Wondering how to respond to free will argument.

RedGiant
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010-04-28
User is offlineOffline
Wondering how to respond to free will argument.

 Hi, I'm a 19 year old from Fort Worth, Texas. I'm currently involved in an email debate with a Christian. I was trying to make the point to him that if God knows the future we cannot have free will because we must follow what he knows will happen or else he will be wrong. He is arguing that God doesn't know the future, he just knows what decisions we will make so he is merely a "witness" to our decisions we have already made. He is saying that we have already made every decision for the rest of our lives already and God has just watched them happen. He compared it to humans watching a sports game from the future, saying that we are not making the decisions for the players we just know what will happen when that game comes to present day. I was wondering how I can respond to this? Thank you.

 


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

Fortunate_S,

 

Our posts are getting more and more loaded.  For sure, I agree with some of your arguments, disagree with others, and have more questions.  Let me think for a while to sort out the pile of arguments and comments.  

But let me first clarify your stand on the number of believers.

Fortunate_S wrote:

As of 2007, Christians outnumbered Muslims by about 5 billion.  That's not really that close.  At that time, Hinduism had about 1 billion adherents, so even adding that to Islam would not put it above Christianity.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

In your reference, I could only find the difference of 0.6 billion between the numbers of Christians and Muslims.  Needless to say that the difference in 5 billion believers sounds unrealistic in view of the total human population, but it is different from your source by  833%.  Is this just an accidental mistake? Do you have another source? Thank you for clarification. 100%

 

My math was off.  Nevermind.  I was reading it wrong.  I'll give you the victory on this.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S

Fortunate_S wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Fortunate_S,

 

Our posts are getting more and more loaded.  For sure, I agree with some of your arguments, disagree with others, and have more questions.  Let me think for a while to sort out the pile of arguments and comments.  

But let me first clarify your stand on the number of believers.

Fortunate_S wrote:

As of 2007, Christians outnumbered Muslims by about 5 billion.  That's not really that close.  At that time, Hinduism had about 1 billion adherents, so even adding that to Islam would not put it above Christianity.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

In your reference, I could only find the difference of 0.6 billion between the numbers of Christians and Muslims.  Needless to say that the difference in 5 billion believers sounds unrealistic in view of the total human population, but it is different from your source by  833%.  Is this just an accidental mistake? Do you have another source? Thank you for clarification. 100%

 

My math was off.  Nevermind.  I was reading it wrong.  I'll give you the victory on this.

Thank you for correction.  You may not notice this but I have seen enough people (both theists and atheists) who would try to stand behind even more suspicious numbers.

100%

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:cj

robj101 wrote:

cj wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:

There have been many scientific laws accepted by the majority which turned out to be wrong.  Therefore, I'm going to reject all of science.

 

Then why the hell are you on the internet, using a computer, and electricity, and I'll bet you are cooking a dinner you bought from a store and didn't raise yourself.  And if you did raise it yourself, you used shovels and trowels and rakes and other equipment you also bought at a store.  ALL OF THIS STUFF IN YOUR LIFE IS BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF SCIENCE.  Without science, you'd be sitting on your butt around a campfire freezing half to death while you seared a root you grubbed out of the ground with your hands.  You must be getting desperate in your arguments if you are going this route.

You forgot to add, "there have been many other religions that have been accepted by a majority and have proven false, therefore I am rejecting all of them."

I think that may be the card he wants you to play.

I wonder if he would step out on a highway and see if a truck, developed by science, will hit him.

It is funny they totally ignore the fact that they use science every day. They don't even consider the rammifications of such, they grew up with it so they don't even consider it as anything but the way it is.

 

 

As I said, it might still be just his counter-argument, not his position. Let's see what Fortunate_S can say about it. 

Also, we do NOT use science every day, most of us just modestly use the results of science.  Doing so, most of us BELIEVE that what they buy in BestBuy works.

Interestingly enough, we do use our beliefs every day.  For example, if your wife (girl, friend ...) tells you in the morning that she/he had an orgasm, you BELIEVE (usually) this without doing tests and experimental measurements. 

 

I am sounding like a theist? 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:There have been many

 

Quote:
There have been many scientific laws accepted by the majority which turned out to be wrong.  Therefore, I'm going to reject all of science.

 

Now hang on a second there, cowboy. Which scientific laws have been accepted by the majority in the past and turned out wrong? How were these established? More importantly, how did we ever find out that they were incorrect? 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Quote:
There have been many scientific laws accepted by the majority which turned out to be wrong.  Therefore, I'm going to reject all of science.

Now hang on a second there, cowboy. Which scientific laws have been accepted by the majority in the past and turned out wrong?

Uhh, phlogiston theory?  Spontaneous generation?  Aristotle's entire body of physics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

 


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Ask a Jew

robj101 wrote:

Ask a Jew about Jesus and the prophecies, or better yet, do some research. The bible actually tells you about one instance where it was purposefully falsified.

That's your rebuttal?  "You are wrong!  Just ask someone who doesn't believe in Jesus." 

Quote:
You are using the bible to qualify your theory on Jesus. Who wrote said bible ? Do you have any evidence that it was writen by a supreme being? Is there any insight in the text that could truly validate it as being written by anything other than men with a plan, much like all the other religions? Are you aware that "Matthew" and "Luke" were names taken out of context and used to give credit to the true completely unknown authors? Why was the bible written many years after the fact, some parts much later than others, even within the new testament? Why were some books deemed not worthy to keep and others retranslated to suit the newest publishers?

When backed into a corner, do you always ask a hundred questions in a vain attempt to change the subject?

Quote:
I own two different bibles, and I am not totally ignorant on the subject. Information is but a click away after all.

I just gave you a link showing verse upon verse of prophecy being fulfilled.  Your only response was "ask a Jew".  So why should I believe that you have actually done your homework?

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S

Fortunate_S wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
 

Contradiction...a god who knows everything but does nothing.

I don't see where there is a contradiction.  God knows everything but permits evil to occur.  Where's the contradiction?  Simply because somebody knows something does not entail that s/he must by logical necessity act to stop it.

Then why did your God act then? Why Jesus? Pray tell.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:robj101

Fortunate_S wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Ask a Jew about Jesus and the prophecies, or better yet, do some research. The bible actually tells you about one instance where it was purposefully falsified.

That's your rebuttal?  "You are wrong!  Just ask someone who doesn't believe in Jesus." 

Quote:
You are using the bible to qualify your theory on Jesus. Who wrote said bible ? Do you have any evidence that it was writen by a supreme being? Is there any insight in the text that could truly validate it as being written by anything other than men with a plan, much like all the other religions? Are you aware that "Matthew" and "Luke" were names taken out of context and used to give credit to the true completely unknown authors? Why was the bible written many years after the fact, some parts much later than others, even within the new testament? Why were some books deemed not worthy to keep and others retranslated to suit the newest publishers?

When backed into a corner, do you always ask a hundred questions in a vain attempt to change the subject?

Quote:
I own two different bibles, and I am not totally ignorant on the subject. Information is but a click away after all.

I just gave you a link showing verse upon verse of prophecy being fulfilled.  Your only response was "ask a Jew".  So why should I believe that you have actually done your homework?

 

I am not going to copy/paste a bunch of carp to refute more of your own carp. I will gve you an easy link however, I'm just that nice. http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus#1 

Prophecy being fulfilled is ignorant. The ancient people who wrote the new testament probably read the old eh?  If I wrote a book I would not be so stupid as to not "fulfill" my own prophecies.  To this very day people are trying vainly to usher in the second comming. Look it up, they are all over the place. I can't wait to see them slaughter the red heifer, burn it and wash themselves in it's ashes..for nothing, lol.

Backing me into a corner eh ? lol I don't see you answering any questions. You call it backing me into a corner, I'm calling it a flurry of blows to your attempts at proving your bible to be the word of your fictional god. I am too impatient to state one question at a time to refute something that shouldn't even need to be refuted, the bible is a fallacy in it's self and so were the men who wrote it.

You wont get anymore out of me, this subject has been gone over countless times and if you think you have the answers, get on tv and share it with the world.

You can post scripture all day long, but you can't prove it as anything more than another typical religion concocted by ancient man.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Kevin R

Fortunate_S wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Quote:
There have been many scientific laws accepted by the majority which turned out to be wrong.  Therefore, I'm going to reject all of science.

Now hang on a second there, cowboy. Which scientific laws have been accepted by the majority in the past and turned out wrong?

Uhh, phlogiston theory?  Spontaneous generation?  Aristotle's entire body of physics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

 

 

What is your point?  A lot of those listed are hundreds, a few are thousands of years old, a lot of them before people used the scientific method.  Science is self-correcting.  And religion is??????? 

 

Always false.  Always a pipe dream.  Never tested.  Never verified.  But always the same, never changing.  Ah, yes, you can believe the same ignorant stuff bronze age goat herders made up 2-3000 years ago. 

 

Before there was science.  Before we understood DNA.  Before we knew the stars were suns just like our sun.  Before we knew about the billions of species in the world.  Before we knew about pond scum and..............  I won't give up science - I like being on the internet and having indoor plumbing and having temperature controlled housing and having a car and flying to conferences and machine woven coal tar died clothing and supermarkets and shopping malls and a laptop to play games on and research on.  And scores of other conveniences we all take for granted every day. 

You can go sit at that campfire with the rest of the bronze age goat herders.  Enjoy disease, parasites, lack of antibiotics, dirt, and rampant death.  Pray with the rest of them in their mud brick temples.  See what it gets you.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:What is your

cj wrote:

What is your point?  A lot of those listed are hundreds, a few are thousands of years old, a lot of them before people used the scientific method.

So science only recently became reliable?  What year specifically? 

Also, name the scientific laws listed on that page which were formulated before people used the scientific method and specifically explain what method scientists used that was different and inferior and explain why.

Quote:
Always false. 

Prove it. 

Quote:
Before there was science.

Uhh, science has been around almost as long as religion.

Quote:
 I won't give up science - I like being on the internet and having indoor plumbing and having temperature controlled housing and having a car and flying to conferences and machine woven coal tar died clothing and supermarkets and shopping malls and a laptop to play games on and research on.  And scores of other conveniences we all take for granted every day. 

And what will those things mean to you when you are dead?


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I am not going

robj101 wrote:

I am not going to copy/paste a bunch of carp to refute more of your own carp. I will gve you an easy link however, I'm just that nice. http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus#1 

Right.  Your rebuttal is "ask the Jews, here they are".  If you presented this during a real debate, you would be laughed out of the auditorium. 

The Jews also believe that God exists.  Do you agree with that as well or do you only pick and choose which arguments you will agree with based on your presuppositions? 

Quote:
Prophecy being fulfilled is ignorant. The ancient people who wrote the new testament probably read the old eh?

So your theory is that the authors of the New Testament lied about Jesus and simply invented him in order to fulfill the prophecy of the Old Testament? 

Quote:
Backing me into a corner eh ? lol I don't see you answering any questions. You call it backing me into a corner, I'm calling it a flurry of blows to your attempts at proving your bible to be the word of your fictional god.

LOL.  There is an answer to every single one of your objections.  What you are doing is trying to carpet bomb me with questions in order to obfuscate the fact that you are unable to defend your own position.  You hope to blind onlookers to the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.  This is called a "red herring".  You are just creating a distraction, hoping that I will shift the focus elsewhere.  Sorry, I'm not permitting those tangents.  If you want to continue debating with me, you are going to stick with the issue.  Otherwise, go debate with someone more on your 5th grade level of intellect. 


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Then why did

Eloise wrote:

Then why did your God act then? Why Jesus? Pray tell.

Jesus did not come to stop evil.  Jesus came in order to atone for our sins, so that we may be saved by grace through faith.  Evil will go on and many will perish, but others will get to live in the presence of God. 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
right!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fortunate_S wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Then why did your God act then? Why Jesus? Pray tell.

Jesus did not come to stop evil.  Jesus came in order to atone for our sins, so that we may be saved by grace through faith.  Evil will go on and many will perish, but others will get to live in the presence of God. 

 

 

                I quotith Matthew 10:34 - 37.

                      Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace but a sword.   For I am come to set a man at veriance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.   And a mans foe shall be they of his own household.  He that loveth father or mother more then me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more then me is not worthy of me.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote: cj wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:

cj wrote:

What is your point?  A lot of those listed are hundreds, a few are thousands of years old, a lot of them before people used the scientific method.

So science only recently became reliable?  What year specifically? 

Also, name the scientific laws listed on that page which were formulated before people used the scientific method and specifically explain what method scientists used that was different and inferior and explain why.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History

Quote:

In the late 19th century, Charles Sanders Peirce proposed a schema that would turn out to have considerable influence in the development of current scientific method generally. Peirce accelerated the progress on several fronts. Firstly, speaking in broader context in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" (1878), Peirce outlined an objectively verifiable method to test the truth of putative knowledge on a way that goes beyond mere foundational alternatives, focusing upon both deduction and induction.

I am speaking of the formal method currently in use.  An objective verifiable method.  Of those listed as being "superseded scientific theories", just pick the ones before approximately 1878, and you'll have the ones that were never scientific in the sense of the term as used today.

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

cj wrote:

Always false. 

Prove it. 

 

Waste of my time.  You want to believe so you will accept any old garbage to bolster your beliefs.  Me, I want more substance behind my beliefs and I am willing to change them as our knowledge of the facts change.

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

cj wrote:

Before there was science.

Uhh, science has been around almost as long as religion.

 

Science was used to mean any systematic recorded knowledge prior to the late 19th century when the scientific method was developed.  I am using the term in the modern sense, not in the sense of just recording facts, but in the sense of testing and verifying with a methodical approach.

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

cj wrote:

I won't give up science - I like being on the internet and having indoor plumbing and having temperature controlled housing and having a car and flying to conferences and machine woven coal tar died clothing and supermarkets and shopping malls and a laptop to play games on and research on.  And scores of other conveniences we all take for granted every day. 

And what will those things mean to you when you are dead?

 

About the same as what they will mean to you when you are dead.  Nothing.  But while we are alive, they mean a lot and they would not have been invented or manufactured without modern scientific principles and methods.

If our descendants will continue on with science, not faith, they will have even more scientific discoveries to make their lives safer and further away from that group of bronze age goat herders.  I do not believe science is the answer for everything, but it is the answer for a hell of a lot that is darned pleasant in this world.  I'm not going to give it up for some imaginary friend who can't be bothered to clean up his own messes.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:robj101

Fortunate_S wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I am not going to copy/paste a bunch of carp to refute more of your own carp. I will gve you an easy link however, I'm just that nice. http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus#1 

Right.  Your rebuttal is "ask the Jews, here they are".  If you presented this during a real debate, you would be laughed out of the auditorium. 

The Jews also believe that God exists.  Do you agree with that as well or do you only pick and choose which arguments you will agree with based on your presuppositions? 

Quote:
Prophecy being fulfilled is ignorant. The ancient people who wrote the new testament probably read the old eh?

So your theory is that the authors of the New Testament lied about Jesus and simply invented him in order to fulfill the prophecy of the Old Testament? 

Quote:
Backing me into a corner eh ? lol I don't see you answering any questions. You call it backing me into a corner, I'm calling it a flurry of blows to your attempts at proving your bible to be the word of your fictional god.

LOL.  There is an answer to every single one of your objections.  What you are doing is trying to carpet bomb me with questions in order to obfuscate the fact that you are unable to defend your own position.  You hope to blind onlookers to the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.  This is called a "red herring".  You are just creating a distraction, hoping that I will shift the focus elsewhere.  Sorry, I'm not permitting those tangents.  If you want to continue debating with me, you are going to stick with the issue.  Otherwise, go debate with someone more on your 5th grade level of intellect. 

lol he said I was a 5th grader and he is the one who has professed to basing his belief on "the bible"

You don't have an issue other than your own faith. You refuse to understand a correlation to your beliefs and that of the jewish faith, one believes in jesus the other does not. Two seperate religions that believe in the same god, of course you don't want to recognize this. Also take note, we are on an internet forum, this is not an onstage debate. 5th grader indeed.

As far as the authors of the new testament knowing fully of the old, how blind are you?

And no, you did not answer all of the questions.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: I am speaking of

cj wrote:
 

I am speaking of the formal method currently in use.  An objective verifiable method.  Of those listed as being "superseded scientific theories", just pick the ones before approximately 1878, and you'll have the ones that were never scientific in the sense of the term as used today.

First, acknowledge that scientists have been wrong.  None of the pedantic merry-go-rounds on the term "science" (by your logic, Newton and Galileo were not scientists because they practiced their methods before 1878).  Please acknowledge that many scientific laws have been false.

Second, please acknowledge that 132 years is a relatively short time and it is far too soon to say that our current methodology is perfect.  Many of the failed scientific theories were accepted for more than 1,000 years before they were disproven.

I'm not going to read an article because I don't care enough to do so.  If you are going to cite a source, please cite the relevant parts of the article which support your points.  You cited a part which stated that some guy invented this method that is really useful but cited nothing relating to the method itself.  Please explain what this methodology has that the earlier methodologies did not.  Furthermore, please explain what these methodologies were. 

Quote:
Science was used to mean any systematic recorded knowledge prior to the late 19th century when the scientific method was developed.  I am using the term in the modern sense, not in the sense of just recording facts, but in the sense of testing and verifying with a methodical approach.

Again, tell me the difference between these methodologies. 

Quote:
About the same as what they will mean to you when you are dead.  Nothing.

They mean nothing to me right now. 

Quote:
But while we are alive, they mean a lot and they would not have been invented or manufactured without modern scientific principles and methods.

Again, what will they mean to you when you are dead?  Nothing.  Religion isn't concerned with trivial things such as the toys that your parents bought you.  Religion is concerned with what will bridge the gap between what is and what ought to be for all of eternity.  Religion is concerned with the spinning dynamo that will drive you to scientific inquiry to begin with, postulating a reason for striving to make the lives of one's self and others better.  Without metaphysics in place, scientific inquiry does not even get off the ground.

The fact that you put so much stock into material things shows that you are a lost individual who has misdirected his life.  I feel for you.

Quote:
If our descendants will continue on with science, not faith, they will have even more scientific discoveries to make their lives safer and further away from that group of bronze age goat herders.  I do not believe science is the answer for everything, but it is the answer for a hell of a lot that is darned pleasant in this world.  I'm not going to give it up for some imaginary friend who can't be bothered to clean up his own messes.

You don't have to give any of this up.  You simply have to reexamine what is important in life.  Computers, video games, cars, etc. are of little importance.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
So you are wearing your

So you are wearing your skins, and visiting a library with an internet connection, fresh from your bath in the local creek and dinner of roadkill?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
So FS

robj101 wrote:

So you are wearing your skins, and visiting a library with an internet connection, fresh from your bath in the local creek and dinner of roadkill?

 

You reject all science but accept all of christian doctrine because it's in the bible. Your brain is exceedingly small. Faith, unfortunate one, does not make a jumbo jet fly. Faith does not send rockets to the moon. Faith did not unpick the genetic code. Religious doctrine does not allow the fuel injection system of your car to operate. So what are you talking about in saying you reject science. You don't reject it. You refuse to accept the veracity of a set of tools that might undermine your narcissistic view of the universe. A universe that exists so you can be transported to heaven and sit in the lap of the master of universe licking his hand while the dubious roast in hell.

The points cj made you refuse to address are that science is inherently self-verifying. We know it makes mistakes because we keep testing it - that's the way science works. Your pathetic attempts to somehow undermine the foundations of the scientific principle really just expose the buttresses of its power. But your religion is the equivalent of shoving your head in a bucket and leaving it there. And by the way, your alleged prophecies are total bullshit, including as they do, entirely impossible to prove claims that Jesus now sits at the right hand of the father. That Jesus was the son of god, that jesus rose from the dead, that jesus was descended from some human lineage. Give me a break, FS.

Nothing of what you have said here is new, nothing is based on anything that can be proven. When pressed you retreat to your dogma tardis. Yours is the most spurious of arguments and not even based on those things we cannot yet know but instead firmly grounded on those things that are clearly idiotic. Prove, beyond doubt, in the public domain FS, anything that occured in the new testament. Don't just veer off into claims of historicity of the supernatural, claims never before proved in the history of history. Prove something real. Any failure to do so will indicate to other readers that like your bible, you are all talk and no action.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote: cj

Fortunate_S wrote:

cj wrote:
 I am speaking of the formal method currently in use.  An objective verifiable method.  Of those listed as being "superseded scientific theories", just pick the ones before approximately 1878, and you'll have the ones that were never scientific in the sense of the term as used today.

First, acknowledge that scientists have been wrong.  None of the pedantic merry-go-rounds on the term "science" (by your logic, Newton and Galileo were not scientists because they practiced their methods before 1878).  Please acknowledge that many scientific laws have been false.

 

Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Blaise Pascal, Georg Ohm, Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Carl Linnaeus, and a slew of other very respected people were Natural Philosophers.  That is what they called themselves.  And no, they did not use the modern scientific method.  People like Gregor Mendel were much closer in methodology but because - my own opinion  - he did not have his discoveries independently verified, he remained in obscurity for over 50 years.

Whoever said scientists were never wrong?  Not me:  "I acknowledge that some scientists have been wrong in the past, some are probably wrong in the present, and some will be wrong in the future.  Furthermore, I can predict with certainty that scientific theories will change as we gain new data and synthesize better models and theories to fit the new data."

And your point?  That 3000 years ago bronze age goat herders knew all about genetics and cosmology?

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

Second, please acknowledge that 132 years is a relatively short time and it is far too soon to say that our current methodology is perfect.  Many of the failed scientific theories were accepted for more than 1,000 years before they were disproven.

 

Of course 132 years is comparatively a short time, and of course our methodology is not perfect.  You realize the failed scientific theories that were accepted for more than a 1000 years had to go through a dark ages where there was no natural philosophy and nothing remotely resembling scientific inquiry about the universe brought about by your religion.


Fortunate_S wrote:

I'm not going to read an article because I don't care enough to do so.  If you are going to cite a source, please cite the relevant parts of the article which support your points.  You cited a part which stated that some guy invented this method that is really useful but cited nothing relating to the method itself.  Please explain what this methodology has that the earlier methodologies did not.  Furthermore, please explain what these methodologies were. 

Quote:
Science was used to mean any systematic recorded knowledge prior to the late 19th century when the scientific method was developed.  I am using the term in the modern sense, not in the sense of just recording facts, but in the sense of testing and verifying with a methodical approach.

Again, tell me the difference between these methodologies. 

 

Hello, it is right there in the paragraph.  Previously to about 1878, science consisted of storing information and observing the information.  Actively testing a hypothesis was not commonly used as part of the scientific process until after about 1878.  That is when the method of hypothesis, test, observe, and test again by independent researchers began.  Repeatable independent verification and peer review are all part of the modern model.

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

Quote:
About the same as what they will mean to you when you are dead.  Nothing.

They mean nothing to me right now. 

Quote:
But while we are alive, they mean a lot and they would not have been invented or manufactured without modern scientific principles and methods.

Again, what will they mean to you when you are dead?  Nothing.  Religion isn't concerned with trivial things such as the toys that your parents bought you.  Religion is concerned with what will bridge the gap between what is and what ought to be for all of eternity.  Religion is concerned with the spinning dynamo that will drive you to scientific inquiry to begin with, postulating a reason for striving to make the lives of one's self and others better.  Without metaphysics in place, scientific inquiry does not even get off the ground.

The fact that you put so much stock into material things shows that you are a lost individual who has misdirected his life.  I feel for you.

 

Did you not realize who you are talking to?  I'm 59 years old and a grandmother.  My parents haven't bought any new toys for me in over 45 years.  I raised 3 sons, the youngest of whom is probably older than you.  (He is 33.)

And let me tell you bub, I am exceedingly grateful for

indoor plumbing - I had a hard enough time getting the boys in a bathtub.

washing machines - three boys go through a lot of laundry.  I am not going to go back to beating clothes on a rock by the river.  And DON'T try to take my detergent away.

antibiotics - I have no desire to attempt to cure pneumonia by sweating, purging, cupping (letting blood), or dosing with mercury or other poisons.  All of these methods were fairly common before antibiotics became available towards the end of WWII.

vaccinations - none of my boys had (let alone died from) smallpox, measles, mumps, diptheria, polio, tetanus, rabies, whooping cough.  And yes, you can still get these, and no, antibiotics will not cure the ones that are viruses.  The boys all came down with chickenpox before the vaccine was available - which is why it isn't in the list.  I didn't forget about it.

modern public infrastructure - none of my boys had typhus, typhoid, dysentery, cholera, yellow fever, plague, dengue, or malaria thanks to clean water and mosquito and flea control.

I enjoy the toys of modern technology, but I am most grateful for the increased health and welfare that technology has brought.

Metaphysics doesn't drive science.  Curiosity drives science.  The desire to figure out why and how.  Religion stifles science by saying, "goddidit".

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

Quote:
If our descendants will continue on with science, not faith, they will have even more scientific discoveries to make their lives safer and further away from that group of bronze age goat herders.  I do not believe science is the answer for everything, but it is the answer for a hell of a lot that is darned pleasant in this world.  I'm not going to give it up for some imaginary friend who can't be bothered to clean up his own messes.

You don't have to give any of this up.  You simply have to reexamine what is important in life.  Computers, video games, cars, etc. are of little importance.

 

If computers are not important, why the hell are you on this forum displaying your arrogance for all to see?  Yes, it is arrogance - "My religion is better for you than the answers you have discovered for yourself."

What's really important to me is my husband, children and grandchildren, the relatives that I am fond of, and my friends.  I have relatives I am not fond of and they are not important to me.  What else is not important to me is some imaginary friend who has no impact on my life and causes other people to act like ignorant fools.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Alleged prophecy

Fortunate_S wrote:

-->
Fulfilled Messianic ProphecyOld Testament ScriptureNew Testament
Born in BethlehemMicah 5:2Matthew 2:5-6
His pre-existenceMicah 5:2John 1:1, 14
Born of the seed of a womanGenesis 3:15Matthew 1:18
Of the seed of AbrahamGenesis 12:3Matthew 1:1-16
All nations blessed by Abraham's seedGenesis 12:3Matthew 8:5, 10
God would provide Himself a Lamb as an offeringGenesis 22:8John 1:29
From the tribe of JudahGenesis 49:10Matthew 1:1-3
Heir to the throne of DavidIsaiah 9:6-7Matthew 1:1
Called "The mighty God, The everlasting Father"Isaiah 9:6Matthew 1:23
Born in BethlehemMicah 5:2Matthew 2:1
Born of a virginIsaiah 7:14Matthew 1:18
His name called Immanuel, "God with us"Isaiah 7:14Matthew 1:23
Declared to be the Son of GodPsalm 2:7Matthew 3:17
His messenger before Him in spirit of ElijahMalachi 4:5-6Luke 1:17
Preceded by a messenger to prepare His wayMalachi 3:1Matthew 11:7-11
Messenger crying "Prepare ye the way of the Lord"Isaiah 40:3Matthew 3:3
Would be a Prophet of the children of IsraelDeuteronomy 18:15Matthew 2:15
Called out of EgyptHosea 11:1Matthew 2:15
Slaughter of the childrenJeremiah 31:15Matthew2:18
Would be a Nazarene  Matthew 2:23
Brought light to Zabulon & Nephthalm, Galilee of the GentilesIsaiah 9:1-2Matthew 4:15
Presented with giftsPsalm 72:10Matthew 2:1, 11
Rejected by His ownIsaiah 53:3Matthew 21:42; Mark 8:31, 12:10; Luke 9:22, 17:25
He is the stone which the builders rejected which became the headstonePsalm 118:22-23; Isaiah 28:16Matthew 21:42; I Peter 2:7
A stone of stumbling to IsraelIsaiah 8:14-15I Peter 2:8
He entered Jerusalem as a king
riding on an ass
Zechariah 9:9Matthew 21:5
Betrayed by a friendPsalms 41:9John 13:21
Sold for 30 pieces of silverZechariah 11:12Matthew 26:15; Luke 22:5
The 30 pieces of silver given for the potter's fieldZechariah 11:12Matthew 27:9-10
The 30 pieces of silver thrown in the templeZechariah 11:13Matthew 27:5
Forsaken by His disciplesZechariah 13:7Matthew 26:56
Accused by false witnessesPsalm 35:11Matthew 26:60
Silent to accusationsIsaiah 53:7Matthew 27:14
Heal blind/deaf/lame/dumbIsaiah 35:5-6; Isaiah 29:18Matthew 11:5
Preached to the poor/brokenhearted/captivesIsaiah 61:1Matthew 11:5
Came to bring a sword, not peaceMicah 7:6Matthew 10:34-35
He bore our sicknessIsaiah 53:4Matthew 8:16-17
Spat upon, smitten and scourgedIsaiah 50:6, 53:5Matthew 27:26, 30
Smitten on the cheekMicah 5:1Matthew 27:30
Hated without a causePsalm 35:19Matthew 27:23
The sacrificial lambIsaiah 53:5John 1:29
Given for a covenantIsaiah 42:6; Jeremiah 31:31-34Romans 11:27/Galatians 3:17, 4:24/Hebrews 8:6, 8, 10; 10:16, 29; 12:24; 13:20
Would not strive or cryIsaiah 42:2-3Mark 7:36
People would hear not and see notIsaiah 6:9-10Matthew 13:14-15
People trust in traditions of menIsaiah 29:13Matthew 15:9
People give God lip serviceIsaiah 29:13Matthew 15:8
God delights in HimIsaiah 42:1Matthew 3:17, 17:5
Wounded for our sinsIsaiah 53:5John 6:51
He bore the sins of manyIsaiah 53:10-12Mark 10:45
Messiah not killed for HimselfDaniel 9:26Matthew 20:28
Gentiles flock to HimIsaiah 55:5, 60:3, 65:1; Malachi 1:11;
II Samuel 22:44-45; Psalm 2:7-8
Matthew 8:10
Crucified with criminalsIsaiah 53:12Matthew 27:35
His body was piercedZechariah 12:10; Ps. 22:16John 20:25, 27
Thirsty during executionPsalm 22:16John 19:28
Given vinegar and gall for thirstPsalm 69:21Matthew 27:34
Soldiers gambled for his garmentPsalm 22:18Matthew 27:35
People mocked, "He trusted in God, let Him deliver him!"Psalm 22:7-8Matthew 27:43
People sat there looking at HimPsalm 22:17Matthew 27:36
Cried, "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?"Psalm 22:1Matthew 27:46
Darkness over the landAmos 8:9Matthew 27:45
No bones brokenPsalm 34:20, Numbers 9:12John 19:33-36
Side piercedZechariah 12:10John 19:34
Buried with the richIsaiah 53:9Matthew 27:57, 60
Resurrected from the deadPsalm 16:10-11; 49:15Mark 16:6
Priest after the order of MelchizedekPsalm 110:4Hebrews 5:5-6; 6:20; 7:15-17
Ascended to right hand of GodPsalm 68:18Luke 24:51
LORD said unto Him, "Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstoolPsalm 110:1Matt 22:44; Mark 12:36;, 16:19; Luke 20:42-43; Acts 2:34-35; Hebrews 1:13
His coming gloryMalachi 3:2-3Luke 3:17

 

None of these constitutes a real prophecy. They are all vague, they are all certainly re-writings of the earlier scriptures as christian scribes frankensteined Judaism. The New Testament writers publically announce: "These things are written that you might believe". What does this sound like to everyone? Does it sound like: These things are written because they are true? I think not. The NT authors were marketing their own faith, seeking to build its veracity, trying to knock over the competitors' business models. To increase the apparent truth they included these fake prophecies, these re-writings of history.

So FS, show us a single real prophecy, not some vague claims in which something from the old testament is used to create a story about something that we have no real proof ever happened. Not claims about jesus ascending to a heaven for which there is no proof whatever. What are you even talking about? None of these things are real propehcies at all. Why can't prophecies be specific about dates? Why are they so general, so opaque, so fuzzy? It's because they are bullshit, isn't it, FS?

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
If his religion had it's

If his religion had it's way, we would still be in the dark ages, no computers, no cars etc etc. Just people working their asses off in a field, with the religious riding around on horseback collecting tithes. 

Jesus is a pawnbroker after all, you sell him your "soul" at a high rate of interest.. your dignity and common sense.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Newton, Galileo,

cj wrote:

Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Blaise Pascal, Georg Ohm, Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Carl Linnaeus, and a slew of other very respected people were Natural Philosophers.  That is what they called themselves.

No, they were scientists.  Every single one of them is identified in academia as being a "scientist", not a "natural philosopher". 

Quote:
And no, they did not use the modern scientific method.

I did not say that they did.  I'm asking you to explain the method that he did use and how it was different from the modern method.  You have yet to offer me anything.

Quote:
Whoever said scientists were never wrong?  Not me:  "I acknowledge that some scientists have been wrong in the past, some are probably wrong in the present, and some will be wrong in the future.  Furthermore, I can predict with certainty that scientific theories will change as we gain new data and synthesize better models and theories to fit the new data."

Scientists have been wrong.  Thank you.  Now I am going to reject all of science.

Quote:
Of course 132 years is comparatively a short time, and of course our methodology is not perfect.  You realize the failed scientific theories that were accepted for more than a 1000 years had to go through a dark ages where there was no natural philosophy and nothing remotely resembling scientific inquiry about the universe brought about by your religion.

No, I did not realize that.  Do you have a link?

Quote:
Hello, it is right there in the paragraph.  Previously to about 1878, science consisted of storing information and observing the information.  Actively testing a hypothesis was not commonly used as part of the scientific process until after about 1878.  That is when the method of hypothesis, test, observe, and test again by independent researchers began.  Repeatable independent verification and peer review are all part of the modern model.

I'm not seeing it in the paragraph.

So you know for a fact that no scientist prior to 1878 actually formulated a hypothesis, tested it, made a conclusion based on that test, and then asked his tests to be reviewed?  You truly believe that nobody caught wind of the fact that it may be useful to test things?  So are those stories about the testing of spontaneous generation made up lies?

Quote:
Did you not realize who you are talking to?  I'm 59 years old and a grandmother.  My parents haven't bought any new toys for me in over 45 years.  I raised 3 sons, the youngest of whom is probably older than you.  (He is 33.)

It makes me even more sad that a woman of your years lives a meaningless life and is imputing her meaningless life onto the next generation.  It's a sad state of affairs.

Quote:
I enjoy the toys of modern technology, but I am most grateful for the increased health and welfare that technology has brought.

Why do we bother inventing technology which is conducive to increasing health and welfare?  Is there a scientific law which governs the fact that we ought to care for one another?

Quote:
Metaphysics doesn't drive science.  Curiosity drives science.  The desire to figure out why and how.  Religion stifles science by saying, "goddidit".

Umm, metaphysics drives curiosity, since you presume that there is a universe and it is a capable of being know.  This is strictly a metaphysical presumption.

Quote:
If computers are not important, why the hell are you on this forum displaying your arrogance for all to see?  Yes, it is arrogance - "My religion is better for you than the answers you have discovered for yourself."

You haven't discovered any answers.  You live in darkness.

Quote:
What's really important to me is my husband, children and grandchildren, the relatives that I am fond of, and my friends.  I have relatives I am not fond of and they are not important to me.  What else is not important to me is some imaginary friend who has no impact on my life and causes other people to act like ignorant fools.

If they were really important to you, then you would have raised them to live meaningful lives.  But instead you've raised them to be worthless just like you are.


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:The

Atheistextremist wrote:

The NT authors were marketing their own faith, seeking to build its veracity, trying to knock over the competitors' business models. To increase the apparent truth they included these fake prophecies, these re-writings of history.

HAW HAW.  Prove it.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S

Fortunate_S wrote:

Quote:
Whoever said scientists were never wrong?  Not me:  "I acknowledge that some scientists have been wrong in the past, some are probably wrong in the present, and some will be wrong in the future.  Furthermore, I can predict with certainty that scientific theories will change as we gain new data and synthesize better models and theories to fit the new data."

Scientists have been wrong.  Thank you.  Now I am going to reject all of science.

 

Dear Fortunate_S,

Please clarify if this is your statement or a counter-argument.

Before you comment on this, it is really difficult to discuss anything else because THIS STATEMENT IS NOT ABOUT SCIENCE; IT IS ABOUT LOGIC.  

Thank you.

100%

 


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:Dear

100percentAtheist wrote:

Dear Fortunate_S,

Please clarify if this is your statement or a counter-argument.

Before you comment on this, it is really difficult to discuss anything else because THIS STATEMENT IS NOT ABOUT SCIENCE; IT IS ABOUT LOGIC.  

Thank you.

100%

Someone said that many miracle-workers have been exposed as frauds.  The context in which it was said seemed to be imply that because of this, we should not trust religion. 

But we can apply the same logic to science, which has had many failed theories.  We can wrangle about methods all we want.  In ancient times, I'm sure they believed their methods were incredibly reliable.  The current methods are new and we may end up rejecting them in the future.  Science is not infallible.

My point is that the logic of this is flawed and it is the exact logic that the other atheist used against religion.  


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:My point

Fortunate_S wrote:

My point is that the logic of this is flawed and it is the exact logic that the other atheist used against religion.  

 

Thank you.  This is what I thought.   

Why didn't you just say so.  Many on this forum did not get it as an argument.  Instead, they consider it as your viewpoint.

Best,

100%

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
He makes it sound as if

He makes it sound as if scientists wish him to worship and adore them. That is a major difference in science and religion.

Science doesn't care, it just is, you use science, religion uses you.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You prove it FS

Fortunate_S wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

The NT authors were marketing their own faith, seeking to build its veracity, trying to knock over the competitors' business models. To increase the apparent truth they included these fake prophecies, these re-writings of history.

HAW HAW.  Prove it.

 

Prove to me one real prophecy that was not written after the event using the original text as a source.

Why have there been no true prophecies in the past 2000 years, FS? Why, FS, why?

You offer no verifiable proof because there is none, and we all know it.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi 100percent

Fortunate_S wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Dear Fortunate_S,

Please clarify if this is your statement or a counter-argument.

Before you comment on this, it is really difficult to discuss anything else because THIS STATEMENT IS NOT ABOUT SCIENCE; IT IS ABOUT LOGIC.  

Thank you.

100%

Someone said that many miracle-workers have been exposed as frauds.  The context in which it was said seemed to be imply that because of this, we should not trust religion. 

But we can apply the same logic to science, which has had many failed theories.  We can wrangle about methods all we want.  In ancient times, I'm sure they believed their methods were incredibly reliable.  The current methods are new and we may end up rejecting them in the future.  Science is not infallible.

My point is that the logic of this is flawed and it is the exact logic that the other atheist used against religion.  

 

I think it's important to point out here that while science has been proved, by its open and verfiable method, to have been wrong at times, no miracle has ever been proved to have happened. There is nothing logical going on in a refutation of miracles. Miracles defy logic, that's why they are miraculous. By default, they have to breach normal rules. You cannot suggest there is anything logical at all in the discussion of miracles that have never, ever, been adequately proven to have happened. If anyone wants to do so I want to hear verifiable proof of a bona fide miracle - not just a gigantic assertion on the basis of subjective opinion.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

The NT authors were marketing their own faith, seeking to build its veracity, trying to knock over the competitors' business models. To increase the apparent truth they included these fake prophecies, these re-writings of history.

HAW HAW.  Prove it.

Prove to me one real prophecy that was not written after the event using the original text as a source.

Why have there been no true prophecies in the past 2000 years, FS? Why, FS, why?

You offer no verifiable proof because there is none, and we all know it.

Before I do that, prove that the NT authors were marketing their own faith, seeking to build its veracity, trying to knock over the competitors' business models, etc.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
it would obviously stand to

it would obviously stand to reason, considering other religions have been trying to knock others throughout history. The authors could have simply thought their new religion would serve them better than it's predecessor. They narrowed it down to one all powerful being with a "list" of what not to do's. Your faith will say otherwise and that is to be expected from someone who has chosen to believe in this particular religion. You have chosen to ignore common sense in favor of faith, like most religious people.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I

Atheistextremist wrote:

I think it's important to point out here that while science has been proved, by its open and verfiable method, to have been wrong at times, no miracle has ever been proved to have happened. There is nothing logical going on in a refutation of miracles. Miracles defy logic, that's why they are miraculous. By default, they have to breach normal rules. You cannot suggest there is anything logical at all in the discussion of miracles that have never, ever, been adequately proven to have happened. If anyone wants to do so I want to hear verifiable proof of a bona fide miracle - not just a gigantic assertion on the basis of subjective opinion.

 

This is why it is important to understand asap if someone is using logic or "loigc". Smiling

Also, if you define "miracle" as something that cannot be explained by logic, than you are completely right, and such a "miracle" belongs to a seaworld of carp.  However, if miracles include everything unexplained including verifiable events, then such miracles of course ought to be sorted out into the two baskets: 1) unexplained phenomena and 2) carp.

100%


11111011
11111011's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Before I

Fortunate_S wrote:

Before I do that, prove that the NT authors were marketing their own faith, seeking to build its veracity, trying to knock over the competitors' business models, etc.

There's no conceivable way that I could wrap my head around your notion that the early Christians weren't marketing their own faith.  It's a stupid claim that doesn't make sense, and there's no reason to suppose that early Christians were any less gullible and prone to deception than they are now.

What's your opinion, that the Gospel writers and early Christians were especially skeptical of their own claims? And of course they marketed their faith, Christians nowadays do the same thing, witnessing to people who have no interest in their affairs.

They went around hawking their snake-oil just as Christians do nowadays.  It's an inference from how Christians today act that we'd expect the early Christians to do just as much selling, if not more.

So there you go, it's not much, but it's more than you'll be able to provide to substantiate any claims to the contrary.  I'm not aware of any significant skeptical sentiment among the early Christians, aside from the arguing among the early sects concerning the traits of Jesus that even they couldn't get straight.

Regarding "knock[ing] over of competitors' business models", look to the early Christian feuds with the Gnostics.  These were early Christians who felt that Jesus taught secret knowledge that could allow their souls to escape the material world.  Mind you, I have to mention that I regret the fact that you have to be reminded of this considering I'm not even the theist here.

Judging by your own holy texts, the early followers of Jesus were those gullible enough to buy into fantastic tales that Jesus' own contemporaries--the Sanhedrin and Romans--rejected outright as fabrications.  Again, from the Bible, and assuming Jesus a real man, the start of Christianity came from 12 disciples among the thousands (likely) who witnessed Jesus and concluded that he was a fraud.  Of course they'd be spreading the "good word"--again, just as Christians do now--they thought that the son of god just visited the planet, walked on water, healed the sick, all of that bullshit.  If you're going to posit that they were instead especially skeptical, I'd like to see that substantiated.  We've no reason to believe that they were otherwise; Christians today even aren't particularly skeptical, so why should the early followers be any different?


11111011
11111011's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Someone

Fortunate_S wrote:

Someone said that many miracle-workers have been exposed as frauds.  The context in which it was said seemed to be imply that because of this, we should not trust religion. 

But we can apply the same logic to science, which has had many failed theories.

The difference is that science allows one to replicate findings (and to self-correct if experiments are found to be non-repeatable), while religion postulates things that can be neither tested nor (almost always) repeated by others.  Science doesn't just ask for support on someone's say-so like religion does.

Since the advent of testing miracles 'scientifically,' i.e. in controlled settings, the so-called miraculous has something along the lines of a zero percent success rate.  ZERO!

Uri couldn't use his powers on the Carson show (under skeptical scrutiny), Sai Baba refused to be tested under likewise conditions.  Then there is this fraud, who actually bought into his own lies, which made his downfall that much funnier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwCuv_izn4

So let me turn it around and ask how you can trust religion given the failure of all tested 'miraculous' claims? BTW, I'm talking about real skeptics doing the investigations, not yet another case of hearsay or testimony from one or two people that religions are so fond of citing as support.

Quote:

 We can wrangle about methods all we want.  In ancient times, I'm sure they believed their methods were incredibly reliable. 

 

The only issue is that they weren't reliable.  It once was thought that the earth was the center of all things and a round circle, that the heavens were but a dome.  The word of god is not amendable, which proves that your methods are even worse than science.  However fallible science is, religion is worse because it can't be confirmed or denied, as most all religious claims to the miraculous are one shot deals that have already happened.

The few times that the Bible ventures into the realm of science it has inevitably been shot down.  World wasn't made in 6 days, world didn't end as fast as Jesus had hoped, never was a global flood, etc.  Science self corrects over time, unlike the Bible, and it's repeatedly shot down Biblical claims.  Are you seriously going to claim that we shouldn't trust science when your own methods are so much more fallible? (i.e. divine revelation)

I'm not the sort of person that claims that miracles can't happen; many people believe that they can't.  But I will say the only way to believe that they do with even a grain of reliability is to get a skeptic/skeptics in there and test it in controlled circumstances.  I have no compunctions about what the result would be if we could jump into a time machine and test Jesus, but the fact is that we'll never be able to have an up/down answer to that. 

The closest thing, as I've mentioned in the other response above, is the Sanhedrin and Romans, both of which found Jesus' divinity claims to be non-convincing, and they executed him.  So what do you have to say about that? We have a pretty good testament to this, I think, considering it's from a book you likely deem holy (from your badge).  The one skeptical inquiry into Jesus ended up with him executed, and yet you still believe.  Why?

We don't hear much about Uri Geller anymore--I think his real downfall was his epic fail on the Carson show.  We have a situation that approximates this with the Jewish Sanhedrin concerning Jesus, where he utterly fails and gets himself killed.  Jesus couldn't convince them, just like Uri couldn't convince Carson (or the audience).  On the one hand, the name "Uri Geller" is commonly equated with a huckster, but Jesus is still the son of god to many.  How can this be?

Claims of the miraculous still crop up even today.  The only way to believe them is to challenge the hell out of them to see if they stand up.  If they do, only then should they be believed.  This method of testing a claim, again, is but a dumbed down version of science.  Yes, it isn't perfect, but it's far and away better than the alternative of faith lacking reason.

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote: cj wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:

cj wrote:

Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Blaise Pascal, Georg Ohm, Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Carl Linnaeus, and a slew of other very respected people were Natural Philosophers.  That is what they called themselves.

No, they were scientists.  Every single one of them is identified in academia as being a "scientist", not a "natural philosopher". 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

From the article I quoted before:

Wikipedia wrote:

Prior to the 1700s, the preferred term for the study of nature was natural philosophy, while English speakers most typically referred to other philosophical disciplines (such as logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics) as moral philosophy.

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

Quote:
And no, they did not use the modern scientific method.

I did not say that they did.  I'm asking you to explain the method that he did use and how it was different from the modern method.  You have yet to offer me anything.

 

I guess you need it tatooed on your heel.

 

The method used by people we now call scientists but were called natural philosophers during their own lives involved:

observation

storage and classification of data

testing

review by other natural philosophers

The difference is that there was no methodology.  People did some - maybe all - but not consistently.  And there was little in the way of systematic review.  I can refer you to Geologist J Harlen Bretz for an example.  His work was done in the 1920s (people were slow to incorporate the scientific method in their research).  Mr. Bretz worked in eastern Washington state and delivered a treatise on the Palouse scablands area.  (If you haven't been there, it is very impressive in many ways.)  His treatise was ridiculed without anyone coming to see or test or review his data.  When he finally got another geologist out to look at the soils, they immediately agreed with him that it was typical stream bed soil where no stream or even dry stream bed currently existed.  And these stream bed soils went on for miles.  So the review by other scientists used to often involve nothing more than other scientists saying "ain't so!'.

You can go look up the papers and follow up debates for various topics and see for yourself.  Unfortunately this information is scattered and is usually included in histories of various societies.  For example, the old proceedings of the Royal Society Medicine.  Here is one example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2116599/?page=1

This is a short paper on the treatment of gonorrhea on 50 patients, all male.  No ages were specified, no other physical conditions were noted.  The treatment being tested was Cubebs (Java) pepper but was used in two different forms (tincture in wine and powder).  This is important as a tincture in wine may release chemicals differently than just a power.  Also another treatment was used if the patient was not well in a short period of time.  In other words, the results are hopelessly confounded with other unknown factors.  Notice also this is not a double blind study and there was no long term follow up.

In modern journals, this paper would be rejected and I doubt if you or anyone you know would rely on the conclusions of the author that Java pepper was efficacious for treating gonorrhea.  My point for all of this is that the scientific method has changed over time.  Given our ability to collect better data and to analyze it using statistical methods not available during earlier times, we are better able to determine which results are significant and which are random. 

Ah, in case you are curious, statistics was invented in the 18th century for sociological purposes  and broadened in the 19th century for industrial purposes including making beer.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_statistics)

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

Quote:
Whoever said scientists were never wrong?  Not me:  "I acknowledge that some scientists have been wrong in the past, some are probably wrong in the present, and some will be wrong in the future.  Furthermore, I can predict with certainty that scientific theories will change as we gain new data and synthesize better models and theories to fit the new data."

Scientists have been wrong.  Thank you.  Now I am going to reject all of science.

 

Turn off your computer and electricity, stop using anything that uses batteries, get out of your house, stay out of your car and don't bother cooking dinner.  They all are products of science and scientific theories.  For pity's sake, burning the end of a sharpened stick in a campfire before you go plunge it into something that vaguely resembles lunch is technology.  We now understand why it works to fire harden your spear due to science.

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

Quote:
Of course 132 years is comparatively a short time, and of course our methodology is not perfect.  You realize the failed scientific theories that were accepted for more than a 1000 years had to go through a dark ages where there was no natural philosophy and nothing remotely resembling scientific inquiry about the universe brought about by your religion.

No, I did not realize that.  Do you have a link?

 

My bad.  Let's go with instead, that many of those ideas that are 1000 years old were lost during the midevil ages and people didn't know they needed to be retested.  Aristotle and company did not test, remember?  They did thought experiments.

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

Where have you been all your life? 

Quote:
Hello, it is right there in the paragraph.  Previously to about 1878, science consisted of storing information and observing the information.  Actively testing a hypothesis was not commonly used as part of the scientific process until after about 1878.  That is when the method of hypothesis, test, observe, and test again by independent researchers began.  Repeatable independent verification and peer review are all part of the modern model.

I'm not seeing it in the paragraph.

So you know for a fact that no scientist prior to 1878 actually formulated a hypothesis, tested it, made a conclusion based on that test, and then asked his tests to be reviewed?  You truly believe that nobody caught wind of the fact that it may be useful to test things?  So are those stories about the testing of spontaneous generation made up lies?

 

No, it is not lies, it was however an incomplete version of our modern scientific method.  See the above example on treating gonorrhea.

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

Quote:
Did you not realize who you are talking to?  I'm 59 years old and a grandmother.  My parents haven't bought any new toys for me in over 45 years.  I raised 3 sons, the youngest of whom is probably older than you.  (He is 33.)

It makes me even more sad that a woman of your years lives a meaningless life and is imputing her meaningless life onto the next generation.  It's a sad state of affairs.

 

My life is far from meaningless.  And yours is far from being more meaningful than mine.  We all have reasons and life purposes and meanings that may be satisfying or not.  Each of us is different in our goals and desires and motivation.  I don't need to be religious in order to have meaning in my life.  Get over yourself.

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

Quote:
I enjoy the toys of modern technology, but I am most grateful for the increased health and welfare that technology has brought.

Why do we bother inventing technology which is conducive to increasing health and welfare?  Is there a scientific law which governs the fact that we ought to care for one another?

 

Because it is less expensive -- duh.  Just how much does it cost to have half of an entire town down with cholera?  What does this do to business?  If you think this last economic downturn is bad, imagine what it would be like if empty malls were going to be the norm for the next 10-15 years while the next generation grows up.

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

Quote:
Metaphysics doesn't drive science.  Curiosity drives science.  The desire to figure out why and how.  Religion stifles science by saying, "goddidit".

Umm, metaphysics drives curiosity, since you presume that there is a universe and it is a capable of being know.  This is strictly a metaphysical presumption.

 

Metaphysics is baloney.  What drives science is people who are curious about how and why the world works.  Curiosity is just another personality trait - rather like quick tempered or even tempered.  Some people are curious and some aren't.  Scientists usually have a large dose.

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

Quote:
If computers are not important, why the hell are you on this forum displaying your arrogance for all to see?  Yes, it is arrogance - "My religion is better for you than the answers you have discovered for yourself."

You haven't discovered any answers.  You live in darkness.

 

<sarcasm> Ah, you are a mind reader.  I didn't know.  You can see into my heart.  </sarcasm>  How ---- creepy.

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

Quote:
What's really important to me is my husband, children and grandchildren, the relatives that I am fond of, and my friends.  I have relatives I am not fond of and they are not important to me.  What else is not important to me is some imaginary friend who has no impact on my life and causes other people to act like ignorant fools.

If they were really important to you, then you would have raised them to live meaningful lives.  But instead you've raised them to be worthless just like you are.

 

Ah, ad hominem.  You don't have anything else to say so you insult me and my family.  You are the one to be pitied.  Your sense of worth is so tied up in your imaginary friend.  I don't need an imaginary friend to live a full, meaningful, joyful life with friends and family who love me.  You could be as free as I am if you choose.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well there we have it at last, people.


Fortunate_S wrote:

If they were really important to you, then you would have raised them to live meaningful lives (be a christian).  But instead you've raised them to be worthless just like you are.

 

This is the core of the fortunate son doctrine.

 

 

 


 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You aren't aware of the competition between


[/quote FS]

Before I do that, prove that the NT authors were marketing their own faith, seeking to build its veracity, trying to knock over the competitors' business models, etc.

 

christianity and the other cults and mystery religions of its time? That's interesting. Christianity is a triumph of commercial organisation and relentless self promotion. Take a look at the Amway model or any classic franchise. It's a business. Throw in a handful of personality cult, a bunch of threats, simmer, then stir.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
cj

cj wrote:

Prior to the 1700s, the preferred term for the study of nature was natural philosophy, while English speakers most typically referred to other philosophical disciplines (such as logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics) as moral philosophy.

They are referred to as "scientists" is academia.  The only reason that they did not call themselves "scientists" is because the word itself was not derived until 1834 from the Latin term "scientia".  In Greek, the word was "episteme", which is where the current term "epistemology" is derived from.  "Science" actually refers to knowledge.  We are talking about "natural science", but colloquially, we got rid of the "natural" and just called them "scientists".  If Einstein existed in the 1600s and used the same methodology, he would have been called a "natural philosopher" as well.  Today, those "natural philosophers" are called "scientists".  You are just trying to find a way to make excuses for the failed scientific theories by categorizing those other guys differently.   Take Isaac Newton:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=Isaac+Newton+%2B+scientist&aq=f&aqi=g7g-m3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=a126579bdedd050

Quote:
I guess you need it tatooed on your heel.

The method used by people we now call scientists but were called natural philosophers during their own lives involved:

observation

storage and classification of data

testing

review by other natural philosophers

Ok, and why is that not reliable? 

Quote:
The difference is that there was no methodology.  People did some - maybe all - but not consistently.  And there was little in the way of systematic review. 

What do you mean "methodology"?  You just explained a method that they used which I do not see as being much different than what they do today.  What do you mean "systematic review"?   How are able to broadbrush millions of people in a completely different century? 

Quote:
I can refer you to Geologist J Harlen Bretz for an example.  His work was done in the 1920s (people were slow to incorporate the scientific method in their research).  Mr. Bretz worked in eastern Washington state and delivered a treatise on the Palouse scablands area.  (If you haven't been there, it is very impressive in many ways.)  His treatise was ridiculed without anyone coming to see or test or review his data.  When he finally got another geologist out to look at the soils, they immediately agreed with him that it was typical stream bed soil where no stream or even dry stream bed currently existed.  And these stream bed soils went on for miles.  So the review by other scientists used to often involve nothing more than other scientists saying "ain't so!'.

You just said that the old methodology involved review by other natural philosophers, and then you give an example of some guy from well after 1878 whose theories were not reviewed at all.

What you are doing is assuming that the peer review was less reliable because you assume that scientists back then were not as smart and made no effort to be as rigorous as they are today.  You are just making assertions and it is amusing that the only example you can give is one that occurred years after the method you posit was developed.

Quote:
You can go look up the papers and follow up debates for various topics and see for yourself.  Unfortunately this information is scattered and is usually included in histories of various societies.  For example, the old proceedings of the Royal Society Medicine.

No.  You make the claim.  You have the burden of proof.

Quote:
This is a short paper on the treatment of gonorrhea on 50 patients, all male. 

Is this a scientific experiment?  Does this have anything to do with what we are discussing? 

Quote:
In modern journals, this paper would be rejected and I doubt if you or anyone you know would rely on the conclusions of the author that Java pepper was efficacious for treating gonorrhea.  My point for all of this is that the scientific method has changed over time.  Given our ability to collect better data and to analyze it using statistical methods not available during earlier times, we are better able to determine which results are significant and which are random. 

And my point is, scientists have failed, many times.  There is no reason to assume that our current methodology is perfect and that they will not fail again.  Therefore, it is useless for you to special plead and say that any scientist before 1878 was unreliable and that there will be no more rejected scientific laws because we've improved it.  The hilarious part is that your previous example was well after 1878.

Quote:
Turn off your computer and electricity, stop using anything that uses batteries, get out of your house, stay out of your car and don't bother cooking dinner.  They all are products of science and scientific theories.  For pity's sake, burning the end of a sharpened stick in a campfire before you go plunge it into something that vaguely resembles lunch is technology.  We now understand why it works to fire harden your spear due to science.

Actually, the context in which I made this statement went way over your head. 

Quote:
My bad.  Let's go with instead, that many of those ideas that are 1000 years old were lost during the midevil ages and people didn't know they needed to be retested.  Aristotle and company did not test, remember?  They did thought experiments.

If the ideas were "lost", then the people would not have continued to espouse them.  You honestly believe that in 1,000 years, there were no scientists who did testing? 

And yes, Aristotle did test.  For example, he posited that heavy objects will always fall faster than lighter objects.  He picked up a rock and noticed that it fell faster than a feather.  Ergo, he tested his theory and it was apparently true.  Or do you believe that Aristotle just decided one day that he would posit that heavy objects always fall faster even though he never actually witnessed it himself? 

Quote:
No, it is not lies, it was however an incomplete version of our modern scientific method.  See the above example on treating gonorrhea.

It wasn't incomplete.  You admitted that there was review by other scientists, you only call into question whether or not they did it rigorously.  Are you aware of the tests involving spontaneous generation.  It's just a Wikipedia article away.

Quote:
My life is far from meaningless.  And yours is far from being more meaningful than mine.  We all have reasons and life purposes and meanings that may be satisfying or not.  Each of us is different in our goals and desires and motivation.  I don't need to be religious in order to have meaning in my life.  Get over yourself.

Sorry, it isn't.  We cannot define our own meaning.  That would be like the Mona Lisa defining itself instead of taking its meaning from the intent of the painter.  We were created for a particular reason and that necessitates a creator with intent.   Our existence here is for what's to come.  If you reject that, then your existence here is meaningless.  You will die, your kids will die, and your grandkids will die and everything you've done here on Earth will mean nothing because you can't enjoy these things when you are dead.  You live in an imperfect existence and that is all you are going to have.

Quote:
Because it is less expensive -- duh.  Just how much does it cost to have half of an entire town down with cholera?  What does this do to business?  If you think this last economic downturn is bad, imagine what it would be like if empty malls were going to be the norm for the next 10-15 years while the next generation grows up.

Ok.  Why do we try to help each other to begin with?

Quote:
Metaphysics is baloney.

Have you studied it?

Quote:
What drives science is people who are curious about how and why the world works.

And they assume that there is a universe, that it works in a consistent way, and that it works for a particular reason.  That's metaphysics.

Quote:
<sarcasm> Ah, you are a mind reader.  I didn't know.  You can see into my heart.  </sarcasm>  How ---- creepy.

Ah, ad hominem.  You don't have anything else to say so you insult me and my family.  You are the one to be pitied.  Your sense of worth is so tied up in your imaginary friend.  I don't need an imaginary friend to live a full, meaningful, joyful life with friends and family who love me.  You could be as free as I am if you choose.

It's not an insult.  It's a harsh reality being presented to you.  I'm sorry if you are hurt by it, but I'm not going to hold your hand or tickle your ears.  If you don't like it, change it.


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
11111011 wrote:They went

11111011 wrote:

They went around hawking their snake-oil just as Christians do nowadays.  It's an inference from how Christians today act that we'd expect the early Christians to do just as much selling, if not more.

So your reasoning is:  "Christians today constantly market their faith, therefore the miracles of the Bible never really happened and early Christians just made them up in order to market the faith"? 

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No dufus

Fortunate_S wrote:

11111011 wrote:

They went around hawking their snake-oil just as Christians do nowadays.  It's an inference from how Christians today act that we'd expect the early Christians to do just as much selling, if not more.

So your reasoning is:  "Christians today constantly market their faith, therefore the miracles of the Bible never really happened and early Christians just made them up in order to market the faith"? 

 

 

It's that no miracles have ever been seen before - ever, ever, ever. Things that have never been seen before have a descriptive word all of their own. Imaginary.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


11111011
11111011's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:11111011

Fortunate_S wrote:

11111011 wrote:

They went around hawking their snake-oil just as Christians do nowadays.  It's an inference from how Christians today act that we'd expect the early Christians to do just as much selling, if not more.

So your reasoning is:  "Christians today constantly market their faith, therefore the miracles of the Bible never really happened and early Christians just made them up in order to market the faith"? 

 

 

Look, my response (which you obviously didn't read) was to this quote by you:

Quote:

Before I do that, prove that the NT authors were marketing their own faith, seeking to build its veracity, trying to knock over the competitors' business models, etc.

 

There's no reason to presume that the early Christians were any less zealous about promoting their religion than Christians now are.  There.  That's my dumbed down, one-liner response initially contained in my longer post.

And BTW, on a tangent, I think you're basically right.  I think the myth of Jesus was legendary in the early 1st century until a gullible group of followers codified it into a historically-based religion.  To deny that, you'll have to tell me why the one son of God was able to walk around on earth for 30 years and not attract the eye of a single contemporary eyewitness who might have corroborated his existence in writing. 

 

And going off of what atheistextremist said:

Atheistextremist wrote:

It's that no miracles have ever been seen before - ever, ever, ever. Things that have never been seen before have a descriptive word all of their own. Imaginary.

 

I'm certain Fortunate_S would agree, save for the claims of his own religion.  If someone claimed to ride to heaven on a magical unicorn, he'd have no issues with doubting it.  If someone claimed the moon split in two by a miracle from a different religion (e.g. as in Islam), he'd have no issues doubting it.  It's only credible when it comes from his own religion.  I think what his problem is is that he has a 'mind block', per se, I don't know the psychological terms to describe it.  I used to have it too when I was religious.  I'd gauge everything differently when comparing 'miracles,' for instance, between religions.  Christian miracles were always awesome, the miracles of some eastern guru were bullshit.  I had no problem with doing this while a Christian, and I'm sure F_S is of a similar suit to some degree.

F_S, if you're a proponent of historical evidence, you should check out Sai Baba.  Now there's a person with real credibility: thousands of living eyewitnesses to his "miracles", he's still living, we have pictures and video of him.  I'm anxious to hear why you doubt his 'godhood'.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:

11111011 wrote:

They went around hawking their snake-oil just as Christians do nowadays.  It's an inference from how Christians today act that we'd expect the early Christians to do just as much selling, if not more.

So your reasoning is:  "Christians today constantly market their faith, therefore the miracles of the Bible never really happened and early Christians just made them up in order to market the faith"? 

 

 

It's that no miracles have ever been seen before - ever, ever, ever. Things that have never been seen before have a descriptive word all of their own. Imaginary.

 

 

Hey, but how about "f..g rainbows" and "f..g magnets"?

Think, kids are listening to this music.  "I don't need to talk to a f...g scientist".  There is no way you can convince them that magnetism isn't a miracle. 

 

By the way, all religions by their very goal are based on a perpetrated lie of those holding to power and money to their vassals, slaves, peasants, etc..  The goal is to justify the exclusive privileges of few to command their will to others.  These few can be monarchs, tyrants, democratically elected presidents, priests, "witches", Hubbard, the pope, etc., but it does not changes the rules of the game. 

 

Seriously, after those really "insane clowns" I am not sure if I still have anything to ask Fonzie or Fortunate_S.

Also, I have learned about national day of prayer.  WTF is this miraculous thing about?  What am I suppose to do on such prayer days?  


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:11111011

Fortunate_S wrote:

11111011 wrote:

They went around hawking their snake-oil just as Christians do nowadays.  It's an inference from how Christians today act that we'd expect the early Christians to do just as much selling, if not more.

So your reasoning is:  "Christians today constantly market their faith, therefore the miracles of the Bible never really happened and early Christians just made them up in order to market the faith"? 

 

 

Dear Fortunate_S,

 

To my deepest regret, I have recently learned that Christians label basically anything as a miracle.  It is in the Christian song "Miracles" by "insane clowns".   If you call "f...g magnets" a miracle .... of course I can explain you thousand times how they work, and yes you can watch MIT open lectures given by my favorite lecturer Walter Lewin, but if you KEEP BELIEVING it is a miracle, it may need to take Dr. Freud to correct it.

What do you think would Jesus time people (regular people, not Ptolemy who was working on describing refraction laws at that very time) think of rainbows?  Were they miracles to them?   And what about now, are they miracles now?

This is basically the only question I have for you so far (and it is a pretty simple one).  

 

Thanks,

 

100%

 

Some P.S. notes....

"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires." --Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,1933. 

"Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis." --Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion, 1927

"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. [...] If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man's evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity." –Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism, 1939

 

And here we go, some 80 years later. 

"F...g rainbows".

 


Nickack (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Divine Foreknowledge

There is a really good book on divine foreknowledge from four different Christian perspectives.  It is called: Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views.  Four different authors write a chapter on the view they represent and then the other three respond to that view at the end of that chapter.  It is a great dialoge (quadalogue?).

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Foreknowledge-James-K-Beilby/dp/0830826521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274296792&sr=8-1

 

The four views discussed are:

1. Simple Foreknowledge

2. Calvinistic/Augustinian

3. Middle Knowledge

4. Open Theism

 

Simple foreknowledge seems to be the view of the Christian in the email discussion.  It says that just because God knows what will happen doesn't make him responsible for the actions to be made.  This is a difficult view to maintain, I think, but the author makes a pretty good case.

The Calvinistic/Augustinian view is pretty traditional predestination.  God is totally sovereign, we can't judge him because we lack his perfect knowledge, and we have a modified free will.

The Middle Knowledge view emphasizes God's omniscience by saying that he not only knows everything that does/will happen, but he knows everything that would have happened if any of us would have chosen differently in any of our life's actions.  And he knows every alternate reality for every one of our possible different actions.  So before he made the world, we had perfect free will within the core of who we would be, and God created reality in a certain way to achieve the best results for our free wills.

Open Theism, in a nut shell, says that God is able to limit is knowledge in the same way that Jesus limited his power, knowledge, and presence in becoming human.  God can choose what to know and when.

 

I really recommend the book.  It is easy to pick out flaws in each of my summaries, the authors present the views as the elaborate theories that they are.