The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I guess this says you never read what I wrote in post #538

Oh no I read it.  We also had some conversation beyond that about the book. The difference between post #538 and the last one is it was a professional (in my opinion) critical review vs. arbitrary.  

If it was as empty as you were making it out to be in your last post, there wouldn't have been as much for you to say about it. 

The facad thing too was a general note about many people I've talked to on this site. (not all)  I should have said that.  You generally admitted to it clarifying for you the "true Christianity" label (which was a main reason for suggesting the book) and your stance remains that it wasn't a good book. 

Take into consideration posts with quoted text as well: #587 (you of course clarify in your next post #589 that you still feel the Bible is corrupt and therefore your agreement with me about the label had nothing to do with you changing your mind.)

#595 continues on that path.  In other words, you did get an understanding of where I'm coming from out of the book.  It apparently wasn't a complete waste as you claim.   

I'm sorry if you felt I misrepresented you in your stance on the book. 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Burden of proof is on you, not me, you know that,. It is not my fault you have deluded yourself into believing that is not what you are doing.

Now, poney up with god DNA and replicate human flesh surviving rigor mortis, then you will have something.

That had nothing to do with burden of proof.  It was to show how weightless your claims are. 

Just for reference, if I took your approach to "prove my belief", I'd have presented less to you than I already have. 

 

You have presented from your OP an apollogetics book which is nothing but cheer leading. You have presented exactly what I expected, which is nothing.

I am sure in time that Muslims and Scientologists will compete at the same level as Christians have in their snake oil sales, but they will have as much evidence for their claims as you do for yours.

I will never accuse you of lack of creativity, but until your god can "POOF" turn me into Brad Pitt  right now, you can continue to sell your tribalistic human sacrifice cult to no avail.

Sorry, I am still poor and ugly.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This is why I said you are evading answering the question. You provide no idea what you mean by a proof of interaction. 

My apologies.  There's always proof of interaction whether by personal account or otherwise... and yes for those of you who claim personal account is the only evidence, there is otherwise depending on what the situation may be. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

 

Are we going to go around in circles?

I've heard the "evasive" excuse many times.  I have repeatedly explained that I have not been intentionally evasive and have clarified either my misunderstanding or my intentions for my response.  All have been clarified as non-evasive.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My position is different in that I'm saying what god, I don't see no god. You though tell me yes there is. I say show me yet you say, I can only tell you how in my personal experience that God has made a difference to me. He has made all you see and touch. OK, how do you know? You tell me because he has left a trace. OK, show me. I can't because you just have to believe.

And round and round we go.

I don't remember ever telling anyone "you just have to believe".  Please quote me if you will.

I do remember saying you "have to be willing".  There's a difference.  As the Salem Witch and other examples I presented, if you're not willing to consider the idea, then I can't present anything to you that might make you see where I'm coming from. 

Sure, God has made a difference to me, but if you look at my other posts, I have also used scientific, historical geographical etc. examples.  99% of those happenings had nothing to do with me but only further confirmed my belief. 

The Evidence of the Supernatural Forum might have some small things.  Science vs. Religion covered a lot of details.  er... there might be more somewhere, you could probably search me and it'll come up. 

This page I've only more recently started giving more detail because I was waiting for further comments on the book.   I'm done waiting and it's obvious people still want to talk. 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As an ex-Catholic I'm aware that they have decided evolution could have been the way that God made the world. They also suggest that much of the Bible is allegorical and did not necessarily occur. 

That's Catholicism for ya.  If they claimed that all of the Bible is "God-breathed", they'd have to change a lot of their practices.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You have made claims certain stories did really occur as in the OT whereas history suggests otherwise as does archeology. I will start the thread we discussed from the beginning of the OT on Monday or Tuesday.

Sounds interesting

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not looking. I'm responding to your claim that there is a god and his son was Jesus. My response is show me. Instead you continue to say you can't unless I accept personal experiences. 

You have to personally experience everything you learn.  If you didn't, you wouldn't learn it.  i don't mean hands on.  Part of the personal experience I"m expecting from you is if you get a peice of information, back it up with other claims.  If you can, it's more likely to be, if not, then back to square 1.  You'd also have to take into consideration the sources of each claim and their credibility. 

Also, be it that God is a "personal God" yes, the only way to build a relationship with Him ultimately is personal!  That's really how he works!  I can give you all the information in the world that supports God and it means nothing if you don't personally seek out God. 

The only reason you'd need to "see something" in this case is to ultimately use it to consider a greater understanding of something else. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm glad for you, be happy do your thing and be kind to others. It's not my responsibility to show you another way. I was where you were and found it was incompatible with reality though you're welcome to believe and accept on faith if you'd like or anything else.

I know, I grew up Catholic too.  I left that faith as well

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Thank you for your admission of reliance on others, notably the writers of the Bible. I have suggested multiple times you need to evaluate this acceptance against other histories in the ancient world to consider its validity and accuracy. You said yourself you knew little about the Sumerians and other ancient history of various cultures. How can you accept the book you base your belief system upon  without adequately addressing the contradictions of many of the events and stories  when considered against other cultures?

that's where you misunderstand.  I have compared the stories and compared to other ancient beliefs and writings, just not the particular one you presented.

If you want to get technical, you relied on others just as much as I have (according to your presentation).  I know you didn't do all the research and excavations etc. and conclude from all those trips you took around the world to different cultures that God is not real.  

I have also expressed that it's not just the Bible that has helped me in my belief.  The Bible is just a summary.   

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

I'll consider anything but that doesn't mean I'll accept it.

great, we'll see where the OT forum goes Smiling

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

History can help people learn from the mistakes of the past. If Adam and Eve were real and screwed up we could learn from their mistake. Next time ask for a written contract that details exactly what good and evil are. Ask for a section of definitions: what is knowledge, what is death. etc.  And no fine print.

Precisely.  Though this time we won't need all that because we already know now. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which means they (odds) might also be much lower than those high figures you heard.

No,  There is no theory that would suggest lower odds.   The odds are assumed higher due to the fact that the unknowns are other factors that would have to be considered.  Those factors wouldn't lower the odds, they'd add more to the equation.

Doesn't require another theory - those probabilities estimates are just that, based on a series of best guesses based on what we currently do know, so the 'real' probability could go either way.

New theories could quite possibly improve the odds. There is absolutely no logical or scientific or mathematical reason why gaining a better handle on currently unknown factors should automatically lower the probability, although they would of course 'add more to the equation'.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If it had not already happened, we would have no data to base any conclusions on. Since we can see the range of environments that at least one life system requires to survive and multiply, we can make broad estimates of the likelihood of suitable environments on other planets.

Right, but from what I understand, the point of the statistic discussion is to ultimately suggest that the "God" factor is less likely.  In order to do that, you'd have to take this from the perspective that it hadn't happened yet.

No, the point of the statistics discussion is to show how estimating the probability of life emerging on at least one planet in the Universe by natural processes, ie without outside (divine) intervention.

We have no basis for estimating anything about God theories of origin. All we have shown is that even if the probability of abiogenesis on any random planet is very low, the rapidly growing estimate of the number of planets that may be hospitable for some sort of life means that the probability of life emerging in the Universe by natural processes could very well be actually more likely than not.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

That's right - the probability does depend on the whether the issued tickets cover all the numerical possibilities, so making the probability of a winner 100%, independent of the number of tickets issued.

For the emergence of life, we have an estimate of the number of 'tickets', but no reason to assume that there is inevitably going to be a 'ticket' (planet) meeting the requirements for the emergence of life, so we must assume it is going to be less than 100%. Those calculations I gave are how we estimate probabilities in such a case.

The likelihood of any particular planet winning is used to base these calculations of the possibility of at least one 'winner', which is the important figure we are seeking.

The underlined text is totally missing the point, again. All I am trying to explain to you is that the more planets there are in the universe with suitable conditions such as temperature and chemical composition, the more likely is the natural emergence of life. We are not somehow trying to base it on the likeihood of it emerging on this particular planet. We are after the equivalent of the figure which for a lottery is always 100%, regardless of how many tickets are issued, not the low probability for a particular individual winning.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not 100% or near if it never happened.

By itself, the occurrence or otherwise of an event in a single 'throw' of the dice does not tell us anything much about the actual probabilities, other than that one failure means the figure must be less than 100%, or one success means it is greater than 0%. The only data we have is for one planet out of trillions (at least), therefore all we can say is that it is not zero.

In the absence of knowledge about the existence or not of life everywhere in the Universe, we can say no more. If it turned out that there was no life in a particular Universe, we still could not say that the probabilty was zero, or even that it must be much less than 100%. If we are going to base our estimates purely on observing the number of times it actually arises, we would need to examine many trial runs, many examples of similar 'Universes'.

In the abstract, if we run a trial of some random process 10 times, and a particular outcome is estimated to have a statistical probability is 99%, and it does not occur in the trial at all, it does not prove that the 99% estimate is wrong, but it does reduce the probability that that 99% estimate is correct. There are statistical formula for estimating the likelihood that any particular a priori estimate of probability is the 'true' value after such a run of trials, or how we should adjust our estimate of the likelihood of the outcome in question as a result of such trials.

But we are NOT basing our estimates purely on such statistics - we are basing them on studying the processes of life here, and other facts about the distribution of matter and various elements and compounds in the Universe, etc.

Quote:

Life on this planet at this point in time is a blip in the timeline of the Universe.  Taking that into perspective, considering the odds to even be fair would've been hard to grasp scientifically. 

The perspective I was trying to make is considering life at all in this universe.  Not necessarily this planet. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Only if somehow the conditions for life to survive and reproduce were dramatically different from those necessary for life to emerge, and unlikely to be present on the same planet, which actually seems pretty unlikely.

For example, if the requirements for primitive life to form included pools of warm salty water, how would life that could not survive in such conditions get started???

Ah!how indeed

Perhaps you are asking how life that can only survive on dry land or fresh water could develop from life that originated in salt water. The answer is evolution, of course, which is a well established process, unlike the actual origin questions. The ability of life to evolve and adapt to a wide range of temperature, radiation, water availability, etc is well-documented.

EDIT: All the above is not taking any account of supernatural entities, bit is merely meant to show that the probability of life as we know it arising 'naturally' being extremely unlikely is not a strong argument for God being 'necessary'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Perhaps you

BobSpence1 wrote:

Perhaps you are asking how life that can only survive on dry land or fresh water could develop from life that originated in salt water. The answer is evolution, of course, which is a well established process, unlike the actual origin questions. The ability of life to evolve and adapt to a wide range of temperature, radiation, water availability, etc is well-documented.

Evolution was never in question. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:Don't be

spike.barnett wrote:

Don't be a retard. The estimate is 400 billion to 1 per planet. When you consider the number of planets that probably exist, the odds shift in favor of life. If you don't understand the math you should just stick with answers like "God did it." Instead of spending your time bashing Bob and Will for making valid arguments, maybe you should make an effort to learn why they are valid

You're a "the dog ate my homework" kind of guy aren't ya.  Maybe if your dog wasn't so hungry, you'd notice the odds are much much greater than the number of planets that have been considered to have or have had the possibility of supporting life.  It is possible they even surpass the number of planets in general.  That however, is speculation.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Perhaps you are asking how life that can only survive on dry land or fresh water could develop from life that originated in salt water. The answer is evolution, of course, which is a well established process, unlike the actual origin questions. The ability of life to evolve and adapt to a wide range of temperature, radiation, water availability, etc is well-documented.

Evolution was never in question. 

So what did you have in mind in this response:

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

For example, if the requirements for primitive life to form included pools of warm salty water, how would life that could not survive in such conditions get started???

Ah!how indeed

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: You are

Brian37 wrote:

 You are letting pesky things like "evidence" get in the way.

Now just accept that fully grown adults pop out of dirt, GOD without a body or a penis got mary pregnant, and human flesh can survive rigor mortis, and you will understand where Cap is comming from.

Oh and always remember, "Words don't mean what they mean".

*singing* We live in a material world, and I am a material girl.  -Madonna-

Those are some outlandish physical claims there Brian.  I know you didn't get them from the Bible.  What are your sources. I'm still dying to know. 

How about them gravitons Brian.  Please show me one.  Otherwise, gravity does not exist.  I don't care if you can show me something will drop everytime you let it go, that's not enough for me.  You can't tell me that just because something drops on this earth, these graviton things are causing it to be so. 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 You are letting pesky things like "evidence" get in the way.

Now just accept that fully grown adults pop out of dirt, GOD without a body or a penis got mary pregnant, and human flesh can survive rigor mortis, and you will understand where Cap is comming from.

Oh and always remember, "Words don't mean what they mean".

*singing* We live in a material world, and I am a material girl.  -Madonna-

Those are some outlandish physical claims there Brian.  I know you didn't get them from the Bible.  What are your sources. I'm still dying to know. 

How about them gravitons Brian.  Please show me one.  Otherwise, gravity does not exist.  I don't care if you can show me something will drop everytime you let it go, that's not enough for me.  You can't tell me that just because something drops on this earth, these graviton things are causing it to be so. 

 

Quote:
You can't tell me that just because something drops on this earth, these graviton things are causing it to be so.

Ok, you got me, it was magic sperm and zombie gods surviving rigor mortis.....When is your next church service so that I might attend? Holy crap...Just in time for our favorite holiday...April First!

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 You are letting pesky things like "evidence" get in the way.

Now just accept that fully grown adults pop out of dirt, GOD without a body or a penis got mary pregnant, and human flesh can survive rigor mortis, and you will understand where Cap is comming from.

Oh and always remember, "Words don't mean what they mean".

*singing* We live in a material world, and I am a material girl.  -Madonna-

Those are some outlandish physical claims there Brian.  I know you didn't get them from the Bible.  What are your sources. I'm still dying to know. 

How about them gravitons Brian.  Please show me one.  Otherwise, gravity does not exist.  I don't care if you can show me something will drop everytime you let it go, that's not enough for me.  You can't tell me that just because something drops on this earth, these graviton things are causing it to be so. 

 

You don't know your Bible at all, do you, Cap? Smiling

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 You are letting pesky things like "evidence" get in the way.

Now just accept that fully grown adults pop out of dirt, GOD without a body or a penis got mary pregnant, and human flesh can survive rigor mortis, and you will understand where Cap is comming from.

Oh and always remember, "Words don't mean what they mean".

*singing* We live in a material world, and I am a material girl.  -Madonna-

Those are some outlandish physical claims there Brian.  I know you didn't get them from the Bible.  What are your sources. I'm still dying to know. 

How about them gravitons Brian.  Please show me one.  Otherwise, gravity does not exist.  I don't care if you can show me something will drop everytime you let it go, that's not enough for me.  You can't tell me that just because something drops on this earth, these graviton things are causing it to be so. 

Just what is 'outlandish' about current physical theories of what causes the phenomenon of gravity? 'Gravitons' are carefully calculated extrapolations from well-established theories which provide accurate frameworks describing the behaviour and properties of the other physical forces. Physics is not complete, but there is a vast amount of theory and data which provide a sound basis for explaining and predicting the vast majority of events which we observe everyday. The 'gaps' are at the extremes of scale and detail.

It would not be a matter of 'showing you' gravitons, it would be showing how their existence would help explain some observed aspect of gravity not otherwise covered.

All we have on the 'supernatural' side are series of poorly supported claims, which have zero ability to make sense of what happens in everyday life in any useful detail, let alone anything major.

The Bible doesn't even have God actually making stuff out of nothing, he has to make Adam out of dirt, Eve out of Adams rib, etc. So where did it it all come from?? Genesis doesn't explain it. Not only does Genesis lack any significant detail about the process of 'creation' - we don't expect an atom by atom account - the Bible wastes space and our patience with all that boring 'begat' stuff. All in all, a very uinimaginative and vastly overrated compilation, that book.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This is why I said you are evading answering the question. You provide no idea what you mean by a proof of interaction. 

My apologies.  There's always proof of interaction whether by personal account or otherwise... and yes for those of you who claim personal account is the only evidence, there is otherwise depending on what the situation may be.

It's not the personal account that we doubt, many people think they see something or interpret something but do so wrongly. The ability to reproduce or verify the claimed experience helps to give it some basis. I know of no one today that can do this for the claimed personal experiences that are claimed in the NT for example. Try as I will I don't see how water gets made into wine. The request is show proof of interaction you say is in the status of otherwise as you may really have seen an UFO but what is it you really observed? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Sure, God has made a difference to me, but if you look at my other posts, I have also used scientific, historical geographical etc. examples.  99% of those happenings had nothing to do with me but only further confirmed my belief.

Yes you have. Many Christians over the years have used science to further knowledge in addition to their beliefs in god ideas. It says that the god belief isn't enough for the inquisitive mind so more extensive research was needed. I don't fault people wanting to know more that investigate and research, only those that think they know it all through the god, or such as some religions if it's not part of the belief it's not required to understand. You have shown a thirst for knowledge which is a good thing.

caposkia wrote:

This page I've only more recently started giving more detail because I was waiting for further comments on the book.   I'm done waiting and it's obvious people still want to talk.

I don't think any new comments are forthcoming on the book unless you'd like to present a specific point to discuss. The last summary I did you were very short in your reply so I considered the discussion had probably ran it's course.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not looking. I'm responding to your claim that there is a god and his son was Jesus. My response is show me. Instead you continue to say you can't unless I accept personal experiences. 

You have to personally experience everything you learn.  If you didn't, you wouldn't learn it.  i don't mean hands on.  Part of the personal experience I"m expecting from you is if you get a peice of information, back it up with other claims.  If you can, it's more likely to be, if not, then back to square 1.  You'd also have to take into consideration the sources of each claim and their credibility.

That's the whole point of our discussion with you is to attempt to show you that you need to go back to square one. Square one is where the first errors occur in the claims in the OT. More on this later in the thread I'm hopefully starting today. I have to work sometimes which takes priority.

caposkia wrote:

Also, be it that God is a "personal God" yes, the only way to build a relationship with Him ultimately is personal!  That's really how he works!  I can give you all the information in the world that supports God and it means nothing if you don't personally seek out God.

This doesn't help in validating a god has basis but rather suggests other possibilities.

caposkia wrote:

The only reason you'd need to "see something" in this case is to ultimately use it to consider a greater understanding of something else.

Of course. The something else in this case being the inability to grasp a god has basis in reality.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Thank you for your admission of reliance on others, notably the writers of the Bible. I have suggested multiple times you need to evaluate this acceptance against other histories in the ancient world to consider its validity and accuracy. You said yourself you knew little about the Sumerians and other ancient history of various cultures. How can you accept the book you base your belief system upon  without adequately addressing the contradictions of many of the events and stories  when considered against other cultures?

that's where you misunderstand.  I have compared the stories and compared to other ancient beliefs and writings, just not the particular one you presented.

If you want to get technical, you relied on others just as much as I have (according to your presentation).  I know you didn't do all the research and excavations etc. and conclude from all those trips you took around the world to different cultures that God is not real.  

I have also expressed that it's not just the Bible that has helped me in my belief.  The Bible is just a summary.  

If you have compared the OT stories to the myths and legends of other cultures this is a good area to expand.

The major point I tried to make here was without the OT or Hebrew Bible there would be no basis for your belief in the god of Abe. The later derived versions of the NT and the Koran require the Hebrew Bible and myths as basis and so are not support. The other cultures discuss Yahweh as a god in the pantheon similar to Ba'al with a wife or Asherah. If all you had was the Canaanite culture and zero books of the OT and consequently no books in the NT where would you be in your beliefs?

In comparison one can read the cuneiform tablets and the ancient scrolls of the Egyptians and see a window into their history. There are interrelated stories between Assyria, Egypt, and others that one can use to verify their claims. This is not so with the supposed invasion of Canaan for example which is undocumented by others and in fact much discredited by both archeology and interrelated history of other cultures. There is again no support for the claimed great kingdoms of David and Solomon while many Pharaohs and kings of Assyria and Babylon are well documented by multiple sources including their enemies. 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:But that's

HisWillness wrote:

But that's not what observation shows. What has been observed is that there's an expansion from a point. "Big Bang" is a silly way to put it, but the actual observation is an expansion. So it's not absurd, it's just an observation. The point from which the expansion took place is still a mystery.

and yet, supposed "logical" minds won't consider God, but will consider... nothing.... nothing... then BOOM! everything. 

I'm not saying you are one of them, but so many seem to be so nieve.  I agree with the expansion observation.  I don't feel that in any way discredits my belief.

HisWillness wrote:

Because you're introducing certainty to overlay ignorance. You're not positing a hypothesis that could be falsified. First, we'd need to be more specific about the God part (because science requires that we can specifically describe the things we're talking about) and second, because the process of "creation" is another unknown that keeps us from falsifying the hypothesis. What is observed is an expansion. As to the cause of the expansion, or what happened before that, it's still a mystery. That doesn't mean that Wotan slips in there and makes the universe out of the ear of a Cosmic Turtle, that means we don't know.

right, you'll find that most followers of Christ (Who are actually knowlegable in the scriptures and the history mind you)  aren't just accepting God because there's nothing else or because it's a mystery.

HisWillness wrote:

Here's the main problem. You've reached a conclusion without any process of actually figuring out if you're right or not. Your conclusion has come from careful consideration of things you can't know (because nobody does). So how can I not argue with you?

Due to our knowlege of science today, my claims are backed up.  This in reference to my understanding of creation being a long process. 

HisWillness wrote:

Do you see the problem, yet? You can't know these things that you're forming conclusions about.

I see where you're coming from... but what am I concluding about that I can't know?

HisWillness wrote:

Oh, but we needed to know about all the "begats" for pages and pages. C'mon.

learn from the mistakes of the past right?  There's a reason one thing was detailed and other things were not.

HisWillness wrote:

You mean like an astrophysics journal? Because those are hard to read, and you might want a story, but if you persevered, you might get a better understanding.

so... you're saying astrophysics will clarify how mistakes of the past affect me today?

HisWillness wrote:

 

Probably not in an empiricist crowd that likes to read. Y'know, like a lot of us.

indeed


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You,

Brian37 wrote:

You, "MAGIC"

Us, "Rarity is a matter of odds and probability, not magic".

You're the only one here looking for smoke and mirrors. 

We've played the odds game, haven't you been watching?

Brian37 wrote:

You are still focused on the numbers being low when we are trying to tell you that LIFE IS RARE, not because of magic, but because the universe and biology produce more waste than it is productive in production.

really, sounded to me like many were trying to prove that the odds were quite good, not that life necessarily was rare, but extremely possible.

Brian37 wrote:

If you would skip your personal perception and holy book and cut to the CORE of OMNI attributes of all claimed "all powerful" god's in human history, the claimed "efficiency" of being "all powerful" from a logical standpoint would mean no waste at all, but that is not what we see in biological life, much less the universe.

and yet, matter is not created, nor destroyed.  There is no less energy in the universe today than there was at the beginning or at any point from the beginning on.

hmm.  matter quantity is consistant.... energy is constant, and look what is happening.  Energy is still being used without loss.  Matter is being formed and reformed without loss.... universally speaking... sounds like a very efficient machine to me. 

You can't take into consideration resources that are accessible to us when speaking universally.

Brian37 wrote:

If your goal as an "all powerful" being is to create life, you have it within your power to make every planet inhabitable and every life come to term.

sure, why not.

Brian37 wrote:

BUT in nature, we see mostly waste.

one man's junk is another man's gold.

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, we keep trying to tell you it is all in your head and that you fall for the same placebo trap that has been an unfortunate side effect of natural evolution of human psychology. It sounds good to you, and since you THINK that pattern works you would rather cling to that placebo, even if it is wrong, merely because it comforts you.

You always resort back to your safe zone.  That being the generic 'I'm right, you're wrong' defense that can be used by anyone from any belief regardless of how right or wrong they are. 

I've already talked about the comfort thing too.  You really don't follow well do you.

Brian37 wrote:

Energy transfer is not 100% efficient  and if your claimed being puts forth anything less than 100% efficiency, then the claim of "all powerful" and "perfect" are inconsistent  with such claims.

what does energy transfer have to do with God.... the one who would have created all of that to begin with?

Why would he create energy in such a way?  Why don't you ask the creator?  I'm not his scribe.  However, my theory might be for reliance and cycling.

Brian37 wrote:

The REAL reality is that YOU merely like what you believe and will twist logic to any degree beyond reason to hold the postition because it makes you feel good.

you're back in your safe zone again.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:So what did

BobSpence1 wrote:

So what did you have in mind in this response:

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

For example, if the requirements for primitive life to form included pools of warm salty water, how would life that could not survive in such conditions get started???

Ah!how indeed

I left it vague because there are many theories that have derived from such a statement.  One from a follower's point of view might be that the organism could be created to survive in the conditions present, or lack there of.

That kind of goes along with a scientific theory that organsims will form according to their surroundings, however there are also some basic understandings that must be considered like temperature, gravity, etc. 

Basically theories can range from the conditions will adapt over time, to the organisms needs adapt to what's available. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 You are letting pesky things like "evidence" get in the way.

Now just accept that fully grown adults pop out of dirt, GOD without a body or a penis got mary pregnant, and human flesh can survive rigor mortis, and you will understand where Cap is comming from.

Oh and always remember, "Words don't mean what they mean".

*singing* We live in a material world, and I am a material girl.  -Madonna-

Those are some outlandish physical claims there Brian.  I know you didn't get them from the Bible.  What are your sources. I'm still dying to know. 

How about them gravitons Brian.  Please show me one.  Otherwise, gravity does not exist.  I don't care if you can show me something will drop everytime you let it go, that's not enough for me.  You can't tell me that just because something drops on this earth, these graviton things are causing it to be so. 

 

Nice Jeffersonian backpeddling there. Ok, we both agree that they ARE outlandish claims, good, then that means YOU are in the minority of what Christians believe. So You and Thomas Jefferson like the motifs of moral stories stripped of the magic. SO?

This is where "words don't mean what they mean" is a bullshit argument and where the goal posts always seems to move at the whims of the believer.

YOU and Thomas Jefferson, no matter what version you like to sink your teeth into, still have the problem of the concept of an "omni" being.

He too denied the virgin birth and death of Jesus as being magic, which most Christians still today believe. BUT what you DONT realize is that Jefferson only looked at his generic god as a starter, not an intervention. Jefferson also found morality in Plato and Socrates and if alive today would find morality in Star Wars and Harry Potter.

This is why I don't focus on "version" of bible, but the attributes of powers of such a claimed being that the claimant claims their claimed god has.

WHAT DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE are the powers of your claimed being? I do not want you to regurgitate what you read in a book. I want your personal assessment without a hand up your back telling you what to say.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 You are letting pesky things like "evidence" get in the way.

Now just accept that fully grown adults pop out of dirt, GOD without a body or a penis got mary pregnant, and human flesh can survive rigor mortis, and you will understand where Cap is comming from.

Oh and always remember, "Words don't mean what they mean".

*singing* We live in a material world, and I am a material girl.  -Madonna-

Those are some outlandish physical claims there Brian.  I know you didn't get them from the Bible.  What are your sources. I'm still dying to know. 

How about them gravitons Brian.  Please show me one.  Otherwise, gravity does not exist.  I don't care if you can show me something will drop everytime you let it go, that's not enough for me.  You can't tell me that just because something drops on this earth, these graviton things are causing it to be so. 

 

You don't know your Bible at all, do you, Cap? Smiling

If you're saying that in reference to me asking Brian for a graviton, I actually stole that defense from him.  It was an empty defense just to clarify that his approach really holds no relevence to his belief.  It isn't supported in the Bible of course and it's not supported in science. 

If it's in reference to Brian not getting his evidence from the Bible, then you apparently know it less than I. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: Just what

BobSpence1 wrote:

 Just what is 'outlandish' about current physical theories of what causes the phenomenon of gravity?

If I remember correctly, that quote was in reference to his Godsperm theory and not gravity.

'Gravitons' are carefully calculated extrapolations from well-established theories which provide accurate frameworks describing the behaviour and properties of the other physical forces. Physics is not complete, but there is a vast amount of theory and data which provide a sound basis for explaining and predicting the vast majority of events which we observe everyday. The 'gaps' are at the extremes of scale and detail.

It would not be a matter of 'showing you' gravitons, it would be showing how their existence would help explain some observed aspect of gravity not otherwise covered.

Thank you for that.  It was exactly my point.  For Brian, it's not a matter of "showing him God DNA", it would be showing how His existence would help explain some observed aspects of our observable life and universe. 

There are many well educated individuals that could present a sound basis for God.  I have made many references in other forums, e.g. science vs. religion among others I believe... what is yet not covered or referenced, I will do my best to reference a reliable resource.  I obviously don't have all the answers.

BobSpence1 wrote:

All we have on the 'supernatural' side are series of poorly supported claims, which have zero ability to make sense of what happens in everyday life in any useful detail, let alone anything major.

you aparently don't do much research.  Also, supernatural doesn't explain Christ.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The Bible doesn't even have God actually making stuff out of nothing, he has to make Adam out of dirt, Eve out of Adams rib, etc. So where did it it all come from?? Genesis doesn't explain it. Not only does Genesis lack any significant detail about the process of 'creation' - we don't expect an atom by atom account - the Bible wastes space and our patience with all that boring 'begat' stuff. All in all, a very uinimaginative and vastly overrated compilation, that book.

Explain to me why it would need to detail that information? 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It's not the personal account that we doubt, many people think they see something or interpret something but do so wrongly. The ability to reproduce or verify the claimed experience helps to give it some basis. I know of no one today that can do this for the claimed personal experiences that are claimed in the NT for example. Try as I will I don't see how water gets made into wine. The request is show proof of interaction you say is in the status of otherwise as you may really have seen an UFO but what is it you really observed? 

It is understood that Jesus did many things that people are never given credit for doing even in scripture.  What of the claims today? 

Before you ask me what claims, what claims are you aware of?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 I don't think any new comments are forthcoming on the book unless you'd like to present a specific point to discuss. The last summary I did you were very short in your reply so I considered the discussion had probably ran it's course.

I feel this forum pretty much has.  Though people still seem interested in discussing random topics, so I"m game.  I'm looking forward to anyone willing to open a forum on a specific ground.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not looking. I'm responding to your claim that there is a god and his son was Jesus. My response is show me. Instead you continue to say you can't unless I accept personal experiences. 

...among the evidences in history, science, geology, etc.  You cant' take one source and say it's enough.  I wouldn't expect that of anyone.  Personal experiences are a start.  History is written down and we are knowlegable of it becasue of personal experiences.  What you'd need to do is take one experience and study it.  Scrutinize it against the elements.  If it holds water, then it's probably legitimate. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That's the whole point of our discussion with you is to attempt to show you that you need to go back to square one. Square one is where the first errors occur in the claims in the OT. More on this later in the thread I'm hopefully starting today. I have to work sometimes which takes priority.

Understood.  Square 1 is also the place you need to go back to when you realize there is a mistake in your understanding.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This doesn't help in validating a god has basis but rather suggests other possibilities.

The first step is accepting a spiritual world.  That then of course would open many other possibilities.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Of course. The something else in this case being the inability to grasp a god has basis in reality.

See what has happened and see what is happening in the world.  Don't focus necessarily on the actions of people and the outcomes of people's actions, though they are prophesied in scripture.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If you have compared the OT stories to the myths and legends of other cultures this is a good area to expand.

The major point I tried to make here was without the OT or Hebrew Bible there would be no basis for your belief in the god of Abe. The later derived versions of the NT and the Koran require the Hebrew Bible and myths as basis and so are not support. The other cultures discuss Yahweh as a god in the pantheon similar to Ba'al with a wife or Asherah. If all you had was the Canaanite culture and zero books of the OT and consequently no books in the NT where would you be in your beliefs?

Same place anyone would be without their own history.

To take away the Bible, and any books outside the Bible that would reference to Biblical claims is to erase a particular history.  Where would we as Americans be without American history? 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In comparison one can read the cuneiform tablets and the ancient scrolls of the Egyptians and see a window into their history. There are interrelated stories between Assyria, Egypt, and others that one can use to verify their claims. This is not so with the supposed invasion of Canaan for example which is undocumented by others and in fact much discredited by both archeology and interrelated history of other cultures. There is again no support for the claimed great kingdoms of David and Solomon while many Pharaohs and kings of Assyria and Babylon are well documented by multiple sources including their enemies. 

Many Pharaohs and Kings went out of their way to make sure their reign was documented so that they would forever be known and remembered.  It was important for them to make sure "their legacy lived on". 

when you reference to absense of things written in local histories.  I can't specify now, but I've researched some of those. (I can't specify because I can't remember at the moment what the focus was)  There were many situations where a history may not have been documented by a culture, yet there was a gap in thier historical records in general.  Ironically those gaps would always fall in the place where that missing information should be that we were looking for. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Nice

Brian37 wrote:

Nice Jeffersonian backpeddling there. Ok, we both agree that they ARE outlandish claims, good, then that means YOU are in the minority of what Christians believe. So You and Thomas Jefferson like the motifs of moral stories stripped of the magic. SO?

This is where "words don't mean what they mean" is a bullshit argument and where the goal posts always seems to move at the whims of the believer.

YOU and Thomas Jefferson, no matter what version you like to sink your teeth into, still have the problem of the concept of an "omni" being.

He too denied the virgin birth and death of Jesus as being magic, which most Christians still today believe. BUT what you DONT realize is that Jefferson only looked at his generic god as a starter, not an intervention. Jefferson also found morality in Plato and Socrates and if alive today would find morality in Star Wars and Harry Potter.

This is why I don't focus on "version" of bible, but the attributes of powers of such a claimed being that the claimant claims their claimed god has.

WHAT DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE are the powers of your claimed being? I do not want you to regurgitate what you read in a book. I want your personal assessment without a hand up your back telling you what to say.

I'm glad to finally see you ask a legimate question.  What exactly are you looking for as an answer though.  When you ask what I believe are the powers, do you mean, what is the source of the power?  I could not answer that.  Do you mean is it electric or wind or another form of energy?  I could not answer that either.  How powerful is that power?  It's beyond anything I've ever seen or experienced. 

How then do I know it exists?  I've experienced it, and just to make sure I wasn't insane, I've backed it up with other claims of experience and researched God and how his power works and in what ways He works.  All the peices fit into place. 

I fear you're looking for a material answer to that and logically I wouldn't be able to do that. 

Did I misunderstand your question?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:and yet,

caposkia wrote:
and yet, supposed "logical" minds won't consider God, but will consider... nothing.... nothing... then BOOM! everything.

No. What logical minds consider: we-don't-know ... we-don't-know ... we-don't-know ... something. That's very different from "nothing", which would be a positive statement regarding what came before what we've observed. It's not "nothing", it's "we don't know".

caposkia wrote:
I agree with the expansion observation.  I don't feel that in any way discredits my belief.

I don't think so, either. I think what discredits your belief is a lack of observed "God".

caposkia wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
Do you see the problem, yet? You can't know these things that you're forming conclusions about.

I see where you're coming from... but what am I concluding about that I can't know?

We don't know what happened before the expansion started. You're forming a conclusion that it was started by God, an entity that you seem well familiar with, despite its absence. Your conclusion also states that you're aware of the original circumstances of the universe, despite the fact that nobody actually knows what those circumstances were. Thus, you're forming conclusions about things you can't possibly know.

caposkia wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

Oh, but we needed to know about all the "begats" for pages and pages. C'mon.

learn from the mistakes of the past right?  There's a reason one thing was detailed and other things were not.

It's more likely that it's the tradition of genealogy than of godly need. What do we learn from the past from a list of names? When you say "mistake", do you mean "Don't name your kid 'Mizrakhaled'"?

caposkia wrote:
so... you're saying astrophysics will clarify how mistakes of the past affect me today?

Nope, astrophysics will only clarify the topic to which it is limited. E.g. the known (or theorized) conditions at the beginning of time/space.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It's not the personal account that we doubt, many people think they see something or interpret something but do so wrongly. The ability to reproduce or verify the claimed experience helps to give it some basis. I know of no one today that can do this for the claimed personal experiences that are claimed in the NT for example. Try as I will I don't see how water gets made into wine. The request is show proof of interaction you say is in the status of otherwise as you may really have seen an UFO but what is it you really observed? 

It is understood that Jesus did many things that people are never given credit for doing even in scripture.  What of the claims today? 

Before you ask me what claims, what claims are you aware of?

No, it's not understood Jesus did anything at all. It is claimed he did, as does Brian and full size Lamborghini's.

1)I'm aware my Evangelical Christian sister claims she sees angels and ghosts. They reassure her and some harass her she says.

2)This Christian website seems to suggest miracles aren't around any more and ceased as per 1 Cor 13:10 when God's revelation was complete. See Here.  And here.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That's the whole point of our discussion with you is to attempt to show you that you need to go back to square one. Square one is where the first errors occur in the claims in the OT. More on this later in the thread I'm hopefully starting today. I have to work sometimes which takes priority.

Understood.  Square 1 is also the place you need to go back to when you realize there is a mistake in your understanding.

And therein lies the problem doesn't? We are blind to that which is not there to see yet many see that which does not exist.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This doesn't help in validating a god has basis but rather suggests other possibilities.

The first step is accepting a spiritual world.  That then of course would open many other possibilities.

No, one can't accept something which can't be detected as that means you will accept anything to explain that which you can't know if it self justifies your desires. Desire in this case is that there be something more than what you can see and understand in this world. Is life a waste if you live and learn for 80 years and then die and all of your learning is dissipated as in RAM memory when the power is removed? The desire that this is not the case is added with the fear of death and the need to know the answer to the question, is there nothing more?. Hence inadequate explanations and emotions drive one to accept that which does not exist.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Of course. The something else in this case being the inability to grasp a god has basis in reality.

See what has happened and see what is happening in the world.  Don't focus necessarily on the actions of people and the outcomes of people's actions, though they are prophesied in scripture.

Scripture is construed in many ways to assert a prophecy has relevance. I have yet to see one that has basis in the real world.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If you have compared the OT stories to the myths and legends of other cultures this is a good area to expand.

The major point I tried to make here was without the OT or Hebrew Bible there would be no basis for your belief in the god of Abe. The later derived versions of the NT and the Koran require the Hebrew Bible and myths as basis and so are not support. The other cultures discuss Yahweh as a god in the pantheon similar to Ba'al with a wife or Asherah. If all you had was the Canaanite culture and zero books of the OT and consequently no books in the NT where would you be in your beliefs?

Same place anyone would be without their own history.

To take away the Bible, and any books outside the Bible that would reference to Biblical claims is to erase a particular history.  Where would we as Americans be without American history? 

ZIP! Went right by you did it!

You make the claim that one can or must detect or accept the spiritual world. If this is something you can do or others, then what need is there for a history? You should be able to show the case for God and associates without such history as the Bible.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In comparison one can read the cuneiform tablets and the ancient scrolls of the Egyptians and see a window into their history. There are interrelated stories between Assyria, Egypt, and others that one can use to verify their claims. This is not so with the supposed invasion of Canaan for example which is undocumented by others and in fact much discredited by both archeology and interrelated history of other cultures. There is again no support for the claimed great kingdoms of David and Solomon while many Pharaohs and kings of Assyria and Babylon are well documented by multiple sources including their enemies. 

Many Pharaohs and Kings went out of their way to make sure their reign was documented so that they would forever be known and remembered.  It was important for them to make sure "their legacy lived on". 

when you reference to absense of things written in local histories.  I can't specify now, but I've researched some of those. (I can't specify because I can't remember at the moment what the focus was)  There were many situations where a history may not have been documented by a culture, yet there was a gap in thier historical records in general.  Ironically those gaps would always fall in the place where that missing information should be that we were looking for. 

As I mentioned, many enemies made mention of other countries including perhaps Israel, though no details of the religion and fables of such were generally described.

In the case of several of the major OT stories there is incredible lack of inclusion not to mention impossibilities due to other constraints which generally will exclude the OT story from our dimension of reality.

We will discuss this in far greater detail in the thread I'm posting later tonight. I have the OP just about ready and will post a link to it here in your thread.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:To take away the

Quote:
To take away the Bible, and any books outside the Bible that would reference to Biblical claims is to erase a particular history.  Where would we as Americans be without American history?

Typical rivisionist crap. The founders were a vairiety of beliefs, the one most important amendment was inspired by Thomas Jefferson who whose Virgina Religious Freedom act became the prototype for the First Amendment.

The Age of Enlightenment was a 180 from the authoritarian church run kingships of Europe. It was a REJECTION of dogmatic rule. And the subsiquent Revolution was a result of this INDEPENDENT thinking. YOUR OWN MIND, NOT A GOD, was the freedom of conscience.

OUR Constitution is based on humans runing government, not gods. While the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, it is not a protectionist law document giving special rights of Christians over all others.

The First Amendment is a direct contradiction to the First Commandment "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me". I can believe in Allah, Thor, Vishnu or nothing.

NOW, if you want to claim that Christianity helped shape our government, I agree it did, because before our Constitution YOU were required by law to give to the church, and there WERE laws against blasphemy in the colonies before the Revolution. If anything the negative authoritarian rule that the founders rejected influenced them to write a solid law rejecting religious rule.

If you want to take credit for Christianity theocratic rule in Europe and the Americas pre revolution shaping our Constitution, that is the only credit you can give it and it is NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF.

Stop selling this crap that Christianity invented morality and that it's history has always been peaches and cream.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Cap,I started a new thread

Cap,

I started a new thread to discuss the issues of the OT as myth versus reality.

See:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17279

I hope to see you there for extensive discussion.

PJTS

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:HisWillness

caposkia wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

But that's not what observation shows. What has been observed is that there's an expansion from a point. "Big Bang" is a silly way to put it, but the actual observation is an expansion. So it's not absurd, it's just an observation. The point from which the expansion took place is still a mystery.

and yet, supposed "logical" minds won't consider God, but will consider... nothing.... nothing... then BOOM! everything. 

I'm not saying you are one of them, but so many seem to be so nieve.  I agree with the expansion observation.  I don't feel that in any way discredits my belief.

Can't help commenting here.

There was no 'point' within our Universe that the expansion started from - that could only possibly make sense from the perspective of some 'metaverse' within which our Universe 'originated'.

But the major misconception is that the Big Bang proposes that "nothing... then BOOM! everything".

Rather it is that it began some intensely concentrated virtual 'point' of raw energy composed of probably two complemetary kinds, one corresponding to gravitational energy, which is logically negative, and one corresponding to the 'positive' energy of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. This would have had a nett zero amount of total energy., thus preserving the basic conservation laws. This is obviously conceptually difficult in everyday terms, just as are the phenomena of Quantum Mechanics.

Whatever the origin of this 'fireball', it was virtually structureless, it contained no entities corresponding to the stars, galaxies, planets and life forms we see today. These emerged over the billions of years since - so not the sudden appearance implied by the "BOOM! everything" expression.

There is certainly nothing contradicting 'logic' here, just circumstances and conditions utterly beyond our actual experience, but with a significant body of actual observational data and calculation to back it up.

It is the God theory which has all the logical problems, despite its appeal to those who can accept magical thinking, such as a 'consciousness' that can just 'will' something into existence, and has the logically problematic attributes of infinite extent and with no requirement for an explanation how something conscious and of infinite extent could come to exist. Much more problematic than a tiny featureless point of energy, whatever problems its origins may pose.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:No. What

HisWillness wrote:

No. What logical minds consider: we-don't-know ... we-don't-know ... we-don't-know ... something. That's very different from "nothing", which would be a positive statement regarding what came before what we've observed. It's not "nothing", it's "we don't know".

I know that and so do you, but there are many who claim "nothing" and yet scoff at my belief.

HisWillness wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I agree with the expansion observation.  I don't feel that in any way discredits my belief.

I don't think so, either. I think what discredits your belief is a lack of observed "God".

Millions around the world experience God every day.  Where's the lack?  Just because they don't visually see Him doesn't mean He's not there. 

HisWillness wrote:

We don't know what happened before the expansion started. You're forming a conclusion that it was started by God, an entity that you seem well familiar with, despite its absence. Your conclusion also states that you're aware of the original circumstances of the universe, despite the fact that nobody actually knows what those circumstances were. Thus, you're forming conclusions about things you can't possibly know.

If I know God and know that He's real, there's no reason for me to doubt Him.

I have not formed any conclusion, but reiterated what I've learned by building a relationship with God.

You claim he's absent, yet I talk to Him daily.  Maybe He's absent in your life.  You have to invite Him.

HisWillness wrote:

Oh, but we needed to know about all the "begats" for pages and pages. C'mon.

Some people are more stubborn than others. 

Keep in mind too the Bible was put together as a book the way it is by people.  It's not everything there is to know, just what's important to understand.

In this instance, it's important to understand that regardless of the understanding of the mistakes of others, still people will do the same stupid thing!

HisWillness wrote:

It's more likely that it's the tradition of genealogy than of godly need. What do we learn from the past from a list of names? When you say "mistake", do you mean "Don't name your kid 'Mizrakhaled'"?

That could be one of them... you ever try to talk with a sprained tongue? 

The list of names is just to understand the progression of the speicific families to what happend next.  Most people aren't so concerned about that detail, but it's interesting to understand that progression.  For the Jews, it better helps them understand their ancestery. 

HisWillness wrote:

Nope, astrophysics will only clarify the topic to which it is limited. E.g. the known (or theorized) conditions at the beginning of time/space.

Then I guess that's set. 

OT is good in all, but there would be no debate on the origins if either side had enough scientific evidence to support their Theory. 

People who learn of God and build a relationship with Him understand it was His hand at creation, no one still will ever understand quite how He did it.  Either way, that detail really isn't important.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hi Cap,Scoff at your

Hi Cap,

Scoff at your beliefs? No. I do wonder why you worship the creation over the creator, though.

As far experiencing God, I think the problem is that , biochemicallly, the God experience is similar to good dope or great sex. Why wouldn't God want experiencing him to be a unique sensation?

If you know God? Really? How did that happen? How did you and God make the jump from faith/belief to knowledge? Why is it impossible for believers who make this claim to articulate this knowledge? I won't get into "What does God sound like?" because that just leads to "oh you hear him with your (earless) spirit". My question is more "How does talking to God differ from thinking out loud and coming to a course of action?"

As to the Bible, why can you accept its being compiled by men but not written/created by them?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:No,

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No, it's not understood Jesus did anything at all. It is claimed he did, as does Brian and full size Lamborghini's.

Thus history is also claimed, though it is understood by those claims to be true.  Some sources more credible than others.  Yet credible sources are not believed constantly, just look through history and see... that is, if you believe those claims. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1)I'm aware my Evangelical Christian sister claims she sees angels and ghosts. They reassure her and some harass her she says.

2)This Christian website seems to suggest miracles aren't around any more and ceased as per 1 Cor 13:10 when God's revelation was complete. See Here.  And here.

The fact that they use 1 Cor 13:10 to defend that claim automatically makes me question their credibility due to the fact that the focus of the chapter was to explain that everything will perish but love.  

Granted there is much speculation among believers as to "when" that would be referring to.  It's my understanding that the when wasn't implied because it's not relevent to what is being discussed here. 

We'd also need to take into consideration that if 13:10 was true, then so should everything listed in 13:8.  This would include knowlege.  Are they claiming knowlege isn't around anymore either?  Remember what I was saying about taking scripture out of context? 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

And therein lies the problem doesn't? We are blind to that which is not there to see yet many see that which does not exist.

is someone concluding about something they don't know? 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No, one can't accept something which can't be detected as that means you will accept anything to explain that which you can't know if it self justifies your desires. Desire in this case is that there be something more than what you can see and understand in this world. Is life a waste if you live and learn for 80 years and the n die and all of your learning is dissipated as in RAM memory when the power is removed? The desire that this is not the case is added with the fear of death and the need to know the answer to the question, is there nothing more?. Hence inadequate explanations and emotions drive one to accept that which does not exist.

...or not accept that which does exist.... either way.

Ecclesiastes is a good book for you to read.  

It can't be detected because you've narrowed down the sources of detection to only material.  You can find evidence in that, but of course you'll have to rely on accounts from historians and geologists and also believers.  Those scientists that are believers, well, you'll have to consider their studies as well.    It's becoming clear that the accounts of others are not a credible source, therefore, material is not the way you'll discover God.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Scripture is construed in many ways to assert a prophecy has relevance. I have yet to see one that has basis in the real world.

See what Jesus spoke of the future, then look around.

 

Also look into history and then the prophesies there as well.  I do challenge you to compare them to prophesies of other beliefs.  Some may have had a happening, but it's not usually what they claim will happen.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

ZIP! Went right by you did it!

You make the claim that one can or must detect or accept the spiritual world. If this is something you can do or others, then what need is there for a history? You should be able to show the case for God and associates without such history as the Bible.

actually, I think you missed it.  What I meant is even if you take american history away from americans, we'd still be here wouldn't we. 

In other words, Christians would still exist without the Bible.  We could show the case of God.  I have been slowly trying to figure out how to approach that with you for a while now.  The trouble is, I can't seem to get you out of the physical. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As I mentioned, many enemies made mention of other countries including perhaps Israel, though no details of the religion and fables of such were generally described.

Do they have information in the place of what should have been those religions?  If so, what?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In the case of several of the major OT stories there is incredible lack of inclusion not to mention impossibilities due to other constraints which generally will exclude the OT story from our dimension of reality.

We will discuss this in far greater detail in the thread I'm posting later tonight. I have the OP just about ready and will post a link to it here in your thread.

Looking forward to it, thanks


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Scoff at your

jcgadfly wrote:

Scoff at your beliefs? No. I do wonder why you worship the creation over the creator, though.

...I don't

jcgadfly wrote:

As far experiencing God, I think the problem is that , biochemicallly, the God experience is similar to good dope or great sex. Why wouldn't God want experiencing him to be a unique sensation?

If you know God? Really? How did that happen? How did you and God make the jump from faith/belief to knowledge? Why is it impossible for believers who make this claim to articulate this knowledge? I won't get into "What does God sound like?" because that just leads to "oh you hear him with your (earless) spirit". My question is more "How does talking to God differ from thinking out loud and coming to a course of action?"

I invited Christ into my life by accepting what He had done for me.  I chose to follow him. 

...Articulate what knowlege? 

As opposed to talking out loud and coming to a course of action, results or things happen that are beyond your own accord.

jcgadfly wrote:

As to the Bible, why can you accept its being compiled by men but not written/created by them?

As said by many non-believers, people back then were quite ignorant of many things we know today.  There is a lot of knowlege in that book that is beyond what those people should understand or could possibly understand at that time.

Also:

There are millions of accounts over thousands of years supporting scriptural claims.

The Bible is also the only historical document that has been so excessively and accurately translated.  There are literally thousands of copies through thousands of years.  All of them are pretty near identical.  No other historical document can hold such a claim, yet to non-believers, there is much more important information out there.  Why were such important documents of the past not accounted for so carefully as the Bible? 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Typical

Brian37 wrote:

Typical rivisionist crap. The founders were a vairiety of beliefs, the one most important amendment was inspired by Thomas Jefferson who whose Virgina Religious Freedom act became the prototype for the First Amendment.

The Age of Enlightenment was a 180 from the authoritarian church run kingships of Europe. It was a REJECTION of dogmatic rule. And the subsiquent Revolution was a result of this INDEPENDENT thinking. YOUR OWN MIND, NOT A GOD, was the freedom of conscience.

OUR Constitution is based on humans runing government, not gods. While the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, it is not a protectionist law document giving special rights of Christians over all others.

The First Amendment is a direct contradiction to the First Commandment "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me". I can believe in Allah, Thor, Vishnu or nothing.

NOW, if you want to claim that Christianity helped shape our government, I agree it did, because before our Constitution YOU were required by law to give to the church, and there WERE laws against blasphemy in the colonies before the Revolution. If anything the negative authoritarian rule that the founders rejected influenced them to write a solid law rejecting religious rule.

If you want to take credit for Christianity theocratic rule in Europe and the Americas pre revolution shaping our Constitution, that is the only credit you can give it and it is NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF.

Stop selling this crap that Christianity invented morality and that it's history has always been peaches and cream.

You get all that from "where would America be without American History"?! 

wow.

anyway, The Constitution was written in such a way so as to leave people a choice.  It doesn't say you have to follow Christianity and follow those commandments because if it did, it would be going against scripture. 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Scoff at your beliefs? No. I do wonder why you worship the creation over the creator, though.

...I don't

jcgadfly wrote:

As far experiencing God, I think the problem is that , biochemicallly, the God experience is similar to good dope or great sex. Why wouldn't God want experiencing him to be a unique sensation?

If you know God? Really? How did that happen? How did you and God make the jump from faith/belief to knowledge? Why is it impossible for believers who make this claim to articulate this knowledge? I won't get into "What does God sound like?" because that just leads to "oh you hear him with your (earless) spirit". My question is more "How does talking to God differ from thinking out loud and coming to a course of action?"

I invited Christ into my life by accepting what He had done for me.  I chose to follow him. 

...Articulate what knowlege? 

As opposed to talking out loud and coming to a course of action, results or things happen that are beyond your own accord.

jcgadfly wrote:

As to the Bible, why can you accept its being compiled by men but not written/created by them?

As said by many non-believers, people back then were quite ignorant of many things we know today.  There is a lot of knowlege in that book that is beyond what those people should understand or could possibly understand at that time.

Also:

There are millions of accounts over thousands of years supporting scriptural claims.

The Bible is also the only historical document that has been so excessively and accurately translated.  There are literally thousands of copies through thousands of years.  All of them are pretty near identical.  No other historical document can hold such a claim, yet to non-believers, there is much more important information out there.  Why were such important documents of the past not accounted for so carefully as the Bible? 

You don't? What makes your God not a creation of men like the others? The book that men wrote (allegedly by their God's inspiration) that says he's not?

If you know something shouldn't you be able to teach someone else, sharing that knowledge? As no theist that I've met has been able to talk about this god they know intinately in any but the vaguest of terms I have to think that what you have is belief trying to pass itself off as knowledge.

There was also a lot that was just flat out wrong in the Bible - an omniscient deity couldn't get his ghost writers good information?

Millions of accounts over thousands of years supporting Scripture? I need to read one (just to see how badly Scripture or the claim got stretched to match each other).

You also can't make the claim of accurate translation of the Bible as we no longer have the originals and don't have a clue to what they actually said. Not the translators were as close as you think they were to begin with...

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Millions

caposkia wrote:
Millions around the world experience God every day.  Where's the lack?  Just because they don't visually see Him doesn't mean He's not there.

Actually, that's pretty close. They also cannot touch Him or smell Him, etc. In fact, there is no way to distinguish God from a figment of someone's imagination or a hallucination.

caposkia wrote:
If I know God and know that He's real, there's no reason for me to doubt Him.

Oh, I'm sorry -- I'm talking about knowledge in a more stringent sense. Like making a prediction and then watching it either come true or not.

caposkia wrote:
You claim he's absent, yet I talk to Him daily.

But does He respond?

caposkia wrote:
In this instance, it's important to understand that regardless of the understanding of the mistakes of others, still people will do the same stupid thing!

It probably would have been better if you had written the Bible, then. I think that was clearer.

caposkia wrote:
OT is good in all, but there would be no debate on the origins if either side had enough scientific evidence to support their Theory.

I'm sorry, what? Either side? On one side, you have a collection of scientists gathering scientific data, and on the other "side", you have someone reading a book unrelated to a scientific epistemology, and you want to equate them? That seems lopsided.

caposkia wrote:
People who learn of God and build a relationship with Him understand it was His hand at creation, no one still will ever understand quite how He did it.  Either way, that detail really isn't important.

That's it, eh? You just want to give up? Don't really want to know anything new, just forget about it, because we'll never know?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You don't?

jcgadfly wrote:

You don't? What makes your God not a creation of men like the others? The book that men wrote (allegedly by their God's inspiration) that says he's not?

Ah, good question.  This because most religion has a scroll that is supposedly divinely inspired. 

There are tons of things that support my belief in the scriptures.  This includes the prophesies that have come true and are coming true.  Also the prophesies about Jesus.  (This of course goes back to the question of whether Jesus was real which is proven in secular history.)  Also, this has logical information about all aspects of life and is supported so in what we understand of each aspect today. (This also taking into consideration the idea of when it is estimated each story was written and whether it was possible or not for just anyone to do what Jesus did and whether it was possible that they just as people could predict other prophesies beyond Jesus as accurately as they did) 

Prophesies from other religions have not come to be as they claimed. e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses claiming the world is going to end in 1914.... er... 1915.... er... wait... it was 1925 that it was suppose to end... no wait... we were mistaken.  Actually it was 1975.   I think you get my point. 

Also, many of the larger religions out there are shown to have taken their "wisdom" and "divine inspiration" from the Bible and other scripts that coenside with the Bible.  The book "The Next Christiandom" shows how many of the worlds major religions derived from a Jewish or Chrisitan belief.  (and to say it's just one persons account, he has about 20 pages of references in his book)

This just to name a few things.  Beyond that, I have a relationship with God and understand that the Bible is written according to His will. 

jcgadfly wrote:

If you know something shouldn't you be able to teach someone else, sharing that knowledge? As no theist that I've met has been able to talk about this god they know intinately in any but the vaguest of terms I have to think that what you have is belief trying to pass itself off as knowledge.

What exactly are you looking for when you hear theists "talk about God"?

jcgadfly wrote:

There was also a lot that was just flat out wrong in the Bible - an omniscient deity couldn't get his ghost writers good information?

What was flat out wrong in the Bible?  Was it wrong or written in a way that the people of the time would understand?

Think about it, God could have told them about cars, but what good would that have done them?  They first of all would have no use for the information, and second of all, they wouldn't be able to understand it enough to make it matter anyway. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Millions of accounts over thousands of years supporting Scripture? I need to read one (just to see how badly Scripture or the claim got stretched to match each other).

compare and contrast.  I do question whether you're goign to take an account of a cult-like religion today and say that Christianity got it wrong.   Name an account! 

Basically what you'd need to do is take a particular account in the Bible, understand it to the point where you won't misrepresent it yourself, then look in history according to when the account could have been taking place.  It could be present day, it could be an account that hasn't happened since Jesus. 

jcgadfly wrote:

You also can't make the claim of accurate translation of the Bible as we no longer have the originals and don't have a clue to what they actually said. Not the translators were as close as you think they were to begin with...

Actually, we can make a pretty sure assumption that the translations are accurate be it that not only are there thousands of translations through thousands of years that are almost identical, but it is the most accurately translated historical script according to those thousands of translations found.  It is understood by that that careful consideration was taken by most of the translators through the years.  Though we don't have the originals, because of that consistency, it's clearly understood that what we have was just as carefully translated. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Actually,

HisWillness wrote:

Actually, that's pretty close. They also cannot touch Him or smell Him, etc. In fact, there is no way to distinguish God from a figment of someone's imagination or a hallucination.

They can feel His effects and presence. 

Let's put it this way, you can't touch or smell gravity, but it's there because we can feel and see its effects.... or is it a figment of our imagination?

jcgadfly wrote:

Oh, I'm sorry -- I'm talking about knowledge in a more stringent sense. Like making a prediction and then watching it either come true or not

You don't look into history much do you.  How about look around?  a lot of what's happening today has been predicted... Not just how people are acting and the governments either.  That's just one of many.  How about how old people are and how old they have become according to our records.

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:
You claim he's absent, yet I talk to Him daily.
Quote:

But does He respond?

yes.  oh... no wait... it's my imagination again right? Eye-wink

jcgadfly wrote:

It probably would have been better if you had written the Bible, then. I think that was clearer.

There are paraphrased versions of scripture that make it clearer in modern English.  You just can't use those to analize scripture closely.  It just gives you a better general idea of the story.

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm sorry, what? Either side? On one side, you have a collection of scientists gathering scientific data, and on the other "side", you have someone reading a book unrelated to a scientific epistemology, and you want to equate them? That seems lopsided.

Your claim is lopsided.  There is a collection of scientists that "gather scientific data" that hold to the Biblical account even with everything they know in science.

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:
People who learn of God and build a relationship with Him understand it was His hand at creation, no one still will ever understand quite how He did it.  Either way, that detail really isn't important.
Quote:

That's it, eh? You just want to give up? Don't really want to know anything new, just forget about it, because we'll never know?

So... lemme get this strait.  when a non-believer or scientist says "we don't know yet and we may never know" they're not giving up, but when I say the same thing, I'm giving up?   This would be in reference to what is before the Big Bang or exactly how did the Big Bang happen.   Unless you're saying that science is giving up on itself for all the unknowns that might never be known, you can't claim that about me.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:HisWillness

caposkia wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Actually, that's pretty close. They also cannot touch Him or smell Him, etc. In fact, there is no way to distinguish God from a figment of someone's imagination or a hallucination.

They can feel His effects and presence. 

Let's put it this way, you can't touch or smell gravity, but it's there because we can feel and see its effects.... or is it a figment of our imagination?

jcgadfly wrote:

Oh, I'm sorry -- I'm talking about knowledge in a more stringent sense. Like making a prediction and then watching it either come true or not

You don't look into history much do you.  How about look around?  a lot of what's happening today has been predicted... Not just how people are acting and the governments either.  That's just one of many.  How about how old people are and how old they have become according to our records.

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:
You claim he's absent, yet I talk to Him daily.

But does He respond?

yes.  oh... no wait... it's my imagination again right? Eye-wink

jcgadfly wrote:

It probably would have been better if you had written the Bible, then. I think that was clearer.

There are paraphrased versions of scripture that make it clearer in modern English.  You just can't use those to analize scripture closely.  It just gives you a better general idea of the story.

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm sorry, what? Either side? On one side, you have a collection of scientists gathering scientific data, and on the other "side", you have someone reading a book unrelated to a scientific epistemology, and you want to equate them? That seems lopsided.

Your claim is lopsided.  There is a collection of scientists that "gather scientific data" that hold to the Biblical account even with everything they know in science.

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:
People who learn of God and build a relationship with Him understand it was His hand at creation, no one still will ever understand quite how He did it.  Either way, that detail really isn't important.

That's it, eh? You just want to give up? Don't really want to know anything new, just forget about it, because we'll never know?

So... lemme get this strait.  when a non-believer or scientist says "we don't know yet and we may never know" they're not giving up, but when I say the same thing, I'm giving up?   This would be in reference to what is before the Big Bang or exactly how did the Big Bang happen.   Unless you're saying that science is giving up on itself for all the unknowns that might never be known, you can't claim that about me.

1. I'm glad you mentioned history when looking at Biblical predictions (especially for Jesus) because that's what the gospel writers did - they went throught the history and made Jesus match it. As for the happenings of the world being predicted in the Bible, nope.  Not sure if talking about something that was happening before and during the writing of the Bible and saying "It'll probably keep happening" counts as a prediction.

2. I never said that "we don't know yet and we may never know" is giving up. Giving up is "we don't know yet and we may never know so I'l just say 'god did it' and stop looking for the answers".

3. The scientists hold a comforting belief in their religion. No problem unless their belied makes them fudge data to fit the Bible (or reinterpret the Bible, expanding it to include the data). Seems to be the only way to make science and the Bible compatible.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:HisWillness

caposkia wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Actually, that's pretty close. They also cannot touch Him or smell Him, etc. In fact, there is no way to distinguish God from a figment of someone's imagination or a hallucination.

They can feel His effects and presence.

How would we be able to tell the difference between these people "feeling presence" and the same people "hallucinating"?

caposkia wrote:
Let's put it this way, you can't touch or smell gravity, but it's there because we can feel and see its effects.... or is it a figment of our imagination?

Okay, stop with the attempts to make gravity out to be non-physical. It's over-the-top ridiculous. Gravity is a measurable force, and the "feeling of God" isn't.

I need to you tell me the difference between the "feeling of God" and a self-induced feeling hallucination. Because I can't see any difference at all.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. I'm glad

jcgadfly wrote:

1. I'm glad you mentioned history when looking at Biblical predictions (especially for Jesus) because that's what the gospel writers did - they went throught the history and made Jesus match it. As for the happenings of the world being predicted in the Bible, nope.  Not sure if talking about something that was happening before and during the writing of the Bible and saying "It'll probably keep happening" counts as a prediction.

...and you have references to source your conclusion?  There are extra-biblical historical sources crediting Jesus' life.  Maybe not all aspects of it.  Beyond that, there were thousands of witnesses to it.  These stories logically wouldn't have made it half as far if there weren't so many witnesses.  Again, these books were more carefully and consistantly translated than any other historical document that I know of. 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I never said that "we don't know yet and we may never know" is giving up. Giving up is "we don't know yet and we may never know so I'l just say 'god did it' and stop looking for the answers".

O c'mon jc, after all this time you really think that about me?   You know me better than that.  I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation on why my belief isn't Truth.  I have told many in the past that I will consider every peice of evidence brought to my attention.  

It seems to have been clarified by many non-believers on here that you cannot effectively disprove God becasue you can't disprove something that's not there... so where do we go from here?  Honestly, I feel that's just as much of a cop-out as "God did it".    e.g. 'he's not there, so why try to find out if he is?' ...conclusion without basis = strawman! 

jcgadfly wrote:

3. The scientists hold a comforting belief in their religion. No problem unless their belied makes them fudge data to fit the Bible (or reinterpret the Bible, expanding it to include the data). Seems to be the only way to make science and the Bible compatible.

What "fudged data" would we be talking about here?  I don't believe I have seen any of it.  All the "believing" scientists I have been aware of over the years of study seem to believe that science and the Bible are very compatible.... legitimately. see 'science vs. religion' forum on here.  I don't remember if I referenced anyone.  I'm pretty sure I had.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
This thread will never die...

This thread will never die...


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:This

spike.barnett wrote:

This thread will never die...

Hey, 1000 posts is in sight...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. I'm glad you mentioned history when looking at Biblical predictions (especially for Jesus) because that's what the gospel writers did - they went throught the history and made Jesus match it. As for the happenings of the world being predicted in the Bible, nope.  Not sure if talking about something that was happening before and during the writing of the Bible and saying "It'll probably keep happening" counts as a prediction.

...and you have references to source your conclusion?  There are extra-biblical historical sources crediting Jesus' life.  Maybe not all aspects of it.  Beyond that, there were thousands of witnesses to it.  These stories logically wouldn't have made it half as far if there weren't so many witnesses.  Again, these books were more carefully and consistantly translated than any other historical document that I know of. 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I never said that "we don't know yet and we may never know" is giving up. Giving up is "we don't know yet and we may never know so I'l just say 'god did it' and stop looking for the answers".

O c'mon jc, after all this time you really think that about me?   You know me better than that.  I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation on why my belief isn't Truth.  I have told many in the past that I will consider every peice of evidence brought to my attention.  

It seems to have been clarified by many non-believers on here that you cannot effectively disprove God becasue you can't disprove something that's not there... so where do we go from here?  Honestly, I feel that's just as much of a cop-out as "God did it".    e.g. 'he's not there, so why try to find out if he is?' ...conclusion without basis = strawman! 

jcgadfly wrote:

3. The scientists hold a comforting belief in their religion. No problem unless their belied makes them fudge data to fit the Bible (or reinterpret the Bible, expanding it to include the data). Seems to be the only way to make science and the Bible compatible.

What "fudged data" would we be talking about here?  I don't believe I have seen any of it.  All the "believing" scientists I have been aware of over the years of study seem to believe that science and the Bible are very compatible.... legitimately. see 'science vs. religion' forum on here.  I don't remember if I referenced anyone.  I'm pretty sure I had.

1. Scripture itself backs me up - John 20:31 "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

This is an admission that they had their conclusion first and fit the evidence to it. The extra-biblical sources have been shown to be interpolations or forgeries (at least Tacitus and Josephus). What others do you have?

As for "the thousands of witnesses" did they see Jesus as the disciples claim they did or did they see a vision of Jesus as Paul claimed he did? I used to see lightning flashes on a cloudless day (detached retina). If I used Biblical logic, I was seeing a real storm - I might have even been called a prophet if there was a storm somewhere else.

2. I never said that about you - I said that "we don't know yet and we may never know so I'll just say 'god did it' and stop looking for the answers" is a sign of giving up and being intellectually lazy in general. However, if the shoe fits... Eye-wink I think that you've short-circuited yourself - you're coming in claiming your belief is "Truth". Coming in withsuch a claim tends to make you untouchable by any contrary evidence.

As for looking for God - many of us (myself included) have gone through what evidence there is out there. Not our fault if the evidence is so paltry - you Christians holding out on us?

3. Fudged data? The ID movement abounds with it - we can start with "Expelled" and move on to Kitzmiller v. Dover and Ken Miller's crushing of it. Redefining the Bible to fit "And the Earth was without form and void...oh that means God created dark matter".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. Scripture

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Scripture itself backs me up - John 20:31 "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

This is an admission that they had their conclusion first and fit the evidence to it. The extra-biblical sources have been shown to be interpolations or forgeries (at least Tacitus and Josephus). What others do you have?

Looks to me as if you're trying to use the "slight of word" to your favor.  If you're going to do that with scripture, i"ll need you to parse the Greek for me.  

Also, Be it that  "these are written" about Jesus, of course Jesus would be the one to reveal it to them and the ones who directly followed Him would be the ones to tell others that the prophesies written about have come true.  That's completely logical.  That's how we learn about every day happenings.   It is concluded, even by the skeptics that the things "written" could not be fulfilled by just a person.  The stories wouldn't go far except for the fact that others saw these impossible feats as well.  

jcgadfly wrote:

As for "the thousands of witnesses" did they see Jesus as the disciples claim they did or did they see a vision of Jesus as Paul claimed he did? I used to see lightning flashes on a cloudless day (detached retina). If I used Biblical logic, I was seeing a real storm - I might have even been called a prophet if there was a storm somewhere else.

er... both  See the Gospels.  

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I never said that about you - I said that "we don't know yet and we may never know so I'll just say 'god did it' and stop looking for the answers" is a sign of giving up and being intellectually lazy in general. However, if the shoe fits... Eye-wink I think that you've short-circuited yourself - you're coming in claiming your belief is "Truth". Coming in withsuch a claim tends to make you untouchable by any contrary evidence.

We should make it clear that I've never claimed the contrary and have always claimed that my belief is "Truth".  I've just come here with an open mind welcoming any challenges to my belief.  I will consider any and all evidences against my belief.  

Just as I, simply concluding that my belief is myth or fable leaves anyone with that claim just as untouchable because what you think you know as truth will dictate what you will accept as truth unless you're wiling to step out of the box.  

IT comes down to the fact that I don't simply say that "God did it" every time something I don't understand happens.  That would make me just as credible as a non-believer saying "it's not God" without basis as well.  

jcgadfly wrote:
 

As for looking for God - many of us (myself included) have gone through what evidence there is out there. Not our fault if the evidence is so paltry - you Christians holding out on us?

3. Fudged data? The ID movement abounds with it - we can start with "Expelled" and move on to Kitzmiller v. Dover and Ken Miller's crushing of it. Redefining the Bible to fit "And the Earth was without form and void...oh that means God created dark matter".

I never said people don't manipulate the truth to fit their ideology.  To claim that fudged data is the only support for Christian belief is the question. 

I guess I'd have to ask what "evidence" you are in reference to.  We could start a new forum and go through each.  It's possible you've missed something just as I could have.  It's possible that even though I've seen a lot of evidence as well, that there's still something I missed.  

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Scripture itself backs me up - John 20:31 "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

This is an admission that they had their conclusion first and fit the evidence to it. The extra-biblical sources have been shown to be interpolations or forgeries (at least Tacitus and Josephus). What others do you have?

Looks to me as if you're trying to use the "slight of word" to your favor.  If you're going to do that with scripture, i"ll need you to parse the Greek for me.  

Also, Be it that  "these are written" about Jesus, of course Jesus would be the one to reveal it to them and the ones who directly followed Him would be the ones to tell others that the prophesies written about have come true.  That's completely logical.  That's how we learn about every day happenings.   It is concluded, even by the skeptics that the things "written" could not be fulfilled by just a person.  The stories wouldn't go far except for the fact that others saw these impossible feats as well.  

jcgadfly wrote:

As for "the thousands of witnesses" did they see Jesus as the disciples claim they did or did they see a vision of Jesus as Paul claimed he did? I used to see lightning flashes on a cloudless day (detached retina). If I used Biblical logic, I was seeing a real storm - I might have even been called a prophet if there was a storm somewhere else.

er... both  See the Gospels.  

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I never said that about you - I said that "we don't know yet and we may never know so I'll just say 'god did it' and stop looking for the answers" is a sign of giving up and being intellectually lazy in general. However, if the shoe fits... Eye-wink I think that you've short-circuited yourself - you're coming in claiming your belief is "Truth". Coming in withsuch a claim tends to make you untouchable by any contrary evidence.

We should make it clear that I've never claimed the contrary and have always claimed that my belief is "Truth".  I've just come here with an open mind welcoming any challenges to my belief.  I will consider any and all evidences against my belief.  

Just as I, simply concluding that my belief is myth or fable leaves anyone with that claim just as untouchable because what you think you know as truth will dictate what you will accept as truth unless you're wiling to step out of the box.  

IT comes down to the fact that I don't simply say that "God did it" every time something I don't understand happens.  That would make me just as credible as a non-believer saying "it's not God" without basis as well.  

jcgadfly wrote:
 

As for looking for God - many of us (myself included) have gone through what evidence there is out there. Not our fault if the evidence is so paltry - you Christians holding out on us?

3. Fudged data? The ID movement abounds with it - we can start with "Expelled" and move on to Kitzmiller v. Dover and Ken Miller's crushing of it. Redefining the Bible to fit "And the Earth was without form and void...oh that means God created dark matter".

I never said people don't manipulate the truth to fit their ideology.  To claim that fudged data is the only support for Christian belief is the question. 

I guess I'd have to ask what "evidence" you are in reference to.  We could start a new forum and go through each.  It's possible you've missed something just as I could have.  It's possible that even though I've seen a lot of evidence as well, that there's still something I missed.  

 

Cappy! Of course it is all Greek to you, just like the ancient Egyptians took their Hyroglifics for granted and never recognized that their current language was a spinnoff of prior languages.

AGAIN, you pick an arbitrary point in human history as a starting point because it is convienant to your flavor of deity.

WILL YOU PLEASE scrap the scripture crap! You are not the only person or religion who does this! It is a falacious self serving circular argument, no matter who is making it.

"Words don't mean what they mean"

God by any name is nothing more than the speices wishful thinking that they are the damsile on the railroad tracks and a magical super hero will swoop them away before the evil train runs them over.

YOU, like Muslims, other Chrisitans, Jews, Scientologists, Buddhists, Shieks or Hindus all think they got it right.

SO WHAT?

Do you really think that a black hole, much less a meator or quark gives two shits about you being a "true Chrisitan" or me being  an atheist?

Deity concepts are nothing but a projection of human narcisism. You think you are special. I don't think I am special. I know that in 1 billion years, your life will have as much meaning as mine.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:This

spike.barnett wrote:

This thread will never die...

Ok, so even if humans last untill the sun explodes(unlikely), or implodes, the server holding this post will outlast that?

I think you are simply expressing your exasperation to the extent this epic thread.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cappy! Of

Brian37 wrote:

Cappy! Of course it is all Greek to you, just like the ancient Egyptians took their Hyroglifics for granted and never recognized that their current language was a spinnoff of prior languages.

AGAIN, you pick an arbitrary point in human history as a starting point because it is convienant to your flavor of deity.

WILL YOU PLEASE scrap the scripture crap! You are not the only person or religion who does this! It is a falacious self serving circular argument, no matter who is making it.

"Words don't mean what they mean"

God by any name is nothing more than the speices wishful thinking that they are the damsile on the railroad tracks and a magical super hero will swoop them away before the evil train runs them over.

YOU, like Muslims, other Chrisitans, Jews, Scientologists, Buddhists, Shieks or Hindus all think they got it right.

SO WHAT?

Do you really think that a black hole, much less a meator or quark gives two shits about you being a "true Chrisitan" or me being  an atheist?

Deity concepts are nothing but a projection of human narcisism. You think you are special. I don't think I am special. I know that in 1 billion years, your life will have as much meaning as mine.

 

I GET IT!!!! So... because everyone... "like me" think's they're right... and not everyone can be right... that must mean that you're right and everyone else is wrong!!! WOW!!! Why didn't I see this before!!! Thank you for helping me see the light.. 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cappy! Of course it is all Greek to you, just like the ancient Egyptians took their Hyroglifics for granted and never recognized that their current language was a spinnoff of prior languages.

AGAIN, you pick an arbitrary point in human history as a starting point because it is convienant to your flavor of deity.

WILL YOU PLEASE scrap the scripture crap! You are not the only person or religion who does this! It is a falacious self serving circular argument, no matter who is making it.

"Words don't mean what they mean"

God by any name is nothing more than the speices wishful thinking that they are the damsile on the railroad tracks and a magical super hero will swoop them away before the evil train runs them over.

YOU, like Muslims, other Chrisitans, Jews, Scientologists, Buddhists, Shieks or Hindus all think they got it right.

SO WHAT?

Do you really think that a black hole, much less a meator or quark gives two shits about you being a "true Chrisitan" or me being  an atheist?

Deity concepts are nothing but a projection of human narcisism. You think you are special. I don't think I am special. I know that in 1 billion years, your life will have as much meaning as mine.

 

I GET IT!!!! So... because everyone... "like me" think's they're right... and not everyone can be right... that must mean that you're right and everyone else is wrong!!! WOW!!! Why didn't I see this before!!! Thank you for helping me see the light.. 

If the viewpoint requires death for those who think differently from you (the Abrahamic religions for sure are full of this and possibly some of the others as well) can that religion be morally correct?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cappy! Of course it is all Greek to you, just like the ancient Egyptians took their Hyroglifics for granted and never recognized that their current language was a spinnoff of prior languages.

AGAIN, you pick an arbitrary point in human history as a starting point because it is convienant to your flavor of deity.

WILL YOU PLEASE scrap the scripture crap! You are not the only person or religion who does this! It is a falacious self serving circular argument, no matter who is making it.

"Words don't mean what they mean"

God by any name is nothing more than the speices wishful thinking that they are the damsile on the railroad tracks and a magical super hero will swoop them away before the evil train runs them over.

YOU, like Muslims, other Chrisitans, Jews, Scientologists, Buddhists, Shieks or Hindus all think they got it right.

SO WHAT?

Do you really think that a black hole, much less a meator or quark gives two shits about you being a "true Chrisitan" or me being  an atheist?

Deity concepts are nothing but a projection of human narcisism. You think you are special. I don't think I am special. I know that in 1 billion years, your life will have as much meaning as mine.

 

I GET IT!!!! So... because everyone... "like me" think's they're right... and not everyone can be right... that must mean that you're right and everyone else is wrong!!! WOW!!! Why didn't I see this before!!! Thank you for helping me see the light.. 

Not quite: all these different groups are equally convinced that they are right, but since logically they cannot all be right, it proves that such religious conviction that one has the REAL 'truth' simply cannot be a reliable indicator of truth, no matter how personally convinced you may be.

IOW, Brian is simply pointing out that since they cannot ALL be right, it entirely reasonable to suggest that all of them are probably wrong, and that such beliefs have a common origin in human psychology, not in the reality of any supernatural entity.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If the

jcgadfly wrote:

If the viewpoint requires death for those who think differently from you (the Abrahamic religions for sure are full of this and possibly some of the others as well) can that religion be morally correct?

I'm guessing this goes into the acceptance or denail of Jesus Christ and not just that someone might think differently than me.  This said because there is nothing to back up the claim that someone thinking differently than me deserves death.

It comes down to what Jesus did for mankind and why he did it and why we need his sacrifice in the first place... which goes into the severety of sin and whether it's right to kill a murderer or let them rot in jail. 

We can also discuss the verse that mentions you cannot be held accountable for what you do not know... not what you don't accept mind you, but what you do not know. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Not quite:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Not quite: all these different groups are equally convinced that they are right, but since logically they cannot all be right, it proves that such religious conviction that one has the REAL 'truth' simply cannot be a reliable indicator of truth, no matter how personally convinced you may be.

which is why I'm not defending my faith with the personal conviction card.  It's a weak defense anyway, useless to even pull.

BobSpence1 wrote:

IOW, Brian is simply pointing out that since they cannot ALL be right, it entirely reasonable to suggest that all of them are probably wrong, and that such beliefs have a common origin in human psychology, not in the reality of any supernatural entity.

Hahaha!!.... haha....hahahaha..... brhem... excuse me.  Sorry

So... lemme get this conclusion strait... I'll use generic terms so as not to single out a specific belief or conviction:

1.  Simply pointing out that they (religions, governments, branches of science etc.) cannot all be right (because of course they may disagree with each other on a few or many topics) makes it ENTIRELY REASONABLE to even suggest that every one of them are PROBABLY (most likely in other words) wrong...

HAHA!!!

This means that science as well must be wrong be it that scientists have many times disagreed with each other.... wait... let's go a little further out on this one because obviously individual scientists may disagree, but that doesn't mean science disagrees with itself..

Ok, different views of science have theories in general that disagree with each other, but they're all scientific theories and are agreed upon by the world of scientists and science buffs to be considered science.  Therefore, according to the statement you made above... it is entirely reasonable to suggest that every part of science is probably wrong!!  This would have to still hold regardless of the convicting proof we have as a human race and the convictions people have about those proofs in order for your statement about religions to be credible. 

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 Unlike Christianity (

 Unlike Christianity ( which traditionally asserts itself to be the final arbiter of reality and truth concerning both the natural and supernatural ) the various branches of science are self-correcting in their knowledge.....new information modifies present viewpoints or eliminates them altogether ....more importantly, scientific viewpoints are not based upon the dogma of infallibility.  There is no such thing as a doctrine of inerrancy among researchers. Science make no proclamations that at a future date could not come under complete revision.

   In contrast I don't believe God has authored any new books of the Bible.  Has he issued any new commandments lately ?  Has he made any attempt lately to correct himself ?  The Bible is allegedly complete.  No new knowledge to be gained or even, conceivably, divine mistakes to be corrected.  Conceptually speaking, Christianity always asserts infallibility and therefore has no need of correction. Unlike the scientific realm, religious principles remain static and immutable.    Theoretically speaking, Christianity never says "Oops, what d'ya know, God was completely wrong about ...."

  In spite of your comparison to religion, science, in any of it's disciplines, is never finished making discoveries, correcting mistakes or simply examining new data.

  Lastly, doctrinal disagreements among the hundreds of opposing sects of Christianity certainly undermine their credibility and absolutely entail more significance when compared to scientific disputes.  Virtually all claim ( Protestant vs Catholic for starters ? ) that their incompatible viewpoints are sanctioned by a God "who is not the author of confusion" and whose indwelling Holy Spirit  supposedly avails them of His Divine insights.  Although he may have good intentions it appears God has some issues with quality control.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

IOW, Brian is simply pointing out that since they cannot ALL be right, it entirely reasonable to suggest that all of them are probably wrong, and that such beliefs have a common origin in human psychology, not in the reality of any supernatural entity.

Hahaha!!.... haha....hahahaha..... brhem... excuse me.  Sorry

So... lemme get this conclusion strait... I'll use generic terms so as not to single out a specific belief or conviction:

1.  Simply pointing out that they (religions, governments, branches of science etc.) cannot all be right (because of course they may disagree with each other on a few or many topics) makes it ENTIRELY REASONABLE to even suggest that every one of them are PROBABLY (most likely in other words) wrong...

Slow down, there. Notice Bob said "not in the reality of any supernatural entity".

Bob's not saying that because everyone in the whole world has a conviction, and they could be conflicting, that everyone is probably wrong.

No, Bob's saying that everyone's version of a supernatural entity is conflicting, and so they're all probably wrong.

Bob only included people positing entities that couldn't be defined coherently. In science, we get to define things coherently all the time, and then test them. In theological discussions, you can go on an on for hours without realizing you've been begging the question the whole time.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence