Judeo-Christian wackiness

[ShaolinWolf]

also even though you can measure the wind, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. The machine measures and registers it, not you yourself. So, you have to have faith that the results are true and a fact.

 

[Cryozombie]

On the subject of "Christain Wackiness", but off the topic specifically at hand...

If "Survival of the Fittest" is the rule of thumb in evolution

And A single celled organizim is more "fit to survive" than a creature with complex biology...

How the hell could we have evolved from an Ameoba?

I don't deny that evolution happens... we have seen it... but can ANYONE provide me an example of one Species evolving into another species?

And where are the like 5-6 missing steps in the evolotion of man from ape that sicence has "Faith" in the existance of, that they have yet to prove exsit?

Im pretty skeptical on evolution, even looking at the scientific end of it.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Well, there is a professor that said and still says today the same thing.

Creation Science Evangelist Dr. Kent Hovind Says this:
"I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. See web site for details."

www.drdino.com

And no one has yet to come up with evidence. So what they are teaching in school is junk. If they say that you can't prove Christianity because there is no "physical" evidence, how can you prove evolution with no evidence? The most ludicrous Idea I ever heard was teaching a false creation in school. Anyways, that was off subject...LOL

:asian:

 

[Touch Of Death]

On the subject of "Christain Wackiness", but off the topic specifically at hand...

If "Survival of the Fittest" is the rule of thumb in evolution

And A single celled organizim is more "fit to survive" than a creature with complex biology...

How the hell could we have evolved from an Ameoba?

I don't deny that evolution happens... we have seen it... but can ANYONE provide me an example of one Species evolving into another species?

And where are the like 5-6 missing steps in the evolotion of man from ape that sicence has "Faith" in the existance of, that they have yet to prove exsit?

Im pretty skeptical on evolution, even looking at the scientific end of it.

As for how we might have evolved from a single celled organism, I would figure adaptation after adaptation. "First you were in the goo, then you was in the zoo, and now your you."
Sean

 

[someguy]

I made a thread so evolution can be disscused.
Btw i could go more in depth on proofs of God's existance and how they really aren't proof at all but that would require another topic but quickly said you can't absoulutly know there is a God as there isn't so thing sitting around going I'm God heres a miracle to prove it. And the "proofs" of God such as Anselm's ain't worth the paper it was printed on. Of course that paper wold probably be worth quite alot now but still.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I made a thread so evolution can be disscused.
Btw i could go more in depth on proofs of God's existance and how they really aren't proof at all but that would require another topic but quickly said you can't absoulutly know there is a God as there isn't so thing sitting around going I'm God heres a miracle to prove it. And the "proofs" of God such as Anselm's ain't worth the paper it was printed on. Of course that paper wold probably be worth quite alot now but still.

Why is it so hard to believe that thegreat watchmaker in the sky made self improving watches? And being that God exists outside of space time, perhaps, he is making the repairs.
Sean

 

[someguy]

If He exists outside of time He knows what needs to be repaired before it was made. Of course before involves time but still.

 

[Cruentus]

Well, there is a professor that said and still says today the same thing.

Creation Science Evangelist Dr. Kent Hovind Says this:
"I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. See web site for details."

www.drdino.com

And no one has yet to come up with evidence. So what they are teaching in school is junk. If they say that you can't prove Christianity because there is no "physical" evidence, how can you prove evolution with no evidence? The most ludicrous Idea I ever heard was teaching a false creation in school. Anyways, that was off subject...LOL

:asian:

How would you like it if I told you there was "no evidence" that Jesus ever existed, so what they teach at your church is junk?

I hate it when people do that. You have evidence to support christianity, which you choose to believe. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, which you choose not to believe.

If you want to refute the evidence, that is one thing, but to say their is "no evidence" is an insult.

Evolution to me is a sound scientific theory; it's truth or untruth won't change my religious beliefs.

 

[Cruentus]

And...I am retarded....I didn't see that knew thread...sorry guys.

 

[heretic888]

In the end it all comes down to faith. You either choose to belive or belive in something else or not belive it.

Ummmmm..... no, not really.

Some things are a matter of "faith". Some things are a matter of evidence. It depends on the individual issue being discussed, really.

Just because you believe something to be true, when we have evidence against it, does not make it true. We know, for example, within a relative margin of certainty, that the world (indeed, the universe) is far older than 6,000 years (as the Biblical fundamentalists claim). All the faith in the world does not change this.

At the same time, there are certain issues for which we have very little (if any) evidence --- such as the existence of parallel universes. This does not necessarily preclude that such issues are necessarily false, but that there is currently no real empirical basis for their existence or viability. In such cases, I suppose all one really has is "faith". Or "intuition".

As before, it depends on the specific issue being discussed.

Can anybody honestly say the KNOW much about anything. Not think they no or pretty sure they know but tto absolutly 100% KNOW anything?

Well, first off, you just asked two completely different questions --- "knowing much" about a subject and "absolutely 100% knowing" a subject are two completely different things.

There are quite a few subjects for which we are currently fairly knowledgeable of. By no means does this mean we possess an ultimate or complete knowledge of the subject, but it also does not mean that we are completely in the dark.

Sorry to ruin your preconceptions, but epistemology just isn't all that black and white --- while the "100% absolute" knowledge you reference is an impossibility within our relative world of time and space, this does not relegate all knowledge to guesswork or "faith".

Lopsided thinking? Well, not if it's true.

If so, its a "truth" for which there is no empirical evidence whatsoever (unless you're going to tell me you can "prove" all the world's religions somehow prefigure and point to your especially unique and "chosen" one).

Its also a "truth" based on cultural bias and extreme ethnocentrism --- namely, it claims for itself what it denies to all other peoples and cultures. This 'Mythical Prefigurement' assumes that the doctrines of its faith are historically and factually correct, while further assuming that the doctrines of all other faiths are historically and factually false (despite the fact that they share many features in common). Furthermore, not only does it claim the doctrines of other faiths are factually incorrect, but that these foreign religions exist for the purpose of "proving" the validity of one's own. This is cultural arrogance and elitism at its worst.

Not only does this claim say: I'm right, they're wrong. It also says: I'm right, they're wrong, and they're secretly admitting this, too.

There is no reason to assume that Christianity is anymore factually correct or historical than the likes of, say, Mithraism or Orphism --- outside of cultural bias, that is (meaning, it must be correct because its "my religion"). I could easily apply the claims you're making about Dionysus and Osiris to Jesus in regards to the figure of Manes (3rd to 4th centuries CE). Manicheism contains a god-man figure that includes many of the elements found in the early Pagan myths and in the Gospel story --- I guess that now means Jesus didn't really exist, the Gospel story is bunk, and Christianity exists for the sole purpose of 'prefiguring' the Savior Manes. See the irrational logic here??

Dionysian literalists no doubt believed the earlier myths of Osiris were created to "prefigure" the supposedly historical events of Dionysus' life. Such a claim is as equally dubious as the Christian one, and for much the same reasons ---it has absolutely no empirical or logical basis outside of ethnocentric beliefs (namely, that "our religion" is right and all others are wrong).

If Manicheism somehow had managed to trump Christianity as the world's pre-eminent world religion, I'm sure you would be arguing right now about how the 'mythical Jesus' actually prefigured the coming of your historical Savior Manes. And it would still be an equally dubious claim then, too.

I do find it interesting (and humorous), however, that no one started supporting this 'Mythical Prefigurement' belief in Christianity until the Pagan accusations of them "stealing" their ideas became widely known. I guess no Christian apparently "realized" that Dionysus prefigured Jesus until they were accused by Dionysians of plagiarism. Very, very interesting.

Logical? Believable? That depends. People will believe what their unconscience allows them to believe.

Poppycock. To believe that every human's unconscious is secretly telling them what to think and believe is the height of folly, and definately not something supported in experimental pschology.

Now, its true that this applies to some people. But, by no means is it a universal human behavior.

There is evidence to support many ideas. There is evidence to support the Christian premise. There is also evidence to support that Jesus was only a mythical figure. Is any of this evidence material? No, not in as much that it proves any perspective beyond reasonable doubt.

You have a very interesting definition of what constitutes 'material' evidence....

Regardless, just because there is "evidence" for different positions does not mean all have an equal amount of such evidence. Some have more evidence (which is both material and logical), and some do not. Indeed, some positions merely believe they have convincing "evidence" when they truly do not.

It is up to the critical mind to decipher which is which, and to thusly come to his/her own conclusion.

However, since we are not dealing with material evidence, one has to understand what is in their own unconscience that allows them to believe one premises over another. When one begins to understand this, then one can try to decifer the "truth" for themselves.

This, of course, attempts to subtly deny the validity of mental and logical proofs (such as those used in both philosophy and mathematics) --- a completely inviable position. As any student of Critical Thinking or Philosophy will tell you.

In terms of "rightness" of one belief over another, I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. If I didn't think that my faith was "more right" then buddhism, then I'd be buddhist. I think that this only becomes dangerous when everyone else becomes "wrong" over your belief.

I fail to see how your 'Mythical Prefigurement' is not guilty of just that.

Not only does 'Mythical Prefigurement' claim that all other religions and myths than the Christian are false and incorrect --- it further claims that they actually point to, or prefigure, the validity of Christianity itself (unconsciously, it seems). That seems pretty damn similar to what you just condemned above.

Ah, but you can see the results of the God's power. Just most can't see it because they don't look for it.

This sounds very similar of the many incidents of "helping" therapists allowing clients to remember childhood abuses that never actually happened ("Can't remember it, Billy?? Look deeper...").

Its easy to believe anything --- when you have a little "help".

You can't see the wind but you can see the results because you know where to look and also know about its results, etc. Most people don't look or don't know how to look at The results of God's power. It's a matter of knowing. The wind is simple and easy to find results in because it has no mind and also only one way of expressing itself. God created it and gave it a purpose.

The difference: We have proof of the effects and existence of the wind. We do not have proof for the existence of God (well, not the kind of God you're referencing anyway).

Btw i could go more in depth on proofs of God's existance and how they really aren't proof at all but that would require another topic but quickly said you can't absoulutly know there is a God as there isn't so thing sitting around going I'm God heres a miracle to prove it. And the "proofs" of God such as Anselm's ain't worth the paper it was printed on. Of course that paper wold probably be worth quite alot now but still.

The simple truth is that there are no tenable mental or logical "proofs" of God's existence. Certain logical premises are interesting --- they may point to, or even indicate, a higher Power such as God. But, by no means does this constitute proof. And, there certainly isn't any physical proof of God's existence, either.

The only "proof" for God is transpersonal and transrational in nature --- "spiritual proofs", if you will. The evidence is found via contemplative prayer and meditation, and the laboratory is your own consciousness. All the sages and mystics of all the world's great religions are unanimous on this point. There is a reason most meditative and contemplative traditions regard themselves as "spiritual sciences" --- because that's exactly what they are.

But, the point remains that you'll never find this proof in the 'material' world 'out there', nor will you find it with mental and logical constructs. That's be like trying to figure out the nature of animal instincts by studying quarks, or trying to understand the finer working of the human psyche by piecing together algae. You can't come to a conclusion about the transmental using purely mental tools.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

How would you like it if I told you there was "no evidence" that Jesus ever existed, so what they teach at your church is junk?

I hate it when people do that. You have evidence to support christianity, which you choose to believe. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, which you choose not to believe.

If you want to refute the evidence, that is one thing, but to say their is "no evidence" is an insult.

Evolution to me is a sound scientific theory; it's truth or untruth won't change my religious beliefs.

I agree. :asian:

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Nice double post Heretic...errr....lol. Anyways, People don't have proof of God because they don't look hard enough or want to accept the truth. They want what the Antichrist will be. He arises on earth, stops the wars and crap and makes things all hunky dorey for 42 months(well, with a few exceptions of plenty of death, on both believers and unbelievers sides). Everybody is happy. Well, I'd want to follow someone like that too. But he's a self-proclaimed Messiah. Anyways, wouldn't it bother you to know you could go to heaven for eternity instead of follow some self proclaimed "christ" who will give you peace(well, as best he can, which isn't much, but he'll still tell you it's ok) for only 7 yrs then all hell?

I had one question I never did ask: Do you believe in Heaven and Hell? The Hereafter? Let's open this question up for everyone...I never totally made this an open question. I'd really like to know

:asian:

 

[heretic888]

Anyways, People don't have proof of God because they don't look hard enough or want to accept the truth.

No, people don't have "proof" of God because it cannot be acquired through either sensorimotor or mental tools (of course, this depends in part what you mean by "God").

The entire basis for your claim is that nobody believes what you believe because they're "scared" or "ignernt". The fundamentalist elitism, and perpetual lack of any proof (whether material or logical) remains.

They want what the Antichrist will be. He arises on earth, stops the wars and crap and makes things all hunky dorey for 42 months(well, with a few exceptions of plenty of death, on both believers and unbelievers sides). Everybody is happy. Well, I'd want to follow someone like that too. But he's a self-proclaimed Messiah. Anyways, wouldn't it bother you to know you could go to heaven for eternity instead of follow some self proclaimed "christ" who will give you peace(well, as best he can, which isn't much, but he'll still tell you it's ok) for only 7 yrs then all hell?

No one comes on here to be preached to. Regurgitating what your pastor said last Sunday may seem like "proof" or "logic" to you, but not to those of us that have actually been taught to recognize such things.

I had one question I never did ask: Do you believe in Heaven and Hell? The Hereafter?

Depends what you mean. I'm assuming you are referring to supposed literal places that one can spatially "go to". In such a case, I would say no.

I personally believe the relative self is ultimately illusory (but not relatively).

 

[ShaolinWolf]

In response to Heretic's question about the validity in the historical evidence of Bible:

The Hittites left no written or hand made record of their history. One of the only places historians have been able to find any history of them is in the Bible.

And you know about the whole day that was lengthened during the battle with Joshua(don't know which one, I'll have to look it up, you can find it in the book of Joshua), there are other stories that coincide from other cultures, all over the continent of Asia, Africa, and other continents and countries. Joshua asked the Lord to lengthen the day so that they could have more time to defeat the enemy. Same day it happened the people all the way over on the other side of the continent felt the long day and recorded it as an extra long day. It's in so many cultural findings. Egypt, China, etc.

And yes, I know you think that it is just copied from other cultures, Egypt and such, but...you can believe it or not, it's been found to be pretty accurate by historians, and thats the only reason they could find for the extra long day.

:asian:

 

[ShaolinWolf]

And I didn't regurgitate what My pastor told me. He didn't even talk about that this Sunday. I don't get all my info from my church. Of course, I know what response that will illicit. You think I'm some nut who reads from a book of poets and their stuff was just fantasy. Fine, well, obviously you only believe in logic. Logic has a dead, somewhat bitter, end somewhere and it's not pretty, whether you like it or not.

 

[heretic888]

The Hittites left no written or hand made record of their history. One of the only places historians have been able to find any history of them is in the Bible.

Even assuming that is true, that does not necessarily mean the "history" of them found in the Bible is actually accurate.

And you know about the whole day that was lengthened during the battle with Joshua(don't know which one, I'll have to look it up, you can find it in the book of Joshua), there are other stories that coincide from other cultures, all over the continent of Asia, Africa, and other continents and countries. Joshua asked the Lord to lengthen the day so that they could have more time to defeat the enemy. Same day it happened the people all the way over on the other side of the continent felt the long day and recorded it as an extra long day. It's in so many cultural findings. Egypt, China, etc.

Prove it. Cite primary sources.

And yes, I know you think that it is just copied from other cultures, Egypt and such, but...you can believe it or not, it's been found to be pretty accurate by historians, and thats the only reason they could find for the extra long day.

How about instead of saying something that is clearly controversial and debatable in nature is "proven accurate by historians", you actually cite specific scholars and writers??

The burden of proof is on you, buddy-boy.

Of course, I know what response that will illicit. You think I'm some nut who reads from a book of poets and their stuff was just fantasy.

No. I don't think poetry is "fantasy" by any means, including the Bible. But I also do not believe it constitutes "history" either.

Fine, well, obviously you only believe in logic. Logic has a dead, somewhat bitter, end somewhere and it's not pretty, whether you like it or not.

I am well aware of the limitations of linear logic, and it is by no means the only thing I "believe in". I am just aware of its important strengths and contributions, however, and will not blindly believe something devoid of any logic or evidence.

Go take a Critical Thinking class. It will do you some good.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

I am well aware of the limitations of linear logic, and it is by no means the only thing I "believe in". I am just aware of its important strengths and contributions, however, and will not blindly believe something devoid of any logic or evidence.

Go take a Critical Thinking class. It will do you some good.

That's not the point I was trying to make. See, you can't read between the lines. We come from two different backgrounds of Science. And I don't know about the proof's backgrounds. I can't even remember who said any of that. I wish I could. Until then, you won't believe me. But that's til then.

 

[heretic888]

That's not the point I was trying to make. See, you can't read between the lines.

The typical debate tactic of the fundamentalist-literalist: accuse your opponent of "ignorance" and "fear of the truth". Meanwhile, be sure to be as vague and non-descript as possible.

We come from two different backgrounds of Science.

Wrong. The scientific process is the scientific process, regardless of what field it is applied to. Nothing will change that.

Most, if not all, of the "science" you've been supporting isn't even superficial pop-science. Its pseudo-science. Its pretty words that use a lot of scientific rhetoric and terminology, and put on the image of being "objective" and "scientifical". But, at the end of the day, they all lack the empiricism of the scientific process to back up their claims: no injunction, no datum, and no validation.

Sorry, it'll take more than that to fool the likes of me.

And I don't know about the proof's backgrounds. I can't even remember who said any of that. I wish I could. Until then, you won't believe me. But that's til then.

If you don't know the background or basis of this "evidence", then you have absolutely no reason to believe it is reliable whatsoever. Scientific, my ****.

 

[michaeledward]

As an athiest, I really feel that my opinion on this topic would be less than welcome, so I have been keeping a low profile.

Seeing ShoalinWolf's arguments about the infallibility of the bible as the 'Literal History' of the world according to God ... and then seeing this article about the 'Bible Proofreaders' was an interesting juxtaposition.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5015320/

I have no doubt that ShoalinWolf will be able to explain this as a devine calling, and God's hand working through these folks in Georgia to guarantee the infallibility of God's words.

Just remember ... "Thou Shalt Commit Adultery"

<chuckle>

Mike

 

[heretic888]

Heh.

Personally, I wouldn't put too much faith (no pun intended) in most conventional translations of the Bible.

How some of the Greek gets transmuted into "churchy" English is beyond me --- this is most apparent in the Pauline letters. It would really help if modern-day Christians knew what words like psychic, pneumatic, hylic, gnosis, telios, pistis, sophia, aeon, and archon all really meant.

Might even inspire some of them to read some Plato. Hee.