If there is a god

[I Think]

If there is a god, why are his/her/it's followers such dweebs?

[JonyDarko]

Chuck Norris believes in God...

[hellomynameis]

Chuck Norris doesn't even have a 'Ctrl' key on his keyboard because Chuck Norris is always in control!


... Well, thats what my wallpaper says...

[Phoenix Within]

I got a buddy of mine a pin once that said "I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand". He used to proudly wear it when he went to volunteer down at the Sally Ann!

[steven lloyd]

If there is a god, why are his/her/it's followers such dweebs?

Given the number of dweebs who don't believe in God I see no potential for either a positive or negative correlation in this suggested line of reasoning.

[hellomynameis]

If there is a god, why are his/her/it's followers such dweebs?

Given the number of dweebs who don't believe in God I see no potential for either a positive or negative correlation in this suggested line of reasoning.

Maybe Chcuk Norris could thin 'em out a lil? You know, so we can start correlating.

I will dial up the seriousness for a moment to say this: I've never really cared for tying someones dweebishness to their religiosity or lack of it, not that I know what really even constitutes a "dweeb" in the first place. But if I were permitted a little room to flex some stereotyping I'd say I've found the extreme believer to be either freakishly scary or beautifully irrelevant and the extreme atheist to be very insolent.

And if I was going to be stuck with a group of them for a long period of time I'd pick a pack of religious dweebs over a pack of atheistic ones any day.

At least with the religious dweebs I could turn what they say into comedy, or, if push came to shove emerge victorious from a fatwah.

[I Think]

Dweebfulness is a scientific term. To measure the quantum of dweebfulness, take the subjects iq, divide it by the number of strongly held unsubstantiated opinions, add current room temperature, multiply by the square root of the subjects age, add the hexadecimal expression of the date of rapture and the number of church attendances per week.

[steven lloyd]

But if I were permitted a little room to flex some stereotyping I'd say I've found the extreme believer to be either freakishly scary or beautifully irrelevant and the extreme atheist to be very insolent.

Makes sense. I find the obsessive fanatic at either extreme to be just that – obsessive and fanatic. Who cares if someone believes in God? Who cares if they don’t? It cannot be proven either way and using stereotypical rhetoric to lump everyone in some easy to describe group is just lazy thinking (and probably insolent).

[hellomynameis]

But if I were permitted a little room to flex some stereotyping I'd say I've found the extreme believer to be either freakishly scary or beautifully irrelevant and the extreme atheist to be very insolent.

Makes sense. I find the obsessive fanatic at either extreme to be just that – obsessive and fanatic. Who cares if someone believes in God? Who cares if they don’t? It cannot be proven either way and using stereotypical rhetoric to lump everyone in some easy to describe group is just lazy thinking (and probably insolent).

Steven we are in danger of getting serious in a thread that certainly does not deserve it.

[Queen K]

Dweebfulness is a scientific term. To measure the quantum of dweebfulness, take the subjects iq, divide it by the number of strongly held unsubstantiated opinions, add current room temperature, multiply by the square root of the subjects age, add the hexadecimal expression of the date of rapture and the number of church attendances per week.

I believe dweebfulness is a non-scientific term. Assume you yourself to be perfect in the eyes of society and possibly God and take a measure from there. Eyeball one who is slightly off kilter, assess their clothing, make and model of their mountain bike, but especially technical gear and /or technological prowness, subtract current room temperature, angle your tolerance level just right through a magnifying glass, ignore expressions, add number of Rock concert attendances, multiple by factors of your own ignorance.

[steven lloyd]

Dweebfulness is a scientific term. To measure the quantum of dweebfulness, take the subjects iq, divide it by the number of strongly held unsubstantiated opinions, add current room temperature, multiply by the square root of the subjects age, add the hexadecimal expression of the date of rapture and the number of church attendances per week.

I believe dweebfulness is a non-scientific term. Assume you yourself to be perfect in the eyes of society and possibly God and take a measure from there. Eyeball one who is slightly off kilter, assess their clothing, make and model of their mountain bike, but especially technical gear and /or technological prowness, subtract current room temperature, angle your tolerance level just right through a magnifying glass, ignore expressions, add number of Rock concert attendances, multiple by factors of your own ignorance.

:dyinglaughing:

[steven lloyd]

Steven we are in danger of getting serious in a thread that certainly does not deserve it.

You're right. It's about that time anyway. Cheers all.

[number 796]

Social readjustments, the economic transformations, and moral rejuvenations, and the religious revisions of CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION would be drastic and revolutionary if the LIVING RELIGION OF JESUS should suddenly supplant the theologic religion A B O U T JESUS !!! :spinball:

*link to promoted site removed/Jo*

[hellomynameis]

Social readjustments, the economic transformations, and moral rejuvenations, and the religious revisions of CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION would be drastic and revolutionary if the LIVING RELIGION OF JESUS should suddenly supplant the theologic religion A B O U T JESUS !!! ...

From my sojourn in Christendom I'd say most devote Christians are living their lives based on "the living religion of Jesus" but not in the way you mean.

Also, this:

The Urantia Book has received limited published or formal critical analysis. The most common points of contention include:

* It claims to be a revelation from celestial beings and is presented as if written by them.

* From a scientific point of view, parts of the science it describes conflict with modern theory.

* Some of the material is alleged to have been plagiarized.

* Those who assert the Bible is the inerrant word of God, cannot accept The Urantia Book, because it denies some fundamental Christian doctrines.

* Certain passages can be viewed as being sexist, racist or generally discriminatory in accordance with modern societal perceptions.


Criticisms of claims as a revelation

In Paper 92, "The Later Evolution of Religion", the authors make a reference to the papers as the fifth revelation of "epochal significance" to humankind, the fourth epochal revelation having been the life of Jesus.

The book has been in print since 1955, but as compared to other religious or holy books that have a recent origin and revelatory claims, such as the Book of Mormon, popularity of The Urantia Book has not grown as fast. The small movement inspired by The Urantia Book has not developed clergy or institutions such as churches, reading rooms, or temples, and has no membership by which a census of the number of followers can be taken.[15][17] As of 2006, the Urantia Foundation had one office in Chicago and five people on staff.[6]

The claim of revelation in The Urantia Book has been criticized for various reasons. Skeptics such as Martin Gardner say it is a product of human efforts rather than a revelation because some of its science is flawed. Because the book does not support certain fundamental doctrines of Christianity, while at the same time presenting an account of parts of Jesus' life absent in the Bible, those with a Christian viewpoint have argued it cannot be genuine.[16] Some have thought it to be gnostic, however The Urantia Book is not associated with Gnosticism.

Other critics have felt that at over 2,000 pages — nearly twice the length of the King James Bible — it is too long, complex, and bureaucratic.[14][15][18]

Criticism of science

In Paper 101, "The Real Nature of Religion," the authors write:

We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired.

Skeptics like Martin Gardner see the science in The Urantia Book as clear reflections of the views that prevailed at the time the book is said to have originated. The claim by the authors that no unknown scientific discoveries could be imparted is seen as a ruse to allow mistakes to be dismissed later. That presentation of post-1955 scientific knowledge is avoided is taken to be evidence it was written by humans and not by celestial beings with superior knowledge.

Examples of criticisms regarding the science in The Urantia Book include:

* The described formation of the solar system is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis.[1] Though popular in the early part of the 20th century, by the early 1940s it was discarded by Henry Russell's argument that it was incompatible with the angular momentum of planets such as Jupiter.[2] The currently accepted scientific explanation for the origin of the solar system is based on the nebular hypothesis.
* The age of our universe is stated to be more than 1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) years old and the universe is said to periodically expand and contract — respire — at 2-billion-year intervals. Current observations, however, suggest that the true age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years. The big bang theory is not supported.
* A fundamental particle called an "ultimaton" is proposed, with an electron being composed of 100 ultimatons. The particle is not known to be described anywhere else and the concept is not supported by modern particle physics.
* Some species are said to have evolved suddenly from single mutations without transitional species. The theory originated with Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries, but was short-lived and is not now supported.
* According to The Urantia Book, multi-colored human races originated suddenly in one generation and in one family, producing brothers and sisters that variously turned blue, yellow, red, green, orange, and indigo when exposed to sunlight. Their offspring subsequently favored the parent color. Later, Adam and Eve produced a violet race. In the book's account, the blue, yellow, and red races were considered "primary", and the green, orange, and indigo "secondary". The green and orange races were driven to extinction, and the rest mixed over time. Modern evolutionary theory does not support this account.
* The book repeats the idea prevalent at the time of its origin that one side of the planet Mercury always faces the sun due to tidal locking. In 1965, radio astronomers discovered that Mercury actually rotates fast enough for all sides to see exposure to the sun. Also in the same passage, the book erroneously states that tidal friction will slow the rotation of a planet or other orbiting body "until axial revolution ceases". Revolutions do not cease, however, but stabilize so that the time to complete one revolution becomes equal to the time needed to complete an orbit.
* The book says that a solar eclipse was predicted in 1808 by the Native American prophet Tenskwatawa. The eclipse actually was predicted in late April 1806 and occurred on June 16, 1806.

Controversial statements about human races can be found in the book. Supporters state that criticism has arisen mainly due to reading passages out of context. Gardner believes that William S. Sadler, who wrote some eugenicist works, had a hand in editing or writing the book, and that this is how the ideas were included. Controversial statements about the sexes can also be found. While the book supports social and spiritual equality between men and women, it states that they will always have distinctive "spheres" in society due to their biological differences.

While some adherents of the book believe that all of the information in The Urantia Book including its science is literally true, others accept the book's caveats and do not believe that the science is fully accurate.

Meredith Sprunger, a liberal believer in The Urantia Book and retired minister in the United Church of Christ, writes, "research has revealed that virtually all of the scientific material found in The Urantia Book was the accepted scientific knowledge of the period in which the book was written, was held by some scientists of that time, or was about to be discovered or recognized." He argues against its literal infallibility and that fundamentalism over the book is "just as untenable as Biblical fundamentalism".[7]

Other believers maintain that the book has prophetically anticipated scientific advances already. They believe more of its science — if not all of it — will be proven correct in the future. Gardner evaluated many of these claims as of 1995 and found them unconvincing. Some arise because the book is said to have been indited by the revelators by 1935, but then was not published until 1955. Science discovered during the two intervening decades can be perceived as prophetic by believers, while skeptics think such facts were added prior to publication. For instance, the catalytic role that carbon plays in the sun's nuclear reactions is described in the book, though Hans Bethe's announcement of the discovery was not made until 1938.

The only apparent anticipation of science the book has made, in Gardner's opinion, is that it says the magnetic sense that homing pigeons possess is "not wholly wanting as a conscious possession by mankind". In 1980, a British zoologist, Robin Baker, published evidence that humans have a limited magnetic sense.

Mark McMenamin, a professor of geology, quotes a section of the book describing a billion-year-old supercontinent that subsequently split apart, forming ocean basins where early marine life developed. He says, "This amazing passage, written in the 1930s, anticipates scientific results that did not actually appear in the scientific literature until many decades later." McMenamin also states, "Of course I am being selective here in my choice of quotations, and there are reams of scientifically untenable material in The Urantia Book."[19]

Plagiarism allegations

The Urantia Book states in its Foreword that more than one thousand "human concepts representing the highest and most advanced planetary knowledge of spiritual values and universe meanings" were selected in preparing the papers. The authors say that they were required to "give preference to the highest existing human concepts pertaining to the subjects to be presented" and would "resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind."

In recent years, students of the papers have found that the free use of other sources appears to be true.[7][15] None of the material allegedly used from other sources are directly cited or referenced within the book.

In 1992, a reader of The Urantia Book, Matthew Block, self-published a paper that showed nineteen alleged examples of The Urantia Book utilizing material published earlier.[20] All of the source authors identified in Block's paper were published in English between 1905 and 1943 by U.S. publishers and are typically scholarly or academic works that contain concepts and wording similar to what is found in The Urantia Book. Block has since claimed to have discovered over 125 source books and articles, written by over 90 authors, which were incorporated into the papers.[7]

The use of outside source materials was studied separately by Gardner and Gooch, and they concluded that the book did use many of the sources noted by Block. Gardner found that at least one of the source book authors was quoted in earlier works by Sadler, and most of the books purportedly would have been available to Sadler or Forum members in Chicago prior to 1955.

For instance, Gardner and Block note that Paper 85 appears to have been taken from the first eight chapters of Origin and Evolution of Religion by E. Washburn Hopkins, published by Yale University Press in 1923. Each section of the paper corresponds to a chapter in the book, with several passages possibly used as direct material. Likewise, much of The Urantia Book material relating to the evolution of mankind appears to have been directly taken from Henry Fairfield Osborn, Man Rises to Parnassus: Critical Epochs in the Prehistory of Man published by Princeton University Press in 1928.

In one example cited by Block, the original author discusses the periodicity of the chemical elements and concludes that the harmony in the construction of the atom suggests some unspecified plan of organization. In conclusion from this "plagiarism," the authors of The Urantia Book assert that this harmony is evidence of the intelligent design of the universe. W. F. G. Swann writes on page 64 of The Architecture of the Universe (italics indicate edits as compared to The Urantia Book, bolding indicates deletions):

Starting from any one of them [i.e., chemical elements], and noting some property such as the melting point, for example, the property would change as we went along the row, but as we continued it would gradually come back to the condition very similar to that which we started ... The eighth element was in many respects like the first, the ninth like the second, the tenth like the third, and so on. Such a slate of affairs point not only to a varied internal structure, but also to a certain harmony in that variation suggestive of some organized plan in building the atom.

Contrast with The Urantia Book's version:

Starting from any one element, after noting some one property, such a quality will exchange for six consecutive elements, but on reaching the eighth, it tends to reappear, that is, the eighth chemically active element resembles the first, the ninth the second, and so on. Such a fact of the physical world unmistakably points to the sevenfold constitution of ancestral energy and is indicative of the fundamental reality of the sevenfold diversity of the creations of time and space.

Block and many believers do not see the use of human source materials as plagiarism. Block writes:

One probable reason that the human sources were left undisguised was to enable students to discern, through comparative analysis, how this coordination of planetary knowledge was actually effected. As mentioned above, the initial analyses have already proved tremendously illuminating in this regard. Another reason was to keep us aware of the book’s anchorage in a specific time and place. While a very large part of the book is of timeless value and perennial applicability, some of its discussions directly address and respond to the world situation of the early 20th century. Thus, every generation will have to determine the relevance and applicability of certain of the book’s teachings to its own situation. Emerging from all these discoveries is the gratifying realization that the Urantia Book is exactly what its authors claim it to be....

[Mr Danksworth]

Caps lock is cruise control for crazy. Must be an x-ian spam bot...