|
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.
I kind of feel like debating for or against religion doesn't accomplish anything. If people want to they will seek it, if not they won't and both is fine. Both sides make good and interesting arguments, I wish it didn't turn into such a battle.
|
On February 20 2009 01:43 NeVeR wrote:
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.
I wish that were true, but for that to be a valid option we would need a world without politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law
That doesn't even include things like American chrisitians' fight to replace the teaching of evolution with creationism/intelligent design/whatever other name they are up to now.
When they believe that they are the only ones that are correct, and the incorrect ones are going to suffer forever for being incorrect, it skews their actions. Imposing their beliefs and taboos on others isn't bad because they are "helping" them. The irrational beliefs of others aren't kept within their community. Their actions can affect what I can and cannot do and what children can and cannot learn.
Letting them believe what they want is a fine idea if they keep to themselves, but they clearly do not. If they can speak up and affect my life, I should be able to speak up to stop them.
|
|
|
On February 20 2009 09:00 Mada_Jiang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2009 05:07 yoshtodd wrote: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. I kind of feel like debating for or against religion doesn't accomplish anything. If people want to they will seek it, if not they won't and both is fine. Both sides make good and interesting arguments, I wish it didn't turn into such a battle. I agree mate, debating about religion seems to always end in a battle that has no winners. Through out the thread, I have been trying hard to steer the convo away from religion. My hopes are that at one stage everyone would stop debating about religion, and talk more about God him self.
you realize god doesnt exist, right?
|
On February 20 2009 01:43 NeVeR wrote:
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.
it is not a problem in itself that people have religion or need hope, my point was that it is not necessary as you claim it is, it only seems as such because its all people currently have. i find it hard to believe that every atheist still alive just has thicker skin than all the religious people. its not like every single one of them is living a charmed life. there is nothing to back up your claim that religious people would be unable to find happiness or comfort in anything besides religion. (well, they may now now that religion has warped them, but if they were raised normally without the brainwashing)
the problem comes when they force religion on others, which necessarily happens.
|
I understood your point quite clearly. If I haven't convinced you that it is necessary, then I suppose no words of mine will.
As for religious people forcing their beliefs on others, it's not something that happens quite as often anymore in our modern world; and like I said before, while religion can indeed be capable of some harm, I do believe that its benefits greatly outweigh it.
By the way, it's rather silly of you as a guy who seems to be of a scientific mind to claim that God does not exist when there can be no proof of neither his existence nor non-existence. You can certainly believe that God does not exist (and such a belief would require a certain amount of faith, wouldn't it!), but do not claim it to be so.
|
i find it hard to believe your arguments would have convinced anyone. 'bad shit happens' hardly makes one single source of comfort necessary. the very existence of well adjusted atheists proves it isnt absolutely necessary, but at best a good thing. and if it isnt an absolute necessity then the good can be outweighed by the bad, and im pretty sure suicide bombings are a bit worse than a person having to deal with this world instead of blocking it out and waiting for the next.
As for religious people forcing their beliefs on others, it's not something that happens quite as often anymore in our modern world;
every child born into a religious family has religious belief forced on them.
i realize you didnt mean 'forced' in that way, but it has the same effect and is even more insidious given that its done to children who have no way to combat it.
and if the fundamentalist christians and muslims get their way theres gonna be a whole lot of the 'forcing' you did mean.
By the way, it's rather silly of you as a guy who seems to be of a scientific mind to claim that God does not exist when there can be no proof of neither his existence nor non-existence. You can certainly believe that God does not exist (and such a belief would require a certain amount of faith, wouldn't it!), but do not claim it to be so.
have you read my posts?
ive said a few times, im technically agnostic as i havent seen a satisfactory proof that god doesnt exist, so i grant his existence the same possibility i grant zeus' and vishnu's and allah's.
and there are actually legit attempts to scientifically disprove the existence of the god of the monotheisms, like victor stenger's book god:the failed hypothesis. i dont personally find them ironclad, but some may very well may and i find it incredibly funny that you dismiss the opinion of those who do offhand while demanding respect be paid to religious beliefs.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 20 2009 13:29 NeVeR wrote:
As for religious people forcing their beliefs on others, it's not something that happens quite as often anymore in our modern world; and like I said before, while religion can indeed be capable of some harm, I do believe that its benefits greatly outweigh it.
Have you ever considered that if you grew up in India, your faith would be in an entirely different religion? How is it fair that you're born into the "wrong" one while people in the Western hemisphere get born into the "right" one?
|
On February 20 2009 14:43 IdrA wrote:
i find it incredibly funny that you dismiss the opinion of those who do offhand while demanding respect be paid to religious beliefs.
You said it as if it were fact - not opinion. It also seemed a bit rude of you, which is why I chose to talk about it. I'm not dismissing anyone's opinion.
Anyway, this argument with you seems to be going no where, so I won't be continuing it.
|
'i have no response so i wont post anymore'
|
On February 18 2009 17:44 IdrA wrote:
serious question, are you a troll?
ive seen you make posts like this before and it really feels like you're just playing devils advocate
Unfortunately, no. That is why I have articles which I post on the subject expressing the same viewpoint as myself, where I may show the basis of my thinking or to show that it is a real line of thought. In fact I started a whole damn blog posting nothing but things I read which, from my point of view, backs up my opinions. Pretty much no one else posts in that blog.
Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 17:06 fight_or_flight wrote:On February 18 2009 15:33 IdrA wrote:
btw burden of proof is on you for spaghetti monster reasons. its unlikely god exists until you demonstrate otherwise. I don't see how you can say this. How is one philosophy inherently better than another? (you can't logically say it is unless you state axioms) You can't use the scientific method in this situation, because it is not practical. When dealing with world views, you cannot (1) concretely prove everything, especially within your lifetime, or (2) have the exact same evidence as someone else. Personal feelings are an absolutely valid form of evidence here, at this fundamental level. Even when you read Scientific American, your personal gut instincts that you aren't simply being lied to by that magazine must be used in order to even try to use the scientific method. However, unless you prove all of science to yourself, with all original experiments, and assume what your eyes tell you is correct, you are not being completely concrete. theoretically anyone can go out there and test the information supplied in scientific american because the ideas presented by science are based on experimentation and information gathered from the real world. i know from limited experience that this is valid, and it is supported on a larger scale by peer-review systems, where all the blood thirsty scientists go around checking each other trying to fuck one another over in order to gain personal acclaim. so either the entire scientific community is scamming us and no one has managed to catch on, or it is reasonably trustworthy. so yes, i do take things on 'faith' but it is a faith founded in reason and experience. objectively it is indeed more valid than faith in god, which is founded on absolutely nothing. also, science is based on rationality. a scientist can sit there and explain how he came to his conclusions and i can look at what he says and see if it makes sense to me. natural selection for instance, its proven, demonstrateable, observable fact that organisms reproduce and pass on their genetic code to offspring, and that sometimes there are mutations that cause slight variation in the code. now, given that, evolution by natural selection makes perfect sense. we know animals have offspring that can have traits slightly different from their own, but in general the offspring will have the same genes as the parent. it makes perfect sense that if an unusual offspring was born with a trait that made them better suited for their environment they would be more likely to survive than their competitors, and so would be able to have and raise more offspring, who have the same genes as them. extrapolated over time it is only logical that this new subspecies would come to replace the old one. nothing but logical conclusions starting from an observable fact. no leaps of faith, beyond trusting a microscope. whereas with creation; god did it. how? fuck you hes god. i cant analyze that, i cant look at observable facts the creationist started with and follow his conclusions to see if they make sense. it is nothing but a leap of faith.
Yes, the idea would be that all that stuff is demonstrateable. And generations of scientists who have made that assumption has built upon it resulting in technological progress. But the point I'm making is that your personal world view/reality is fundamentally different. There is no precedent or previous research which you can build upon, unless you accept a paradigm, as you point out.
You don't have to re-prove everything in science because it is an institutional process which builds on itself. However, unless you accept what your parents and/or society tells you without reproving all assumptions, you yourself cannot take advantage of such institutional knowledge. Therefore, you must start from the beginning.
The point is you only use rational thought because it "seems to work" from you experiences since childhood, and from institutional knowledge of western culture. However you have other stimuli such as emotional and subconscious. To deny them would be throwing away methods for you to experience the world, and would essentially be throwing away data.
Show nested quote +
Your evidence for the world is not the same as my evidence, which is different from other poster's evidence. It is true, there is only one objective truth. However, you can't say "this is the default, you must convince me of otherwise". There is not default. Occam's razor doesn't applies only if you admit all evidence, and even then, it is not a proof, actually it is self referencing more than anything. Godel's theorem actually is proven and it states that things are actually infinity complex when logic is used.
ive always found the whole objective/subjective truth thing rather flawed. maybe we see the world in different ways, but theyre still the same world, its consistantly different. the color i see as orange may look to you like the color i see as blue. but we always see the colors in the same way, it always looks orange to me and always 'blue' to you. so i when i tell you to click the orange button, you click the one i mean, even if we dont see the same thing. so no, in the end we all have the same evidence. it may not look the same to them, but relative to the world as they know it it operates the same, because the evidence for all of us is drawn from the same universe, the same source of information.
As I mentioned above, there are not only cold observations such as color, but, say emotional damage from childhood. Such emotional damage easily affects a person much more than what they think is their objective opinion. Most people arguing in this thread, for example, are likely doing it because of a reason of that nature. The ego, emotional trauma, etc, forms evidence through which people view the world.
Show nested quote +
The scientific method is based on axioms, and builds up. It essentially assumes you know the truth from the beginning, and you build up with additional evidence. However it is not practical to use except for institutional settings where you can "stand on the shoulders of giants". However, in your own, personal, reality there is no one to stand on. Everything is potentially a lie. You obviously don't believe in religion, however people who have grown up with it are absolutely convinced it is true because of the axioms they start with. Essentially you have no starting place except a number of lies. This includes all philosophies, perhaps one of which is correct, but there is no "default".
if i had the time and the desire i could go back and check the work of every shoulder i am standing on. again, due to limited personal experience and trust in science (trust placed in them by rationality and experience, not by baseless faith) i accept this without actually checking it because it is not practically feasible to do so. a religious person can not say the same thing. he is not choosing to not go back and check the rationale that led to religious beliefs, because there is none. it must be accepted on faith, or not accepted at all.
Yes, but my point is you are not standing on any shoulders. That is for institutions, which build up knowledge little by little through objective analysis over decades and centuries. That process assumes other people have proven things before you. However you cannot apply that to your personal beliefs. For example, living in a religous country and being taught religion from a young age would be standing on the shoulders (and assumptions) of what you are told. You may agree, these things should be questioned (alternately, but just accepting what you are taught you can build up a rich culture of traditions).
Show nested quote +
The only other method is to assume everything is potentially true unless proven otherwise. This is more effective because it is much easier for a single fact to disprove a thousand lies than to debate endlessly (such as this thread) about a single truth which seems to be supported by a thousand lies. You can argue about them till you die. I prefer the other approach, and the exact method to apply this analysis I posted at the beginning of this thread.
it is not more effective simply because it is 'simpler' to disprove something than to prove it. for instance, there have been millions of religions throughout human history, a vast portion of which have forbidden the worship of false gods (any but their own), meaning that, at best, only one can be true. your suggestion forces us to accept all of those millions, many of which are logically impossible to disprove simply because of their nature, until we disprove them.
You've already eliminated many things, millions of religions in this case, by using the principle which I stated. Well not exactly eliminated them, but proved that all but at most 1 is completely correct. You could interpret this as meaning all religions are probably wrong, or you could interpret the ubiquity of religion to mean that there are a common set of truths which man is seeking. Why, logically, would pretty much all of mankind develop some sort of spiritual beliefs (independently) if there was in fact no spiritual realm? You may have answers to this, and I'm not necessarily arguing that point. I'm just showing that this method I'm advocating is a sound method and in fact superior to the institutional scienfific method approach.
I don't necessarily agree with everything in this, but it does make some interesting points:
Through science we understand knowledge. But not all knowledge is scientific, at least
in a strict sense, since, for this it has to meet at least two conditions: (1) to be true, and
(2) to be evident, which implies that it must be demonstrated. Moreover, scientific
knowledge must be required to be ordered and complete, and although this is evident in
most of present scientific investigations, a synthesized order of isolated facts has not been
attained.
In this sense, it is not exaggerated to affirm that so-called “modern science” is neither
completely true, nor is it absolutely evident, for in the issue of the origin of life, of
species and of man, for instance, a total order does not exist. On the contrary almost all
are isolated facts founded on mere hypotheses.
A concrete example of what was previously set forth is in the new challenge of science,
the subatomic universe; the latter is not objectively demonstrable with the so-called
“scientific method” of observation, experimentation and classification.
The most pure observation does not exist for those phenomena, which escape our threedimensional
universe; the subjective constitution of the observer himself and his
corresponding apparatus will always condition the experimentation between “the subject
who observed” and “the object observed”.
|
On February 20 2009 15:55 IdrA wrote:
'i have no response so i wont post anymore'
No, it's your attitude for the most part that turns me off to this argument. I get the sense that you have no intention of listening to what I have to say.
|
I had a chat with a real life friend about creationism vs evolution.
This Ethan guy is top 5 sc player in Taiwan, he plays Iccup too, and he's a lot better than i am in starcraft, Originally we were discussing teaching theory, and it turned into creationism vs evolution, to my surprise he beliefs in creationism, his rationale in starcraft theory and demonstrations of critical thinking during the games ( game sense) are way ahead of me.
My assumption ( critical thinker logically believes no god) was soooooooo wrong. As Jibba pointed out to me on another thread that sometimes people can be rational and logical in everything but refuse to apply that same logic when it comes to religion.
I try to show him how he failed to apply his logic in this case, I don't know if i did it right, I never asked him if it got to him, cause i think i got the point accross and if he did not take in any of them then it is his choice, and I respect his choice for being logical in everything but religion.
2/17/2009 7:21:36 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan what i'm really teaching isn't math nor science, i am trying to teach critical thinking
2/17/2009 7:21:42 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 teach starcraft
2/17/2009 7:21:54 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan and i use math and science as example of my teaching of critical thinking
2/17/2009 7:22:10 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 i see
2/17/2009 7:22:11 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 lol
2/17/2009 7:22:23 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan i always tell them, if you can think critically not only will you be able to learn math and science, you can learn whatever you are interested
2/17/2009 7:22:49 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan i can feed you with knowledge of math/science, just like i feed you a fish
2/17/2009 7:23:08 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan or i can teach you how to think critically, just like how i can teach you how to fish
2/17/2009 7:23:58 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 lol
2/17/2009 7:24:27 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan ya, cause not everybody interests in math and science
2/17/2009 7:25:02 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan they decide what they want, i just giving them the tools on how to learn, and once they know what they want, they can self teach with the tools i showed them
2/17/2009 7:25:25 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 right
2/17/2009 7:25:32 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan and of course, the side effects are pretty bad
2/17/2009 7:25:56 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan they will understand the goverment is BS, god does exist, and bible is friction
2/17/2009 7:26:05 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan all that jazz lol
2/17/2009 7:26:19 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 lol
2/17/2009 7:27:56 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan opps i meant doesn't but you knew that haha
2/17/2009 7:28:22 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 yeah
2/17/2009 7:28:28 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 but i still believe there is one
2/17/2009 7:28:29 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 MUAHAHA
2/17/2009 7:30:41 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan which god?
2/17/2009 7:30:50 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan buda? jesus? zeus?
2/17/2009 7:31:23 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 GOD
2/17/2009 7:31:25 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2/17/2009 7:31:36 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 Jesus
2/17/2009 7:32:12 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 i wonder if i can use skills while im using gospel
2/17/2009 7:33:04 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan you believe in creationism?
2/17/2009 7:33:27 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 what is that./
2/17/2009 7:33:27 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 ?
2/17/2009 7:33:35 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 opposite of evolution?
2/17/2009 7:33:38 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan god created everything in 7 days
2/17/2009 7:36:10 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 i do believe god created everything. but how and in how long
2/17/2009 7:36:13 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 remains open
2/17/2009 7:36:18 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 7 days coudl have been intepreted wrong
2/17/2009 7:36:25 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 lol
2/17/2009 7:37:30 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan have you ever asked the question, who's intepreting them? and why is there a need for different intepretations of the bible?
2/17/2009 7:37:53 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 yeah sure..
2/17/2009 7:38:19 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 i should read it for myself
2/17/2009 7:38:23 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 and see how i interpret it
2/17/2009 7:38:25 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 but even so
2/17/2009 7:38:28 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 the english version
2/17/2009 7:38:31 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 may be skewed
2/17/2009 7:38:39 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan there is a chinese version too
2/17/2009 7:38:42 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan japanese version
2/17/2009 7:38:48 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 of course
2/17/2009 7:38:56 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan different branches of the jesus religion
2/17/2009 7:39:17 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan sorry don't know how to spell cathothic
2/17/2009 7:39:18 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan lol
2/17/2009 7:39:25 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 catholic
2/17/2009 7:40:13 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan have you study evolution at school?
2/17/2009 7:40:54 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 hmm
2/17/2009 7:40:56 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 i donno
2/17/2009 7:41:04 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 how we evolved from apes?
2/17/2009 7:41:51 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan with your degree of critical thinking, all you need is to find the facts
2/17/2009 7:42:03 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 what if god created us by using evolution
2/17/2009 7:42:17 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 7 days could = 7 BILLION YEARS
2/17/2009 7:42:19 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 MUAHAHAH
2/17/2009 7:42:28 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 7 god days
2/17/2009 7:42:30 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 lol
2/17/2009 7:43:06 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan evidence = evolution, lack of evidence = creationism
2/17/2009 7:44:12 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 yeah, they use creationism to explain all the unexplainable
2/17/2009 7:46:51 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan there were a lot more unexplained some 200 years ago than today right?
2/17/2009 7:48:27 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan there were a lot more unexplainable things some 200 years ago than today, so when we are able to explain them, we do not need creationism any more
2/17/2009 7:50:43 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 hah
2/17/2009 7:50:43 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 but why not
2/17/2009 7:50:43 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 even though things can be explained
2/17/2009 7:50:46 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 why does taht eliminate
2/17/2009 7:50:50 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 creationism
2/17/2009 7:50:59 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan it doesn't eliminate
2/17/2009 7:51:07 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 all it means is that we now know how god created things
2/17/2009 7:51:09 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 
2/17/2009 7:54:30 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan do you agree that all sciences base on logical thinking?
2/17/2009 7:55:12 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 sure
2/17/2009 7:56:32 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan do you agree that people make logical thinking based on evidences?
2/17/2009 7:57:54 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan for example, you see me wall off and built 1 marine vs you, this evidence provoke your logical thinking of me going for fantasy build
2/17/2009 7:58:15 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 yeah
2/17/2009 8:00:18 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan wouldn't it be illogical if you didn't see me walling off and build only 1 marine, yet you still insist on making a lot of hydras to counter a fantasy build?
2/17/2009 8:00:41 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 well unless i assume you were trying to trick me
2/17/2009 8:01:22 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan ya, but that's also base on evidence from past games we play, as I did try to trick you into thinking something i want you to think
2/17/2009 8:01:36 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 yeah
2/17/2009 8:01:48 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan what i'm trying to get accross is that, there is no evidence of god, there is evidence of evolution
2/17/2009 8:02:14 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan logically we can't say god created everything, but that doesn't mean god doesn't exist
2/17/2009 8:02:36 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan it merely means the evidences suggest that this is what happened
2/17/2009 8:04:38 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan evolution doesn't even mention god, the people who made the logical connection derived creationism is faulse
2/17/2009 8:09:17 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 lol
2/17/2009 8:09:46 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan basically, people can't be logical in the same time believe in soemthing without evidence,
2/17/2009 8:10:13 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 thats kind of strange
2/17/2009 8:10:37 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan how so?
2/17/2009 8:10:59 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 im logical but also believe in things without evidence
2/17/2009 8:17:55 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan you take other people's words for granted? I do too, when my professor tell me 1+1=2 i believe him
2/17/2009 8:21:02 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan but the difference is the source, a professor of physic or math carries with him/her logic and evidence, as they can't become PhD without logical thinking.
2/17/2009 8:21:22 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan on the other hand bible is merely a book
2/17/2009 8:21:34 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 but it was written
2/17/2009 8:21:37 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 with evidence
2/17/2009 8:21:38 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 wasn't it
2/17/2009 8:21:40 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 ?
2/17/2009 8:21:45 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 its not a story people made up
2/17/2009 8:21:48 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 the diciples
2/17/2009 8:21:50 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 wrote it
2/17/2009 8:21:53 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 based on what happeend
2/17/2009 8:21:55 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan evidence is something people can prove it
2/17/2009 8:21:56 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 and what god told them
2/17/2009 8:22:00 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 ahha
2/17/2009 8:22:08 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 but what if the evidence was lost
2/17/2009 8:22:12 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 people cannot preserve evidence
2/17/2009 8:22:17 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 back then
2/17/2009 8:22:20 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 it was too long ago
2/17/2009 8:23:10 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 what if one we lose the evidence we have now
2/17/2009 8:23:20 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 then it becomes like it never existed
2/17/2009 8:23:40 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 one day*
2/17/2009 8:30:14 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan A court case, law suit of a murder case, one side has all the evidence, the other side has none, all they said was our evidence is lost
2/17/2009 8:30:40 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan if you are the judge, logically which side do you believe in? the one with evidence or the one that says they lost their evidence
2/17/2009 8:33:09 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 in this case, naturally the judge will side with the one with evidence
2/17/2009 8:33:32 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan as should you
2/17/2009 8:33:45 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 but the truth is the truth
2/17/2009 8:33:57 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 what happened cannot be changed
2/17/2009 8:34:06 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 whether we know the truth is irrelavant
2/17/2009 8:34:11 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 based on evidence
2/17/2009 8:34:38 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan if you are ignoring evidences then that is not logic
2/17/2009 8:34:45 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 what i mean is if i killed a woman but there was no evidence
2/17/2009 8:34:54 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan it is faith instead
2/17/2009 8:34:54 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 and the judge says im not guilty
2/17/2009 8:34:59 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 that doesn't mean i didn't kill the woman
2/17/2009 8:35:08 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 the truth is i did kill the woman
2/17/2009 8:35:12 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 thats what happened
2/17/2009 8:35:26 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 and if i wrote it in a book
2/17/2009 8:35:32 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 that book is true
2/17/2009 8:35:35 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 but there is no evidence
2/17/2009 8:35:43 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 whether you believe in that book or not is your decision
2/17/2009 8:35:51 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 but it doesn't change the facts
2/17/2009 8:35:54 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 the truth
2/17/2009 8:35:56 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 what happeend
2/17/2009 8:37:34 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan you are the judge, you do not know which one is true, as in we do not know rather evolution or creationism is true to begin with
2/17/2009 8:37:52 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan you are making an argument that you assume creationsim is true before judging
2/17/2009 8:38:50 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 yeah i guess so.
2/17/2009 8:41:53 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan wouldn't that be very unfair in this case? not to mention the decision is not based on logic, the judge already made the decision before the the 2 sides present their cases
2/17/2009 8:43:13 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 i think evolution vs creationism cannot be judged at all
2/17/2009 8:43:52 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 because evolution's evidence doesn't prove against creationism
2/17/2009 8:44:01 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 and creationism doesn't have hard evidence
2/17/2009 8:44:03 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 against evolution
2/17/2009 8:44:15 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 evolution just has evidence to support evolution
2/17/2009 8:44:18 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan that is true
2/17/2009 8:44:34 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan however you missed one fact
2/17/2009 8:44:45 PM ethan 沈 蕙 海 and only parts of it
2/17/2009 8:46:11 PM 沈 蕙 海 ethan the fact is for creationism to stand as truth, evolution can not take place, that's why people needed to re-inteprete the bible constantly
|
First of all, it's quite wrong to conceive of mainstream Christan thought as an anti-rational system. After all, modern Catholic doctrine is essentially Thomistic, and such theology is heavily dependent on syllogism. That syllogism makes direct use of aphorisms as premises does not negate its logical nature, since symbolic, mathematical logic is ultimately dependent on the same mechanisms.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster argument just highlights how trivial the focus on God as Being is. Treated purely as Being, God is equivalent in nature to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since Being itself is a state of existence which is indifferent to its own properties. Both God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be either something or nothing, true or untrue, so long the argument only concerns whether they exist. Even if one gave God as a symbolic personification of metaphysical properties (truth, justice, knowledge, virtue; ) all of which human experiences which possess a purely metaphysical existence, and therefore the most appropriate properties to assign God, it does not follow that some other object might not occupy the same semantic field. (Here, alas, we must eject the Flying Spaghetti Monster from qualification, if only because of his "spaghetti" qualities.) What is particularly interesting and distinctive then, isn't the existence of God or even a Good or Just God, but a Historical God who created Adam and Eve within the garden of Eden, made his covenant with Abraham, appeared to and directed Moses to Israel, sent his Son to live among men that he might die for them, and will one day take his faithful to heaven. A God whose moral instruction to man was voiced by Jesus Christ as recorded in the gospels, and interpreted by Saint Paul in his epistles. These questions, moral and historical, are greater and more important than the petty epistomological spats between logic and empiricism, knowledge and belief, since we live in their shadows, consciously or otherwise.
Often in a spat over pure philosophy, fools and geniuses are indistinguishable.
|
What is the nature of evil? Is it a corruption of the human soul, or native to it? If people are proud, envious, or lecherous- all natural phenomena, how are they to be interpreted morally? -such questions are all developed through mythological literature.
The cultural value of mythology isn't the same as history, but mythological thinking is a cardinal part of historical interpretation, since it is mythology which teaches us to think about the deeper meanings behind events.
The separation between mythology and history was effected by the Greeks, and we have lived under this paradigm ever since, even though the two are never completely mutually exclusive, but the Bible, whose purposes are both mythological and historical in their full senses, is something which lives or dies by the validity of either. Simply put- if the Bible is not historically accurate, then it has no mythology, and to say that vice versa would be even more true is too obvious.
|
On February 21 2009 01:07 NeVeR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2009 15:55 IdrA wrote:
'i have no response so i wont post anymore' No, it's your attitude for the most part that turns me off to this argument. I get the sense that you have no intention of listening to what I have to say.
?
i did not ignore or disregard without consideration anything you said, i addressed and responded to every one of your points. you are the one who appears to be paying no attention to what i say. all you did was repeat the same thing twice then say you wouldnt say anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
