|
|
#101 |
|
FFR Player
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#102 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Your criticism was that all the accounts were hearsay, and the point was made that in fact, the sources of that "hearsay" were actually eyewitnesses.
Nobody is saying that the "Proof" from the bible is from the bible. We are saying that the sources you discount that directly refer to Jesus existing on the grounds that they "weren't contemporary" were contemporary, or at least, written by his contemporaries. So what exactly is the problem? |
|
|
|
|
|
#103 | |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Location: No were land
Age: 31
Posts: 409
|
Quote:
I just mean, if religions coming lest impotent those day, its because to much stupid peoples like you try to change the world by stupid comments. I hope you understand. I'm not a pro in English, but I know a lot of things. FFR is a games. Not a place to talk about something that you can't talk. What are you trying to do by withing all those comments? I hope you got a good reasons rolf Must be to get the power of a true master of chat ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
FFR Player
|
I never said that was the only issue i had with them. If you want me to restate my criteria for historical sources for the existence of jesus here you go.
1. Third party not directly related to Christian literature 2. Agrees with the rest of recorded history 3. Written by people who has known Jesus, or known of Jesus during his time as not just a great prophet or son of god. those three would convince me if put together, the fourth option being stand alone 4. Historical records kept by government |
|
|
|
|
|
#105 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Communication is important, to the point where proper spelling and grammar are mandatory for the entire forum, and moreso here. If you can't communicate your ideas well, we can't discuss or address them properly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#106 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
But first let me address this comment that seemed very out of place to me. To be very clear you just stated that the theory of relatively is rooted in logic and science whereas religion doesnt because of one word "Feelings." Sorry, but by definition that theory describes how things FEEL. How time FEELS relative to the observer. I hope you realize that while you are experiencing this 'time difference' the only way you can measure it is by how it feels. I think the statement "time FEELS slower today because what I'm doing is boring" accurately illustrates my point. So how does saying "i FEEL the presence of a higher being (when i pray, for example)" act as less 'logical'? To me the difference in time can only be measured on how it FEELS to you and the presence of said higher entity can only be measured on how it FEELS to someone. Thus your statement is very foolish to say that theory is 'firmly rooted' while the religious belief forgoes those same standards even though the measurements for both are incalculable. On to my first statement. I have read SO many times here the saying "there is no evidence" and many other statements questioning the validity of the bible in contrast to other documents. Let me put it very simply and in proper perspective. To a given religious person that holds the bible credible, to them there are MOUNTAINS of evidence in every day life that proves the teachings of the bible correct. Miracles is the key word here. Miracles are inherently defined by saying we have no idea how it happened. Many doctors who are 'deeply rooted in science' use this term to define a medical phenomenon in which they cannot explain. To a religious person this would be 'proof' or 'evidence' that a higher being intervened. Such things happen every day and all throughout time. THIS is why the bible is held to higher standards and credibility throughout the ages. In a very arbitrary way, part of the scientific method is adopted into this line of thinking. To many these miracles can only be seen as intervention especially when in terms of prayer. You could say 'omg i have telekinesis cause i made that pot fall' right as an earthquake rolls in and through a twisted reasoning believe that to be true. Same to be said about believing in santa or any other type of fiction. However, religion is held to the higher credibility because of these miracles that many have seen many times. Such comes into play the primative adaption of science i spoke of earlier. It is much more than fiction because the things spoken of in the bible -miracles- can be supported by the idea that miracles can be witnessed (and many times shown after someone prays for that certain thing). This can draw a parallel between random occurring events in science where there is evidence supporting it exists, yet no plausible prediction as to the time frame in which it happens. To these people seeing these events come as a reassurance, or rather evidence, that what they believe is true. You can claim that this is just the idea that if you look for something hard enough you will find it (such as finding the number 23 in everything) yet most turn to the idea that it was intervention. Many believe in chance or coincidences while others believe that everything has a reason through fate or destiny. Either way you look at it, using your own style of reasoning you cannot prove or disprove EITHER SIDE. However, to both sides it is proven through evidence; whether it be data or miracles, to the observer it is proven. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#107 | |||||||
|
FFR Player
|
Okay so I took a 3 day break from this forum and I have absolutely no idea where this thread is going anymore lol... but I felt like I should at least respond to the most recent poster. I know that we've already discussed whether or not it's even viable to discuss religion in a scientific context, but since slipstrike insists on doing so, I guess I'm pretty justified in pointing out why such arguments ultimately fail.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not saying that religion is incorrect. I also (and I mentioned this in a previous post) firmly believe that no amount of scientific skepticism can ever touch the subject of "Is there a God?" However, I do believe that if religion were ever held to a scientific type of rigor, it would fail in many respects. The question of whether or not it is even appropriate to judge religion on scientific terms is another debate entirely, but since you tried to mold the religious perspective into "scientifically acceptable" terms, I'm just trying to show you where this molding fails. If you want to properly argue the virtues of religion, it's generally a very bad idea to ever cite the "scientific method." |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#108 | |||||||||||||||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
Also, I believe that since the subjective truth works for me that it holds true for other persons as well. Quote:
I mean, it's not like this is an unbelievable story point here that you're refusing to believe. You're refusing to believe it when they say "this was written by ____". Question: how do you confirm the authors of other books if the book telling you isn't enough proof for you? How can you be sure that an alternative source giving information regarding the author of a book did not get the information from the book (GASP OR THE PUBLISHER)? I mean, when you go to Wikipedia, do you think they should require a citation when they say who the author is? A citation that is not the material itself, that is? Anything involving Jesus can be identified as "Christian literature". Quote:
Quote:
Do you think people will be reading things about you in 2000 years? Do you think anything written about you now would survive for 2000 years? Do you know how unreasonable it is to ask for something written about him 2000 years later THAT IS NOT directly related to HIS CHURCH or HIS FOLLOWERS? Quote:
And no, I have not SEEN these records, but there is plenty on this Earth that I have not seen. However, when I hear someone who I trust to know what they're talking about saying "yes there are records", I'm going to believe what they say. Quote:
Second of all, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Third of all, shut up. Quote:
A person's perception of reality does not equate to absolute truth. Quote:
Exactly the same as when something tragic happens. The difference here is that a person would not want to attribute a child dying of cancer randomly for no good reason as an action of this God they so love and worship. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ps lol at double teaming this kid
__________________
Last edited by Afrobean; 12-22-2008 at 06:50 AM.. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#109 |
|
FFR Player
|
I think you are missing the point of my post. The point was not to PROVE anything. The point is to show why it seems 'logical' to religious people. In the same way you see statistics and think of them as evidence for something, religious people see miracles and think of them as evidence for something. Think of it as illogical as you will but thats how things are seen. Also about the whole mental institution thing, that would be in one case out of a million whereas the grouping of 'miracles' would be many examples of a higher entity to which we do not understand the workings of it all throughout a broad spectrum of time with countless examples.
Along the whole prayer lines it is almost entirely a different story. You could test the effectiveness of prayer but where would it get you by religious standards? No where. For a prayer to be called a legitimate use of communicating with 'God' you would most certainly have to abide by His rules. For example, prayer is said to only have effect when it is spoken with pure intentions and humbleness to this superior being. If you are trying to prove or disprove his workings so you kneel down to find out you obviously wouldnt be doing it very humble and with the best intentions now would you? Its almost like giving it half effort and saying "look, see? it didnt work!!" For as a true religious person doing it under the right conditions would see the effect in a roundabout way and take that as the sign they were looking for. To put this in an example it would be like praying for you to be able to get through hard times and then having a friend coming up to you and having long talks with you to help you feel better. It all comes down to the way you look at life. Religious people would see a bad event and attribute it to being a test by God to either prove your faith or to make you stronger; whereas a scientific (or just any nonreligious person) would simply see it as cause and effect, learn from the mistake, and use that knowledge to not do it again. Either way, the effects of that particular event are very similar on the individual. The perception change is the biggest difference, however which way you choose to follow is set up on personal standards. Whether these standards of living come from religion or science, both aim to point an individual a better way of life (through knowledge or faith) so why do both sides try to tear each other down? To me they both provide acceptable means, so to 'prove' them wrong would be just be a way of intentionally trying to make someone feel worse with the only motivation being able to say "i was right sucka." Both sides do plenty of it but i move for a common understanding of the two. Regardless, proof on either side of the line means nothing to the other side. |
|
|
|
|
|
#110 | |||||||||||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I guess people who are religious can't believe in evolution? Can't believe that the Earth is millions of years old? Can't believe the Earth revolves around the Sun? These are things which science knows to be true, yet scripture says otherwise. You really think religious people should actively make fools of themselves by denying true logic? You think it's a good thing to keep your head in the sand?
__________________
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#111 |
|
FFR Player
|
Unfortunately, "logic" is a pretty well defined concept - it's not correct to somehow split this off into "scientific logic" and "religious logic" - such a dichotomy doesn't really exist. A lot can be said for the validity of the religious perspective, but logic isn't really one of them - you're badly misusing terms if you are saying that people interpreting alleged "miracles" as existence of a creator is somehow related to conventional "logic."
|
|
|
|
|
|
#112 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
I have some more to say but I've got to leave. I just wanted to explain how bias the OP is.
__________________
“Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish... Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.” Christopher Hitchens Last edited by N.T.M.; 12-25-2008 at 07:43 PM.. Reason: typo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#113 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
All scientific evidence complies with the existence of a God?! WHAT?! I have no idea how that follows from anything. You DO realize that even though evolution is still a theory, there are just such copious amounts of evidence that suggest that it is true. And, obviously evidence that supports Darwinian evolution does not exactly support religion. If you went through this thread, this has already been discussed - religion fails in many respects when viewed from a scientific perspective, but at its core, it's not very meaningful to view religion from that point anyways. I'm also completely not surprised that Darwin himself doubted his own theory. I believe the quote (or at least, idea) you are referring to is this one: "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" Sure, that's nice and all, but when you put this quote into historical perspective, can we really blame Darwin for saying something like this? Especially during that time, such a scientific theory was so groundbreaking that it's natural to have doubts. And, considering that disbelief in a higher power was less acceptable back then, it's no surprise that Darwin would be hesitant. In any case, I would really like to see you argue that "all scientific evidence complies with the existence of God." That's a huge, broad statement that is obviously not true. As to the fossils... I'm not impressed? Just because they have not been discovered as of yet is no indication that they have not existed, and definitely no indication that somehow the theory of Darwinian evolution is "inconceivable." All this leads us is to the question: "Why can we not find that many fossils in this 'intermediate' stage?" I'm hard pressed to see how you can justifiably make a logical jump from this question to any meaningful statement about religion. And, obviously, modern evolutionists aren't going around and going "ahhhh... we give up. No fossils! *cries*" I actually find your assertion about fossils (should they be true - I'm not going to check your sources), doesn't say much about the theory of evolution, since generally, older things are harder to find than newer things. Considering that evolution (should it exist) happens on such a huge time-scale, the age difference between "intermediate fossils" and "final product fossils" is presumably very, very large - who knows what geological and environmental factors could have effected these fossils in that time? Unless you can somehow account for all the variables involved, there is absolutely no logical foundation for your saying that this fossil record somehow gives us substantial insight into anything. I also completely to fail to see how any of this has to do with some sort of "mathematical aspect," although that may have just been an unintentional misuse of vocabulary on the poster's part. I apologize if I seem a bit irritated, but that was just, to me, a very bad sweeping generalization. Last edited by QED Stepfiles; 12-26-2008 at 01:54 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#114 | |||||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
If one applies the same sort of scrutiny to the claims of religions that is given to science, all of the fantastic claims would be have to be false; science doesn't agree to fantastic ideas without evidence, so when religion fails to provide any evidence, said fantastic ideas must not be scientifically true. Quote:
What you mean to say is that science does not produce any proof that it's impossible for some kind of god to exist (but as I've already said, believing in it for this reason would be a logical fallacy). A god as an extradimensional being is certainly within possibility according to the scope of science, but a god as defined literally in the bible is most certainly not. This is why reasonable religious people fall back on the metaphor idea. Some of the things in the book are blatantly at odds with what we know about the world around us, so those things which are at odds must be read as metaphors or else those religious people would have to be of the opinion that their holy and perfect book is riddled with half truths and whole lies. Anyway, notice that while science fails to provide negative proof (which is IMPOSSIBLE, might I add), it also doesn't come close to providing even one piece of actual evidence either. You say, "Science fails to prove god cannot exist," and I'll reply back, "Science also fails to provide any evidence to support his existing." Quote:
And anyway, Darwin's later claim of saying it was wrong was a fearful repentance. He wasn't an atheist, so he feared for his "immortal soul", and in his later years, his fear drove him to ignore logic. Plenty of bright minds have believed in God, but they have a means to balance their observance and "reverse engineering" of the world around them while still maintaining their faith that there is a greater power; Darwin failed to keep it balanced. Quote:
And do you know how fossils come to be? They're not just bones. They're bones turned to rock. That requires a special process and not all bones will become fossils. Some bones may become heavily damaged in the process of fossilization, and many dead animals' bones will just decay and not become fossils at all. I suggest you learn a little bit about fossilization and such before accusing it of failing to produce evidence; it's not as common a natural occurrence as you think it is. Quote:
__________________
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#115 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
The same thing goes for descriptions of events, i think there is a good possibility that the stories and some of the things look at as 'literal' could be interpreted wrong. This brings us to our interpretation of it. Some things are said to be literal while others are metaphorical, however, there is a big lapse of their understanding then versus ours now. From this i only propose that perhaps the things science and logic can prove wrong about the bible, they are not actually proving it wrong but rather the 'literal' interpretation of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#116 |
|
Giant Pi Operator
|
Well, we know that what any holy book says about how a god made stuff has no bearing at all on the existence of a divine being, no matter how ridiculous the book was. And I'd also have to say that it's impossible to employ the scientific method and come up with a story of how the world came to be. In other words, evolution as a whole is unscientific. Don't get me wrong. The theory of evolution itself is very scientific, but I'm talking about the "story" of evolution, the theoretical lineage we've put together after decades of searching for fossils and links.
Now I'll be paraphrasing Kent Hovind, although not in a Young Earth Creationism supporting way. There are the "four great questions" in life: 1. Who am I? (What am I worth?) 2. Where did I come from? 3. Why am I here? 4. Where am I going when I die? These questions can't be answered using the scientific method. No empiricism can be employed. But pretty much every organized religion makes an attempt to answer these questions. Clearly, there is no concrete certainty involved in an answer to the questions. The Big Bang, for instance, can't be repeated. But if it could be repeated and tested, then we could take a stab at where we came from and possibly why we're here. Since we don't have this luxury, pretty much any statement we make about one of those questions is a "religious" statement, or otherwise an a priori statement. I think religion is under a different type of scrutiny because of the fact that the answers it offers are of a religious, a priori nature. There is no guarantee that one answer is any better than any other answer, and no hope of testing anything, either. The theory of evolution describes how things change, which we've observed a buncha times, but to try and figure out where we came from, we have to think without experience and conceive of things, and this is not a scientific way of doing things. It is also inductive rather than deductive. What we are doing when we try to trace our lineage is not science but reason, good ol' a priori reasoning. Obviously, there are ways to come to the truth without employing scientific methodologies, and this may be one of those ways. But to turn around and say that we cannot use the same a priori reasoning and apply it to God is slightly hypocritical. It's clearly impossible for the scientific method to make any judgement about a supernatural thing existing. But it's certainly conceivable that such a thing could exist, because the scientific method isn't the sole way of coming to the truth, even in certain fields of science, like in biology. There's no way of testing it, but through induction we can trace the evidence of the complex world we live in today back to a creator as a possible cause. The same line of reasoning is used in predicting evolutionary pasts. As soon as we make a prediction, we leave the realm of science and try to find the truth another way. We have to do this always when talking about unobserved past events. |
|
|
|
|
|
#117 | |||||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
You're given a conclusion and you're trying to prove that it is right (or at least, possible). That's not how science works. Science works by making an observation, guessing at it, checking it, testing it, disproving/measuring/retesting, THEN conclusion. And there are plenty of things where what they say is absolute in its definition even by today's standards. How about Dinosaurs? The age of the Earth? How long man has existed on this planet? Christianity makes straightforward statements about these things which have the exact same implications then as they do now. A year to them is the same as a year to us. A thousand years to them is a thousand years to us. Quote:
That's how the world came to be. Quote:
Quote:
Not everything fossilizes. Go to wikipedia and look at the article for fossils and I'm sure you'll find that your thoughts about fossils are grossly incorrect. Fossilization is a special thing and there is a chance that the special required circumstances might not have ever come up for any one of a specific species, particularly if it was a "shortlived" and "inbetween" evolution. Quote:
Here are empirical answers for myself: 1. Christopher Obey, a.k.a. Afrobean. I am worth minimum wage. 2. I came from my mother and father. Their gametes created as is their function to create a zygote. This zygote split and replicated itself and with time those cells came to be an embryo that eventually came to be born as a baby which is me. 3. I am here to procreate, to advance my species. 4. I personally haven't decided, but statistically speaking, buried under the ground is probably the most likely. I've always thought it would be pretty cool to have a funeral pyre though, in which case my body would be burned up and my charred, broken down remains probably disposed of hygienically or stored in a keepsake urn. Those are not deep questions.
__________________
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#118 | ||||
|
Giant Pi Operator
|
You're missing my point.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by ledwix; 12-26-2008 at 10:34 PM.. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#119 |
|
FFR Player
|
Ledwix,
You seem to be operating under the misconception that it's somehow not scientifically valid to formulate a theory and then to backwards extrapolate in terms of seeing effects of that theory after the fact. I'm not sure where you're getting that from, because there are plenty of scientific theories that are only tested in this context, and this by no means makes them "less scientific." Pretty much all of medical research, for example, relies on tests after certain treatments are administered to see the results of that treatment. We are not able to observe how precisely the treatment works on an anatomic scale, but the effects of said treatment are sufficient as scientific evidence of the efficacy of this treatment. It all comes down to statistical data - we can observe many things that may or may not relate to evolution, but under stringent enough conditions we can conduct experiments in which, should we see effects that comply with evolutionary theory, it is almost statistically impossible that said effects were caused by random chance or anything other than the theory that is being tested. If we were able to observe evolution empirically, and do this without question in a controlled setting, then there wouldn't even be the need of such statistics, but it is nonetheless very compelling evidence if we observe the results of evolution (in a controlled experiment). And these results are, undoubtedly, scientifically valid, in every sense of the word. I agree that those four questions you posed are not answerable in a scientific sense, but this is just a matter of their being highly subjective questions. What is "worth" in the context of "How much am I worth?" Presumably, different people have different perspectives on what this word "worth" mean. If you want those questions to be scientifically answerable, you need to make sure that all your terms are well-defined and unambiguous. This really isn't a problem with science as a discipline, but more a problem with the irrelevance of your question itself. And, from a scientific perspective, if you were to phrase that question in objective terms, you'll probably end up with a series of questions that have as answers precisely what Afrobean mentioned. So no, it is wholly scientifically possible to come up with a theory on how the world was created, and how we came to be in this world, given the question is phrased precisely. It is really possible to create a scientific theory about any phenomenon that is a physical process. Ultimately, evolution is, at its core, a valid scientific theory, and inductive reasoning is used almost ad nauseum in modern scientific thought (and in a way that is scientifically consistent). And, within science, there is no "subjectivity" in terms of answers to these questions. If people disagree, they are not disagreeing on scientific terms, but rather that they disagree with science as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
|
#120 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Besides, scientifically speaking, the ability to know exactly what someone meant when they wrote something (especially in regards to the bible) is very close to impossible without being able to ask them. Interpretation can be very much flawed considering the writer could have meant pretty much anything from the obvious to the extremely complicated deeper meaning. Either way, we cannot know for sure. So from this religion makes an attempt at it but that does not necessarily say they are completely right. Its their belief and at least they gave it a try eh?Also, even time frames can be skewed in this same respect. Many people talk about God making the world in seven days because thats what they have read in the bible. However, looking at someone who is outside the bounds of time (God), how can we say that it IS the same to us? Seven days to him may certainly not be seven days as we see them. This is why many people now think that instead it is seven "periods of time" which could even be like 1 day=1 thousand years. My point is you say that religion attempts to answer these questions and you look down at that because it doesnt follow the scientific process that you hold so dear to your hearts. At least they do just that, they attempt it. Of course they could be wrong, however you cant effectively criticize for explaining something that you cannot just because they didnt do it in a way that seems acceptable to your standards. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|