|
On February 19 2009 13:55 NeVeR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 09:46 IdrA wrote:On February 19 2009 05:07 NeVeR wrote:On February 17 2009 15:24 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 17 2009 15:23 Mada_Jiang wrote:
For all those who are reading or contributing to this thread, I strongly encourage you to communicate with God him self and get your answers. If he is a loving father he wouldn't leave you in the dark. Rather than reading through how each individual think about religion, step away from that and ask God to reveal him self to you.
For those of you who are getting all worked up arguing with each other and treating each other like you would never do to each other in real life.... I have one suggestion:
Rather than debating over whether heat waves exists, put your self there and feel the heat it self. Once again my email is oni_jiang@hotmail.com. I wont tell you what I think, if you are interested, I will share with you my experiences with God.
I pray that peace will be with you. ^.^ you are stupid. i will not explicate further because you would simply disregard it. peace to you too though. Wow, dude. The guy offers his hand out to everyone here in a completely friendly and polite manner and you have to insult him and his beliefs? Please stop being a douchebag. In my opinion, by the way, you are only doing a disservice to humanity by arguing against religion, since, regardless of whether or not it is true, it is necessary for the world all the same. how is it necessary? certainly people can gain comfort from it, that doesnt mean its necessary or that its a net good. and one could argue that the comfort itself is not a good thing if its based on false premises. and he deserves to be insulted, hes refusing to answer any post that legitly challenges his stance. Like you said, the comfort (though I wouldn't use that word) it gives people is significant. To be more specific, it gives people a sense of purpose and serves as a foundation for morality. It also serves as a deterrent to crime. I believe that the benefits of religion greatly outweigh the harm it is capable of. So why religion instead of mere individual spirituality? Religion creates a widespread community of believers that reinforces the faith of the individual and allows him to experience it in a social setting. We as human beings are social creatures, after all, and when we're able to share our beliefs or interests with others who feel similarly, we are all the more strengthened in those feelings. If you were to pursue the argument that "comfort itself is not a good thing if it's based on false premises", I would perhaps ask you what you believe the purpose of life should be. If you tell me that it is happiness - well, there's a contradiction. Actually though, I personally find this common theory or notion of happiness as the aim of life to be somewhat disagreeable, for reasons I won't go into here.
i personally dont think the need for spirituality is that great, it only seems that way because everyone is used to having spirituality as the 'greater meaning' in life. the major problem i have with religion it isnt really a choice. i dont know the statistics, but a vast, vast, vast majority of people simply end up in the religion their parents brought them up in. they have never experienced a life without religion, they have never looked for their own purpose in life, their own means to happiness. they simply accept that god and the afterlife fills that role and leave it at that.
now, if you raise someone entirely unbiased, simply present the world as it is (unattainable ideal, but just for the sake of argument) to them, and they choose a religion as the world view they like and the way of life that makes them most comfortable, thats fine. the problem starts when you remove a persons choice. and you are removing it by indoctrinating them as children, so thoroughly that even if you were to explain to them that this is just what their parents believed, and their parents only believed it cuz their parents believed it, and on and on, and that there was no actual reason to believe it... and that plenty of people live happy lives without believing it, they still wouldnt want to give it up because its simply what theyre used to and they would feel lost without it, because theyve never had the opportunity to try anything else.
so no, i dont believe religion is necessary to keep people happy or content. i think it can fill that purpose, in a very unsatisfying way, but the dangers of religion, the ones i have listed above and the more real-world dangers of political and social abuse, as well as religious wars and whatnot, far outweigh it. especially given that there are obviously other options. not every atheist is suicidal. that should say something about the necessity of religion for happiness.
|
On February 19 2009 15:21 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 15:14 Lachrymose wrote:On February 19 2009 15:03 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:54 Lachrymose wrote:On February 19 2009 14:48 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:42 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:38 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably. The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up. I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me. Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.' I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated. i think that you severaly overestimate the understanding of existance that comes with any person making something up. your tact in your last handful of posts is that all errors in christianity are the work of man, deliberately or otherwise. the problem with this is once you take away the teachings and the scriptures there isnt actually anything left of christianity. christ himself could just as easily be attributed as an error or wrong teaching by the men that followed as the resistance to our current idea of the universe or evolution or anything christianity has been proven wrong about. just because names, dates, places, or amounts are wrong does not make a message wrong. if i point to 2 gay guys and say "steve loves carl", but steve is actually named wayne - clearly the information is not accurate but the message is still the same. the names, dates and places can be wrong. the thing is, so can the message. why should i believe you that wayne (or steve) actually loves carl. how do you know? because somebody told you when you were young and you visit a building every sunday where everyone sits around while an old man reads from a book about how wayne loves steve. no, because it's the conclusion I have reached by examining the course of my own life. well, I haven't reached that conclusion. but others have. Show nested quote +
if you continue to move in this direction you're not even supporting for christianity, just non-specific spirituality.
that is what I have been attempting to support from the start 
yes all is clear. :p
if you're not talking about the christian truth but rather your own truth fashioned from your own experiences then your reasoning is more sound. you should have made that more clear at the start, or maybe i just missed it. >_<
so anyway, you believe in a god then? you believe the universe to have been designed? you dont believe in fatalism? im curious to know what kind of events in ones life would lead them to beliefs like these, if they arent indoctrined by a church or religion.
|
On February 19 2009 15:30 IdrA wrote:
so no, i dont believe religion is necessary to keep people happy or content. i think it can fill that purpose, in a very unsatisfying way, but the dangers of religion, the ones i have listed above and the more real-world dangers of political and social abuse, as well as religious wars and whatnot, far outweigh it. especially given that there are obviously other options. not every atheist is suicidal. that should say something about the necessity of religion for happiness.
Yeah, I'm a pretty happy agnostic.+ Show Spoiler + who obviously doesn't spend 3 hours a day arguing religion on the internet.
|
On February 19 2009 14:52 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable. As far as I know, the Bible agrees with itself (as in every single part). But I can't say this 100% assuredly because I haven't read the whole thing nor studied the whole thing. How is this possible when the writers of the Bible lived over such different time periods? And also when the Bible is so deep in meaning?
how did god not know the value of pi?
|
On February 19 2009 15:36 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:52 BanZu wrote:On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable. As far as I know, the Bible agrees with itself (as in every single part). But I can't say this 100% assuredly because I haven't read the whole thing nor studied the whole thing. How is this possible when the writers of the Bible lived over such different time periods? And also when the Bible is so deep in meaning? how did god not know the value of pi?
Everyone knows that pi is totally equal to three.
|
On February 19 2009 15:38 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 15:36 IdrA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:52 BanZu wrote:On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable. As far as I know, the Bible agrees with itself (as in every single part). But I can't say this 100% assuredly because I haven't read the whole thing nor studied the whole thing. How is this possible when the writers of the Bible lived over such different time periods? And also when the Bible is so deep in meaning? how did god not know the value of pi? Everyone knows that pi is totally equal to three.
naw its just that the dude who transcribed god's words got kinda lazy
and i dont think decimal notation existed
obviously lost in translation, but that doesnt happen too often in the bible
+ Show Spoiler +
plus, we should be thankful, the bible would be way too big if the scribe got pi right.
|
On February 19 2009 15:36 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 14:52 BanZu wrote:On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable. As far as I know, the Bible agrees with itself (as in every single part). But I can't say this 100% assuredly because I haven't read the whole thing nor studied the whole thing. How is this possible when the writers of the Bible lived over such different time periods? And also when the Bible is so deep in meaning? how did god not know the value of pi?
Wait, what? lol
|
On February 19 2009 15:40 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 15:38 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 15:36 IdrA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:52 BanZu wrote:On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable. As far as I know, the Bible agrees with itself (as in every single part). But I can't say this 100% assuredly because I haven't read the whole thing nor studied the whole thing. How is this possible when the writers of the Bible lived over such different time periods? And also when the Bible is so deep in meaning? how did god not know the value of pi? Everyone knows that pi is totally equal to three. naw its just that the dude who transcribed god's words got kinda lazy and i dont think decimal notation existed obviously lost in translation, but that doesnt happen too often in the bible + Show Spoiler +plus, we should be thankful, the bible would be way too big if the scribe got pi right.
Pi isn't mentioned directly. The verse in question gives us a circumference and diameter that don't match up.
|
On February 19 2009 15:53 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 15:36 IdrA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:52 BanZu wrote:On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable. As far as I know, the Bible agrees with itself (as in every single part). But I can't say this 100% assuredly because I haven't read the whole thing nor studied the whole thing. How is this possible when the writers of the Bible lived over such different time periods? And also when the Bible is so deep in meaning? how did god not know the value of pi? Wait, what? lol
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Pi_In_The_Bible.html
|
On February 19 2009 15:53 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 15:36 IdrA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:52 BanZu wrote:On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable. As far as I know, the Bible agrees with itself (as in every single part). But I can't say this 100% assuredly because I haven't read the whole thing nor studied the whole thing. How is this possible when the writers of the Bible lived over such different time periods? And also when the Bible is so deep in meaning? how did god not know the value of pi? Wait, what? lol
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1kg/7.html#23
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2chr/4.html#2
|
On February 19 2009 15:54 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 15:40 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 15:38 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 15:36 IdrA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:52 BanZu wrote:On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable. As far as I know, the Bible agrees with itself (as in every single part). But I can't say this 100% assuredly because I haven't read the whole thing nor studied the whole thing. How is this possible when the writers of the Bible lived over such different time periods? And also when the Bible is so deep in meaning? how did god not know the value of pi? Everyone knows that pi is totally equal to three. naw its just that the dude who transcribed god's words got kinda lazy and i dont think decimal notation existed obviously lost in translation, but that doesnt happen too often in the bible + Show Spoiler +plus, we should be thankful, the bible would be way too big if the scribe got pi right. Pi isn't mentioned directly. The verse in question gives us a circumference and diameter that don't match up.
well that circumference would've been a bitch to write as well
|
On February 19 2009 15:56 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 15:54 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 15:40 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 15:38 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 15:36 IdrA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:52 BanZu wrote:On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote:
ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable. As far as I know, the Bible agrees with itself (as in every single part). But I can't say this 100% assuredly because I haven't read the whole thing nor studied the whole thing. How is this possible when the writers of the Bible lived over such different time periods? And also when the Bible is so deep in meaning? how did god not know the value of pi? Everyone knows that pi is totally equal to three. naw its just that the dude who transcribed god's words got kinda lazy and i dont think decimal notation existed obviously lost in translation, but that doesnt happen too often in the bible + Show Spoiler +plus, we should be thankful, the bible would be way too big if the scribe got pi right. Pi isn't mentioned directly. The verse in question gives us a circumference and diameter that don't match up. well that circumference would've been a bitch to write as well
Meh, 31 would have been perfectly acceptable.
|
On February 19 2009 16:00 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 15:56 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 15:54 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 15:40 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 15:38 Mindcrime wrote:On February 19 2009 15:36 IdrA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:52 BanZu wrote:On February 19 2009 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:40 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:30 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
[quote]
so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith. does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no) so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well. yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory" no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable. As far as I know, the Bible agrees with itself (as in every single part). But I can't say this 100% assuredly because I haven't read the whole thing nor studied the whole thing. How is this possible when the writers of the Bible lived over such different time periods? And also when the Bible is so deep in meaning? how did god not know the value of pi? Everyone knows that pi is totally equal to three. naw its just that the dude who transcribed god's words got kinda lazy and i dont think decimal notation existed obviously lost in translation, but that doesnt happen too often in the bible + Show Spoiler +plus, we should be thankful, the bible would be way too big if the scribe got pi right. Pi isn't mentioned directly. The verse in question gives us a circumference and diameter that don't match up. well that circumference would've been a bitch to write as well Meh, 31 would have been perfectly acceptable.
same order of magnitude, good enough for government work mang
|
On February 19 2009 15:31 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 15:21 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 15:14 Lachrymose wrote:On February 19 2009 15:03 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:54 Lachrymose wrote:On February 19 2009 14:48 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:42 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:38 travis wrote:On February 19 2009 14:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 19 2009 14:22 travis wrote:
[quote]
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably.
The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up. I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me. Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.' I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated. i think that you severaly overestimate the understanding of existance that comes with any person making something up. your tact in your last handful of posts is that all errors in christianity are the work of man, deliberately or otherwise. the problem with this is once you take away the teachings and the scriptures there isnt actually anything left of christianity. christ himself could just as easily be attributed as an error or wrong teaching by the men that followed as the resistance to our current idea of the universe or evolution or anything christianity has been proven wrong about. just because names, dates, places, or amounts are wrong does not make a message wrong. if i point to 2 gay guys and say "steve loves carl", but steve is actually named wayne - clearly the information is not accurate but the message is still the same. the names, dates and places can be wrong. the thing is, so can the message. why should i believe you that wayne (or steve) actually loves carl. how do you know? because somebody told you when you were young and you visit a building every sunday where everyone sits around while an old man reads from a book about how wayne loves steve. no, because it's the conclusion I have reached by examining the course of my own life. well, I haven't reached that conclusion. but others have.
if you continue to move in this direction you're not even supporting for christianity, just non-specific spirituality.
that is what I have been attempting to support from the start yes all is clear. :p if you're not talking about the christian truth but rather your own truth fashioned from your own experiences then your reasoning is more sound. you should have made that more clear at the start, or maybe i just missed it. >_< so anyway, you believe in a god then? you believe the universe to have been designed? you dont believe in fatalism? im curious to know what kind of events in ones life would lead them to beliefs like these, if they arent indoctrined by a church or religion.
I have no stance on the existence of a creator god. I think it's possible but irrelevant.
I think that I experience various phenomena. The material universe is one such phenomena. I don't think it matters if it exists outside of something experiencing it. So I am much more interested in solving what I am than what the universe is. And, since I see the material as merely an aspect of my experiences - I am more interested in studying my experiences for truth than I am in studying the material for truth. That isn't to say I ignore it altogether, I am still open to the idea that my experiences result from matter and not the other way around.
I do not have the slightest if the universe was designed or not. But I certainly think that the nature of our lives is not as most scientists believe. For one thing, I believe in rebirth(of sorts). I also believe in heaven and hell (of sorts). My beliefs align, for the most part, with the direct teachings of buddha. But not all the added shit.
|
I know that the measurements of the arc and various other objects are important and symbolize different things. I'm not sure about this case.
|
|
|
On February 19 2009 18:50 Mada_Jiang wrote:
Wow! Awesome to come back after a hard day's work and read some nice heated debate lol. I am really interested on how YoshTodd thought ... or any one who has been following this thread for that matter.
On February 18 2009 23:57 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 21:40 Mada_Jiang wrote:
For some of who has directed comments and questions at me, forgive me if I don't respond. I speak to everyone here how I would speak to someone if I was face to face with them, and I try my best to be an encouragement to who ever I can. That is why if you are aiming comments at me as a personal attack, to vent your frustration, to make a statement of aggression based on your assumptions, or to ask me a question that you clearly don't want an answer from, then I wont be responding. To you I pray that peace be with you.
If you have a genuine question, or some thoughts you would like to share with me I would be more than happy to fellowship with you. Post your thoughts here, PM me or email me, or if you are a Sydney-sider, I'd be more than happy to meet for a coffee during business hours ^.^ I hope that we can be an encouragement and an edification to each other.
If your language of preference is Chinese or Japanese please also let me know. ^.^ on what do you base your assertion that the atom, or anything else in nature, requires a designer? that is an honest question. it was an honest question the first time too.
On February 19 2009 00:02 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 21:09 IdrA wrote:
non-christians asked their deity and got just as clear an answer
whats up with that?
that is a valid, honest question as well. all deeply religious people of all denominations share your faith, what makes you right? and you cant rely on 'knowing your god' because everyone else can claim the same thing.
|
|
|
@ Never:
It's fair enough that people need a reason to live, if so just to comfort themselves and their beeing.
But what I'm reacting to is why people that practice A certain religion(say Christianity) deems that theirs is the one and only true religion, when they have no solid fact except faith.
And then we're back to square one, because we can neither prove nor disprove God with science, it's very hard to convice people to change their state of mind. Not that they should for all I care, do whatever that pleases you, but don't push it on me saying that your religion is the only one that leads to heaven and everyone else will burn in hell for not taking your point of view on life.
|
So let them believe that theirs is the one and only true religion. What is it about that that bothers you so much? You don't have to listen to people whose beliefs you don't agree with.
I personally would truly like to have such a faith, so if others are able to do so, all the better for them in my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
