previous post. If TUB disagrees with the "Bible" then that means TUB is wrong, according to him and to other "Christians." It doesn't work that way, not with the Bible and not with Science. In one thread I saw someone talking about the surface of the sun and how wonderful the spectroscopes are and how accurately they can tell what's there, and so on. Hello? Who has been to the surface of the sun to check it out? The map is not the territory. If spectography was so great, we would know what the 96% of the universe is that is currently not only "unknown" but is completely hypothetical. Science changes every day, but few notice. And some think that whatever science says today must be right and must be the final truth. Some Urantians however have made it a point to notice. They're keeping track. They call it convergence, and even over the course of a short 50 year period, the signs of science converging and moving toward TUB positions is clear. In the 60s, science said that the Red man crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia some 10,000-12,000 years ago. That's what they dated the Clovis Man at. The Urantia Book says it happened 85,000 years ago. NOW, science is moving the date farther back and the last time I heard an estimate from some science source based on new information was 45,000 years ago. Science is converging on TUB.

 

That's all I have for now. Take care.

 

Norm.

 

Again, read the 2 threads first. If your aim is to simply rattle everyone's cage 'til you get the boot, that accommodation is available. What would the Ancients of Days do?

[Furchizedek]

Hi Reason,

 

If it is true that "there are no absolute rights," then it follows that that no one, or no group, has the right to determine what genetic condition should qualify for eradication.

 

Well yes, Society has that right.

 

In fact, it could therefore be argued that you have no right to make the claim that "there are no absolute rights."

 

? Argue it then. But I think it's self evident that there are no absolute rights. If you disagree, why don't you test your rights, whatever you think they are, and see?

 

What you apparently fail to recognize is that allowing some entity to determine who should be allowed to procreate lends itself to abuse.

 

Your assumption that I fail to recognize that allowing some entity to determine who should be allowed to procreate [could] lend itself to abuse is false. Where did you get that from?

 

Once that door is opened, how long before it is determined that brown skin should be eradicated from the gene pool.

 

I donno know. How long?

 

Your inherent presumption that the human race could properly control such authority, along with the ease at which you would suppress the basic rights of all individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are what I consider "false sentiments."

 

Your assumption that I have an inherent presumption that the human race could properly control such authority, is false. Where did you get that from?

 

In fact, I would say they are downright dangerous.

 

You would say that WHAT is downright dangerous? And what ease at which you say I would suppress the basic rights of all individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are you talking about? You are quite the reactionary and the vile debater.

 

I would not suppress anyone's basic rights of all individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc. See above. Society is the answer.

 

To me, your willingness to adopt such a position comes more from your desire to defend the UB than it does from any sense of fairness or justice that you may possess.

 

I am sorry you have that wrong view.

 

It just goes to prove that once you have been indoctrinated into some form of dogma or strict ideology, you will forego reason in defense of it.

 

Boy, you are a rough one! You are an attack dog of the first order. How long have you been honing your skills?

 

But who knows, maybe it will be determined that those whose minds have been corrupted by mythological doctrines are ones who should be slated for eradication.

 

Indeed, who knows? Are you going to come over and kill me?

 

I wonder how quickly your position on this matter would change in such a situation.

 

Hard to say. Your strawman is too hypothetical.

 

In my world, you have the right to belive as you wish.

 

That's nonsense. Your post above belies what you say. Your vicious reaction to the simple idea that the human races should weed out serious genetic disease shows that you do not believe I have the right to believe as I wish.

 

But don't expect rational, objective, inquisitive, scientifically oriented, free thinking individuals to take the elaborate description of the nature of God as described in the UB seriously.

 

Rational, objective, inquisitive, scientifically oriented, free thinking, beautitful, freshly showered, wholesome individuals already do take to the elaborate description of the nature of God as described in the UB.

 

All of the detail provided about God's existence has not a shread of evidence in support of it.

 

You can say that same thing about any religion. There is no proof or "shread (sic) of evidence" for God's existence in any of them. If you are an atheist, how is that my problem? I respect your right to be one, and I have never said there was any proof for God.

 

It is nothing but pure conjecture and speculation that requires faith to believe.

 

What IS your point? Who is arguing with you about it? Certainly it requires faith to believe. So what? :hyper:

 

In that regard, it is no different than the God of Christianity or any other religion known to humankind.

 

It is no different in that it requires faith. Who has said otherwise? You're pushing a strawman, maybe several of them.

 

It's just the one you've chosen to believe in.

 

What an astounding observation! Religion requires faith, and The Urantia Book is the religion I believe in. You sure got me on that!

 

Norm.

[Furchizedek]

If your aim is to simply rattle everyone's cage 'til you get the boot, that accomodation is available.

 

Ok. Take care.

 

Norm.

[freeztar]

Well yes, Society has that right. [to determine what genetic condition should qualify for eradication]

 

And how did that work out for Nazi Germany and The Puritans?

 

This is the most troubling part of TUB for me. We've already been through this in this thread (or was it the other one?).

 

Society has no rights. Society is merely a collection of individuals that share certain values/culture/traditions/etc.

 

If you still contend that society has the right, it's at least good to know that you and other Urantians promoting "eradication based on genetics" are in the vast minority (at least in the civilized world).

 

Now, to tend to some business...

 

Your posts have been a bit troubling in general. You have made the claim that TUB has valid science. When met with posts to the contrary, you have instead claimed that science doesn't have all the answers and that it is too early to tell if the scientific predictions in TUB will be verified. This is an appeal to ignorance and is not fruitful for discussion.

 

The problem with this is that you have not supported your initial claim, at least not to any amount of satisfaction. If you would like to retract your claim, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, please support your claims per the site rules.

[modest]

I don't really want to argue the science in TUB anyway

 

This is a science site.

 

If TUB disagrees with the "Bible" then that means TUB is wrong, according to him and to other "Christians."

 

Well-established scientific theory is incompatible with the bible and the bible is incompatible with UB. How do you propose we figure out which is correct? I'm honestly asking, because I don't think it's a question you can directly answer without introducing dissidence to UB.

 

In one thread I saw someone talking about the surface of the sun and how wonderful the spectroscopes are and how accurately they can tell what's there, and so on. Hello? Who has been to the surface of the sun to check it out? The map is not the territory. If spectography was so great, we would know what the 96% of the universe is that is currently not only "unknown" but is completely hypothetical.

 

What an odd thing to say. The sun is composed of baryonic matter which is completely compatible with astronomical spectroscopy. 74% of the 'unknown' content of the universe (by ΛCDM) is energy density. How on earth (or the sun for that matter) do you propose spectroscopy be related to identifying energy? It's like saying "if scales were so good a weighing things then we could use them to measure the water content on the moon". Strange.

 

Science changes every day, but few notice.

 

No, science has stayed pretty-well the same for quite some time. Scientific theories change—often one building on another to form a more complete understanding. The scientific method does not change (not that it can't).

 

It also strikes me that you on one hand say that our understanding of the universe changes which logically implies we should not accept any static explanation as the ultimate truth, and on the other hand advocate faith in a static explanation (UB).

 

And some think that whatever science says today must be right and must be the final truth.

 

This is completely antithetical to the scientific approach. I quote Introduction to the scientific method:

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment.

It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

I don't mean this as an insult, but you seem to have no familiarity with scientific methodology.

In the 60s, science said that the Red man crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia some 10,000-12,000 years ago. That's what they dated the Clovis Man at. The Urantia Book says it happened 85,000 years ago. NOW, science is moving the date farther back and the last time I heard an estimate from some science source based on new information was 45,000 years ago. Science is converging on TUB.

 

I suggest you read your book of faith again. It claims the migration began 100,000 years ago and ended 85,000 years ago (79:5.6). Genetic anthropology indicates the migration began closer to 30,000 years ago with the main wave approximately 12,000 years ago. You are comparing the most recent migration in UB to the oldest migration in genetic studies. You would properly compare the figure 85,000 to 12,000 which I don't find too impressive especially considering the book has humanity evolving and spreading out of Asia rather than Africa!

 

And I have no interest in proving TUB via the science in it, but I daresay that the science in it is not as easily rebutted as some here seem to think. Prove me wrong. Put up one example.

 

The age of earth's oceans. The age of the earth. The age of the universe... UB says there were stars in this part of the universe 400 billion years ago. We can date stars and if the universe had been around that long then stars could get that old—yet the oldest stars we can find anywhere are something like 10-12 billion years. Moreover, the expanding universe just won't allow stars to have existed anywhere near that long ago—big bang and all. But, of course, the big bang may be wrong. Radiometric dating may be wrong. Genetic anthropology may be wrong. Geology may be wrong. Everything we know about the natural world may be wrong and so we might as well pick a science fiction book (any will do) and believe it with absolute faith

 

~modest