Andrew, you're not wrong when you say people don't often question their beliefs, not only that but they fail to question anything and that's a terrible practice. I find there are a fair number of Christians who don't ask questions. Asking the right questions leads to a deeper understanding of why you believe what you do, rather than just believing what others say is true. Also, you can better understand other people and why they believe what they do, rather than think of them as US versus THEM. It's amazing then how you can learn to love those you disagree with. Even the Bible says the Truth should be tested against God's Word to see whether it really is true. God gave us brains to use, so it makes sense that we use them to better understanding the world in which we live.

So yes, people who have something to work for have something I don't: fake purpose.

I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the children of man.

So I became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.

Might I suggest that the problem is that you are living "under the sun" and not "under Heaven."

I'm only stating what I heard on Fox News, so I can't speak with certainty of this, but a spokesman for NASA said that their research is why we have cell phones, iPods, nanotechnology

Sure, profiteers took notes while the public-relations campaign that was the space race was taking place.

Progress is generally inevitable

Well there's a nice Hegelian notion! But seriously, why do you consider one form of life "advanced" to be superior to another "primitive" one. It seems that there is a standard of evaluation at play here and I would like to know where it comes from.

And look what progress has given us: the comforts I've talked about earlier in this post.

But what about these points of view?

1) All that "progress" has done is to make us weak, soft, and dependent on our precious technology for survival.

2) Change is a bad thing because it upsets the natural order of things. The goal should not be progress but harmony (an Eastern-Chinese view).

Andrew, if you have time, I would recommend looking up (on youtube) James Burke's series The Day the Universe Changed. The one qualm I have about it is that he often downplays the contributions of the church to technological advance (particularly the role of monasteries in economic growth during the High Medieval period).

And personally this bothers me because man could possible be immortal by now, or close to becoming so, but we're not.

If you're consistent, you should realize by now that this shouldn't bother you. If there is no ultimate meaning to life apart from a phantom immortality that everyone from Gilgamesh to the Alchemists to Walt Disney has tried and failed to obtain, you're pretty much left with three options:

1) Re-evaluate your assessment that the world is meaningless and figure out if there might just be a transcendent God who created it with purpose.

2) Just accept the meaninglessness of life. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you die.

3) Create your own meaning Sartre/Heidegger-style.

Time to start questioning your beliefs here.

TBG

There is much profit to be made by space exploration and colonization. The Moon alone can potentially cure much of the world's energy ails and other bodies in the solar system might provide raw resources for humanity. Nat Geo had a great program on this. These are perfectly feasible reasons to expand humanity to the stars. The reason we haven't yet colonized the Moon is because it requires a colossal down payment. It requires the right kind of person with the right kind of mindset to be in charge at the right time, else you get what we have now: stagnation.

Even so, I hate using "profitability" as an excuse to do that which I think many of us yearn to do, considering God planted the desire in us long ago. And that is to explore, see what's out there, expand, and all for the Glory of God.

Nevermind the so called Dark Ages are only seen as a backward period by the world. It was a time that intelligent Christian discussion and faith really flourished. The Enlightenment period on the otherhand was seen as a step forward for the world and many steps backward for Christians, Jews etc. Great idea, lets take God out of the picture and watch the world go to hell in a handbasket. Remove the belief that there is any Absolute Truth and Moral Truth and you become your own god and live by your own rules. Who determines right and wrong then? You do. I hope I'm not the only one who has issues with this.

The Dark Ages are seen as such because they start with the collapse of the Western half of the Roman Empire, traditionally dated in 476 AD on 4th September, when the barbarian chieftain Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustulus. The following centuries were marked by natural catastrophes in the 500's, which caused an increase in the barbarian migrations, which under the Huns had already begun in 451 AD, when Aetius defeated them at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains.

About that time the Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded Britain, defeating and obliterating the previous Romano-Celtic population, who retreated into Wales and Cornwall or fled to Brittany, now part of France. The Gallic population of France was taken over by Franks who, however, started to speak the form of Latin spoken there, much as had already happened to the Ostrogoths in Italy and the Vandals and Visigoths in Spain.

By the time of Gregory the Great, the Pope in 600 AD, Mohammed had already started the spread of Islam, which caused another wave of invaders from Arabia, across North Africa into Spain. The Islamic caliphate in the East and the Moorish civilization of Valencia and Granada flourished, thanks to people like Avicenna or Averroes.

Gregory the Great introduced Christianity to Southern England, but there was surviving a different form of Christianity spread by the Irish and Welsh into Scotland and Northern England. It was at the Council of Jarrow in Northern England that the final determinations were made of when Easter would fall each year in the Western Church.

In the ensuing years, all the British Isles were invaded by Vikings, whilst in Europe they suffered further invasions by Magyars, who joined earlier Hunnish relatives to settle in what used to be called Pannonia. We call the country Hungary today. And it also became Christian. The Arabian conquest spread up into Southern France where it was stopped by Clovis near the Catalaunian Plains, at Tours in 755 AD. The descendants of Clovis were called the Merovingians.

The Middle Ages were a time of relative stability. In fact by the turn of the first Millennium in 1000 AD people were on the whole healthier, better governed and more contented than they would be 500 years later, when the Renaissance began. Except for their kings and their ambitious relatives of course. The rot started with the Norman Conquest in 1066 and finished with the fall of Constantinople in 1453, marking the final end of the Roman Empire. Following the final expulsion of the Moors from Spain in 1492, the Ottoman Empire in Turkey, the Balkans, Bulgaria and Romania, was the chief Islamic power confronting the Christians up until today.

I hope this summation of the Dark Ages helps the arguments along.

Warrior, definitely - one of my closest friends is a devout Christian. We debate all the time, from big things like the existence of God to little things like whether or not it's wrong to use profanity. Obviously, how one answers the former will effect how they answer the latter, and even denote whether or not the sin is really "little." I've talked to some people here outside this thread, and I'm really a nice guy. But when I'm arguing to win, I am fighting for a win. It's like playing one of your friends in a sporting event; you're not going to be nice about it, you're going to try to win. So I might come off as cold or mean on here, but that's because I'm trying to win an argument. Talk to me outside this type of environment and I'm sure we'd get along fine.

Well there's a nice Hegelian notion! But seriously, why do you consider one form of life "advanced" to be superior to another "primitive" one. It seems that there is a standard of evaluation at play here and I would like to know where it comes from.

Objective standards. It's one of those things, "this is the best way, but nobody cares anyway, and it's not a moral standard anyway so whatever." Here's an example: it only really makes sense for about 21% of people to attend college, because only 21% of people have a high enough IQ to be very successful in higher education. However, in our society, a far higher percentage attend college. Let's take this even deeper. People with linguistic intelligence (here referring to the Theory of Multiple Intelligences) would be better to stick with a degree that uses linguistic intelligence. But what if they don't like it? Writing comes very naturally to me, and I enjoy writing poetry and essays, but I would never want to write full time for my job. It would be to boring. I plan to be a lawyer and eventually a professor, and I'm not good with people. I don't even have social skills; I have to emulate other, more charismatic people and keep myself in check all the time. If I don't, I end up making awkward mistakes and making people mad (not that I especially mind angering people, but it can become a bit much. Just think of how many times I've had to put my foot in my mouth on this thread). But you know what? I don't care! I want to argue for a living, and teach people to argue. It's what I enjoy. Writing skills definitely helps with this.

So what's the point to all of this? There is a "best," meaning most efficient way, of doing things. We don't always know this, but it's still there as an objective standard. But so what? It doesn't mean we should do it, especially not as a moral imperative. In fact most people won't care enough to do it. Take the person who goes three miles out of their way to get coffee at the 7-11 with the genial employee that makes their morning brighter, even though they pass two places with coffee of equal quality on the way to that location. I value progress, which is why I personally think we should be further along, and it would be more efficient to be so. I do agree that the change can be bad, but I believe we're now forbidden from discussing eugenics on the forum.

1) Re-evaluate your assessment that the world is meaningless and figure out if there might just be a transcendent God who created it with purpose.

2) Just accept the meaninglessness of life. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you die.

3) Create your own meaning Sartre/Heidegger-style.

I wrote an essay awhile ago to deal with this. It's called "My Hypothesis on the Circle of Life," and I think I posted it here last summer (on Episode 5 of this discussion). Basically, there is the objective ideas, but part of that is that it's not immoral to create your own standard. I'm not personally into it, but we all do it anyways. By the way, just because life is meaningless doesn't mean we should (or shouldn't) eat, drink and be merry. Some people might will to do so, some might not. Most people will make up their own purpose through religion or some other method, which is not morally wrong but is creating a factual falsehood, which goes against my personal standard of loving truth - that is, to put the truth before myself and my own personal comfort.

Hopefully this is all coherent, it's long and I never go over my stuff after I write it (I'm a bit like Lewis in that fashion), but let me know if it's not understandable.

So what's the point to all of this? There is a "best," meaning most efficient way, of doing things.

But that still doesn't explain why you think it desirable. If this is just your personal feeling on the matter, then admit it and stop trying to convince anyone. Without a standard to which both parties agree, argument is pointless and futile.

Most people will make up their own purpose through religion or some other method, which is not morally wrong but is creating a factual falsehood

A lot of philosophers of religion might disagree with you that religion is about facts at all, but that's another discussion (besides, I disagree with them too).

The fact is, though, that you have created some sort of meaning, Andrew: you're here discussing these issues with us, so clearly you think that this is a worthwhile thing to do. You're searching for truth, so clearly you find that to be valuable. The trouble is that you are in denial as to how much of your life and thought is value-laden in its language.

TBG

Maybe this has already been discussed before and I'm probably changing the subject, but why are Christians so opposed to drinking (or rather, getting drunk.) I'm curious to know the logic behind it because I've heard that alcohol can be a fun time.

(I would never drink and drive FYI and I would never defend that.).

Just a few thoughts from a generally scientifically-inclined person:

And personally this bothers me because man could possible be immortal by now, or close to becoming so, but we're not.

I really don’t think it’s fair to nail this to the door of the church (so to speak). The same laws of thermodynamics which describe the ultimate fate of the universe as a cold, dark, lifeless place (if left to itself, and given enough time) also govern biological processes (like the ATP cycle, cellular reproduction, DNA replication, and others) – not to mention mechanical things we build. There’s no way to make a perpetual-motion machine; there’s no way to achieve physical immortality because we just can’t beat entropy. Perhaps we could learn to clone ourselves and move our consciousness to the new bodies somehow, or learn to do the same with machines (as in Star Trek and other sci-fi), but the same stricture applies – eventually the bodies/machines/universe run down.

To be sure, someone could criticize this claim, pointing out my ‘blinders’ that prevent me from seeing all the possibilities. I grant that – but note that these blinders come entirely from application of currently-accepted scientific laws without any appeal to God or other supernatural entities.

Christianity: Just think, we could have been exploring the galaxy by now.

Strictly speaking, we are. Just last month the team managing the orbiting Kepler announced 1235 extrasolar planetary candidates – far surpassing early expectations and driving science in one of the hottest fields in astronomy today. The Voyager 1 and 2 craft are expected to reach the heliopause in 2014 or 2015, thus entering true interstellar space.

I know this isn’t the poster’s intent. But I submit that it ignores some facts of history to come up with a witty saying.

First, as others have noted, history isn’t constant advance as the poster’s graph implies, but spurts of progress and regress as empires rise and fall. Rome isn’t the only example, just the most famous. Ironically wars often bring down empires, but also often foster rapid advances in technology as each side seeks to defeat the other. But they also consume lots of resources that could otherwise be devoted to research or other purposes. And wars are not always fought for religious reasons; land and resources are obvious alternatives.

The rapid advancement of modern times – especially in the last 50 years or so, within the lifetimes of some forum members has several contributing factors. Consider that while some nations have fallen (such as the Soviet bloc) in that time, there was no interruption of advancement; other areas just picked up the slack and kept going. That is, the rapid advancement we see today hasn’t been dramatically interrupted by political collapses as has happened earlier in history. (In fact, the loss of modern-day knowledge – and attempts to preserve it – in the aftermath of a worldwide collapse was a main plot point in Cold War-era apocalyptic novels like George Stuart’s Earth Abides and Walter Miller’s A Canticle for Leibowitz, among others).

My point here is that the rapid advance most of us take for granted is not the norm historically – and has influences other than religion, or freedom from it. (this may be unclear. It was so much clearer in my mind this morning )

And I also suggest that the main assumption of this poster is the same as a criticism of Christianity already raised in this thread: “only white men need apply.” Why? The “Christian Dark Ages” applied to Europe. What about all the other civilizations of the world: East Asia (China, Japan, Korea) or the Americas (Mayans, Aztecs, etc) that existed at the time but were not yet influenced by Europe’s collapse? Surely their progress was not impeded by the aftermath of the collapse of Rome, but is ignored on the graph.

TBG, if there was a moral standard that meant there was a more efficient way to spend my time and that I should do so, I would agree. I enjoy debating philosophy, so that's what I'm doing. It's funny that we wouldn't be able to know it's valuelessness without first philosophizing about the other possibilities. Well, perhaps someone could know that from birth, but not most of us.

There’s no way to make a perpetual-motion machine; there’s no way to achieve physical immortality because we just can’t beat entropy. Perhaps we could learn to clone ourselves and move our consciousness to the new bodies somehow, or learn to do the same with machines (as in Star Trek and other sci-fi), but the same stricture applies – eventually the bodies/machines/universe run down.

Oh, I definitely don't think we're close to achieving immortality by any means, probably thousands of years away from it. We don't even know a tenth of what we don't know, and we don't even know that for certain. I think I may have lost track of my own beliefs on the matter somewhere along the line. I agree that man doesn't have immortality (probably) never will. I am only saying that if we had it, life would have meaning. We don't, so it doesn't.

For your point about the rhetorical picture I posted, I want to tie this in with another question: The Chinese people were far more advanced than the Western world a lot earlier. While Hebrews were busy scribbling on stones in the desert for 40 years, the gentile Chinese had printing and publishing. Why wouldn't God reveal himself to them, who had much more efficient resources to spread the word? Just a question we've been kickin' around in the philosophy club at school.

Maybe this has already been discussed before and I'm probably changing the subject, but why are Christians so opposed to drinking (or rather, getting drunk.)

I would think it's pretty straightforward. Being drunk can cause you to do a lot of stupid things. You lose control of yourself, and other people can manipulate you. Drunkenness leads to irrational behavior, and that's not a trait you want to have. I know people at my school who regularly go out and get drunk or stoned or other garbage on the weekends, and while they may have had fun, I've also heard them feel regretful sometimes because it has led them into situations that I cannot describe on a family-friendly forum.

I'm curious to know the logic behind it because I've heard that alcohol can be a fun time.

Really? Cocaine and meth can be "fun" too, or for a less extreme example, cigarettes can help some people relax - but that doesn't mean those things are good for you.

Now, that doesn't mean alcohol is bad - Jesus turned water into wine himself. It's the overuse of alcohol to freely put your body in danger that Christians tend to not like.

Maybe it's not good for you, but eating french fries isn't great either and I'm sure we've all enjoyed them from time to time. And while I wouldn't want to drink in bad situations or with people I don't trust, I can't that say that the danger of alcohol causing you to do something stupid renders it being morally wrong.

You seem to be confusing drinking alcohol with drinking copious amounts of alcohol to get drunk. Many Christians would have no problem with a glass or two of wine, a shot of spirits or a beer or two but deliberately getting plastered? That's something else altogether. You're not in charge of your faculties. It's just as much about being responsible and respectful, as it is about not doing stupid things or putting yourself in danger. I just don't see the point in getting drunk. It certainly doesn't make me think highly of the person.

Why do Christians think it can be wrong? Well let's go straight to the source!

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

cigarettes can help some people relax - but that doesn't mean those things are good for you.

I'm a smoker, and I started because I thought it would help me concentrate and relax. This is true; those are benefits of nicotine. And when I can remember to charge my electronic cigarette and don't run out of cartridges for it, and therefore have a steady stream of nicotine all day, this is fine. However, when I have to rely on the old fashioned cancer sticks, it really leads to the complete opposite. If I can't get out every hour and have a smoke I'll get headaches and start fidgeting. This is really can be a problem since I'm going to school. Kind of tied my own ankles there, but I just wanted to clarify so nobody gets the false idea that smoking is really going to help them in the long run (assuming smoking could conflict with their schedule, and I think for most of us it does/would).

I'm super-sensitive to cigarette smoke but I'm not an asthmatic. I just hate the smell, how it makes breathing difficult and how it burns my lungs. And that's just being a passive smoker. I don't really hang around many smokers. Andrew, what do you mean by your "electronoic cigarette". Personally I don't think much of smoking. It may relieve stress but it does the body a world of hurt. But I also understand how highly addictive they are. It's just like many things. We often enjoy unhealthy things.

Maybe it's not good for you, but eating french fries isn't great either and I'm sure we've all enjoyed them from time to time. And while I wouldn't want to drink in bad situations or with people I don't trust, I can't that say that the danger of alcohol causing you to do something stupid renders it being morally wrong.

I think french fries is a good example. Here's why --

Eating french fries, in and of itself, is not a sin. Drinking wine, in and of itself, is not a sin.

Pigging out on french fries and getting fat is both sin (gluttony) and unhealthy. Drinking too much wine is both a sin and unhealthy.

Christians also believe that our bodies belong to God, and should therefore be treated respectfully and with care. Which is another reason why we try to avoid things like drunkeness and gluttony.

You have to remember, MoonlightDancer, that a lot of the things we believe, (whether it's about food, drink, love, life, etc.) we believe because we trust in God, Christ, and the Bible. We put a lot of stock in the Bible, with all our hearts. We believe the things it says. We know that the rules are there for a good purpose -- sometimes we know what that purpose is, sometimes we don't know what the purpose is, and sometimes we find out the purpose later. If you do not put the same trust/stock in God/Christ/The Bible, then you have to expect that you won't understand or agree with everything we believe, because we're coming from completely different perspectives on life. You can ask us questions (which you can feel free to do ), and we can explain what we believe and why we believe it (which is something we love to do ), but in the end, that won't make you agree with us. We can explain everything and answer every question, and you might disagree with all of it. Because, in the end, it's up to you what you believe. We can't go into you and change your mind and heart to make it the same as ours. Same goes for Tesseract, Andrew, and Greymouser.

I'm saying this so that this discussion doesn't go round and round in circles, because that can easily happen. It's easy to start thinking that the goal of a discussion/debate is to bring someone over to your point of view, or be brought to the other person's point of view. But that can't happen. No human can really change the heart of another human, or go into them and change their mind. In the end, all anyone can do is state what they believe and why. It can help in some ways -- put ideas in our heads that can be of use later, or help us maybe see things another possible way. But the rest is up to the other person. And God, of course (If you believe in Him, which I do). So if anyone here expects this discussion alone to completely convince anyone (including themselves), then this discussion will probably go on forever. I think these discussions are very useful in understanding other points of view, and answering questions about things people are confused about. But if we ever want it to go anywhere, I think we have to remember that the usefulness ends there -- we can't convince someone of something if they purely and simply disagree with it. No human being can.

~Riella