|
On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 28 2011 13:54 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:49 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:44 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:41 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:37 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:16 TOloseGT wrote:On May 28 2011 13:10 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:05 Oreo7 wrote:
Religion's much easier to understand when you realize it's fantasy. Every single of aspect of life is much, much harder to understand when you rule out the existence of God. Convincing yourself to believe secular explanations is a greater leap of faith than believing a religious one. You missed something between "harder to understand" and "greater leap of faith". Tell me something, if you believe in God, why aren't you using that God given brain of yours to educate yourself? Funny you should mention that, but I have a 4.5+ GPA and am ranked 4th in my class. I am very educated in the scientific details of life, and in my opinion they only confirm my faith. Science only reinforces the bible. You tell me how random chance can create perfect conditions for life, and also make DNA (which is far more complex than the computer that you are typing on) out of inorganic matter. Then tell me how that inorganic matter was created out of nothing. In order for anything to exist, something has to be eternal. I say that that eternal thing is God. Your idea of science says that there isn't anything eternal. Anyway, back to the DNA thing. If you saw something simple, like a watch, you would never even begin to think that it was made by nature. Yet human beings and other life forms that are millions of times more complex than that watch were? Doesn't add up to me... That's all good and well, and although I disagree with you on all those points, none of them even affirm your hypothesis of Christianity, just the need for something to always have been there, which I think is a perfectly reasonable claim. You just for some reason thinks that thing is named God and that he sent his son down to earth to die and then be turned into crackers or w/e, I think it was matter. Also, given infinite time, you get infinite possibilities, and therefore eventually get DNA. Read my post on page 2 about why I believe in the historical and spiritual accuracy of the bible, and it will explain why I chose my set of beliefs. I did not arbitrarily choose God and Christianity over Mohammed and Islam. I did so by considering factual evidence. I'm afraid I don't see where. And also choosing Christianity over Islam isn't the same as explaining why Christianity is valid while NO other religion is. My question: What fact proves the existence of Jesus and the Holy trinity but disproves the existence of Odin and the mountain giants? And also disproves any other god that I could possibly imagine up. + Show Spoiler +because the different books of the bible were written over a 1000+ year period, by over 40 authors, almost all of whom have never met each other. Yet, every single book is consistent with all of the others, and countless Old Testament prophecies come true in the New Testament. This could not be conspired, due to the amount of time and people who wrote the bible without meeting each other. It also could not be chance, for the same reasons. The only explanation is the one offered by the bible: that it is God-breathed. Thus, I believe that every book of the bible is canon: no more, no less. Also, the bible claims that no words should be added or diminished from it. Plasmaball, I never said that current scientific theories coincide with biblical explanations. I said that scientific facts support biblical explanations better than they support scientific theories. Seeing as how scientific theories are overarching explanations for a multitude of related scientific facts, your statement is necessarily false. Furthermore, scientific facts also disprove Biblical explanations many times over. Genesis is flat-out falsified (Creation myth, Destruction myth, etc.). Granted, most scholars understand that these are supposed to be taken as allegory now, but how many Biblical stories have to be falsified and then backpedalled *to be meant as allegory* to be overlooked? Science says people can't rise from the dead too. Whoops, sorry Jesus. Science disproves the notions of 900 year old people. It's a scientific fact that Adam and Noah never existed. It's also a scientific fact that snakes don't have a voice box. Sorry devil snake. Science disproves the global flood myth. Science disproves any Young Earth Creationist claims. Now, for every Biblical claim made that's falsified by science, you can dismiss it with "Well that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously!" but then you're just cherry-picking your Bible verses, which makes the whole argument irrelevant. Some Christians dismiss those as allegory. I don't dismiss any of them. What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle.
If you don't dismiss them, then you recognize that those Biblical claims are actual natural claims that are just plain wrong. The Bible says there was a global flood. Reality, science, facts, etc. says there wasn't. The Bible is wrong. No miracle was involved here. The Bible is incorrect. Sorry.
I fully understand the concept of miracles. Those are just things that beat the laws of probability, You arbitrarily invoking something as a miracle means nothing though; there would still be evidence of its existence. The Biblical claims are not miraculous, because they didn't actually occur. You winning the lottery on your first try would be closer to a miracle, although we could debate on the math involved in that.
|
On May 28 2011 14:06 nozh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:04 masterbreti wrote:I'm going to give a rather unique prospectice on this. A Baha'i perspective. I am a Baha'i and my beliefs might make more sense to some than to others. I don't want to debate my faith though, I don't want to debate whether my faith is true of false. My belief is my own and your faith is yours, redgardless of who or what you believe, pastafarians included. + Show Spoiler +According to Bahá'í teachings, human nature is fundamentally spiritual. Although human beings exist on earth in physical bodies, the essential identity of each person is defined by an invisible, rational, and everlasting soul. The soul animates the body and distinguishes human beings from animals. It grows and develops through the individual's relationship with God, as mediated by His Messengers.
The gardens surrounding the Shrine of Bahá'u'lláh.Cultivation of one's spiritual side has several benefits. First, the individual increasingly develops those innate qualities that lie at the foundation of human happiness and social progress. Such qualities include faith, courage, love, compassion, trustworthiness, and humility. As these qualities develop, society as a whole advances.
Another effect of spiritual development is alignment with God's will. This growing closer to God prepares the individual for the afterlife. The soul lives on after the body's death, embarking on a spiritual journey towards God through many "worlds," or planes, of existence. Progress on this journey, in traditional terms, is likened to "heaven." If the soul fails to develop, one remains distant from God. This condition of remoteness from God can in some sense be understood as "hell." Thus, heaven and hell are regarded not as literal places but descriptions of one's spiritual progress toward the light of God.
The Shrine containing the remains of the Bab, situated on Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel.The soul does not die; it endures everlastingly. When the human body dies, the soul is freed from ties with the physical body and the surrounding physical world and begins its progress through the spiritual world. Bahá'ís understand the spiritual world to be a timeless and placeless extension of our own universe--not some physically remote or removed place.
Entry into the next life has the potential to bring great joy. Bahá'u'lláh likened death to the process of birth. He explains: "The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother."
The analogy to the womb in many ways summarizes the Bahá'í view of earthly existence. Just as the womb constitutes an important place for a person's initial physical development, the physical world provides the matrix for the development of the individual soul. Accordingly, Bahá'ís view life as a sort of workshop, where one can develop and perfect those qualities which will be needed in the next life.
"Know thou, of a truth, that if the soul of man hath walked in the ways of God, it will, assuredly return and be gathered to the glory of the Beloved," Bahá'u'lláh wrote. "By the righteousness of God! It shall attain a station such as no pen can depict, or tongue can describe."
Beyond this, the exact nature of the afterlife remains a mystery. "The nature of the soul after death can never be described," Bahá'u'lláh writes.
This was taken from an article written by the Baha'i community from canada and quotes the founder of the Baha'i faith, Baha'u'llah. I would have written something myself, but this is presented better than I could have thought oh my god. oh my god. another baha'i on team liquid. surely you caught my baha'u'llah quote on the last page!!!!
I didn't auctally see it. I am blessed today to see another Baha'i on tl.
|
On May 28 2011 14:09 Oreo7 wrote:
I'm going to watch GSL, I think the atheists won this one. gg, wp plasma. And D10 and Clysm, I hope you come around before you waste too much time worshiping something that doesn't exist. n_n.
Well thank you, although I wasn't necessarily arguing for atheism... just trying to shed some light on the interactions between religions and how science plays (or doesn't play) a role in religious texts  I do happen to be an atheist though.
Anyways, I need to go to sleep as well. Good night everyone! Happy discussing!
|
On May 28 2011 14:08 Oreo7 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 28 2011 13:54 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:49 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:44 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:41 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:37 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:16 TOloseGT wrote:On May 28 2011 13:10 ClysmiC wrote:
[quote]
Every single of aspect of life is much, much harder to understand when you rule out the existence of God.
Convincing yourself to believe secular explanations is a greater leap of faith than believing a religious one. You missed something between "harder to understand" and "greater leap of faith". Tell me something, if you believe in God, why aren't you using that God given brain of yours to educate yourself? Funny you should mention that, but I have a 4.5+ GPA and am ranked 4th in my class. I am very educated in the scientific details of life, and in my opinion they only confirm my faith. Science only reinforces the bible. You tell me how random chance can create perfect conditions for life, and also make DNA (which is far more complex than the computer that you are typing on) out of inorganic matter. Then tell me how that inorganic matter was created out of nothing. In order for anything to exist, something has to be eternal. I say that that eternal thing is God. Your idea of science says that there isn't anything eternal. Anyway, back to the DNA thing. If you saw something simple, like a watch, you would never even begin to think that it was made by nature. Yet human beings and other life forms that are millions of times more complex than that watch were? Doesn't add up to me... That's all good and well, and although I disagree with you on all those points, none of them even affirm your hypothesis of Christianity, just the need for something to always have been there, which I think is a perfectly reasonable claim. You just for some reason thinks that thing is named God and that he sent his son down to earth to die and then be turned into crackers or w/e, I think it was matter. Also, given infinite time, you get infinite possibilities, and therefore eventually get DNA. Read my post on page 2 about why I believe in the historical and spiritual accuracy of the bible, and it will explain why I chose my set of beliefs. I did not arbitrarily choose God and Christianity over Mohammed and Islam. I did so by considering factual evidence. I'm afraid I don't see where. And also choosing Christianity over Islam isn't the same as explaining why Christianity is valid while NO other religion is. My question: What fact proves the existence of Jesus and the Holy trinity but disproves the existence of Odin and the mountain giants? And also disproves any other god that I could possibly imagine up. + Show Spoiler +because the different books of the bible were written over a 1000+ year period, by over 40 authors, almost all of whom have never met each other. Yet, every single book is consistent with all of the others, and countless Old Testament prophecies come true in the New Testament. This could not be conspired, due to the amount of time and people who wrote the bible without meeting each other. It also could not be chance, for the same reasons. The only explanation is the one offered by the bible: that it is God-breathed. Thus, I believe that every book of the bible is canon: no more, no less. Also, the bible claims that no words should be added or diminished from it. Plasmaball, I never said that current scientific theories coincide with biblical explanations. I said that scientific facts support biblical explanations better than they support scientific theories. Seeing as how scientific theories are overarching explanations for a multitude of related scientific facts, your statement is necessarily false. Furthermore, scientific facts also disprove Biblical explanations many times over. Genesis is flat-out falsified (Creation myth, Destruction myth, etc.). Granted, most scholars understand that these are supposed to be taken as allegory now, but how many Biblical stories have to be falsified and then backpedalled *to be meant as allegory* to be overlooked? Science says people can't rise from the dead too. Whoops, sorry Jesus. Science disproves the notions of 900 year old people. It's a scientific fact that Adam and Noah never existed. It's also a scientific fact that snakes don't have a voice box. Sorry devil snake. Science disproves the global flood myth. Science disproves any Young Earth Creationist claims. Now, for every Biblical claim made that's falsified by science, you can dismiss it with "Well that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously!" but then you're just cherry-picking your Bible verses, which makes the whole argument irrelevant. Some Christians dismiss those as allegory. I don't dismiss any of them. What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle. No. Science obeys the laws of physics. The Book of Genesis by enlarge defies those laws. Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old?
Science, to scientists is separate from religion. If you base your definition of science off of the accepted criteria of: Consistent, observable, natural, predictable, testable, tentative, then no, religion is not a science. I base my definition of science off of the actual, objective truth. Thus, I do believe that the book of Genesis is scientific, as I believe that God's ability to perform miracles are an objective truth.
|
On May 28 2011 14:07 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 13:56 Kiarip wrote:On May 28 2011 12:22 D10 wrote:
Simply put, standard jewish-christian religious culture believes we got only 1 shot to make outselves worthy of illumination, heaven, etc...
But what about autists, and other people who suffer from severe mental disabilities and can barely experience the world, why their 1 shot is a horrible experience at life, one where he couldnt even be properly held accountable by his actions, how could this kind of existance be reasonably justified in their system ? well im sure you all heard a few explanations.
But in my opinion, theres just a failure of concept there, if we are really working with a god that has infinite love, inteligence, and power, he would have a very specific reason for someone to be born in such a horrible contition, and in my mind that is punishment.
how difficult would it be for him, to program the universe with a system of kharma, so people can be born, make their mistakes, and then be born again, and pay for them in a way that allows them to keep evolving.
We think we know love, but big religious heads cant fathom how many chances god will really give us, just dont stay away from god to stay away from church, they are not the same,
With churches you either surrender to their house of faith or you are utterly lost and godless, and theres no middle ground, nowdays I feel theres less to gain visiting the church than simply maintaining a health work ethic, morally speaking.
Religion is cultural
Faith is universal
Reencarnation seems absurd at first, but if there is an almighty and powerfull god that wants us to experience material life to achieve illumation Ill take a leap of faith and say that, our daddy would give us some coins to continue playing. No, your logic is missing some scenarios. First of all, our idea of fairness may be incorrect in the eyes of god. But imo, a more interesting idea is that we all are in fact fairly/equally designed to achieve divinity/illumination. Meaning that it's something that's independent of all of our physical, intellectual and emotional qualities in which we are all different. Since we are all completely different the only thing that obviously pops out as something we can all do equally is be ourselves, so in the end it just boils down to doing what you think is the right thing to do in light of who you are. Become the person you want to be you know? That type of stuff. Sure, I dont disagree with that, we have talent for a reason, everyone should pursue their path to happiness. I guess the big thing about reincarnation is that you simply cannot believe in it, and not believe in a very complex spiritual society, with many layers and functions. From the poor guys in the abyss who never managed to get their vibration out of that cesspool suffering in their bubbles of nightmares being drained by even more evil things for life essence until they reencarnate again probably with heavy deformities or maybe even an abortion while guys who have passed that stage will be wandering to the limbo suffering until they open their heart and have faith that god will help them, so they can get out of there, go to one of the restoration colonies, where reincarnations are organized, and souls spend most of their time. And theres the upper spheres made more of fluidical energy and thoughts than anything. Endless worlds across the cosmos, all with anthropomorphic life in different stages of evolution all going thro the same thing, evolution, in all senses, towards a state of pure glory and usefullness for god that I cant even fathom how it is. This is what I believe in, might sound crazy, but at least its crazy I can believe in.
Honestly I'm down to believe in a lot of spiritual stuff or at least try to get into the shoes of someone who does, but no matter what I do I can't get reincarnation to not seem like a cop out, or an excuse.
And according to the philosophies that I find most believable it seems to follow that acting as if reincarnation doesn't exist is in fact the correct way to act, so really is there a point to thinking this way other than just for the sake of being "right" which you can't actually be absolutely certain in.
|
On May 28 2011 14:02 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 13:53 D10 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:44 koreasilver wrote:God's design is not an obvious accommodation of "infinite love" in the way that you're presenting it. The theology that rises from Judaism and Christianity is anything but the wishy washy good feeling happy ending for everyone new-age bullshit. There is nothing obvious about God in Judeo-Christianity. Even Christ, who you hold to such a high esteem, said so. To say that God is obvious when you quote from Judeo-Christianity is like expressing out loud that one doesn't get it. Kierkegaard
Woe to him therefore, who preaches Christianity without the possibility of offense. Woe to the person who smoothly, flirtatiously, commendingly, convincingly preaches some soft, sweet something which is supposed to be Christianity!
... take away from Christianity the possibility of offense or take away from the forgiveness of sin the battle of an anguished conscience. Then lock the churches, the sooner the better, or turn them into places of amusement which stand open all day long! Merde. Sure by your texts and references, that view must probably be true. I dont hold the canon is such a high regard, my view of god is more based on meditation, life changing spiritual experiences who made me get closer to god, and the gospel according to spiritism. My view, should not be seen, as drawn from there. This is such a horrible cop-out. If you're going to quote someone saying that one must believe in reincarnation if one believes in Christ as the savior (which is extremely arguable), then you're going to have to factor in the context of the statement. You can't just cherry pick parts you like and when encountered with an opposition that tells you that you're taking things wildly out of context, reply with a "oh, well, that part doesn't matter to me". It is inconsistent and leads to a jumbled mash that makes little sense. Then upon this jumbled bullshit you confuse faith with truisms and faith loses its quality as faith.
Yea well its true, I dont care that much to avoid doing this, so my bad to you.
And about the truisms, does it ? To me the difference is that, instead of investing the energy into a dream, a project or a vision, one tries to elevate all that to something higher, unfathomable but utterly reasuring, a feeling unlike the others sure, but the essence is the same, to be a sapient creature is to be able to have faith, in that in my opinion, investing your energy in say, a dream you had all your life, believing you will achieve it non matter what, and believing god will help you achieve it non matter what
is more of a question of trying to project your "faith" a certain specific way, religion says it should be in god first and foremost, doesnt that means it could be somewhere by itself ?
|
I'm going to watch GSL, I think the atheists won this one. gg, wp plasma. And D10 and Clysm, I hope you come around before you waste too much time worshiping something that doesn't exist. n_n.
Sigh, doesn't surprise me, coming from someone who is an Aethiest (I assume, from what you were saying) and when the religious are outnumbered 10:1 on the internet.
|
On May 28 2011 14:15 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:07 D10 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:56 Kiarip wrote:On May 28 2011 12:22 D10 wrote:
Simply put, standard jewish-christian religious culture believes we got only 1 shot to make outselves worthy of illumination, heaven, etc...
But what about autists, and other people who suffer from severe mental disabilities and can barely experience the world, why their 1 shot is a horrible experience at life, one where he couldnt even be properly held accountable by his actions, how could this kind of existance be reasonably justified in their system ? well im sure you all heard a few explanations.
But in my opinion, theres just a failure of concept there, if we are really working with a god that has infinite love, inteligence, and power, he would have a very specific reason for someone to be born in such a horrible contition, and in my mind that is punishment.
how difficult would it be for him, to program the universe with a system of kharma, so people can be born, make their mistakes, and then be born again, and pay for them in a way that allows them to keep evolving.
We think we know love, but big religious heads cant fathom how many chances god will really give us, just dont stay away from god to stay away from church, they are not the same,
With churches you either surrender to their house of faith or you are utterly lost and godless, and theres no middle ground, nowdays I feel theres less to gain visiting the church than simply maintaining a health work ethic, morally speaking.
Religion is cultural
Faith is universal
Reencarnation seems absurd at first, but if there is an almighty and powerfull god that wants us to experience material life to achieve illumation Ill take a leap of faith and say that, our daddy would give us some coins to continue playing. No, your logic is missing some scenarios. First of all, our idea of fairness may be incorrect in the eyes of god. But imo, a more interesting idea is that we all are in fact fairly/equally designed to achieve divinity/illumination. Meaning that it's something that's independent of all of our physical, intellectual and emotional qualities in which we are all different. Since we are all completely different the only thing that obviously pops out as something we can all do equally is be ourselves, so in the end it just boils down to doing what you think is the right thing to do in light of who you are. Become the person you want to be you know? That type of stuff. Sure, I dont disagree with that, we have talent for a reason, everyone should pursue their path to happiness. I guess the big thing about reincarnation is that you simply cannot believe in it, and not believe in a very complex spiritual society, with many layers and functions. From the poor guys in the abyss who never managed to get their vibration out of that cesspool suffering in their bubbles of nightmares being drained by even more evil things for life essence until they reencarnate again probably with heavy deformities or maybe even an abortion while guys who have passed that stage will be wandering to the limbo suffering until they open their heart and have faith that god will help them, so they can get out of there, go to one of the restoration colonies, where reincarnations are organized, and souls spend most of their time. And theres the upper spheres made more of fluidical energy and thoughts than anything. Endless worlds across the cosmos, all with anthropomorphic life in different stages of evolution all going thro the same thing, evolution, in all senses, towards a state of pure glory and usefullness for god that I cant even fathom how it is. This is what I believe in, might sound crazy, but at least its crazy I can believe in. Honestly I'm down to believe in a lot of spiritual stuff or at least try to get into the shoes of someone who does, but no matter what I do I can't get reincarnation to not seem like a cop out, or an excuse. And according to the philosophies that I find most believable it seems to follow that acting as if reincarnation doesn't exist is in fact the correct way to act, so really is there a point to thinking this way other than just for the sake of being "right" which you can't actually be absolutely certain in.
The point you illustrate is that, for all the wisdom the knowledge of reincarnation brings, it gives an incentive to play idle instead of actively chasing the things others who think they have only one chance work so hard to achieve, because you know how it really works, and you are in really no hurry to start changing everything radically.
|
On May 28 2011 14:13 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:08 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 28 2011 13:54 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:49 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:44 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:41 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:37 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:16 TOloseGT wrote:
[quote]
You missed something between "harder to understand" and "greater leap of faith".
Tell me something, if you believe in God, why aren't you using that God given brain of yours to educate yourself? Funny you should mention that, but I have a 4.5+ GPA and am ranked 4th in my class. I am very educated in the scientific details of life, and in my opinion they only confirm my faith. Science only reinforces the bible. You tell me how random chance can create perfect conditions for life, and also make DNA (which is far more complex than the computer that you are typing on) out of inorganic matter. Then tell me how that inorganic matter was created out of nothing. In order for anything to exist, something has to be eternal. I say that that eternal thing is God. Your idea of science says that there isn't anything eternal. Anyway, back to the DNA thing. If you saw something simple, like a watch, you would never even begin to think that it was made by nature. Yet human beings and other life forms that are millions of times more complex than that watch were? Doesn't add up to me... That's all good and well, and although I disagree with you on all those points, none of them even affirm your hypothesis of Christianity, just the need for something to always have been there, which I think is a perfectly reasonable claim. You just for some reason thinks that thing is named God and that he sent his son down to earth to die and then be turned into crackers or w/e, I think it was matter. Also, given infinite time, you get infinite possibilities, and therefore eventually get DNA. Read my post on page 2 about why I believe in the historical and spiritual accuracy of the bible, and it will explain why I chose my set of beliefs. I did not arbitrarily choose God and Christianity over Mohammed and Islam. I did so by considering factual evidence. I'm afraid I don't see where. And also choosing Christianity over Islam isn't the same as explaining why Christianity is valid while NO other religion is. My question: What fact proves the existence of Jesus and the Holy trinity but disproves the existence of Odin and the mountain giants? And also disproves any other god that I could possibly imagine up. + Show Spoiler +because the different books of the bible were written over a 1000+ year period, by over 40 authors, almost all of whom have never met each other. Yet, every single book is consistent with all of the others, and countless Old Testament prophecies come true in the New Testament. This could not be conspired, due to the amount of time and people who wrote the bible without meeting each other. It also could not be chance, for the same reasons. The only explanation is the one offered by the bible: that it is God-breathed. Thus, I believe that every book of the bible is canon: no more, no less. Also, the bible claims that no words should be added or diminished from it. Plasmaball, I never said that current scientific theories coincide with biblical explanations. I said that scientific facts support biblical explanations better than they support scientific theories. Seeing as how scientific theories are overarching explanations for a multitude of related scientific facts, your statement is necessarily false. Furthermore, scientific facts also disprove Biblical explanations many times over. Genesis is flat-out falsified (Creation myth, Destruction myth, etc.). Granted, most scholars understand that these are supposed to be taken as allegory now, but how many Biblical stories have to be falsified and then backpedalled *to be meant as allegory* to be overlooked? Science says people can't rise from the dead too. Whoops, sorry Jesus. Science disproves the notions of 900 year old people. It's a scientific fact that Adam and Noah never existed. It's also a scientific fact that snakes don't have a voice box. Sorry devil snake. Science disproves the global flood myth. Science disproves any Young Earth Creationist claims. Now, for every Biblical claim made that's falsified by science, you can dismiss it with "Well that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously!" but then you're just cherry-picking your Bible verses, which makes the whole argument irrelevant. Some Christians dismiss those as allegory. I don't dismiss any of them. What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle. No. Science obeys the laws of physics. The Book of Genesis by enlarge defies those laws. Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Science, to scientists is separate from religion. If you base your definition of science off of the accepted criteria of: Consistent, observable, natural, predictable, testable, tentative, then no, religion is not a science. I base my definition of science off of the actual, objective truth. Thus, I do believe that the book of Genesis is scientific, as I believe that God's ability to perform miracles are an objective truth.
Watch out - you're playing word games here by redefining the commonly-accepted meaning of 'science'.
Don't equate science with actual, objective truth when it is at best humanity's closest "approximation" to the truth / most successful method for predicting future events.
|
God doesnt exist.
Why, can humanity in general not accept this. It is way beyond me how sensible people can in our modern age still subscribe to bronze age myths. Judeo-christian mythologies were made for a single purpose, which is to govern the behavior of great masses of people. Without religions like christianity many modern societies like America could not achieve such stability with such a massive population living in such a relatively small space. Without it, these people would revert to violent tribalism in order to compete for resources and would surely miss out on all the advantages that would come of co-operation beyond a band of say 60 or 100 people.
They would be a nation.
Religion is like a glue that keeps a massive state together. It is also a tool that can be misused, often, as history shows, to the detriment of a great many people. The general instability and constant conflicts in the middle east is a prime example of the misuse of religion.
The key thing to realize is how religion derives its power. Religion's power comes from the belief of its followers. Often people argue about weather God exists or not and after much proper reasoning, one can conclude that his existence is so irrelevant. It is the belief that is
key. As long as you believe he does, then this can be used in order to manipulate your behavior.
Ive studied the writings of the bible for quite some time. The more I learned, the more confusing it became. A lot of things written in that book made absolutely no sense to me and when "true believers" explained it to me, I began wondering if these people were brain damaged.
Seriously how could the most powerful and knowledgeable being in the universe commit such simple logical fallacies ? And even more amazing, his followers can't even see how stupid their beliefs actually are. They would commit to logical fallacies of their own in order to explain why their precious bible was perfect. It really got absurd until I took a step back and looked at this from a different angle and realized the truth. The truth is that the bible was in fact designed for people like these "true believers", people so incapable of proper reasoning that in order to get them to behave sensibly, you have to take advantage of their cognitive shortcomings by brain-raping them with something basic enough for their simple minds to grasp.
Reality is anything but simple so we create a simple reality for these people. "Dont kill otherwise God will send you to hell to burn for eternity".....Simple idea. Your belief in God will give you pause whenever you think of killing someone, hence your behavior is modified. Very effective. Notice I said belief. It is not relevant weather he does exist or not. But if you really examine the bible and apply serious thought to it.....you should realize that no all knowing being could be so self-contradicting and sometimes just stupid. No way that this God could ever be real.
|
On May 28 2011 14:18 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:13 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:08 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 28 2011 13:54 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:49 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:44 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:41 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:37 ClysmiC wrote:
[quote]
Funny you should mention that, but I have a 4.5+ GPA and am ranked 4th in my class. I am very educated in the scientific details of life, and in my opinion they only confirm my faith. Science only reinforces the bible. You tell me how random chance can create perfect conditions for life, and also make DNA (which is far more complex than the computer that you are typing on) out of inorganic matter. Then tell me how that inorganic matter was created out of nothing. In order for anything to exist, something has to be eternal. I say that that eternal thing is God. Your idea of science says that there isn't anything eternal.
Anyway, back to the DNA thing. If you saw something simple, like a watch, you would never even begin to think that it was made by nature. Yet human beings and other life forms that are millions of times more complex than that watch were? Doesn't add up to me... That's all good and well, and although I disagree with you on all those points, none of them even affirm your hypothesis of Christianity, just the need for something to always have been there, which I think is a perfectly reasonable claim. You just for some reason thinks that thing is named God and that he sent his son down to earth to die and then be turned into crackers or w/e, I think it was matter. Also, given infinite time, you get infinite possibilities, and therefore eventually get DNA. Read my post on page 2 about why I believe in the historical and spiritual accuracy of the bible, and it will explain why I chose my set of beliefs. I did not arbitrarily choose God and Christianity over Mohammed and Islam. I did so by considering factual evidence. I'm afraid I don't see where. And also choosing Christianity over Islam isn't the same as explaining why Christianity is valid while NO other religion is. My question: What fact proves the existence of Jesus and the Holy trinity but disproves the existence of Odin and the mountain giants? And also disproves any other god that I could possibly imagine up. + Show Spoiler +because the different books of the bible were written over a 1000+ year period, by over 40 authors, almost all of whom have never met each other. Yet, every single book is consistent with all of the others, and countless Old Testament prophecies come true in the New Testament. This could not be conspired, due to the amount of time and people who wrote the bible without meeting each other. It also could not be chance, for the same reasons. The only explanation is the one offered by the bible: that it is God-breathed. Thus, I believe that every book of the bible is canon: no more, no less. Also, the bible claims that no words should be added or diminished from it. Plasmaball, I never said that current scientific theories coincide with biblical explanations. I said that scientific facts support biblical explanations better than they support scientific theories. Seeing as how scientific theories are overarching explanations for a multitude of related scientific facts, your statement is necessarily false. Furthermore, scientific facts also disprove Biblical explanations many times over. Genesis is flat-out falsified (Creation myth, Destruction myth, etc.). Granted, most scholars understand that these are supposed to be taken as allegory now, but how many Biblical stories have to be falsified and then backpedalled *to be meant as allegory* to be overlooked? Science says people can't rise from the dead too. Whoops, sorry Jesus. Science disproves the notions of 900 year old people. It's a scientific fact that Adam and Noah never existed. It's also a scientific fact that snakes don't have a voice box. Sorry devil snake. Science disproves the global flood myth. Science disproves any Young Earth Creationist claims. Now, for every Biblical claim made that's falsified by science, you can dismiss it with "Well that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously!" but then you're just cherry-picking your Bible verses, which makes the whole argument irrelevant. Some Christians dismiss those as allegory. I don't dismiss any of them. What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle. No. Science obeys the laws of physics. The Book of Genesis by enlarge defies those laws. Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Science, to scientists is separate from religion. If you base your definition of science off of the accepted criteria of: Consistent, observable, natural, predictable, testable, tentative, then no, religion is not a science. I base my definition of science off of the actual, objective truth. Thus, I do believe that the book of Genesis is scientific, as I believe that God's ability to perform miracles are an objective truth. Watch out - you're playing word games here, which helps no one. Don't equate science with actual, objective truth when it is at best humanity's best approximation to the truth.
Then don't tell me it is a fact that I am wrong, based on your "best approximations." It seems plasma was simply trying to argue against my statements by throwing out the word science
|
On May 28 2011 14:13 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:08 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 28 2011 13:54 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:49 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:44 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:41 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:37 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:16 TOloseGT wrote:
[quote]
You missed something between "harder to understand" and "greater leap of faith".
Tell me something, if you believe in God, why aren't you using that God given brain of yours to educate yourself? Funny you should mention that, but I have a 4.5+ GPA and am ranked 4th in my class. I am very educated in the scientific details of life, and in my opinion they only confirm my faith. Science only reinforces the bible. You tell me how random chance can create perfect conditions for life, and also make DNA (which is far more complex than the computer that you are typing on) out of inorganic matter. Then tell me how that inorganic matter was created out of nothing. In order for anything to exist, something has to be eternal. I say that that eternal thing is God. Your idea of science says that there isn't anything eternal. Anyway, back to the DNA thing. If you saw something simple, like a watch, you would never even begin to think that it was made by nature. Yet human beings and other life forms that are millions of times more complex than that watch were? Doesn't add up to me... That's all good and well, and although I disagree with you on all those points, none of them even affirm your hypothesis of Christianity, just the need for something to always have been there, which I think is a perfectly reasonable claim. You just for some reason thinks that thing is named God and that he sent his son down to earth to die and then be turned into crackers or w/e, I think it was matter. Also, given infinite time, you get infinite possibilities, and therefore eventually get DNA. Read my post on page 2 about why I believe in the historical and spiritual accuracy of the bible, and it will explain why I chose my set of beliefs. I did not arbitrarily choose God and Christianity over Mohammed and Islam. I did so by considering factual evidence. I'm afraid I don't see where. And also choosing Christianity over Islam isn't the same as explaining why Christianity is valid while NO other religion is. My question: What fact proves the existence of Jesus and the Holy trinity but disproves the existence of Odin and the mountain giants? And also disproves any other god that I could possibly imagine up. + Show Spoiler +because the different books of the bible were written over a 1000+ year period, by over 40 authors, almost all of whom have never met each other. Yet, every single book is consistent with all of the others, and countless Old Testament prophecies come true in the New Testament. This could not be conspired, due to the amount of time and people who wrote the bible without meeting each other. It also could not be chance, for the same reasons. The only explanation is the one offered by the bible: that it is God-breathed. Thus, I believe that every book of the bible is canon: no more, no less. Also, the bible claims that no words should be added or diminished from it. Plasmaball, I never said that current scientific theories coincide with biblical explanations. I said that scientific facts support biblical explanations better than they support scientific theories. Seeing as how scientific theories are overarching explanations for a multitude of related scientific facts, your statement is necessarily false. Furthermore, scientific facts also disprove Biblical explanations many times over. Genesis is flat-out falsified (Creation myth, Destruction myth, etc.). Granted, most scholars understand that these are supposed to be taken as allegory now, but how many Biblical stories have to be falsified and then backpedalled *to be meant as allegory* to be overlooked? Science says people can't rise from the dead too. Whoops, sorry Jesus. Science disproves the notions of 900 year old people. It's a scientific fact that Adam and Noah never existed. It's also a scientific fact that snakes don't have a voice box. Sorry devil snake. Science disproves the global flood myth. Science disproves any Young Earth Creationist claims. Now, for every Biblical claim made that's falsified by science, you can dismiss it with "Well that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously!" but then you're just cherry-picking your Bible verses, which makes the whole argument irrelevant. Some Christians dismiss those as allegory. I don't dismiss any of them. What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle. No. Science obeys the laws of physics. The Book of Genesis by enlarge defies those laws. Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Science, to scientists is separate from religion. If you base your definition of science off of the accepted criteria of: Consistent, observable, natural, predictable, testable, tentative, then no, religion is not a science. I base my definition of science off of the actual, objective truth. Thus, I do believe that the book of Genesis is scientific, as I believe that God's ability to perform miracles are an objective truth.
Science is not and never was at all about anything that's right. Science is about trying to explain things that actually happened. So first you need concrete evidence of things happening. Then you create an explanation for why it happened, and then you test it.
So yes, Science is BUILT AROUND things that are factual, but Science itself isn't factual, it's just our currently best way to explain everything that we have observed up to this point.
If magic was a repeatable phenomenon under testable conditions, our attempts to explain it would become part of Science. Things described in the Bible aren't in the subset of things that Science accepts as things we've "observed" similarly to how Science doesn't attempt to explain the Sumerian belief that Angels came down from the sky and taught them complex mathematics.
Despite, and partially thanks to the exclusion of these alleged super-natural phenomena Science was able to serve our civilization extremely accurately. On the other hand if the accounts Bible were accepted as observed facts, then Science today would have to be a lot more general to encompass their explanations, and a lot of the useful predictions that it made wouldn't have been made in the first place, and we wouldn't be this far as a civilization.
The point you illustrate is that, for all the wisdom the knowledge of reincarnation brings, it gives an incentive to play idle instead of actively chasing the things others who think they have only one chance work so hard to achieve, because you know how it really works, and you are in really no hurry to start changing everything radically.
Well that case I wish not to subscribe. When you don't do anything things fall into entropy.
When you stop exercising your muscles distrophy.
When you stop trying to solve problems your mind loses its problem solving abilities.
Hell, if it wasn't in our DNA to chase after "more," we probably would have never made it into the stone age.
I think the fact that radically changing things is bad is more due to the fact it's just not the optimal way to change things, and not because change in general is bad.
Change can always be good, if I subscribe to this belief, then I'm making a change in my philosophy, but according to your philosophy I shouldn't do anything that could possibly improve my well-being because of reincarnation, so once again, should I actually not subscribe to this philosophy, because then I would be doing too much?
|
On May 28 2011 14:22 Maru- wrote:
God doesnt exist.
Why, can humanity in general not accept this. It is way beyond me how sensible people can in our modern age still subscribe to bronze age myths. Judeo-christian mythologies were made for a single purpose, which is to govern the behavior of great masses of people. Without religions like christianity many modern societies like America could not achieve such stability with such a massive population living in such a relatively small space. Without it, these people would revert to violent tribalism in order to compete for resources and would surely miss out on all the advantages that would come of co-operation beyond a band of say 60 or 100 people.
They would be a nation.
Religion is like a glue that keeps a massive state together. It is also a tool that can be misused, often, as history shows, to the detriment of a great many people. The general instability and constant conflicts in the middle east is a prime example of the misuse of religion.
The key thing to realize is how religion derives its power. Religion's power comes from the belief of its followers. Often people argue about weather God exists or not and after much proper reasoning, one can conclude that his existence is so irrelevant. It is the belief that is
key. As long as you believe he does, then this can be used in order to manipulate your behavior.
Ive studied the writings of the bible for quite some time. The more I learned, the more confusing it became. A lot of things written in that book made absolutely no sense to me and when "true believers" explained it to me, I began wondering if these people were brain damaged.
Seriously how could the most powerful and knowledgeable being in the universe commit such simple logical fallacies ? And even more amazing, his followers can't even see how stupid their beliefs actually are. They would commit to logical fallacies of their own in order to explain why their precious bible was perfect. It really got absurd until I took a step back and looked at this from a different angle and realized the truth. The truth is that the bible was in fact designed for people like these "true believers", people so incapable of proper reasoning that in order to get them to behave sensibly, you have to take advantage of their cognitive shortcomings by brain-raping them with something basic enough for their simple minds to grasp.
Reality is anything but simple so we create a simple reality for these people. "Dont kill otherwise God will send you to hell to burn for eternity".....Simple idea. Your belief in God will give you pause whenever you think of killing someone, hence your behavior is modified. Very effective. Notice I said belief. It is not relevant weather he does exist or not. But if you really examine the bible and apply serious thought to it.....you should realize that no all knowing being could be so self-contradicting and sometimes just stupid. No way that this God could ever be real.
If you shoot down one explanation, it would be kind of you to offer an alternative.
|
On May 28 2011 14:22 Maru- wrote:
God doesnt exist.
Why, can humanity in general not accept this. It is way beyond me how sensible people can in our modern age still subscribe to bronze age myths. Judeo-christian mythologies were made for a single purpose, which is to govern the behavior of great masses of people. Without religions like christianity many modern societies like America could not achieve such stability with such a massive population living in such a relatively small space. Without it, these people would revert to violent tribalism in order to compete for resources and would surely miss out on all the advantages that would come of co-operation beyond a band of say 60 or 100 people.
They would be a nation.
Religion is like a glue that keeps a massive state together. It is also a tool that can be misused, often, as history shows, to the detriment of a great many people. The general instability and constant conflicts in the middle east is a prime example of the misuse of religion.
The key thing to realize is how religion derives its power. Religion's power comes from the belief of its followers. Often people argue about weather God exists or not and after much proper reasoning, one can conclude that his existence is so irrelevant. It is the belief that is
key. As long as you believe he does, then this can be used in order to manipulate your behavior.
Ive studied the writings of the bible for quite some time. The more I learned, the more confusing it became. A lot of things written in that book made absolutely no sense to me and when "true believers" explained it to me, I began wondering if these people were brain damaged.
Seriously how could the most powerful and knowledgeable being in the universe commit such simple logical fallacies ? And even more amazing, his followers can't even see how stupid their beliefs actually are. They would commit to logical fallacies of their own in order to explain why their precious bible was perfect. It really got absurd until I took a step back and looked at this from a different angle and realized the truth. The truth is that the bible was in fact designed for people like these "true believers", people so incapable of proper reasoning that in order to get them to behave sensibly, you have to take advantage of their cognitive shortcomings by brain-raping them with something basic enough for their simple minds to grasp.
Reality is anything but simple so we create a simple reality for these people. "Dont kill otherwise God will send you to hell to burn for eternity".....Simple idea. Your belief in God will give you pause whenever you think of killing someone, hence your behavior is modified. Very effective. Notice I said belief. It is not relevant weather he does exist or not. But if you really examine the bible and apply serious thought to it.....you should realize that no all knowing being could be so self-contradicting and sometimes just stupid. No way that this God could ever be real.
Look, if you dislike religion thats ok, i do too, its been perverted by unworthy man for millenia, but I find it infantile at best, that you use anything other than your own experiences in life, to judge those things.
The bible in the way standard christians read it is a book for people who really, just wanna know god is there and he wants them to work hard, anything else is too much for their brains =p
|
|
|
On May 28 2011 14:25 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:13 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:08 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 28 2011 13:54 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:49 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:44 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:41 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:37 ClysmiC wrote:
[quote]
Funny you should mention that, but I have a 4.5+ GPA and am ranked 4th in my class. I am very educated in the scientific details of life, and in my opinion they only confirm my faith. Science only reinforces the bible. You tell me how random chance can create perfect conditions for life, and also make DNA (which is far more complex than the computer that you are typing on) out of inorganic matter. Then tell me how that inorganic matter was created out of nothing. In order for anything to exist, something has to be eternal. I say that that eternal thing is God. Your idea of science says that there isn't anything eternal.
Anyway, back to the DNA thing. If you saw something simple, like a watch, you would never even begin to think that it was made by nature. Yet human beings and other life forms that are millions of times more complex than that watch were? Doesn't add up to me... That's all good and well, and although I disagree with you on all those points, none of them even affirm your hypothesis of Christianity, just the need for something to always have been there, which I think is a perfectly reasonable claim. You just for some reason thinks that thing is named God and that he sent his son down to earth to die and then be turned into crackers or w/e, I think it was matter. Also, given infinite time, you get infinite possibilities, and therefore eventually get DNA. Read my post on page 2 about why I believe in the historical and spiritual accuracy of the bible, and it will explain why I chose my set of beliefs. I did not arbitrarily choose God and Christianity over Mohammed and Islam. I did so by considering factual evidence. I'm afraid I don't see where. And also choosing Christianity over Islam isn't the same as explaining why Christianity is valid while NO other religion is. My question: What fact proves the existence of Jesus and the Holy trinity but disproves the existence of Odin and the mountain giants? And also disproves any other god that I could possibly imagine up. + Show Spoiler +because the different books of the bible were written over a 1000+ year period, by over 40 authors, almost all of whom have never met each other. Yet, every single book is consistent with all of the others, and countless Old Testament prophecies come true in the New Testament. This could not be conspired, due to the amount of time and people who wrote the bible without meeting each other. It also could not be chance, for the same reasons. The only explanation is the one offered by the bible: that it is God-breathed. Thus, I believe that every book of the bible is canon: no more, no less. Also, the bible claims that no words should be added or diminished from it. Plasmaball, I never said that current scientific theories coincide with biblical explanations. I said that scientific facts support biblical explanations better than they support scientific theories. Seeing as how scientific theories are overarching explanations for a multitude of related scientific facts, your statement is necessarily false. Furthermore, scientific facts also disprove Biblical explanations many times over. Genesis is flat-out falsified (Creation myth, Destruction myth, etc.). Granted, most scholars understand that these are supposed to be taken as allegory now, but how many Biblical stories have to be falsified and then backpedalled *to be meant as allegory* to be overlooked? Science says people can't rise from the dead too. Whoops, sorry Jesus. Science disproves the notions of 900 year old people. It's a scientific fact that Adam and Noah never existed. It's also a scientific fact that snakes don't have a voice box. Sorry devil snake. Science disproves the global flood myth. Science disproves any Young Earth Creationist claims. Now, for every Biblical claim made that's falsified by science, you can dismiss it with "Well that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously!" but then you're just cherry-picking your Bible verses, which makes the whole argument irrelevant. Some Christians dismiss those as allegory. I don't dismiss any of them. What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle. No. Science obeys the laws of physics. The Book of Genesis by enlarge defies those laws. Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Science, to scientists is separate from religion. If you base your definition of science off of the accepted criteria of: Consistent, observable, natural, predictable, testable, tentative, then no, religion is not a science. I base my definition of science off of the actual, objective truth. Thus, I do believe that the book of Genesis is scientific, as I believe that God's ability to perform miracles are an objective truth. Science is not and never was at all about anything that's right. Science is about trying to explain things that actually happened. So first you need concrete evidence of things happening. Then you create an explanation for why it happened, and then you test it. So yes, Science is BUILT AROUND things that are factual, but Science itself isn't factual, it's just our currently best way to explain everything that we have observed up to this point. If magic was a repeatable phenomenon under testable conditions, our attempts to explain it would become part of Science. Things described in the Bible aren't in the subset of things that Science accepts as things we've "observed" similarly to how Science doesn't attempt to explain the Sumerian belief that Angels came down from the sky and taught them complex mathematics. Despite, and partially thanks to the exclusion of these alleged super-natural phenomena Science was able to serve our civilization extremely accurately. On the other hand if the accounts Bible were accepted as observed facts, then Science today would have to be a lot more general to encompass their explanations, and a lot of the useful predictions that it made wouldn't have been made in the first place, and we wouldn't be this far as a civilization.
From what I understand, you aren't hesitant saying that "science" does not necessarily equal "real."
Yet you refuse to believe that "not science" possibly equals "real."
But this discussion about the definition of the term "science" isn't going to get us anywhere. Perhaps I was mistaken using the word science in my support of my beliefs. I'm not sure what would have been a better word though.
|
if you dislike religion thats ok, i do too, its been perverted by unworthy man for millenia
Agreed. I call myself a Christian because that term best sums up my beliefs (ie. the bible is true, and we're saved by God's grace) but that does not mean that I blindly follow the beliefs of Churches, or institutions of man. Like I said before, I believe what the bible says, no more, no less.
And Jaybee, I'd love to hear your logical arguments. All I've heard you say is how illogical and wrong we all are, but you haven't presented any actual logic of your own.
|
On May 28 2011 13:36 Oreo7 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 13:31 D10 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I disagree with faith being universal. One does not need to believe things based on faith; one can most certainly only accept things that have evidence for existing.
And are you really saying that if Christianity is correct, than reincarnation exists? o.O That's not how it works. Well jesus himself droped the R bomb on top of a whole religious following, id like to see how you run from his statement about John the baptist being Elias Regarding faith, you can have faith in yourself, in a project, in science, in someone else, in a way of living. You might think you made a purely rational decision by only believing in what you can attest, but at the same time you could be one of those guys who was completely and utterly sure that the earth was flat and the sun orbited around it. Faith is universal. But the extent of faith differs between religion and science. Religion asks you to take the jump from this guy named Jesus, he was great to he was the son of god and also god at the same time, while offering no real proof for that claim. Science makes a claim, we can use evolution for example, that man shares ancestry with chimps, and then shows you the evidence and the logical observations that lead to that conclusion, which makes the leap of faith much, much smaller. TL;DR: everything takes faith, but religion is an extraordinary claim with no extraordinary evidence.
Why, in the last 3000 or so years havn't humans evolved even a little bit? I mean eskimo's should look like fuckin Big Foot (hairy to stay warm in the Alaskan weather)...
|
On May 28 2011 14:32 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:25 Kiarip wrote:On May 28 2011 14:13 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:08 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 28 2011 13:54 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:49 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:44 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:41 Oreo7 wrote:
[quote]
That's all good and well, and although I disagree with you on all those points, none of them even affirm your hypothesis of Christianity, just the need for something to always have been there, which I think is a perfectly reasonable claim. You just for some reason thinks that thing is named God and that he sent his son down to earth to die and then be turned into crackers or w/e, I think it was matter.
Also, given infinite time, you get infinite possibilities, and therefore eventually get DNA. Read my post on page 2 about why I believe in the historical and spiritual accuracy of the bible, and it will explain why I chose my set of beliefs. I did not arbitrarily choose God and Christianity over Mohammed and Islam. I did so by considering factual evidence. I'm afraid I don't see where. And also choosing Christianity over Islam isn't the same as explaining why Christianity is valid while NO other religion is. My question: What fact proves the existence of Jesus and the Holy trinity but disproves the existence of Odin and the mountain giants? And also disproves any other god that I could possibly imagine up. + Show Spoiler +because the different books of the bible were written over a 1000+ year period, by over 40 authors, almost all of whom have never met each other. Yet, every single book is consistent with all of the others, and countless Old Testament prophecies come true in the New Testament. This could not be conspired, due to the amount of time and people who wrote the bible without meeting each other. It also could not be chance, for the same reasons. The only explanation is the one offered by the bible: that it is God-breathed. Thus, I believe that every book of the bible is canon: no more, no less. Also, the bible claims that no words should be added or diminished from it. Plasmaball, I never said that current scientific theories coincide with biblical explanations. I said that scientific facts support biblical explanations better than they support scientific theories. Seeing as how scientific theories are overarching explanations for a multitude of related scientific facts, your statement is necessarily false. Furthermore, scientific facts also disprove Biblical explanations many times over. Genesis is flat-out falsified (Creation myth, Destruction myth, etc.). Granted, most scholars understand that these are supposed to be taken as allegory now, but how many Biblical stories have to be falsified and then backpedalled *to be meant as allegory* to be overlooked? Science says people can't rise from the dead too. Whoops, sorry Jesus. Science disproves the notions of 900 year old people. It's a scientific fact that Adam and Noah never existed. It's also a scientific fact that snakes don't have a voice box. Sorry devil snake. Science disproves the global flood myth. Science disproves any Young Earth Creationist claims. Now, for every Biblical claim made that's falsified by science, you can dismiss it with "Well that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously!" but then you're just cherry-picking your Bible verses, which makes the whole argument irrelevant. Some Christians dismiss those as allegory. I don't dismiss any of them. What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle. No. Science obeys the laws of physics. The Book of Genesis by enlarge defies those laws. Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Science, to scientists is separate from religion. If you base your definition of science off of the accepted criteria of: Consistent, observable, natural, predictable, testable, tentative, then no, religion is not a science. I base my definition of science off of the actual, objective truth. Thus, I do believe that the book of Genesis is scientific, as I believe that God's ability to perform miracles are an objective truth. Science is not and never was at all about anything that's right. Science is about trying to explain things that actually happened. So first you need concrete evidence of things happening. Then you create an explanation for why it happened, and then you test it. So yes, Science is BUILT AROUND things that are factual, but Science itself isn't factual, it's just our currently best way to explain everything that we have observed up to this point. If magic was a repeatable phenomenon under testable conditions, our attempts to explain it would become part of Science. Things described in the Bible aren't in the subset of things that Science accepts as things we've "observed" similarly to how Science doesn't attempt to explain the Sumerian belief that Angels came down from the sky and taught them complex mathematics. Despite, and partially thanks to the exclusion of these alleged super-natural phenomena Science was able to serve our civilization extremely accurately. On the other hand if the accounts Bible were accepted as observed facts, then Science today would have to be a lot more general to encompass their explanations, and a lot of the useful predictions that it made wouldn't have been made in the first place, and we wouldn't be this far as a civilization. From what I understand, you aren't hesitant saying that "science" does not necessarily equal "real." Yet you refuse to believe that "not science" possibly equals "real." But this discussion about the definition of the term "science" isn't going to get us anywhere. Perhaps I was mistaken using the word science in my support of my beliefs. I'm not sure what would have been a better word though.
Science operates under the assumption that it tries to explain all real phenomena. "Real" is somewhat subjective, so generally it refers to things that we have observed, and in many cases (but not all,) it requires us to be able to reproduce the phenomena, or at least show that's possible for this phenomena to occur again.
When I say that Science isn't always right I mean that the explanations that it gives for the observed phenomena aren't always correct.
However, everything that it tries to explain is assumed to be real, and everything that it doesn't try to explain is assumed to be not real, or at least unobserved. Science itself (the explanations) aren't always right, but definitions of reality of things rarely if at all change, largely because of the strict requirement for something in order for it to be considered real.
My point about the Bible that if Science included the occurrences of the Bible as observed fact which you claim that they are, then Science would become infinitely less useful to the humanity, because the much broader scope of phenomena would require a much more general explanation which would be a lot less useful.
|
On May 28 2011 14:24 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:18 Ryalnos wrote:On May 28 2011 14:13 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:08 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 28 2011 13:54 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:49 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:44 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:41 Oreo7 wrote:
[quote]
That's all good and well, and although I disagree with you on all those points, none of them even affirm your hypothesis of Christianity, just the need for something to always have been there, which I think is a perfectly reasonable claim. You just for some reason thinks that thing is named God and that he sent his son down to earth to die and then be turned into crackers or w/e, I think it was matter.
Also, given infinite time, you get infinite possibilities, and therefore eventually get DNA. Read my post on page 2 about why I believe in the historical and spiritual accuracy of the bible, and it will explain why I chose my set of beliefs. I did not arbitrarily choose God and Christianity over Mohammed and Islam. I did so by considering factual evidence. I'm afraid I don't see where. And also choosing Christianity over Islam isn't the same as explaining why Christianity is valid while NO other religion is. My question: What fact proves the existence of Jesus and the Holy trinity but disproves the existence of Odin and the mountain giants? And also disproves any other god that I could possibly imagine up. + Show Spoiler +because the different books of the bible were written over a 1000+ year period, by over 40 authors, almost all of whom have never met each other. Yet, every single book is consistent with all of the others, and countless Old Testament prophecies come true in the New Testament. This could not be conspired, due to the amount of time and people who wrote the bible without meeting each other. It also could not be chance, for the same reasons. The only explanation is the one offered by the bible: that it is God-breathed. Thus, I believe that every book of the bible is canon: no more, no less. Also, the bible claims that no words should be added or diminished from it. Plasmaball, I never said that current scientific theories coincide with biblical explanations. I said that scientific facts support biblical explanations better than they support scientific theories. Seeing as how scientific theories are overarching explanations for a multitude of related scientific facts, your statement is necessarily false. Furthermore, scientific facts also disprove Biblical explanations many times over. Genesis is flat-out falsified (Creation myth, Destruction myth, etc.). Granted, most scholars understand that these are supposed to be taken as allegory now, but how many Biblical stories have to be falsified and then backpedalled *to be meant as allegory* to be overlooked? Science says people can't rise from the dead too. Whoops, sorry Jesus. Science disproves the notions of 900 year old people. It's a scientific fact that Adam and Noah never existed. It's also a scientific fact that snakes don't have a voice box. Sorry devil snake. Science disproves the global flood myth. Science disproves any Young Earth Creationist claims. Now, for every Biblical claim made that's falsified by science, you can dismiss it with "Well that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously!" but then you're just cherry-picking your Bible verses, which makes the whole argument irrelevant. Some Christians dismiss those as allegory. I don't dismiss any of them. What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle. No. Science obeys the laws of physics. The Book of Genesis by enlarge defies those laws. Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Science, to scientists is separate from religion. If you base your definition of science off of the accepted criteria of: Consistent, observable, natural, predictable, testable, tentative, then no, religion is not a science. I base my definition of science off of the actual, objective truth. Thus, I do believe that the book of Genesis is scientific, as I believe that God's ability to perform miracles are an objective truth. Watch out - you're playing word games here, which helps no one. Don't equate science with actual, objective truth when it is at best humanity's best approximation to the truth. Then don't tell me it is a fact that I am wrong, based on your "best approximations." It seems plasma was simply trying to argue against my statements by throwing out the word science
Make sure to look back to the last page to see where I stand. I am [i][not/i] "with them". I don't feel that there is much of a point in these arguments on a message board. The majority of the posts are effectively copy-pastes of the same old arguments, yadda yadda nothing moves forward. Perhaps it was unnecessary to poke at your use of language there, but it mildly irritates me when the truth value of science is overstated (this coming from a physics grad student - as if this gives me any cred).
Much better to demonstrate ever greater love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control because it is not me who lives, but He.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
