NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there really a conflict between science and religion? I mean, I am aware obviously that people who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible sometimes have large problems with certian modern theories of the origins of the universe, life, the world etc. But really, if you break it down propperly and leave each of the two to their respective correct fields, I don't think the conflict is as large scale as you might think. Also, does believing in a scientific origin of the universe and believing in science as a means of discovering objective facts lead to an athiestic worldview nessecarly? Really? I would like to see what people thought of a discussion of these questions that I placed up on youtube.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DHiBJVevndo

But really, if you break it down propperly and leave each of the two to their respective correct fields

religion doesn't have a correct field.

all religion can offer is a methodology for answering various empirical and non-empirical questions. and it is a shitty methodology for all of them.

religion doesn't have a correct field.

all religion can offer is a methodology for answering various empirical and non-empirical questions. and it is a shitty methodology for all of them.

It does, in a way. It apparently fulfills an inate need for some humans, who without it would ... well, have to invent it again.
I think religion describes not so much a field of knowledge, more a state of the human mind.

Science doesn't really have a problem with religion. Religion sometimes has a problem with science, since science sometimes finds things that contradict the beliefs of a religion. This tends to get the the more.....intense followers of that religion somewhat upset with science. See: Attempts to put Intelligent Design in high school science classes across America.

Religion and science are in conflict, religious statements are not verifiable by the scientific method. Religious language and science are separate methodologies as free soviets pointed out, and they do not overlap.

religious statements are not verifiable by the scientific method

well, some of them could be, in principle. the problem comes in when they are, and are found to be wrong. turns out revelation (and authority on the basis of revelation) just isn't that good at making claims that turn out to be right.

well, some of them could be, in principle. the problem comes in when they are, and are found to be wrong. turns out revelation (and authority on the basis of revelation) just isn't that good at making claims that turn out to be right.

Well depends what you mean by religious statements, I take that to mean statements about God, the after life and the metaphysical which are all unfalsifiable statements. The only way of verifying them theoretically is eschatological verification, which isn't scientific.

Religions methodology seems to be " believe it's true because we say so."

Religions methodology seems to be " believe it's true because we say so."

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/232/religionkv0.png

Is there really a conflict between science and religion? I mean, I am aware obviously that people who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible sometimes have large problems with certian modern theories of the origins of the universe, life, the world etc. But really, if you break it down propperly and leave each of the two to their respective correct fields, I don't think the conflict is as large scale as you might think. Also, does believing in a scientific origin of the universe and believing in science as a means of discovering objective facts lead to an athiestic worldview nessecarly? Really? I would like to see what people thought of a discussion of these questions that I placed up on youtube.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DHiBJVevndo

My bolds above.

I had a nice reply to this that the Forum Wackiness ate :mad: I'll try again.
Science, by virtue of its method, excludes metaphysics. If you will concede that "correct fields" means, science is the field of what is, and religion is the field of what one wishes, then I will agree.
Does science lead to atheism? No, it leads to agnosticism.

*snip*

Did you steal that from Fass?

Religions methodology seems to be " believe it's true because we say so."

to be fair, lots of them also include "believe it's true because you personally saw it in a dream/while on drugs/during some 'trance dance'/etc."

Did you steal that from Fass?

It comes up on /b/ now and then.

It comes up on /b/ now and then.

Maybe that's where he got it too ;)

to be fair, lots of them also include "believe it's true because you personally saw it in a dream/while on drugs/during some 'trance dance'/etc."

I think the majority of religious statements originally came from a religious experience with some form of philosophical discourse to explain its meaning.

Well depends what you mean by religious statements, I take that to mean statements about God, the after life and the metaphysical which are all unfalsifiable statements.

depends on what the claims about them are. lots of them would be completely falsifiable - at least in the sense of having logical consequences which can either be tested against reality or at least for coherence. in any case, philosophy would be the relevant field for working those sorts of statements out.

religion's methodology just fundamentally cannot offer answers that anyone should believe.

Did you steal that from Fass?

Does it matter? I'm about to steal it from him. :)

depends on what the claims about them are. lots of them would be completely falsifiable - at least in the sense of having logical consequences which can either be tested against reality or at least for coherence.

Actually this is true, perhaps. Do you mean things like the problem of evil and how the state of the world today and the idea of hell etc... contradicts classical Christian ideas about God?

Does it matter? I'm about to steal it from him. :)

Yes, but you'll credit where you stole it (I stole it from Fass when he posted it, just forgot to use it in this thread :eek:)

And, because it pertains, and some people have them turned off, the first line of my sig:
Religions are like eyeglasses. Some people need them to see the world clearly, some people don't. Except people never seem to get killed over eyeglasses.

Yes, but you'll credit where you stole it (I stole it from Fass when he posted it, just forgot to use it in this thread :eek:)

I will keep it in the "Ifreann" cabinet along with everything else I've stolen from him like his pants and his marbles. :)

I will keep it in the "Ifreann" cabinet along with everything else I've stolen from him like his pants and his marbles. :)

But I'm wearing......wow, you're good.

But I'm wearing......wow, you're good.

Zomg! You're not wearing your marbles?

Depends which areas of science and religion you're talking about, and what a 'sucess' would be.
If it were to create a vaild theory on gravity then science wins for being practical, religion (assuming there's one out there on gravity) wins because of use of the imagination.

If it were to create a useful social structure, science doesn't appear to have one so it falls down (please correct me if i'm wrong here), religion even though so many of them are weak do at least offer some basic support in social things, so religion wins.

If it were on ethical considerations, i think it's a draw, science Atomic bomb, eugenics, overuse of antibiotics enough said, religion also has it's downfalls see various mass suicides or witch hunts (yes even nowadays there's some countries who believe in witches).

But perhaps the terms i'm using for science is too wide, is it the theory or how it's applied to human situations that defines what is successful in science?
Likewise for religion, it depends on what definition you give it, for the most part people don't kill each other or even want to hurt others (shocking i know) some religions offer assistence to deal with death, and some sort of meaning for life.

So really it depends on how you define religion and science to how you percieve their respective advantages or disadvantages.
hope that offers some clarity.

If it were to create a useful social structure, science doesn't appear to have one so it falls down (please correct me if i'm wrong here)

In before Marxism.

And, because it pertains, and some people have them turned off, the first line of my sig:
Religions are like eyeglasses. Some people need them to see the world clearly, some people don't. Except people never seem to get killed over eyeglasses.

That reminds me of something similar I read and it goes along these lines:

Most people will not take anything at face value as a consumer and rely on word of mouth from others; shopping around and consumer reports as well as testing and other qualifiers (including price, warranty etc) that will determine if the product is right for them. Yet the same people may very well go headlong into a religion without a second thought, without shopping around.

Oh dear this topic has been done to death on NSG. To DEEATTTHHH. :eek: I'm going to treat it like this.

Blah blah blah...


Conclusion: the two do not have to conflict.

Actually this is true, perhaps. Do you mean things like the problem of evil and how the state of the world today and the idea of hell etc... contradicts classical Christian ideas about God?

yeah, something like that.

of course, there are (presumably) many possible mutually incompatible but internally coherent metaphysics, and so we'll need to sort through them on some other metric. but since only one set can be right - or at least no two contradictory ones can be - and revelation has given us many, that cannot by itself be the appropriate metric at all.

Conclusion: the two do not have to conflict.

but the only way they won't come into conflict is if we invent an entirely new religion and it pointedly refrains from making very many claims at all. traditional religions and science are inherently in conflict.

but the only way they won't come into conflict is if we invent an entirely new religion and it pointedly refrains from making very many claims at all. traditional religions and science are inherently in conflict.

I say this in a very theoretical way with no regards as how they have interacted in the past or pointing to any specific religion. Faith and empirical science deal with two very distinct areas of human existence and should be treated distinctly. Although it has historically been inappropriate to mix the two together, they both complement human existence.

Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame.

Zomg! You're not wearing your marbles?

Nope. He took them and I didn't notice.

yeah, something like that.

of course, there are (presumably) many possible mutually incompatible but internally coherent metaphysics, and so we'll need to sort through them on some other metric. but since only one set can be right - or at least no two contradictory ones can be - and revelation has given us many, that cannot by itself be the appropriate metric at all.

But then religious people just hide behind the claim that God is beyond the standards of the 'human' concept of logic.

If it were to create a useful social structure, science doesn't appear to have one so it falls down (please correct me if i'm wrong here), religion even though so many of them are weak do at least offer some basic support in social things, so religion wins.

what do you mean 'useful social structure'? all social policy ought be informed by the relevant scientific data, and any that isn't is bad policy - it can only be good by accident.

If it were on ethical considerations, i think it's a draw, science Atomic bomb, eugenics, overuse of antibiotics enough said, religion also has it's downfalls see various mass suicides or witch hunts (yes even nowadays there's some countries who believe in witches).

neither science nor religion can be a basis for ethics (though ethics clearly must take empirical facts into account). science can't because of the is/ought gap, and religion can't because of the euthyphro dilemma, amongst other things.

But then religious people just hide behind the claim that God is beyond the standards of the 'human' concept of logic.

That's the lazy way of doing it. If God is to appeal to humans then He has to make sense to humans and it is my belief that God makes human sense. It is whether we agree with that kind of sense.

I say this in a very theoretical way with no regards as how they have interacted in the past or pointing to any specific religion. Faith and empirical science deal with two very distinct areas of human existence and should be treated distinctly. Although it has historically been inappropriate to mix the two together, they both complement human existence.

Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame.

Religious people keep on using that quote. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Religious people keep on using that quote. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Are you suggesting we can scientifically analyse the statement to find out what it means?

Is there really a conflict between science and religion? I mean, I am aware obviously that people who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible sometimes have large problems with certian modern theories of the origins of the universe, life, the world etc. But really, if you break it down propperly and leave each of the two to their respective correct fields, I don't think the conflict is as large scale as you might think. Also, does believing in a scientific origin of the universe and believing in science as a means of discovering objective facts lead to an athiestic worldview nessecarly? Really? I would like to see what people thought of a discussion of these questions that I placed up on youtube.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DHiBJVevndo

Atheism, science and religion are all things that have nothing in common imo.

Are you suggesting we can scientifically analyse the statement to find out what it means?

:rolleyes:
Obviously, we can look at Einstein's other quotes to determine what he probably meant by "religion." Try:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Huh. I bet whoever wanted you to believe that Einstein was a Christian conveniently "forgot" that quote, didn't he?

:rolleyes:
Obviously, we can look at Einstein's other quotes to determine what he probably meant by "religion." Try:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Huh. I bet whoever wanted you to believe that Einstein was a Christian conveniently "forgot" that quote, didn't he?

You're taking a very unscientific attitude to analysing my statements. Please prove empirically that I believe, or that I even said I believe that, Einstein was a Christian? I didn't even mention Christianity. Faulty conclusion from incomplete premise, aka STRAWMAN.

Is there really a conflict between science and religion? I mean, I am aware obviously that people who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible sometimes have large problems with certian modern theories of the origins of the universe, life, the world etc. But really, if you break it down propperly and leave each of the two to their respective correct fields, I don't think the conflict is as large scale as you might think. Also, does believing in a scientific origin of the universe and believing in science as a means of discovering objective facts lead to an athiestic worldview nessecarly? Really? I would like to see what people thought of a discussion of these questions that I placed up on youtube.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DHiBJVevndo

Like almost everything else, it's not the "Science" nor the "Religion" that is in conflict. but the people welding it.

Some people use science to examine and study "God's work", how everything fits together, even how things are designed.

Others use Religion to inspire them to make leaps and bounds in science. from Health to Biology, to possibly nuclear science.

The only conflicts come about when some people say... for example "Evolution is a lie because it's not mentioned in the Bible" or "Because Dinosaurs were not mentioned in the Bible, Religion is a lie" and that is neither "Science" nor "Religion" coming into conflict, but the people welding that "knowledge".

A knife is a tool that can be used to prepare food, help build things, protect and even used to heal.

but a knife is also used to terrorize, to hurt others and even to kill. The knife is just there, people who weld it decide whether or not how to use it.

both 'Science' and 'Religion' have helped and hurt alot of people. but the blame, like the knife, does not belong to either 'Science' nor 'Religion' but the individual and how he or she decides to use it.

Let's see what some scientists say, shall we?

Evolution and Religion Can Co-Exist, Scientists Say, article from National Geographic.

Linky (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html)

You're taking a very unscientific attitude to analysing my statements. Please prove empirically that I believe, or that I even said I believe that, Einstein was a Christian? I didn't even mention Christianity. Faulty conclusion from incomplete premise, aka STRAWMAN.

Well, you used the Einstein quote to support that he was religious, and you are, unless I am mistaken, a Christian, so I made the assumption that you thought he was specifically a Christian. However, even if I change the word "Christian" to "religious" then I still have refuted your argument that he was religious. So. What do you think about Einstein being religious, then, in light of the other quotation?

However, I must make a ~2 hour car trip soon, so I might not be able to reply for a while, but I assure you that if you reply to this and I don't catch it before I leave, I will return to the thread when I am able... so don't think I am ignoring you. :)

Let's see what some scientists say, shall we?

Evolution and Religion Can Co-Exist, Scientists Say, article from National Geographic.

Linky (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html)

Evolution does not disprove God, but it does disprove many, many religious ideas. Religious statements about the physical earth/universe and science are in conflict, religious statements about the metaphysical are not in conflict with science unless it (as pointed out by free soviets) should have observable consequences on the physical earth/universe. I don't know how you could say anything other than this.

Well, you used the Einstein quote to support that he was religious, and you are, unless I am mistaken, a Christian, so I made the assumption that you thought he was specifically a Christian. However, even if I change the word "Christian" to "religious" then I still have refuted your argument that he was religious. So. What do you think about Einstein being religious, then, in light of the other quotation?

You began with the unsubstantiated and erronous assumption that I quoted Einstein in order to say that he was religious. Einstein is not "science" and whether personally he was religious or not does not either validate or invalidate religion.

I quoted the statement because I believe what he said was right, dependent on my defintions of "religion" and "science".


However, I must make a ~2 hour car trip soon, so I might not be able to reply for a while, but I assure you that if you reply to this and I don't catch it before I leave, I will return to the thread when I am able... so don't think I am ignoring you. :)
Can you drive? I want to learn driving. :(

But then religious people just hide behind the claim that God is beyond the standards of the 'human' concept of logic.

true, but that's just arrant nonsense. they can't explain what that would even mean, and the one thing it plausibly could mean actually demonstrates that the phrase 'god does not exist' is true within the rules it sets up for itself.

Evolution does not disprove God, but it does disprove many, many religious ideas. Religious statements about the physical earth/universe and science are in conflict, religious statements about the metaphysical are not in conflict with science unless it (as pointed out by free soviets) should have observable consequences on the physical earth/universe. I don't know how you could say anything other than this.could you clarify some points please?

observable consequences? alot of people 'witness' or observe miracles, yet it's not considered 'fact or true' unless science can disect it and repeat it under controlled circumstances, correct?

and are these religious statements about the physical earth/universe that evolution disproves baised soley on the literal accecptance of how the bible portrays those statements about the physical earth/universe? (aka, religious statements made by Bible Literalists?)

Like almost everything else, it's not the "Science" nor the "Religion" that is in conflict. but the people welding it.

what is 'religion'?

Evolution does not disprove God, but it does disprove many, many religious ideas. Religious statements about the physical earth/universe and science are in conflict, religious statements about the metaphysical are not in conflict with science unless it (as pointed out by free soviets) should have observable consequences on the physical earth/universe. I don't know how you could say anything other than this.

I can't, because I completely agree - though I must concede that in some rare circumstances, say in true miracles, that the two may come into conflict and I choose to believe that God bends normality and the natural world. But I'd say this is a rare exception.

what is 'religion'?

I'm using it as the general subject like "Theology"

alot of people 'witness' or observe miracleswhat does that actually mean? when these people observe events and say that these cannot be explained rationally, then what happened were miracles? wouldn't the determination of what really is a miracle require an infinite competence and knowledge in the observers?

Is there really a conflict between science and religion? I mean, I am aware obviously that people who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible sometimes have large problems with certian modern theories of the origins of the universe, life, the world etc. But really, if you break it down propperly and leave each of the two to their respective correct fields, I don't think the conflict is as large scale as you might think. Also, does believing in a scientific origin of the universe and believing in science as a means of discovering objective facts lead to an athiestic worldview nessecarly? Really? I would like to see what people thought of a discussion of these questions that I placed up on youtube.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DHiBJVevndo


i watched your video in full, and enjoyed it. thanks for doing the work to add to the public discussion.

i think that you're mostly right on, with your central points.


i'll signal my agreement by echoing with some similar points of my own:


1) science is not the only valid way of knowing about Reality.

2) science is a way of achieving conditional knowledge about conditional objects. the "knower", the "knowing", and the "knowledge" are all conditioned by the prior, unbroken context in which they are occurring.

3) the "philosophy" that you are addressing---and that has hi-jacked the human enterprise of science, and the term, in the public debate---is actually called "scientific materialism"; it is the prior (or otherwise un-inspected) belief that only "matter" is real---or that only that which can be proven to be effectively true, under certain already-discovered conditions, is Really True.

4) this assumes that only objects are real---including (crucially!) the human mind-object of "point of view". yet, no scientist has ever proven the "scientific" existence of any "point of view"---only proven "facts", as corollaries of his/her own principal axiom: his/her own "point of view"!---a totally un-proveable "fact".

5) the knowledge of objects, as they appear to "point of view", could only be complete if objects and "point of view" were (either or both) Un-conditional and, therefore, senior as a dimension of Reality. they are not; every object and every "point of view" are self-evidently conditonal---and even scientifically provable as such. the only honest science is self-limiting, accordingly.

6) only That which is Un-conditionally True (or always already the case) can be rightly said to be Really True. therefore, the only right manner of realizing (or "knowing") What is Really True must be the method that self-locates what is prior to any possible object, in any possible moment, relative to any possible "point of view".

7) religion---at its best---is concerned with Consciousness (or Reality), as it intrinsically transcends "point of view". since What intrinsically transcends "point of view" can only be Realized (or "Known") by any individual via the intrinsic transcendence of his/her own "point of view"---!---this is the True purpose of Real religion. to realize Reality in this manner necessarily realizes the only Consciousness that intrinsically transcends "point of view"---or even everything that is mortal or otherwise limited. therefore, it is Divine Realization.



scientific materialism is a fundamentalist religion---and no less so than strictly literalist bible-based christianity. what is happening in the public debate now is a shadow-boxing sham, designed to polarize feelings, thereby maximizing debate---and thereby maximizing public spectacle and media profit. that's it. it's qualitatively no more useful---to anyone---than "professional wrestling".

thanks for sharing, and for reading.


peace.

what does that actually mean? when these people observe events and say that these cannot be explained rationally, then what happened were miracles? wouldn't the determination of what really is a miracle require an infinite competence and knowledge in the observers?

Would it and does it?

Are "Scientists" the only ones who should be able to determine what is a miracle and what isn't and only if they observe it when it happens?

observable consequences? alot of people 'witness' or observe miracles, yet it's not considered 'fact or true' unless science can disect it and repeat it under controlled circumstances, correct?


Well for it to be scientifically true then yes, or something similar.


and are these religious statements about the physical earth/universe that evolution disproves baised soley on the literal accecptance of how the bible portrays those statements about the physical earth/universe? (aka, religious statements made by Bible Literalists?)

Yes, or any other similar holy book. Christians who do not take the Bible as literal truth do not make the same positive assertions about the earth as literalists do, they tend to put more emphasis on the symbolic and personal meaning behind the statements which can change depending on ones personal interpretation, so they can't strictly contradict scientific knowledge on the earth since the statements do not have one specific meaning to contradict.

But yeah I want to rephrase what I was saying: statements about the metaphysical do not overlap with science unless they imply consequences about the state of the observable universe, where in many circumstances contradict scientific knowledge or logic.

I keep mixing up the words conflict and simply overlapping, religious statements about the earth or religious statements with implied consequences for the earth may not contradict science 100% of the time but are the only types of statement that can be subject to scientific scrutiny, where in many cases religious statements have shown to be scientifically false. However, my main point on page 1 was that the basis of religion is in conflict with science in so far as the assertion of Gods existence for example is not falsifiable, so in this sense religious statements like that are separate from scientific statements and are not scientific themselves. Some people will call this 'not in conflict' since science therefore cannot prove or disprove religious statements, but I don't think of the use of the word conflict in that sense which is where the confusion arises.

Would it and does it?

Are "Scientists" the only ones who should be able to determine what is a miracle and what isn't and only if they observe it when it happens?

Scientists are the only one equipped to study such phenomena and attempt to explain them. That's kind of what it means to be a scientist.

Though if they just observed a 'miracle' then their guess as to what exactly it was would be as good as anyone else's.

...
Also, does believing in a scientific origin of the universe and believing in science as a means of discovering objective facts lead to an athiestic worldview nessecarly?

Einstein thought so, and I'm inclined to be of like mind. However, I know of intelligent people who are both scientifical and religious... well, more than religious I'd say "pious" (with the classical latin contrast between "religio" - the exterior aspects of spirituality, like cult - and "pietas" - a personal spirituality and adherence to a moral code).

Surely, science doesn't allow following a structured religion blindly. It enforces doubt, critical thinking and personal development of ideas.

Ok I'm going to start from scratch since I've run myself into a mess being confused about the word conflict:

If by conflict you mean that science contradicts religious statements:

Science does often contradict religious statements about the observable universe (e.g. the earth is x thousand years old, if these statements really count as religious statements) but not always (e.g. statements in the Bible about how if you put a seed into good soil it will grow better than in bad soil etc...)

Religious statements about the metaphysical cannot be contradicted by science or logic because they are unfalsifiable statements unless the statement implies consequences about the observable universe (e.g. an all loving, all powerful God and 'natural suffering').

So in this sense, most religions are in conflict with science in general but not all religious statements are.

If by conflict you mean religious statements cannot be verified scientifically:

Religious statements about the earth from holy books can be verified because the statements are falsifiable by empirical data.

Religious statements about the metaphysical cannot be verified scientifically or logically since they are unfalsifiable unless they imply consequences about the physical world which can be falsified.

In general, most religious statements are not falsifiable.


There, that's pretty much it I feel.

I think I'm going to link to the post above in my sig and use it whenever a thread on this comes up again.

Well for it to be scientifically true then yes, or something similar. "Scientifically true", but would it be necessary for it to just be true or just a fact?

again, is it science that says it's the only truth around, or is it the people who rely on the science who says this?

Yes, or any other similar holy book. Christians who do not take the Bible as literal truth do not make the same positive assertions about the earth as literalists do, they tend to put more emphasis on the symbolic and personal meaning behind the statements which can change depending on ones personal interpretation, so they can't strictly contradict scientific knowledge on the earth since the statements do not have one specific meaning to contradict.

But yeah I want to rephrase what I was saying: statements about the metaphysical do not overlap with science unless they imply consequences about the state of the observable universe, where in many circumstances contradict scientific knowledge or logic.

I keep mixing up the words conflict and simply overlapping, religious statements about the earth or religious statements with implied consequences for the earth may not contradict science 100% of the time but are the only types of statement that can be subject to scientific scrutiny, where in many cases religious statements have shown to be scientifically false. However, my main point on page 1 was that the basis of religion is in conflict with science in so far as the assertion of Gods existence for example is not falsifiable, so in this sense religious statements like that are separate from scientific statements and are not scientific themselves. Some people will call this 'not in conflict' since science therefore cannot prove or disprove religious statements, but I don't think of the use of the word conflict in that sense which is where the confusion arises.and to make myself clear, i'm not arguing, just looking for clarification on your points, which you provided. Thanks. :cool:


Scientists are the only one equipped to study such phenomena and attempt to explain them. That's kind of what it means to be a scientist. and my question was are only 'scientists' able to confirm a 'miracle'?

Though if they just observed a 'miracle' then their guess as to what exactly it was would be as good as anyone else's. yep. agreed.

Ok I'm going to start from scratch since I've run myself into a mess being confused about the word conflict:

If by conflict you mean that science contradicts religious statements:

Science does often contradict religious statements about the observable universe (e.g. the earth is x thousand years old, if these statements really count as religious statements) but not always (e.g. statements in the Bible about how if you put a seed into good soil it will grow better than in bad soil etc...)



Too bad that no one ever needed the Bible to know that a seed will grow better on some soils than on some others; while many thought that the Bible was a good source (the only one, to be more accurate) about cosmology.
The point is: religion, as a guide to the material world, is a total failure. It could be a good guide to something else, if we knew for sure that something else exists. Too bad we don't, and too bad every religion has a different answer.

A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle (Bertie Russell, iirc)

I think I'm going to link to the post above in my sig and use it whenever a thread on this comes up again.

and nicely written to. :cool:

Nope. He took them and I didn't notice.

He thought he lost them. :)

"Scientifically true", but would it be necessary for it to just be true or just a fact?


For it to be a scientific fact, the idea that it is a miracle needs to be falsifiable and with no empirical data being able being able to disprove that it is for now. Now miracles is sort of in the middle of being falsifiable and not, realistically you can never disprove whether God intervened and cured this guys brain for example, but you can show it to be unreasonable by showing how the brain seemed to of fixed itself naturally.

Now whether something being a scientific fact makes it true is up for debate.


and to make myself clear, i'm not arguing, just looking for clarification on your points, which you provided. Thanks. :cool:


Well I don't think I clarified myself very well in that post, see the post below.

Too bad that no one ever needed the Bible to know that a seed will grow better on some soils than on some others; while many thought that the Bible was a good source (the only one, to be more accurate) about cosmology.
The point is: religion, as a guide to the material world, is a total failure. It could be a good guide to something else, if we knew for sure that something else exists. Too bad we don't, and too bad every religion has a different answer.

A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle (Bertie Russell, iirc)

True, but my main point is that to say every single statement from a holy book about the earth is scientifically false is a bit extreme.

and my question was are only 'scientists' able to confirm a 'miracle'?

Impossible. They'd have to prove that it was a direct result of intervention by God, and science is not in the business of proving anything, and gods have been notoriously difficult to demonstrate the existence of.

Could you be more specific about 'religion'. As a Pagan, my belief system has absolutely no problem with Science in the long run. Being Eclectic I get to choose what feels right for me, so I find no conflict between my faith and science.

Are we referring to belief systems that have set creationist stories? Because, really I think a lot of it should depend on the individual believer. If someone chooses to believe in a creation theory rather than the Big Bang, that is their choice...as is the opposite of believing in the big bang rather than a creation theory...the problem is not people believing in one or the other. It's when they believe that they are right and everyone should agree with them.

That's where the conflict lies.

Would it and does it?

Are "Scientists" the only ones who should be able to determine what is a miracle and what isn't and only if they observe it when it happens?
You seem to have a strange definition of what a scientist is. A scientist is just someone who searches for confirmation of what someone claims. A hunt for evidence, just a process of finding out and making sure without ending up in circular causation. So if someone claims a miracle, anyone who tries to find out what is behind it, is a "scientist". And the one claiming to have observed a miracle better have good explanations for that position.

Well for one, faith is a direct contradiction of science.

EDIT: That's at Miranda.

Well for one, faith is a direct contradiction of science.


In what sense?

In what sense?faith can do without facts.

You seem to have a strange definition of what a scientist is. A scientist is just someone who searches for confirmation of what someone claims. A hunt for evidence, just a process of finding out and making sure without ending up in circular causation. So if someone claims a miracle, anyone who tries to find out what is behind it, is a "scientist". And the one claiming to have observed a miracle better have good explanations for that position.

actually, you're the one with the strange defintion of scientist (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist).

by your claim, Lawyers are scientists.
most types of investigators are, by your definition, Scientists.

faith can do without facts.

Faith is attributing a causal link between two facts to a supernatural, metaphysical cause rather than a natural, physical cause. Hence, faith cannot do without facts. The opposite of fact is fiction, not faith.

Science has always been to me a way for human beings to use their God-given reason, intellect, ingenuity, and curiosity to decipher and understand the universe and reality as God has created it. Its a study of God's blueprint.

Faith is attributing a causal link between two facts to a supernatural, metaphysical cause rather than a natural, physical cause. Hence, faith cannot do without facts. The opposite of fact is fiction, not faith.faith is fiction

faith is fiction

prove it.

Science and Religion were street gangs, in east Denver, long ago...

Religion had been around longer, had more members...it really wasn't even one gang anymore, long since ruptured with a hundred doctrinal rifts...some members fed the poor, others warred among amongst themselves, some even founded universities, birthing a scholarly tradition from whence many future members of Science would be trained...

In Religion, joining the gang was easy...most were just born into it. You learned the handshakes, wore your gangsigns with pride...the main thing was, you had to agree that the Everything was on your side, and that your gang's rules came from the Everything that couldn't be wrong.

Now, you could be in both gangs, to be sure. In fact, before Science was its own gang, most of the geeky (literate) kids joined Religion, 'cause they had all the books. So, when Science formed up, a lot of the O.G.s from Religion were founding members.

The thing is, to join Science, it was a little different. First off, when you were hangin' with the Science Set, you really only had to believe in The Method. The Method wasn't on your side, and the Method didn't make your gang Right and everybody else Wrong. It just let you build little models which allowed sufficient predictive value to be of use in exploring the natural phenomena of the observable. And sometimes, you could use your lab servers to store porn, if you didn't work for the government.

Today, you can still be in both gangs. But some members of Religion (and a few members of Science) like to say that their gang's rules and their gang's Everything should run the whole city.

As Science got bigger and better funded, it formed its own little sub gangs, like the Chemists (smelly, poor dressers who watch a lot of Star Trek), the Biologists (they sometimes wander off to med school if they can't hack a real research PhD, or sometimes they do both), and Physicists (sexy, sexy folks).

And a few members of Science don't like all members of Religion, and a few members of Religion don't like all members of Science, but most members of both get along okay, and today...still...you can be in both gangs if you want.

And in the end, when the Everything shows up, or doesn't, when Religion and Science fill in all the gaps, when Truth is finally trapped, pierced, skinned, and eaten by the muddy tribes of humanitas, we will Know...

Only the Mathematicians had it right.

Of course they're in conflict. The practice of religion requires belief. The practice of science requires the absence of belief.

Of course they're in conflict. The practice of religion requires belief. The practice of science requires the absence of belief.

Man is quite comfortable with cognitive dissonance, and as increasing complexity colors his endeavors, he will grow even more adept at wielding the most rigorous skepticism at the world whilst allowing the most comforting delusions to himself.

And sometimes, you could use your lab servers to store porn, if you didn't work for the government.

:fluffle:

You began with the unsubstantiated and erronous assumption that I quoted Einstein in order to say that he was religious. Einstein is not "science" and whether personally he was religious or not does not either validate or invalidate religion.

I quoted the statement because I believe what he said was right, dependent on my defintions of "religion" and "science".

Ah. I've never seen a religious person pull that quote outside of using an appeal to authority.

However, a witty quote, as has been said, proves nothing. You provided a quote that sums up your belief, but that quote is not evidence for your view, so it's really not relevant.

This brings me to the way that science (specifically) and reason (more generally) conflict with religion. According to science/reason, the best way to gain knowledge is to examine the evidence, see what conclusions can be drawn from said evidence, and to continually test your beliefs against the evidence.

The "faith method" for gaining knowledge is to get an idea (somehow-- I do not yet understand how you choose between faith-based ideas if there is no evidence to distinguish between the two), and then to keep the idea forever.

Now, sometimes, religious people do change their ideas. But that's in spite of faith, not because of it. Few people are 100% faith-based or 100% reason-based.


Can you drive? I want to learn driving. :(
I can drive, but I don't own a car... probably for the best with these gas prices.

The "faith method" for gaining knowledge is to get an idea (somehow-- I do not yet understand how you choose between faith-based ideas if there is no evidence to distinguish between the two), and then to keep the idea forever.


My understanding is that its done the same way one chooses football teams.

Its typically a function of where you're from, but there are other factors ranging from who's winning, who has charismatic players, and who has the coolest uniforms.

My understanding is that its done the same way one chooses football teams.

Its typically a function of where you're from, but there are other factors ranging from who's winning, who has charismatic players, and who has the coolest uniforms.

But that's entirely different, isn't it? Choosing a football team is not a matter of what is true, it's a matter of who you want to win. Religion is what you think is true.

Man is quite comfortable with cognitive dissonance, and as increasing complexity colors his endeavors, he will grow even more adept at wielding the most rigorous skepticism at the world whilst allowing the most comforting delusions to himself.
That's still conflict, regardless of whether he's comfortable with it.

Ah. I've never seen a religious person pull that quote outside of using an appeal to authority.

I'm a strict logophile. I mean what I say/type/write and nothing more, no further assumptions.


However, a witty quote, as has been said, proves nothing. You provided a quote that sums up your belief, but that quote is not evidence for your view, so it's really not relevant.

It was not irrelevant, as in it was relevant to the topic we are discussing.

And it was definitely evidence for "my view" because...well, it just is. If what I say isn't evidence of what I think, then what is??

You're looking for "substantiation" - see below.

^proves point about my logophilia, I hope.


This brings me to the way that science (specifically) and reason (more generally) conflict with religion. According to science/reason, the best way to gain knowledge is to examine the evidence, see what conclusions can be drawn from said evidence, and to continually test your beliefs against the evidence.

The "faith method" for gaining knowledge is to get an idea (somehow-- I do not yet understand how you choose between faith-based ideas if there is no evidence to distinguish between the two), and then to keep the idea forever.
Faith and science are indeed conflicting methodologies, but suited for different realms of human existence. The scientific method can help humans explain the physical world, and faith can help humans be content in the metaphysical world. Both are necessary to complete the human existence.

The idea that faith cannot be challenged is erronous. What we see with the scientific revolutions is not an invalidation of faith itself, but the "rolling back" of realms where faith is applicable to understand the human condition and prescribe for progress. I believe that science will reach an end where there is something it can no longer explain, and also when what it does causes an ethical impasse. When this happens, faith can step in to help us justify, explain, and choose. Eventually a balance between the two must be struck.

The above was my substantiation for adopting Einstein's quote.


Now, sometimes, religious people do change their ideas. But that's in spite of faith, not because of it. Few people are 100% faith-based or 100% reason-based.
Exactly. It is wrong to be 100% faith-based or 100% reason-based. Hence:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

An allegory: visual art is best enjoyed with ones' eyes open and possibly in a quiet condition (i.e. ears "closed"). On the other hand, music is best enjoyed with ones' ears open and ones' eyes closed (to concentrate on the melody, the instruments, the harmony etc.).

The methodology of enjoying visual art and music conflict, where the former demands sight but not hearing, and the latter wants hearing but not sight. Nobody ever says, as a result, sight invalidates hearing or hearing invalidates sight. They are just different tools used to do different things. What's more - a combination of the two allows us to enjoy more sophisticated forms of entertainment: theatre and film.


I can drive, but I don't own a car... probably for the best with these gas prices.Haha. Indeed.

But that's entirely different, isn't it? Choosing a football team is not a matter of what is true, it's a matter of who you want to win. Religion is what you think is true.

I'd hazard religion is what you think you think is true, that warming surety, so like a blanket in that it wouldn't really stop any harm, but you believe it will, and clutch it tightly...

You don't practice with that team, don't spill your sweat with theirs, you've possibly never met one of their number, and yet you will scream and howl with their triumphs and failings...because you feel like something big, something thousands of others are just as invested in.

I don't think it matters to them if its all just game....

That's still conflict, regardless of whether he's comfortable with it.

Man must be conflicted, he must struggle and yearn, make war on himself, and when he grows tired of the blood shed across the blades of his own doubt, arm weary from striking at strange angles to hit his own heart, he can always turn back to religion and say God Loves Me and All Will Be Well, and it will give him rest, true or not.

And again, it won't matter to him that its just a game.

I
And it was definitely evidence for "my view" because...well, it just is. If what I say isn't evidence of what I think, then what is??


That excludes the possibility that your genuine view is different than the one you present. If this possibility is for some reason discounted here, then giving "evidence" that is really just a description of your view is redundant.

Further, even if it were description or iteration of your view, that's different than providing evidence in support of your view.

If you are doing what I think you are, saying that you were providing "evidence of what your view is or evidence that it is your view", rather than evidence in support of your position, it doesn't really add anything meaningful.

If you are honest in describing your views, that kind of "evidence" is just restatement, and if you are not, its not even evidence.

That excludes the possibility that your genuine view is different than the one you present. If this possibility is for some reason discounted here, then giving "evidence" that is really just a description of your view is redundant.

Further, even if it were description or iteration of your view, that's different than providing evidence in support of your view.

If you are doing what I think you are, saying that you were providing "evidence of what your view is or evidence that it is your view", rather than evidence in support of your position, it doesn't really add anything meaningful.

If you are honest in describing your views, that kind of "evidence" is just restatement, and if you are not, its not even evidence.

Yay! I get sigged! Even if it's just because of your misunderstanding of the conversation, the context, and the English language in general.

"Evidence for your view", in simplest terms, means "evidence for the existence of your view". Hence, me saying it is evidence of my view.

If you want me to substantiate my view, you should say, in simplest terms, "Evidence in support of your view." - which you do, but he/she didn't.

And it's still wrong, because in simplest terms, "evidence" is not used to substantiate a "view". "Evidence" is used to substantiate a "fact". "Arguments" are used to substantiate a "view".

The type of discussion we are having does not want "evidence". It wants "arguments".

And since Pirated Corsairs used "evidence" instead of "arguments", I can only respond in kind.

I'm still a legitimate logophile. Honest, Guv'!

"Evidence for your view", in simplest terms, means "evidence for the existence of your view". Hence, me saying it is evidence of my view.


Yay, you get sigged again!

That excludes the possibility that your genuine view is different than the one you present. If this possibility is for some reason discounted here, then giving "evidence" that is really just a description of your view is redundant.

Further, even if it were description or iteration of your view, that's different than providing evidence in support of your view.

If you are doing what I think you are, saying that you were providing "evidence of what your view is or evidence that it is your view", rather than evidence in support of your position, it doesn't really add anything meaningful.

If you are honest in describing your views, that kind of "evidence" is just restatement, and if you are not, its not even evidence.

This.

For one, saying "that is not evidence for your view" is idiomatic for "that is not evidence that your view is correct" not "that is not evidence that your view is your view." In fact, I don't think I've ever heard it in a way other than the former.

Secondly, what you stated later was merely a more drawn out explanation of your view, not evidence that it is correct.

This.

For one, saying "that is not evidence for your view" is idiomatic for "that is not evidence that your view is correct" not "that is not evidence that your view is your view." In fact, I don't think I've ever heard it in a way other than the former.

Well, now you have. You were the one who used the unclear expression, not me!


Secondly, what you stated later was merely a more drawn out explanation of your view, not evidence that it is correct.

Can you give me an example where "evidence" proves a "view" to be "correct"?

In fact, can you give me an example where a "view" is "correct" or "incorrect"?

Crap. This is becoming a thread on the English language!!

Yay! I get sigged! Even if it's just because of your misunderstanding of the conversation, the context, and the English language in general.

"Evidence for your view", in simplest terms, means "evidence for the existence of your view". Hence, me saying it is evidence of my view.

If you want me to substantiate my view, you should say, in simplest terms, "Evidence in support of your view." - which you do, but he/she didn't.

And it's still wrong, because in simplest terms, "evidence" is not used to substantiate a "view". "Evidence" is used to substantiate a "fact". "Arguments" are used to substantiate a "view".

The type of discussion we are having does not want "evidence". It wants "arguments".

And since Pirated Corsairs used "evidence" instead of "arguments", I can only respond in kind.

I'm still a legitimate logophile. Honest, Guv'!

Well, my "evidence" is a manner of definition. The scientific method is basing your beliefs on evidence and reason. The faith method is basing them on, well... faith. Taking it on face value. If you base your beliefs on objective evidence but call it faith, then I would not agree that you should call it that.

Now, I think that reason/science are better. What advances has faith ever got us? What has it done for us that nothing else could do? And what happens when you have wrong faith? When your reasoning is wrong, or you have incomplete evidence, somebody can show why. With faith, you can't do that.

This.

For one, saying "that is not evidence for your view" is idiomatic for "that is not evidence that your view is correct" not "that is not evidence that your view is your view." In fact, I don't think I've ever heard it in a way other than the former.

Secondly, what you stated later was merely a more drawn out explanation of your view, not evidence that it is correct.

Honestly, dude, when Dragons Bay said this:


"Evidence for your view", in simplest terms, means "evidence for the existence of your view". Hence, me saying it is evidence of my view.

it truly gave worlds of illustration to a lot of his previous posts. On the occasion that I see his posts in the future, the measure of their worth will be well calibrated by this statement.

Well, now you have.

Secondly, what you stated later was merely a more drawn out explanation of your view, not evidence that it is correct.

Can you give me an example where "evidence" leads to a "view"?

Crap. This is becoming a thread on the English language!!

My view is that life on earth came through gradual evolution by natural selection. I hold this view because of the overwhelming evidence, including but not limited to the fossil record, genetic evidence, and observed speciation.

there is no natural nor inheirent conflict. each deal with seperate areas of subject.

while all of real and honest knowledge is the legitimate subject area of science, existence is under no compulsion nor limitation to begin and end with knowledge.

fanatacism goes astray confusing the two, and often doing so intentionally. but fanatacism isn't real religeon either. its an abuse of religeous thought as an excuse for being irrisponsible and wishing to cause harm.

=^^=
.../\...

Well, now you have. You were the one who used the unclear expression, not me!

Can you give me an example where "evidence" proves a "view" to be "correct"?

In fact, can you give me an example where a "view" is "correct" or "incorrect"?

Crap. This is becoming a thread on the English language!!

If you are sincere in your desire to discuss this, instead of using the most tenuous pedantic mincing to justify what, at best, was redundancy, you might benefit from a brief tangent into language, at least when practiced in the genuine purpose of conveying meaningful ideas.

Well, my "evidence" is a manner of definition. The scientific method is basing your beliefs on evidence and reason. The faith method is basing them on, well... faith. Taking it on face value. If you base your beliefs on objective evidence but call it faith, then I would not agree that you should call it that.
You can also take science on face value and take faith in a critical manner.


Now, I think that reason/science are better. What advances has faith ever got us? What has it done for us that nothing else could do? And what happens when you have wrong faith? When your reasoning is wrong, or you have incomplete evidence, somebody can show why. With faith, you can't do that.

Is that your view? Where's your evidence for it to be "correct"? You really mean "argument".

At least the Christian religion has brought us emancipation, limts on warfare, and the roots of modern liberalism.

Only lazy and irresponsible people do not challenge their faith.

My view is that life on earth came through gradual evolution by natural selection. I hold this view because of the overwhelming evidence, including but not limited to the fossil record, genetic evidence, and observed speciation.

Strictly that's an "argument substantiated with evidence", not "evidence".

^ this is still about the English language only, not whether I agree or disagree.

Even this argument does not invalidate faith.

Is that your view? Where's your evidence for it to be "correct"? You really mean "argument".


From the dictionary, one definition of "view" (that fits in context, the value of which you preached to me earlier)

View: An individual and personal perception, judgment, or interpretation; an opinion: In his view, aid to the rebels should be suspended.

One can provide evidence to support one's opinion. If you see that as impossible, it explains a great deal about you.

Honestly, Dragons Bay, do you really think your arbitrary and narrow insistence on what can be supported with evidence serves this discussion in any way?

If you are sincere in your desire to discuss this, instead of using the most tenuous pedantic mincing to justify what, at best, was redundancy, you might benefit from a brief tangent into language, at least when practiced in the genuine purpose of conveying meaningful ideas.

Hahahaha! I think you think I'm avoiding the argument by turning to language problems!

In fact I am not. Use of words is just one of my quirks. I am more than happy to continue the argument at hand (see post above).

Aye. Let's drop this and continue on the main track, shall we?

Honestly, Dragons Bay, do you really think your arbitrary and narrow insistence on what can be supported with evidence serves this discussion in any way?

Actually, it was a tangent that you raised, not me. If Pirated Corsairs had detected I was going on tangent and clarified that he/she meant something else than he/she typed, none of this would have happened.

Strictly that's an "argument substantiated with evidence", not "evidence".

^ this is still about the English language only, not whether I agree or disagree.


So, that he provided some context for the use of the evidence, it no longer is evidence?

Heehee..."Strictly, that is a picture of a dog in a park, I asked for a picture of a dog".


So, let us take for arguments sake that you provided "evidence of your view" in your "strict" sense of "evidence for the existence of your view" via simple restatement. Of what use is that?

It should at least provide some refinement, expansion, or clarification of the view, and even then, it is not evidence, just restatement.

And even if it were, if you saying it makes it "evidence that is is your view or that your view exists as yours", it still is very tepid evidence, as it would be a simple matter to say that deviates from your true view, whether by deception or self deception.

So, your "evidence" still isn't very good, even when applied with your usage.

You can also take science on face value and take faith in a critical manner.

No, if you take science at face value, then it ceases to be science. If you take it on faith, then it's not science, by definition.


Is that your view? Where's your evidence for it to be "correct"? You really mean "argument".

My evidence is twofold:
1) Definition. Reason is a process of critical thinking using evidence and logical arguments. Therefore, if you are wrong because of incorrect reasoning or incomplete evidence, somebody can show you that you are correct by presenting more evidence or showing the flaw in your reasoning. If you're actually using reason, then you'll change your mind (unless you have even more complete evidence than the other person, or you see a flaw in their reasoning, of course)
2) Look at history. It's views that are held by strong faith that have been most resistant to change, no matter what the evidence indicates. I mean, look at Evolution. Do you honestly think that there'd be any controversy if it were not for many religious sects saying it's wrong?


At least the Christian religion has brought us emancipation, limts on warfare, and the roots of modern liberalism.

The Christian religion was one of the most common justifications for slavery. What actually brought about those things was humanism which can exist with or without Christianity.


Only lazy and irresponsible people do not challenge their faith.

And when they do so, they challenge their faith using reason, and, if they change their beliefs, change them in spite of faith, not because of it.

So, that he provided some context for the use of the evidence, it no longer is evidence?

Heehee..."Strictly, that is a picture of a dog in a park, I asked for a picture of a dog".


So, let us take for arguments sake that you provided "evidence of your view" in your "strict" sense of "evidence for the existence of your view" via simple restatement. Of what use is that?

It should at least provide some refinement, expansion, or clarification of the view, and even then, it is not evidence, just restatement.

And even if it were, if you saying it makes it "evidence that is is your view or that your view exists as yours", it still is very tepid evidence, as it would be a simple matter to say that deviates from your true view, whether by deception or self deception.

So, your "evidence" still isn't very good, even when applied with your usage.

Wait...I'm a bit confused now...you're understanding me when I say this is a by-the-point, linguistic technicality, right?

Not to be rude or attention seeking too much, but I would have liked some discussion surrounding the seperation between religion and science I make in the video, specificly the metaphor of the child and his father and the spanner, and also the growing school of "New Athiests" who essentially make the jump to God's non existance as the following

"Science is the only thing that can objectively prove/disprove things"
"Only that which is objectively provable/disprovable exists"
"Therefore God doesn't exist since he is not objectivly provable/disprovable"

Any thoughts of the content of the video would be welcome, as I wanted to see if my points in it stood up to scrutiny.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DHiBJVevndo

Hahahaha! I think you think I'm avoiding the argument by turning to language problems!

In fact I am not. Use of words is just one of my quirks. I am more than happy to continue the argument at hand (see post above).

Aye. Let's drop this and continue on the main track, shall we?

I don't think you're avoiding the argument, I think you're trying to use (rather, misuse) language to cover what was a mere restatement masquerading as "evidence". It pertains the argument in this way.

As for your "quirks", I think that is a fine word to describe your use of language:

Quirk (from the dictionary):

A peculiarity of behavior; an idiosyncrasy: “Every man had his own quirks and twists” (Harriet Beecher Stowe).
An unpredictable or unaccountable act or event; a vagary: a quirk of fate.
A sudden sharp turn or twist.
An equivocation; a quibble.


Given that you acknowledge your quirks in language, and given your adherence to a "strict" use of terms, we can see how this term describes you aptly...

and how idiosyncrasies of meaning, unaccountable acts, equivocations and quibbles do not serve any communication on any subject.

If you want to be understood, whether garnering agreement or dispute, you must realize that your "quirks" are your own misunderstandings of language, conversation and context, and insulting others as having the qualities you bear so starkly yourself, right before trying to "drop it" and move on, will also not serve cogent discourse.

No, if you take science at face value, then it ceases to be science. If you take it on faith, then it's not science, by definition.Right...what is "face value"?


My evidence is twofold:
1) Definition. Reason is a process of critical thinking using evidence and logical arguments. Therefore, if you are wrong because of incorrect reasoning or incomplete evidence, somebody can show you that you are correct by presenting more evidence or showing the flaw in your reasoning. If you're actually using reason, then you'll change your mind (unless you have even more complete evidence than the other person, or you see a flaw in their reasoning, of course)
2) Look at history. It's views that are held by strong faith that have been most resistant to change, no matter what the evidence indicates. I mean, look at Evolution. Do you honestly think that there'd be any controversy if it were not for many religious sects saying it's wrong?

Okay okay. I'll shut up about the linguistic bit. Bloody hell. Nobody enjoys vocabulary accuracy anymore.

I'm not questioning your evidence. I haven't been. I have been questioning the choice of the word "evidence" when what you really mean is "argument". That's it.


The Christian religion was one of the most common justifications for slavery.
a. Please substantiate your argument.
b. Science was a rather common justification for genocide. What is your view on that.
c. Whether you like it or not, Christianity helped end slavery worldwide.

What actually brought about those things was humanism which can exist with or without Christianity.
I.e. a certain type of faith has brought us humanism, independent of whether humanism could stand alone afterwards.



And when they do so, they challenge their faith using reason, and, if they change their beliefs, change them in spite of faith, not because of it.
Not necessarily. You can challenge a faith with a different faith. By "faith" I do not mean religion, but simply a belief: i.e. you can challenge an old belief with a new belief.

Wait...I'm a bit confused now...you're understanding me when I say this is a by-the-point, linguistic technicality, right?

I understand you are trying to use your own "quirky" understanding of what evidence can be used to support to justify the statements that I sigged.

I have addressed that technicality, via dictionary and reasonable illustration.

Again, if your "evidence of your view" is merely evidence that your view exists , it is redundant and mere restatement. It is poor example of what "evidence" should be, even if merely evidence that a view exists as yours, since restatement could be disingenuous, or even a byproduct of one's "quirky" equivocations.

Meanwhile, I have established clearly that a "view", in the context of one's opinion or judgement, CAN be supported with evidence. In fact, such an action would be far more useful than offering evidence to support "that my view is my view".

Right...what is "face value"?

Not using evidence to question your beliefs.


<snip>

a. Please substantiate your argument.
b. Science was a rather common justification for genocide. What is your view on that.
c. Whether you like it or not, Christianity helped end slavery worldwide.

a. People would quote the Bible in support of slavery. Parts where, for example, it says it's okay to beat your slaves as long as they live.
b. It's a misunderstanding of science. Science merely describes phenomena. It does not proscribe moral truths like religion does.
c. After it helped keep it going for quite some time.


I.e. a certain type of faith has brought us humanism, independent of whether humanism could stand alone afterwards.

Humanism can be defended rationally and could have been brought about with reason. In fact, much of Greek pre-Christian philosophy was fairly humanistic until Christians started teaching that all that matters is serving God and oppressing those who don't believe.


Not necessarily. You can challenge a faith with a different faith. By "faith" I do not mean religion, but simply a belief: i.e. you can challenge an old belief with a new belief.

And by what process do you choose the new belief over the old one if you subscribe to a faith-based system for knowledge?

Okay okay. I'll shut up about the linguistic bit. Bloody hell. Nobody enjoys vocabulary accuracy anymore.

.

Oh really? Anyone can see that you've been well refuted on the issue of precision of language, see my previous few posts.

I understand you are engaged with Pirated Corsairs at the moment, but it is a bit disingenuous to pronounce yourself correct on the issue of "vocabulary accuracy" when the dictionary itself has been brought to bear upon your quirky usage, fatally so.

I can see why you're eager not to discuss that element of the argument further, as you haven't been able to lucidly address much of what's been directed to it.

there isnt really much conflict between science and religion.

Christian Scientists:
Issac Newton (dynamics, gravitation, calculus)
Michael Faraday (electromagnets, field theory)
Robert Boyle (chemistry)
Johannes Kepler (astronomy)
Louis Pasteur (bacteriology, immunization)
heck, Francis Bacon ( a Christian ) developed the scientific method
:)

I understand you are trying to use your own "quirky" understanding of what evidence can be used to support to justify the statements that I sigged.

I have addressed that technicality, via dictionary and reasonable illustration.

Again, if your "evidence of your view" is merely evidence that your view exists , it is redundant and mere restatement. It is poor example of what "evidence" should be, even if merely evidence that a view exists as yours, since restatement could be disingenuous, or even a byproduct of one's "quirky" equivocations.

Meanwhile, I have established clearly that a "view", in the context of one's opinion or judgement, CAN be supported with evidence. In fact, such an action would be far more useful than offering evidence to support "that my view is my view".

Nope. You have completely misunderstood what I mean. Sigh~~

Nope. You have completely misunderstood what I mean. Sigh~~

then be more informative on what you do mean

Nope. You have completely misunderstood what I mean. Sigh~~

^^^^This is your idea of a cogent response?

Very well, I'll go back and requote your own words, then represent my response. Just a few minutes please.

Not using evidence to question your beliefs.

Ah...well then, faith can't be taken at "face value" if it is to be of any use, no? It seems that you have an issue with "blind faith", and not so much "faith".


a. People would quote the Bible in support of slavery. Parts where, for example, it says it's okay to beat your slaves as long as they live.
b. It's a misunderstanding of science. Science merely describes phenomena. It does not proscribe moral truths like religion does.

Is it okay then if I say people quoting the Bible in support slavery is a misunderstanding of the Bible?

It isn't the Bible that enslaves people, or science that commits genocide. It's people who do it.



Humanism can be defended rationally and could have been brought about with reason. In fact, much of Greek pre-Christian philosophy was fairly humanistic until Christians started teaching that all that matters is serving God and oppressing those who don't believe.

"Much of Greek pre-Christian philosophy was fair humanistic" - please substantiate.


And by what process do you choose the new belief over the old one if you subscribe to a faith-based system for knowledge?
Well obviously you need some kind of new information and an application of human reason. But I suspect this kind of "reason" is not the kind of "reason" you're talking about.

I give an example, taking the slavery argument.

"I believe God supports slavery because the Bible allows it." - is a statement of faith but based on Biblical evidence.

A revaluation of the Bible then leads me to say this.

"I believe God is against slavery because God created all humans equal." - this is still a statement of faith, but based on a reasonable review of Biblical evidence.

The "evidence" you are talking about I suspect is different.

I'm a strict logophile. I mean what I say/type/write and nothing more, no further assumptions.

It was not irrelevant, as in it was relevant to the topic we are discussing.

And it was definitely evidence for "my view" because...well, it just is. If what I say isn't evidence of what I think, then what is??

You're looking for "substantiation" - see below.

^proves point about my logophilia, I hope.


Let's begin here.

From the dictionary, for "Evidence"
n.
The act of substantiating or proving; evidence; proof.



Therefore, your refutation to Pirated Corsairs on his alleged misuse of language (or as you called it, his lack of "vocabulary accuracy") is in fact evidence that you are guilty of precisely the lack of understanding of language and vocabulary that you have repeatedly insulted others in regards to.

Now, I'll grab the next...

then be more informative on what you do mean

Sigh. We've gone too far from the original post in contention. Let's just say the lesson is: please be more careful with your choice of words.

Sigh. We've gone too far from the original post in contention. Let's just say the lesson is: please be more careful with your choice of words.

as should you

Let's begin here.

From the dictionary, for "Evidence"
n.
The act of substantiating or proving; evidence; proof.



Therefore, your refutation to Pirated Corsairs on his alleged misuse of language (or as you called it, his lack of "vocabulary accuracy") is in fact evidence that you are guilty of precisely the lack of understanding of language and vocabulary that you have repeatedly insulted others in regards to.

Now, I'll grab the next...

Sigh, whatever. You're still not understanding me. If you really want to go around NSG telling people you won a vocabulary argument against Dragons Bay then you're free to do so...

as should you

Ah...I meant to include myself in the lesson. Sorry.

Let's just get back to the argument at hand? It's more interesting.

Yay! I get sigged! Even if it's just because of your misunderstanding of the conversation, the context, and the English language in general.

"Evidence for your view", in simplest terms, means "evidence for the existence of your view". Hence, me saying it is evidence of my view.
!

If evidence of your view is merely evidence for the existence of your view, it is mere restatement of your view, and it adds only to your view that your view exists as a view, hardly a challenging achievement.

But even if we accept this usage, the fact is, stating something as the "existence of your view" is anemic evidence as best, since you could be stating your view deceptively, or be self-deceptive. Such "evidence that this is my view" by simply restating or quoting something discounts the possibility that you are being dishonest, and if you are being honest, then you are also just being redundant.

On next...

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/232/religionkv0.png

While I realize it is a gross oversimplification, I feel that I must point out that the way my own faith operates bears no resemblance to the image you have posted.

Ah...well then, faith can't be taken at "face value" if it is to be of any use, no? It seems that you have an issue with "blind faith", and not so much "faith".

But I would argue "blind faith" is pure faith, where faith that is not blind is actually faith tainted with evidence.


Is it okay then if I say people quoting the Bible in support slavery is a misunderstanding of the Bible?

Okay. What does God actually mean when he says it's okay to beat your slaves if you don't kill them?


It isn't the Bible that enslaves people, or science that commits genocide. It's people who do it.

No, it's not the Bible, but a perfectly valid reading of the Bible says that slavery is okay. You haven't provided evidence that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The Bible has passages that support slavery, and some that can be interpreted to be against it. You have to cherry-pick, then, which passages you believe. On what basis do you make that choice?



"Much of Greek pre-Christian philosophy was fair humanistic" - please substantiate.


Have you... read any Greek philosophy?


Well obviously you need some kind of new information and an application of human reason. But I suspect this kind of "reason" is not the kind of "reason" you're talking about.

I give an example, taking the slavery argument.

"I believe God supports slavery because the Bible allows it." - is a statement of faith but based on Biblical evidence.

A revaluation of the Bible then leads me to say this.

"I believe God is against slavery because God created all humans equal." - this is still a statement of faith, but based on a reasonable review of Biblical evidence.

The "evidence" you are talking about I suspect is different.

And what's your evidence, for one, that the Bible is accurate?
And what's your evidence that your cherry-picking is more valid than another's?

Ah...I meant to include myself in the lesson. Sorry.

Let's just get back to the argument at hand? It's more interesting.

i agree

If evidence of your view is merely evidence for the existence of your view, it is mere restatement of your view, and it adds only to your view that your view exists as a view, hardly a challenging achievement.

But even if we accept this usage, the fact is, stating something as the "existence of your view" is anemic evidence as best, since you could be stating your view deceptively, or be self-deceptive. Such "evidence that this is my view" by simply restating or quoting something discounts the possibility that you are being dishonest, and if you are being honest, then you are also just being redundant.

On next...


Wait. Hold. This hinges on the context. Do you actually know what the view was Pirated Corsairs wanted me to provide evidence for?

Sigh, whatever. You're still not understanding me. If you really want to go around NSG telling people you won a vocabulary argument against Dragons Bay then you're free to do so...

Oh, so I'M the one pronouncing myself victor on some (suddenly) unworthy linguistic argument that YOU raised?

Again, your own words:


Yay! I get sigged! Even if it's just because of your misunderstanding of the conversation, the context, and the English language in general.

Yet, when I provide voluminous response showing my context and usage of language was the more correct, you are quickly motivated to drop it...


Well, now you have. You were the one who used the unclear expression, not me!

Strictly that's an "argument substantiated with evidence", not "evidence".


Again, the dictionary says you are wrong, "strictly".



^ this is still about the English language only, not whether I agree or disagree.

ait...I'm a bit confused now...you're understanding me when I say this is a by-the-point, linguistic technicality, right?

Yes, a technicality you snarkily raised, then scutter away from when it can be demonstrated clearly that you are incorrect, even by the technical criteria that you raised.


Nobody enjoys vocabulary accuracy anymore.

I notice your own enthusiasm for the subject declines quickly when confronted with actual linguistic acumen.

Anyone can go back and see that this whole issue relates to YOUR quibbling with language to cover weak "evidence".

[QUOTE=Pirated Corsairs;13720262]
No, it's not the Bible, but a perfectly valid reading of the Bible says that slavery is okay. You haven't provided evidence that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The Bible has passages that support slavery, and some that can be interpreted to be against it. You have to cherry-pick, then, which passages you believe. On what basis do you make that choice?
QUOTE]

the Bible states that all men were created equal
Job 31:13-15

so where in the Bible have you found that it states about beating your lsvaes without killing them?

But I would argue "blind faith" is pure faith, where faith that is not blind is actually faith tainted with evidence.

Blind faith would be a complete leap in the dark, and rather foolish. IE Faith in the Greater Wubbleed Wintwok of the constelation of Fraz. I don't think the Bible ever advocated blind faith at any point


Okay. What does God actually mean when he says it's okay to beat your slaves if you don't kill them?

The beating in question here is more in refernce to Dikensian type punishment rather than the insane beating to death. Now obviously its more severe than the Dikensian reality, because sometimes these beatings could cause severe injuries, but the point of the matter was to keep those who work in endenjerd serviturde in line. The system of endenjered servitude in the Bible was one of the threads of the fabric of anchient Israelite society. Without it, it could have easily broken down which would have meant a very quick death for all involved. The beatings were intended as a deterrent form of punishment.


No, it's not the Bible, but a perfectly valid reading of the Bible says that slavery is okay. You haven't provided evidence that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The Bible has passages that support slavery, and some that can be interpreted to be against it. You have to cherry-pick, then, which passages you believe. On what basis do you make that choice?

If you look at what you are calling "Slavery" in the Bible, it is very misleading. Slavery in the Bible is not the same as slavery as we understand it. It arrose generally speeking through people comming into debt and needing a way out of it, since the economic systems of the time were not advanced enough to use such things as credit cards etc to solve these problems.

I would say that the Bible is not supportive of the kind of slavery we have known today because of the vast ammounts of revelations regarding human nature in the Bible that would contradict with it. Endenjured servitude was only supposed to happen if it was absolutely nessecary. The Bible itself says that even that kind of slavery should not exist if everyone was following God's rules properly

Blind faith would be a complete leap in the dark, and rather foolish. IE Faith in the Greater Wubbleed Wintwok of the constelation of Fraz. I don't think the Bible ever advocated blind faith at any point



The beating in question here is more in refernce to Dikensian type punishment rather than the insane beating to death. Now obviously its more severe than the Dikensian reality, because sometimes these beatings could cause severe injuries, but the point of the matter was to keep those who work in endenjerd serviturde in line. The system of endenjered servitude in the Bible was one of the threads of the fabric of anchient Israelite society. Without it, it could have easily broken down which would have meant a very quick death for all involved. The beatings were intended as a deterrent form of punishment.



If you look at what you are calling "Slavery" in the Bible, it is very misleading. Slavery in the Bible is not the same as slavery as we understand it. It arrose generally speeking through people comming into debt and needing a way out of it, since the economic systems of the time were not advanced enough to use such things as credit cards etc to solve these problems.

I would say that the Bible is not supportive of the kind of slavery we have known today because of the vast ammounts of revelations regarding human nature in the Bible that would contradict with it. Endenjured servitude was only supposed to happen if it was absolutely nessecary. The Bible itself says that even that kind of slavery should not exist if everyone was following God's rules properly

Votislavia, you have said what i meant, sorry for confusing anyone if what is said didnt make much sense :headbang:

the Bible states that all men were created equal
Job 31:13-15

On the other hand:

Exodus 21:20-21

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Why is your passage more important than mine?

Blind faith would be a complete leap in the dark, and rather foolish. IE Faith in the Greater Wubbleed Wintwok of the constelation of Fraz. I don't think the Bible ever advocated blind faith at any point



The beating in question here is more in refernce to Dikensian type punishment rather than the insane beating to death. Now obviously its more severe than the Dikensian reality, because sometimes these beatings could cause severe injuries, but the point of the matter was to keep those who work in endenjerd serviturde in line. The system of endenjered servitude in the Bible was one of the threads of the fabric of anchient Israelite society. Without it, it could have easily broken down which would have meant a very quick death for all involved. The beatings were intended as a deterrent form of punishment.



If you look at what you are calling "Slavery" in the Bible, it is very misleading. Slavery in the Bible is not the same as slavery as we understand it. It arrose generally speeking through people comming into debt and needing a way out of it, since the economic systems of the time were not advanced enough to use such things as credit cards etc to solve these problems.

I would say that the Bible is not supportive of the kind of slavery we have known today because of the vast ammounts of revelations regarding human nature in the Bible that would contradict with it. Endenjured servitude was only supposed to happen if it was absolutely nessecary. The Bible itself says that even that kind of slavery should not exist if everyone was following God's rules properly

If a beating keeps a slave unable to move for two days, and then he gets up, it's "okay" according to God.

Nobody should ever be allowed to beat anybody else that hard if we are indeed all equal.

On the other hand:

Exodus 21:20-21


Why is your passage more important than mine?

They are not in contradiction. You're working under the impression that the slave is somehow viewed as a lesser human being in the same way that black slaves taken to America were. That isn't the case. Slaves at the time were the way they were as a result of debt. All the people were born equal, as the first passage states, but they became slaves as a result of their actions

Wait. Hold. This hinges on the context. Do you actually know what the view was Pirated Corsairs wanted me to provide evidence for?

Yes, and your response was this:


You began with the unsubstantiated and erronous assumption that I quoted Einstein in order to say that he was religious. Einstein is not "science" and whether personally he was religious or not does not either validate or invalidate religion.

I quoted the statement because I believe what he said was right, dependent on my defintions of "religion" and "science".

So, rather than using Einstein's statement to show that the man himself was religious, you were simply using the quote as a sort of cited paraphrase for your own belief on the subject.

Again, that's just restatement, not really any kind of evidence. This distinction is far more meaningful (and consistent with things like the dictionary, something you habitually ignore whilst simultaneously deriding others for their vocabulary) than the ones you have tried to make.

Now, can you address the many, many well supported critiques of your own
use of language? I'd be pleased to drop it were your own derogatory jabs at other's linguistics not so profoundly hypocritical.

Besides, your "quirky" use of language will very likely impede further on-topic discourse until its addressed.

If a beating keeps a slave unable to move for two days, and then he gets up, it's "okay" according to God.

Nobody should ever be allowed to beat anybody else that hard if we are indeed all equal.

In your opinion and in your context. There is nothing to suggest that either of those should be/are universal. I agree with you it shouldn't have to happen, but the fact that it did only tells me that my context is very diffrent to that of anchient Israel.

And before you say "Well why does God change his mind..." please remember these are old covenent laws and from the begining it was made clear they were temporary and made for the preservation of the kingdom of Israel

EDIT

Also, could I please have some comments on the video? I want to see if what I said there stands up to scrutiny. The link is in the OP

On the other hand:

Exodus 21:20-21


Why is your passage more important than mine?

notice it does talk in Exodus 21: 2-6 about slaves, and also, slaves were brought into slavery because of debt

If a beating keeps a slave unable to move for two days, and then he gets up, it's "okay" according to God.

Nobody should ever be allowed to beat anybody else that hard if we are indeed all equal.

also, you must read Exodus 21:12-36 to understand the beating better

They are not in contradiction. You're working under the impression that the slave is somehow viewed as a lesser human being in the same way that black slaves taken to America were. That isn't the case. Slaves at the time were the way they were as a result of debt. All the people were born equal, as the first passage states, but they became slaves as a result of their actions

His point was that slavery is not Biblically acceptable, and he used the equality point to demonstrate that. I showed him that slavery is expressly allowed. However, if you want just a quote that says that all people are not equal, try this:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

They are to treat Israelite slaves differently from non Israelites. That's not equality.

Secondly, I believe that the Bible says that the children of slaves should inherit their parents' status, but I must search for the passage in question. Were they born equal, but made slaves through a fault of their own?

But I would argue "blind faith" is pure faith, where faith that is not blind is actually faith tainted with evidence.
Che. Then what the hell are we arguing about if I agree?


Okay. What does God actually mean when he says it's okay to beat your slaves if you don't kill them?
Let's delve into the Bible, shall we not?

The verse in contention is here:
Exodus 21:20-21: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

The important question here is: is God supporting slavery, or merely tolerating it? What was God's first plan for slaves?

We can find out the general attitude of how God actually views the Old Testament laws by comparing this with another law in the Old Testament:
Deuteronomy 24:1: "If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house,"

If from the first passage you say God supports slavery, then to be consistent you must also say from this second verse that He supports divorce. Really? Let's read on:

Mark 10:2-9:
"Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" "What did Moses command you?" he replied. They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

So in fact God does not support divorce, but merely tolerates it. If we then apply this attitude back to the slavery question, you have your answer: the fact that God tolerates and legislates something in the Old Testament laws does not mean that God supports it.

Then how do we know that God is in fact against slavery? Read Philemon.

Does that answer your question about whether the Bible supports slavery?


No, it's not the Bible, but a perfectly valid reading of the Bible says that slavery is okay. You haven't provided evidence that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The Bible has passages that support slavery, and some that can be interpreted to be against it. You have to cherry-pick, then, which passages you believe. On what basis do you make that choice?
A comprehensive understanding of the Bible. No single verse expresses the Bible completely. The verses have become quite a shorthand to pick and choose, but it wasn't built for this purpose. Originally the Bible was chaptered and versed simply to allow easier identification of individual verses, not build complete worldviews out of one verse or two verses, or twenty verses.




Have you... read any Greek philosophy?
Do Plato and Aristotle count?

And we need a definition of "humanism" if we want to pursue this track.



And what's your evidence, for one, that the Bible is accurate?

Not accurate in terms of all the written facts. In fact, there are numerous inconsistencies in the Bible. It's a stark warning to anyone who tries to take the Bible literally, word-for-word. But accurate in terms of the lessons it teaches about the human life and condition.


And what's your evidence that your cherry-picking is more valid than another's?Because I don't cherry-pick - I have all the cherries.

It is a terrible misconception for even Christians that Christianity is religion of rules. There are no rules. There is only an attitude to life.

dragon bay, this is the first time ive agreed with you, but just with that post, ill agree to other posts depending on what you put

C
And we need a definition of "humanism" if we want to pursue this track.


And definitions make a new appearance....okay, I've made my point. If you really aren't going to address where you've been illustrated as unclear while judging others for lack of clarity, I'll let it go. If you are crafting a response, though, I won't ignore it.


Not accurate in terms of all the written facts. In fact, there are numerous inconsistencies in the Bible. It's a stark warning to anyone who tries to take the Bible literally, word-for-word. But accurate in terms of the lessons it teaches about the human life and condition.

Because I don't cherry-pick - I have all the cherries.

It is a terrible misconception for even Christians that Christianity is religion of rules. There are no rules. There is only an attitude to life.

I agree with the bolded part.

More on topic, there are truly no rules to Christianity?

Is it a rule that one must believe that Christ existed, as the Messiah, or at least at all, in order to be Christian in some formal sense? (I am asking your opinion on this, not insisting that it must be so).

His point was that slavery is not Biblically acceptable, and he used the equality point to demonstrate that. I showed him that slavery is expressly allowed. However, if you want just a quote that says that all people are not equal, try this:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

They are to treat Israelite slaves differently from non Israelites. That's not equality.

The American government in principle says that indeed everyone is treeted equally. However US citizens in American law have diffrent rights to non-US citizens. This is essentially an extention of that sort of principle.

As to the equality debate, it more refers to what kind of equality you are refering to. Post the new covenant, the old covenant has been swept away and thus these kinds of debates are academic.

Secondly, I believe that the Bible says that the children of slaves should inherit their parents' status, but I must search for the passage in question. Were they born equal, but made slaves through a fault of their own?

I'd have to see the quote to know more specificly. I believe though that it was the case that slaves were made free after a certian number of years regardless of the debt anyway, so ultimately they were returned to their previous state anyway.

So in fact God does not support divorce, but merely tolerates it. If we then apply this attitude back to the slavery question, you have your answer: the fact that God tolerates and legislates something in the Old Testament laws does not mean that God supports it.

This is a surgically thin mincing, and says much about a God that would fit this model.

In your opinion and in your context. There is nothing to suggest that either of those should be/are universal. I agree with you it shouldn't have to happen, but the fact that it did only tells me that my context is very diffrent to that of anchient Israel.

And before you say "Well why does God change his mind..." please remember these are old covenent laws and from the begining it was made clear they were temporary and made for the preservation of the kingdom of Israel

EDIT

Also, could I please have some comments on the video? I want to see if what I said there stands up to scrutiny. The link is in the OP
Christianity doesn't believe in relative morality, though, it believes in objective morality.

also, you must read Exodus 21:12-36 to understand the beating better
I have read it all. I do not see what difference it makes.

Che. Then what the hell are we arguing about if I agree?

I say the ideal is to be as far towards the reason end of the spectrum as humanly possible. You seem to disagree.


Let's delve into the Bible, shall we not?

Sure.


The verse in contention is here:
Exodus 21:20-21: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

The important question here is: is God supporting slavery, or merely tolerating it? What was God's first plan for slaves?

We can find out the general attitude of how God actually views the Old Testament laws by comparing this with another law in the Old Testament:
Deuteronomy 24:1: "If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house,"

If from the first passage you say God supports slavery, then to be consistent you must also say from this second verse that He supports divorce. Really? Let's read on:

Mark 10:2-9:
"Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" "What did Moses command you?" he replied. They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

So in fact God does not support divorce, but merely tolerates it. If we then apply this attitude back to the slavery question, you have your answer: the fact that God tolerates and legislates something in the Old Testament laws does not mean that God supports it.

I would call it a contradiction-- divorce is permitted according to one part of the Bible, but forbidden according to another.


Then how do we know that God is in fact against slavery? Read Philemon.

Does that answer your question about whether the Bible supports slavery?

See above.

A comprehensive understanding of the Bible. No single verse expresses the Bible completely. The verses have become quite a shorthand to pick and choose, but it wasn't built for this purpose. Originally the Bible was chaptered and versed simply to allow easier identification of individual verses, not build complete worldviews out of one verse or two verses, or twenty verses.




Do Plato and Aristotle count?

And we need a definition of "humanism" if we want to pursue this track.

A decent place to start is to read the wikipedia article on Humanism. Note that I did not say that humanism is incompatible with religion, merely that crediting it to religion, saying that it would not have developed without religion, is silly.



Not accurate in terms of all the written facts. In fact, there are numerous inconsistencies in the Bible. It's a stark warning to anyone who tries to take the Bible literally, word-for-word. But accurate in terms of the lessons it teaches about the human life and condition.

Because I don't cherry-pick - I have all the cherries.

And what is your evidence that it is accurate in this regard?

So, rather than using Einstein's statement to show that the man himself was religious, you were simply using the quote as a sort of cited paraphrase for your own belief on the subject.

Again, that's just restatement, not really any kind of evidence. This distinction is far more meaningful (and consistent with things like the dictionary, something you habitually ignore whilst simultaneously deriding others for their vocabulary) than the ones you have tried to make.



Ah. Good. We can work from here. My understanding of "evidence", especially in the context of this entire thread, is that "evidence" is used to substantiate a fact, not an opinion. And a "fact" means that there is no room for question, or for alternative opinion.

That is not what I mean, which is why I reacted so strongly. It was almost as if he/she was asking me to prove that my view was universally correct and that there was no room for alternative opinion.

That is why I really would rather him/her use "argument", because an argument is only substantiated by an interpretation of evidence and leaves room for others to disagree.

Do you understand what I mean now? I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding. By stressing the difference between "evidence" and "argument" I merely wanted to say that: yes, this is my view, but my view is open to criticism.

Ah. Good. We can work from here. My understanding of "evidence", especially in the context of this entire thread, is that "evidence" is used to substantiate a fact, not an opinion. And a "fact" means that there is no room for question, or for alternative opinion.

That is not what I mean, which is why I reacted so strongly. It was almost as if he/she was asking me to prove that my view was universally correct and that there was no room for alternative opinion.

That is why I really would rather him/her use "argument", because an argument is only substantiated by an interpretation of evidence and leaves room for others to disagree.

Do you understand what I mean now? I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding. By stressing the difference between "evidence" and "argument" I merely wanted to say that: yes, this is my view, but my view is open to criticism.

Unless I misunderstand you, what you are actually talking about is the difference between evidence and proof.

I say the ideal is to be as far towards the reason end of the spectrum as humanly possible. You seem to disagree.
Nope. I agree.


I would call it a contradiction-- divorce is permitted according to one part of the Bible, but forbidden according to another.

You are permitted to think that. Just different interpretations. That's why I'm Christian and you're not.

A decent place to start is to read the wikipedia article on Humanism. Note that I did not say that humanism is incompatible with religion, merely that crediting it to religion, saying that it would not have developed without religion, is silly.
Heh. Note that I very carefully avoided saying that whether it would or would not have. Would it? Would it not? How would I know? The historical fact is that it did.



And what is your evidence that it is accurate in this regard?Personal observation of the world so far.

Unless I misunderstand you, what you are actually talking about is the difference between evidence and proof.If you say so. It doesn't matter anymore - does it?

Dunno. Asking me to provide proof of something still sounds like you trying to get me to convince the rest of world that it is true. That is still not want I wanted to do. I just wanted to give my opinion, perhaps justify it, but still allow you to have your own opinion.

I.e. I can't prove to you that the statement is universally true, but I can justify why I believe it to be so. Is that better?

Christianity doesn't believe in relative morality, though, it believes in objective morality.


Indeed, so we can conclude that this is allowed by the objective morality but it is not encouraged. The legal system took it into consideration as a part of how it would work, but the Bible also makes a clear point that slavery should not exist, since it is only a function of being poor, and poverty should not exist if everyone was obeying Gods laws.

Deutoronomy 15: 4-5 "However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today"

EDIT

And please, I'm really not spamming here. I just would really like some peoples thoughts on the video I put up (which is in the OP, as I am this threads author). I would like some genuine opinions and thought on the points I raised there. While all this discussion is very good and healthy and I don't want to stomp on it, I don't think that discussion and discussing my video are mutually exclusive.

And please, I'm really not spamming here. I just would really like some peoples thoughts on the video I put up (which is in the OP, as I am this threads author). I would like some genuine opinions and thought on the points I raised there. While all this discussion is very good and healthy and I don't want to stomp on it, I don't think that discussion and discussing my video are mutually exclusive.

Haha. Every thread wanders in NSG. Sorry!!! :p

Ah. Good. We can work from here.

I will address "from here", but please, and I ask this genuinely politely, try to address those many many posts wherein the dictionary and your own words were able to demonstrate that YOU were the on being unclear, misunderstanding vocabulary (whilst accusing others of the same), and that your usage of the language was the one more vulnerable to the insulting descriptions that you applied to others.


My understanding of "evidence", especially in the context of this entire thread, is that "evidence" is used to substantiate a fact, not an opinion. And a "fact" means that there is no room for question, or for alternative opinion.


DB, once something is a "fact" in the way you describe, it needs to no support. You are being redundant again.

Here, on a debate board, and in life, you can and should use evidence to support your opinions and views. Your "facts" should more often take the role of evidence itself, not the beneficiary of evidence.

Honestly, DB, it is your own usages here that reflect an idiosyncratic, quibbling use of language (quirkiness, as you described it yourself). That would be far easier to overlook were your not repeatedly dumping on others for the misstep that was yours.


That is not what I mean, which is why I reacted so strongly. It was almost as if he/she was asking me to prove that my view was universally correct and that there was no room for alternative opinion.

That is why I really would rather him/her use "argument", because an argument is only substantiated by an interpretation of evidence and leaves room for others to disagree.

You've already seen, and at least somewhat acknowledged, the price of your own misunderstanding of vocabulary. To inflict your "rathers" on others will only further derail discussion. As a courtesy, I will try to accommodate your preference on this matter, but just remember, when you tried to draw a distinction between "evidence" and "substantiation" (saying Pirated Corsairs should use one rather than the other), the dictionary leaves them equal and you were in error, couched in your emphatic assumption that he was in error.


Do you understand what I mean now? I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding. By stressing the difference between "evidence" and "argument" I merely wanted to say that: yes, this is my view, but my view is open to criticism.

I appreciate your conciliatory tone. However, since you've assumed and stated that I am one who has little understanding of conversation, context, or language, I have no means of being sure of your apology, as impaired as you say I am at language.

I will address "from here", but please, and I ask this genuinely politely, try to address those many many posts wherein the dictionary and your own words were able to demonstrate that YOU were the on being unclear, misunderstanding vocabulary (whilst accusing others of the same), and that your usage of the language was the one more vulnerable to the insulting descriptions that you applied to others.



DB, once something is a "fact" in the way you describe, it needs to no support. You are being redundant again.

Here, on a debate board, and in life, you can and should use evidence to support your opinions and views. Your "facts" should more often take the role of evidence itself, not the beneficiary of evidence.

Honestly, DB, it is your own usages here that reflect an idiosyncratic, quibbling use of language (quirkiness, as you described it yourself). That would be far easier to overlook were your not repeatedly dumping on others for the misstep that was yours.



You've already seen, and at least somewhat acknowledged, the price of your own misunderstanding of vocabulary. To inflict your "rathers" on others will only further derail discussion. As a courtesy, I will try to accommodate your preference on this matter, but just remember, when you tried to draw a distinction between "evidence" and "substantiation" (saying Pirated Corsairs should use one rather than the other), the dictionary leaves them equal and you were in error, couched in your emphatic assumption that he was in error.



I appreciate your conciliatory tone. However, since you've assumed and stated that I am one who has little understanding of conversation, context, or language, I have no means of being sure of your apology, as impaired as you say I am at language.

Aye. I hereby officially and formally apologise for any offence I have caused in the course of tonight's discussion. That was not intended. Explanation are excuses, so I shan't explain myself. There is nothing to explain. Please accept my sincere apologies.

And please, I'm really not spamming here. I just would really like some peoples thoughts on the video I put up (which is in the OP, as I am this threads author). I would like some genuine opinions and thought on the points I raised there. While all this discussion is very good and healthy and I don't want to stomp on it, I don't think that discussion and discussing my video are mutually exclusive.


Sorry...your voice is cracking me up!! :D So posh!!!:fluffle: Sounds like Boris Johnson. You're not Boris, are you?

Personal observation of the world so far.

I think the idea of evidence might be better met if you described what some of those observations are, and in doing so, perhaps demonstrate how those principles thus illustrated must be sourced solely and/or primally (that is to say, originally) from the Bible.

After all, any book, including fiction, has the potential to "accurately" describe some elements of human life and condition. This includes a number of books authored by mere humans with no more divine inspiration than the condition itself.

That being the case, the mere occasional tidbit of wisdom in the Bible, or the Koran, or Ultimate X-Men: Wolverine is merely evidence that a book can sometimes teach. The Bible gains no special status in this regard.

But perhaps your observations will satisfy the issue, so please go into detail, if I may ask.

Aye. I hereby officially and formally apologise for any offence I have caused in the course of tonight's discussion. That was not intended. Explanation are excuses, so I shan't explain myself. There is nothing to explain. Please accept my sincere apologies.

I do not always agree with you, Dragons Bay, but here you have demonstrated more integrity then I have observed from many in this place, be it nationstates or the world.

I believe, and hope, that your apology is sincere. It demonstrates character, and you have my respect in this regard.

Sorry...your voice is cracking me up!! :D So posh!!!:fluffle: Sounds like Boris Johnson. You're not Boris, are you?

No, I'm not. I am from the suburbs of South London however though, so I suppose that is where the comparison may come from. What do you think of the points I'm raising?

Indeed, so we can conclude that this is allowed by the objective morality but it is not encouraged. The legal system took it into consideration as a part of how it would work, but the Bible also makes a clear point that slavery should not exist, since it is only a function of being poor, and poverty should not exist if everyone was obeying Gods laws.

Deutoronomy 15: 4-5 "However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today"

EDIT

And please, I'm really not spamming here. I just would really like some peoples thoughts on the video I put up (which is in the OP, as I am this threads author). I would like some genuine opinions and thought on the points I raised there. While all this discussion is very good and healthy and I don't want to stomp on it, I don't think that discussion and discussing my video are mutually exclusive.

You are hardly spamming, and I don't think anyone objects at all to drawing attention to the issues you raise.

If disobeying God leads to poverty, and poverty leads to slavery, and slavery leads to being beaten, it seems little more than roundabout corporal punishment. I'd like to think that something like a "God" could come up with something better, even when interacting with us mud people.

Nope. I agree.

You do? But that means that the ideal is to be all the way at the reason end-- 100% rationality, 0% faith.


You are permitted to think that. Just different interpretations. That's why I'm Christian and you're not.

But what makes your interpretation more likely to be right than mine?


Heh. Note that I very carefully avoided saying that whether it would or would not have. Would it? Would it not? How would I know? The historical fact is that it did.

But my point is that it was starting to spring up before the religion you credit it to existed, before it suddenly died, only to be revived when people started questioning the absolute authority of that religion. It seems to me that humanism, then, evolved in spite of Christianity, not because of it. And remember, this was in reply to my "what has religion given us that we couldn't have gotten without it?" question.


Personal observation of the world so far.
What observations lead you to conclude that the Bible is accurate when it says:
Consensual homosexuality is wrong.
Wearing more than one type of fabric is wrong.
Consensual sex between unmarried adults is wrong.
And basically all those moral judgments?

Indeed, so we can conclude that this is allowed by the objective morality but it is not encouraged. The legal system took it into consideration as a part of how it would work, but the Bible also makes a clear point that slavery should not exist, since it is only a function of being poor, and poverty should not exist if everyone was obeying Gods laws.

Deutoronomy 15: 4-5 "However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today"

But I would argue that even tolerating such severe beatings is a crime. Nobody should have the right to assault somebody else to the point where it takes several days to recover.

EDIT

And please, I'm really not spamming here. I just would really like some peoples thoughts on the video I put up (which is in the OP, as I am this threads author). I would like some genuine opinions and thought on the points I raised there. While all this discussion is very good and healthy and I don't want to stomp on it, I don't think that discussion and discussing my video are mutually exclusive.

Sorry, I can't watch it right now. I have to keep my sound muted. :(

But from what I can see, your main argument is that science answers "how" but religion answers "why" we exist. But I see no reason that there must be a why we exist. I see no evidence that this is the case.

Also, you spelled "atheist" wrong. :p

I am summoned to dinner and must log out.

Dragons Bay, let me again express respect and admiration for your character.

I hope that, in those many instances wherein I will be shown wrong, that I will possess the same grace and courage to apologize.

To others, I will try to return later and apologize if I don't respond to any of your replies that were directed at me until tomorrow.

I too must run out for dinner. I might log back on afterwards, but I will return to this thread whenever I do next log on.

If disobeying God leads to poverty, and poverty leads to slavery, and slavery leads to being beaten, it seems little more than roundabout corporal punishment. I'd like to think that something like a "God" could come up with something better, even when interacting with us mud people.

I'm not sure exactly how he could have done much better

Please bear in mind the context. Anchient Isralei society was litterally the back and beyond. Any breakdown of any kind no matter how small had the potential to do a great deal of damage to the social fabric, and the social fabric was ultimately what was life and death in anchient Israel. Fortunetly for us however, that is the old covenant. It was only ever meant as a legal system that would apply to anchient Israel, not the whole world. It fits the context in terms of legal punishments etc.

I think the idea of evidence might be better met if you described what some of those observations are, and in doing so, perhaps demonstrate how those principles thus illustrated must be sourced solely and/or primally (that is to say, originally) from the Bible.

After all, any book, including fiction, has the potential to "accurately" describe some elements of human life and condition. This includes a number of books authored by mere humans with no more divine inspiration than the condition itself.

That being the case, the mere occasional tidbit of wisdom in the Bible, or the Koran, or Ultimate X-Men: Wolverine is merely evidence that a book can sometimes teach. The Bible gains no special status in this regard.

But perhaps your observations will satisfy the issue, so please go into detail, if I may ask.

Okay. The following is one of many reasons why I became Christian. Before I go on to it please read this carefully: this is just a retelling of a personal story. It does not conclude with: "hence, Christianity is the only correct religion for all and all should believe it". Nope. The conclusion of this story is, I can say now: "I became Christian partly because of the above account". Therefore, all your criticisms of the story which say along the lines of "Yeah, that's good for you, but it doesn't prove the universality of the Christian religion" are invalid criticisms because I myself acknowledge that.

I grew up in a family where both my parents are Christians. They had become Christians on their own account, so you could say I'm a "second-generation" Christian. But apart from that, my aunts' and uncles' families were all non-religious.

As I grew up I attached great importance to my family. My parents were very loving, and I had a happy childhood. Now I went on to study in schools that usually only rich people go. I have a lot of friends richer than I was, and I got to interact with their families too. And I started noticing the differences between my family and theirs. They were richer than I am, yet the vast majority of them enjoyed family less. Why? To cut short the chase, I believed the difference boiled down to my parents' faith: they knew how to love properly and how to bring up their children. The way they learnt this was through Christianity.

Of course, I also had my own problems, being the child I was. I had severe difficulties getting along with my grandmother, who would live with us sometimes. And we argued a lot, all through my childhood. When I was thirteen, she began going in and out of hospital for cancer. Although my parents were Christian, they stressed that "God doesn't have grandchildren", and I and my brothers would have to make the decision for ourselves. There was no coercion involved. So one time, at an evangelical gathering, the host said: "if you want better relations with your family, come to Jesus". At first I was very reluctant. But in the end I told myself "no harm to try". So I did. There was no significant change immediately after that. I mean, you say a prayer, "accepting Jesus into your heart", and that's it. But after that, I never argued with my grandmother ever again. Just like that. Unfortunately she passed away soon after, but not before becoming Christian herself, so that's a good thing. It was only later that I gradually grasped the theology behind it. But it felt real. And it did have real consequences.

So this is one example of how personal observation and experiences first brought me to Christ. There are many other examples, which have reinforced my faith to Christ. This is really biased or delusional, you say. But there were also numerous times after that when I seriously doubted even the existence of God. The greatest challenge to one's faith isn't somebody arguing with you over scientific theories, but doubts from your own heart. But every time I'm glad to say I've returned to Him, stronger than ever.

And I disclaim again: I do not suggest this as evidence of the universality of Christianity. This is only evidence of personal observation which made me Christian. I typed this out only because you asked.

Sorry, I can't watch it right now. I have to keep my sound muted. :(

But from what I can see, your main argument is that science answers "how" but religion answers "why" we exist. But I see no reason that there must be a why we exist. I see no evidence that this is the case.

Also, you spelled "atheist" wrong. :p

Yes, my spelling isn't brilliant

The point is not so much regarding the evidnece of a why or not (I agree thats a much bigger question) but merely my point that Science ultimately cannot find one not because there is not one, but because it is not in the nature of science's line of enqiry for it to do so. Science looks at things in such a way as to examine the how of the universe. Not the why. My problem is that there are many athiests who basicly argue "We can't show God/a purpose to the universe with science, therefore God/a purpose to the universe does not exist" which misses the point entirely. Just because science can't answer the question, doesnt mean there is no answer or its not a valid question. Its basicly an implication that science is the only 'real' source of knowledge and that everything else is inferior, which I think is arrogent and not supported by rational thinking.

Religion is pure and utter nonsense. The real reason it was invented was to explain what happens after death.

Buddhism and Nirvana, the Abrahamic religions and heaven/hell, scientology and whatever crackpot theory they have for the afterlife, and practically every religion past, present, and future are all proof of this.

Having said this, it is obvious that science, with its cold, hard logic (which those bible-thumpers are soooo afraid of) is incompatible with such myths.

Come on now, how can even a complete and total retard (Dubya comes to mind) believe such nonsense? Religous people are out of touch with reality.

edit: Having said this, though, I don't mean that religion is completely bad. But 90% of all of this world's problems are caused by religion. As others have pointed out, it also causes happiness, caring and even 'love'. Still, there is a reason I am an atheist.

Religion is pure and utter nonsense. The real reason it was invented was to explain what happens after death.

Buddhism and Nirvana, the Abrahamic religions and heaven/hell, scientology and whatever crackpot theory they have for the afterlife, and practically every religion past, present, and future are all proof of this.

Having said this, it is obvious that science, with its cold, hard logic (which those bible-thumpers are soooo afraid of) is incompatible with such myths.

Come on now, how can even a complete and total retard (Dubya comes to mind) believe such nonsense? Religous people are out of touch with reality.

how are christians afraid of science? Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon and others were Chritians and scientists
evolution did not happen, how can evolution install into man common sense?

how are christians afraid of science? Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon and others were Chritians and scientists
evolution did not happen, how can evolution install into man common sense?

Because a combination of biology, astronomy, sociology, psychology, history, mythology, anthropology, and comparative religion would quickly erode away at the premises of Christianity. Biology and astronomy would quickly reveal there is no evidence for God, and all the others would quickly reveal that there is evidence against God.

I'm not sure exactly how he could have done much better

Please bear in mind the context. Anchient Isralei society was litterally the back and beyond. Any breakdown of any kind no matter how small had the potential to do a great deal of damage to the social fabric, and the social fabric was ultimately what was life and death in anchient Israel. Fortunetly for us however, that is the old covenant. It was only ever meant as a legal system that would apply to anchient Israel, not the whole world. It fits the context in terms of legal punishments etc.

If he can't do better, he's hardly perfect.

Having one legal system apply to one race/ethnicity/nation and a different apply to "the whole world" is the kind of weakness I'd expect from humans.

Fitting a context is exactly why its so horrifying.

Also, I find it very interesting, earlier reference "What Law did Moses give to you?" as if Moses wasn't ostensibly a messenger boy for the Laws that god should be able to take responsibility for.

If the explanation is, "These were the old laws for those guys, these are the new ones for you", then God seems to be afflicted with the same procedural fallibility as human authorities.

Honestly, "tolerating" and "legislating" things like slavery, beatings, slaughter of the opposing tribe's children, to tolerate it when you have the authority to teach something better is weak.

Many ancient societies had "life and death" issues. That a deity can't develop a better teaching and apply it uniformly and equally is...disconcerting.

Could it be, that the people made up their own fallible rules, changed them at will, and ascribed them to God for obvious reasons?

Come on now, how can even a complete and total retard (Dubya comes to mind) believe such nonsense? Religous people are out of touch with reality.


I practice no religion myself, but to be fair, I've encountered a number of brilliant people, accomplished men and women in fields from physics to mathematics, who were devoutly religious. They were not retarded, at least not in any "complete and total" sense.

I would guess that their religion is a crutch, it makes them feel better, or "forgiven" or "right" in ways that would not be so easily satisfied through the more pragmatic fruits for their respective fields.

I know a fellow over in applied mathematics, a Bulgarian that I would wager is a true genius. He makes some strange sign at a picture, Eastern Orthodox or something, each time he enters his office. He then proceeds to
exercise a degree of intellect that makes me ashamed to take five minutes of his time for some paltry problem of solid state physics.

I don't find him retarded, just...needful...of his religion.

You do? But that means that the ideal is to be all the way at the reason end-- 100% rationality, 0% faith.

Haha. No. There are many things we can't do rationally.


But what makes your interpretation more likely to be right than mine?
It doesn't. It makes your interpretations yours and my interpretation mine. I thought we were simply sharing viewpoints.


But my point is that it was starting to spring up before the religion you credit it to existed, before it suddenly died, only to be revived when people started questioning the absolute authority of that religion. It seems to me that humanism, then, evolved in spite of Christianity, not because of it. And remember, this was in reply to my "what has religion given us that we couldn't have gotten without it?" question.

I see what you mean. If you say only Christianity, then yes, humanist philosophy came before Jesus. But Christianity is a direct extension from Judaism, which predates Greek humanism.

It would also be very arrogant and erronous for me to say that Christianity is the only source of modern humanism and liberalism, because non-religious humans also have the capacity to have compassion.

Contribution to humanism is only one of the many examples how Christianity has left a positive mark on the world (among many negative ones too, unfortunately).


What observations lead you to conclude that the Bible is accurate when it says:
Consensual homosexuality is wrong.
That the one-man-one-woman relationship is God-ordained for a perfect consummation of a relationship.

Homosexuality itself is not wrong in the Bible. Let's be very nit-picky with words. It is the engagement in homosexual activity which is wrong, not sexual orientation. A person engaging in homosexual acts is doing the wrong thing even if he/she self-identifies as straight.


Wearing more than one type of fabric is wrong.
"Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." Deuteronomy 22:11

Context: Canaanites did something similar as a religious gesture to their gods. God did not want the Israelites to imitate them.


Consensual sex between unmarried adults is wrong.
On the view that sex should be consummated only between a couple.

And basically all those moral judgments?

In Christianity, it's not a big deal to be wrong. In fact, you can't become Christian before you admit you are wrong.

Indeed.

It's quite possible to be intelligent and religious. Plenty of intelligent people also believe that 4 leaf clovers are good luck. Doesn't mean it's not an irrational, and, quite frankly, silly, belief.

I am summoned to dinner and must log out.

Dragons Bay, let me again express respect and admiration for your character.

I hope that, in those many instances wherein I will be shown wrong, that I will possess the same grace and courage to apologize.

To others, I will try to return later and apologize if I don't respond to any of your replies that were directed at me until tomorrow.


*bows*

If you don't mind me saying, I credit my humility to my faith. In real life I can be very bossy and arrogant. In fact, I think you got a glimpse of it.

Because a combination of biology, astronomy, sociology, psychology, history, mythology, anthropology, and comparative religion would quickly erode away at the premises of Christianity. Biology and astronomy would quickly reveal there is no evidence for God, and all the others would quickly reveal that there is evidence against God.

I've found large numbers of practitioners in almost all these fields (I have little occasion to converse, during the workday, with mythologists or historians, and it occurs to me I should remedy this) who are also religious (typically Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and a few Hindus (sic?))

As far as I can tell, it appears that some adaptive cognitive dissonance asserts itself, allowing them to function while simultaneously bearing (if not reconciling) conflicting information.

I am reluctant to present this analogy, but I'll risk it to say its rather like a defense attorney can vigorously defend a client even if the client has privately disclosed his guilt to the attorney; the attorney must strive to preserve the rights of the client to a fair trial, even while burdened with the certitude of his guilt.

Because a combination of biology, astronomy, sociology, psychology, history, mythology, anthropology, and comparative religion would quickly erode away at the premises of Christianity. Biology and astronomy would quickly reveal there is no evidence for God, and all the others would quickly reveal that there is evidence against God.

and how wud bioligy and astronomy disprove Christianity?

Okay. The following is one of many reasons why I became Christian.

**snip of information to be examined when I have more time to give it deserving attention**

I typed this out only because you asked.

My wife is getting ready, and I will be commanded to depart at any moment, so I don't have the time to read your post now, instead I'm making quick and dirty responses to less lengthy posts.

However, I do intend to read your post later, when I have the opportunity to pay it more due.

Please don't think I'm ignoring it, I did ask for it.

My wife is getting ready, and I will be commanded to depart at any moment, so I don't have the time to read your post now, instead I'm making quick and dirty responses to less lengthy posts.

However, I do intend to read your post later, when I have the opportunity to pay it more due.

Please don't think I'm ignoring it, I did ask for it.

Cool. Enjoy dinner!

*I really should go to bed...*

Religion is pure and utter nonsense. The real reason it was invented was to explain what happens after death.

Buddhism and Nirvana, the Abrahamic religions and heaven/hell, scientology and whatever crackpot theory they have for the afterlife, and practically every religion past, present, and future are all proof of this.

Having said this, it is obvious that science, with its cold, hard logic (which those bible-thumpers are soooo afraid of) is incompatible with such myths.

Come on now, how can even a complete and total retard (Dubya comes to mind) believe such nonsense? Religous people are out of touch with reality.

edit: Having said this, though, I don't mean that religion is completely bad. But 90% of all of this world's problems are caused by religion. As others have pointed out, it also causes happiness, caring and even 'love'. Still, there is a reason I am an atheist.

Even though I agree in part with your view, its remarkably simplistic. People usually believe what they believe because it comforts them. There is no logic, just emotion, even for atheists. By the way you talk, I can tell you weren't raised religious, or, if so, only very weakly. It takes a good deal of personal strength to drop one's emotion convictions in favor of what's logical.

Afterlife isn't the only reason for religion. Religion is a complex human phenomenon that developed for a wide variety of reasons for a wide variety of purposes. From the societal standpoint, religion developed to help enforce a moral code vital for a society's survival. Psychologically, it developed to help people develop a reason for life. Humans are also social creatures (we need to socialize), so religion enables us to socialize with our surroundings. Scientifically, religion arouse to help explain seemingly nonsensical natural phenomenon that primitive peoples were unable to explain.

And the reason religion seems responsible for so many problems is because there is no other human institution as old or as widespread as religion. Other ideologies and institutions are equally capable of the harm that religion does. For example, the two greatest mass murderers in history, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler were both atheists. Nazism is an atheist ideology (due to Nazis' belief that God interferes with one's devotion to the nation), though Hitler dropped his war on religion when he realized the majority of soldiers in his armies believed in a religion of some sort. He still attacked Catholicism, though.

That the one-man-one-woman relationship is God-ordained for a perfect consummation of a relationship.


The one-man-one-woman relationship is 'god-ordained' for perfect consumation of a one-man-one-woman relationship. That doesn't necessarily extend any further than that. Even in the Hebrew Scripture, one-man-one-woman is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of relationships.

(Consider David's homosexual relationship, Lot's incestuous unions, Solomon's polygamy).


Homosexuality itself is not wrong in the Bible. Let's be very nit-picky with words. It is the engagement in homosexual activity which is wrong, not sexual orientation. A person engaging in homosexual acts is doing the wrong thing even if he/she self-identifies as straight.


All sexuality is wrong, in the Bible - EXCEPT where it is sanctified by marriage. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal in that regard. Paul even makes a special case for it - "It's better to marry than to burn" - we are sexual creatures, we feel those drives, and it's better to seek a sacred union than to try to deny it.

Unfortunately, our 'christian' majority ignores those two Biblical truths - and we end up with a situation where the sexuality is condemned because sanctification is denied.

I've found large numbers of practitioners in almost all these fields (I have little occasion to converse, during the workday, with mythologists or historians, and it occurs to me I should remedy this) who are also religious (typically Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and a few Hindus (sic?))

As far as I can tell, it appears that some adaptive cognitive dissonance asserts itself, allowing them to function while simultaneously bearing (if not reconciling) conflicting information.

I am reluctant to present this analogy, but I'll risk it to say its rather like a defense attorney can vigorously defend a client even if the client has privately disclosed his guilt to the attorney; the attorney must strive to preserve the rights of the client to a fair trial, even while burdened with the certitude of his guilt.

from what i see of you right now, you are a good person. i hope, someday, you would become Christian

Haha. No. There are many things we can't do rationally.

But my point is that the ideal is to be 100% rational. You say that being partially faithful is desirable, no?


It doesn't. It makes your interpretations yours and my interpretation mine. I thought we were simply sharing viewpoints.

So why do you believe yours, then?


I see what you mean. If you say only Christianity, then yes, humanist philosophy came before Jesus. But Christianity is a direct extension from Judaism, which predates Greek humanism.

Yes, but Judaism was hardly humanistic at the time, was it?


It would also be very arrogant and erronous for me to say that Christianity is the only source of modern humanism and liberalism, because non-religious humans also have the capacity to have compassion.

Contribution to humanism is only one of the many examples how Christianity has left a positive mark on the world (among many negative ones too, unfortunately).

I wouldn't say that Christian humanists are humanists because they are Christians. They are humanists who happen to be Christian.


That the one-man-one-woman relationship is God-ordained for a perfect consummation of a relationship.

What rational reason is there for that?

Homosexuality itself is not wrong in the Bible. Let's be very nit-picky with words. It is the engagement in homosexual activity which is wrong, not sexual orientation. A person engaging in homosexual acts is doing the wrong thing even if he/she self-identifies as straight.

What is the rational reason for that?


"Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." Deuteronomy 22:11

Context: Canaanites did something similar as a religious gesture to their gods. God did not want the Israelites to imitate them.

Could he not have simply said do not use it to worship the Canaanite gods? Is it really so hard to dress like somebody without suddenly worshiping their gods?


On the view that sex should be consummated only between a couple.

So what about non-married couples? :p
Anyway, where does that view come from? What is God's justification for desiring that? Is God irrational? That would, in my mind, make him imperfect.


In Christianity, it's not a big deal to be wrong. In fact, you can't become Christian before you admit you are wrong.
Irrelevant. Christianity claims certain things are immoral that have no rational reason to be considered so.

and how wud bioligy and astronomy disprove Christianity?

No, sociology, psychology, history, anthropology, mythology, and comparative religion disprove Christianity. Biology and astronomy merely reveal that there is no evidence for God apparent in the Universe. Everything functions by self sustaining natural laws, with no God visible in the works.

I find it hypocritical of some atheists who talk about religion.Their not supposed to believe in religion yet they continously talk about it.Some even read the bibles of whichever religion is most common in the country they live in just to find negative stuff.Which means their not really atheists they just hate religion.

No, sociology, psychology, history, anthropology, mythology, and comparative religion disprove Christianity. Biology and astronomy merely reveal that there is no evidence for God apparent in the Universe. Everything functions by self sustaining natural laws, with no God visible in the works.

if by visible you mean not seen, then duh
again, explain how they disprove Christianity

I think religion and science fit together on many things.

I find it hypocritical of some atheists who talk about religion.Their not supposed to believe in religion yet they continously talk about it.Some even read the bibles of whichever religion is most common in the country they live in just to find negative stuff.Which means their not really atheists they just hate religion.

What a profoundly silly argument.

Religion is, whether I like it or not, a powerful force in this world. It's pretty much the only reason that so many people don't accept religion, oppose gay rights, and reproductive rights. (To name just a few things it causes in our society.)

It's also an important part of history, so any student of said subject needs to understand it.

I find it hypocritical of some atheists who talk about religion.Their not supposed to believe in religion yet they continously talk about it.Some even read the bibles of whichever religion is most common in the country they live in just to find negative stuff.Which means their not really atheists they just hate religion.

As an Atheist who debates religion happily, and who has read a whole load of different scriptures (including the dominant one of my nation, in it's original languages) - I can tell you your assessment is wrong.

Why do I debate religion? Why do I read the scriptures? Why do I dig so deep?

Simple - I could be wrong. I'm always looking for the fundamental truth and - while I haven't found it in any religion, yet - I'm willing to admit that god/gods could be the answer.

Do I hate religion? Not at all - I like it. I like what it 'does'. I like how easy it makes it to rationalise things, how many questions it answers, how calm and controlled people with religion are. I just can't believe it.

Simple - I could be wrong. I'm always looking for the fundamental truth and - while I haven't found it in any religion, yet - I'm willing to admit that god/gods could be the answer.


That too.

I practice no religion myself, but to be fair, I've encountered a number of brilliant people, accomplished men and women in fields from physics to mathematics, who were devoutly religious. They were not retarded, at least not in any "complete and total" sense.

I would guess that their religion is a crutch, it makes them feel better, or "forgiven" or "right" in ways that would not be so easily satisfied through the more pragmatic fruits for their respective fields.

I know a fellow over in applied mathematics, a Bulgarian that I would wager is a true genius. He makes some strange sign at a picture, Eastern Orthodox or something, each time he enters his office. He then proceeds to
exercise a degree of intellect that makes me ashamed to take five minutes of his time for some paltry problem of solid state physics.

I don't find him retarded, just...needful...of his religion.

What a coincidence! I'm Bulgarian! I was even raised Eastern Orthodox. Maybe you're right. It does work rather like a placebo, doesn't it?

An athiest is someone who outright 100% doesn't believe in religion or deities. If you do believe in either one your not an athiest. It's as simple as that. While many would say otherwise there aren't any exceptions. I don't have any problem with anyone not believing in religion. My problem is with those who only claim to be an athiest when in fact they do just plain resent religion for some reason. Whether that be they were religious before falling on hard times and losing their faith or something else.

If there is a god, I'll be perfectly happy. I don't want my 'mind' to suddenly disappear when I die, but it's rahter like an argument between 'hope' and 'know'. We hope that there is a god to know what happens after death, but in the innermost parts of our subconscious, we know that there is no good. Some people just close that part of their minds semi-rationally.

But my point is that the ideal is to be 100% rational. You say that being partially faithful is desirable, no?
Yes, but I argue that not out of faith, because it is unrealistic to expect anyone to act 100% rational. Just having emotions make you that much more irrational.


So why do you believe yours, then?
Ooooh...too long to answer directly. Read the long post I made in reply to Jhahannam on one of the reasons I became Christian.


Yes, but Judaism was hardly humanistic at the time, was it?

Well apparently the laws in the Old Testament were much more humane than the other cultures of the time, even up to the Roman Empire.

So far you've only been quoting the laws which we deem horrible in the 21st century. I hope you also know that there are laws which we deem too good/too nice for the 21st century.


I wouldn't say that Christian humanists are humanists because they are Christians. They are humanists who happen to be Christian.
I would say it could happen either way.


What rational reason is there for that?
Because it's most beneficial to all to follow the model laid down for us; and see below


What is the rational reason for that?
See above; and see below.


Could he not have simply said do not use it to worship the Canaanite gods? Is it really so hard to dress like somebody without suddenly worshiping their gods?
He did.

It's not dressing like somebody: it's the action of mixing linen and wool (plant and animal material) that is reminiscent of Canaanite worship.


So what about non-married couples? :p
What's your defintion of "marriage"? For some it's just a legal relationship. I would say this: if you are Christian and unmarried, then you should not have premarital sex, because you recognise God as the final arbiter of relationships. The same goes for relationships and homosexuality.

If you do not recognise God's authority, then you can live as if God's law does not apply to you. But you will have to face any possible consequences as a result of your own free choice.


Anyway, where does that view come from? What is God's justification for desiring that? Is God irrational? That would, in my mind, make him imperfect.Lol! God is irrational. Which idiot would send His own Son to die for a bunch of insignificant twats whom to this day do not recognise Him? That's pretty irrational to me. But that's where the beauty is. ;)


Irrelevant. Christianity claims certain things are immoral that have no rational reason to be considered so.It just means that in essence, morality and immorality are irrelevant.

An athiest is someone who outright 100% doesn't believe in religion or deities. If you do believe in either one your not an athiest. It's as simple as that. While many would say otherwise there aren't any exceptions. I don't have any problem with anyone not believing in religion. My problem is with those who only claim to be an athiest when in fact they do just plain resent religion for some reason. Whether that be they were religious before falling on hard times and losing their faith or something else.

Wrong.

An atheist is somebody who lacks a belief in a god or gods. This might be implicit or explicit atheism.
Not event he most extreme atheist does not believe that religions exist.

I think religion and science fit together on many things.

Did anybody notice this.

Did anybody notice this.

I did, but you didn't support it with anything; you didn't elaborate. You kinda just stated an opinion and ran.

Sorry. One thing is, The Great Flood. There is only one way Noah could've gotten two of every kind of animal on the ark...Pangea, but do to continental drift we would not notice this.

The one-man-one-woman relationship is 'god-ordained' for perfect consumation of a one-man-one-woman relationship. That doesn't necessarily extend any further than that. Even in the Hebrew Scripture, one-man-one-woman is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of relationships.

(Consider David's homosexual relationship, Lot's incestuous unions, Solomon's polygamy).
Nope, it doesn't extend further than that other than a statement of fact and perhaps an ideal. Even the most "godly" people make grave mistakes, but it doesn't mean that they make the acts right.



All sexuality is wrong, in the Bible - EXCEPT where it is sanctified by marriage. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal in that regard. Paul even makes a special case for it - "It's better to marry than to burn" - we are sexual creatures, we feel those drives, and it's better to seek a sacred union than to try to deny it.

Unfortunately, our 'christian' majority ignores those two Biblical truths - and we end up with a situation where the sexuality is condemned because sanctification is denied.Personally, I believe that since sexuality is going to be as important as gender at the very end (i.e. nil), I'm not going to hammer anybody who has other sexualities in this life. If they're Christian I will do my duty and share with them my views. If they are not Christian my role is not to judge others or to generate focus on their sexuality, but channel the image of Christ through me.

if by visible you mean not seen, then duh
again, explain how they disprove Christianity

My pleasure. First, we know that man is a social animal. This was first speculated upon by Aristotle and then confirmed by psychology and sociology. We NEED other people to live. People placed in solitary confinement almost universally either go insane or become so depressed that they kill themselves. This goes back to prehistoric times when banding together in groups helped us survive. The Neanderthals, contrary to popular belief, were just as intelligent, perhaps even more intelligent than modern man. What differentiated them, as archaelogical evidence shows, is that they didn't socialize as much. They dwelt in smaller groups and were unable to communicate as well, and they were ultimately overwhelmed by larger, more efficient and cohesive bands of humans. Think about it. You go out, talk with your friends, party, live with your family, do all sorts of things, virtually all of them social. You live in a society, and most of your activities involve other people.

However, human socialization isn't limited to humans alone. You can see this in everyday life. Perhaps you have a dog or a cat. The cat can't possibly understand what your saying or who you are but you still stroke it and talk to it as if it could. And it feels comfortable and enjoyable, otherwise pets wouldn't be so important in the lives of many people. Pets are a classic example of humans using non-humans to satisfy social needs. However, pets aren't the only non-humans that humans attempt to socialize with. If you think about religion, virtually all of it involves socialization with the universe- a God, gods, spirits, or a universal way of sorts. The universe is a scary, empty, unfriendly place, and by socializing with it, people feel more comfortable dwelling within it. The point is that humans are attempting to contact the universe, socialize with something that doesn't socialize back. The crux of religion is slapping a friendly, human face on a mechanic, infinite, and impersonal universe.

Think about it. You know that you are 1 of 6 billion humans. You know that you circle an average star in an average galaxy of 100 billion stars. There are billions of such galaxies spread out across thirteen billion light-years. What are the odds God cares at all, and if he does, why did he make you so small, out of the way, and disposable? The Christian philosophy would argue that in a universe of 13 billion light years, 13 billion years of age, that the supreme creator would focus his efforts on one human being, occupying a total area of around 5 square meters, and lasting a brief 70 years. How much sense does that make?

More evidence to come.

Lacking belief doesn't give someone the right to criticize religion itself or those who believe in it.

An athiest is someone who outright 100% doesn't believe in religion or deities. If you do believe in either one your not an athiest. It's as simple as that. While many would say otherwise there aren't any exceptions. I don't have any problem with anyone not believing in religion. My problem is with those who only claim to be an athiest when in fact they do just plain resent religion for some reason. Whether that be they were religious before falling on hard times and losing their faith or something else.

I "100% don't believe in religion or deities".

That's not the same as saying there are no gods, though. I just don't believe in any. I don't follow any religion, either - but I don't deny religions exist...

Are you saying that I'm not really an Atheist, because I won't state an article of faith that denies the possibilities of gods?

Sorry. One thing is, The Great Flood. There is only one way Noah could've gotten two of every kind of animal on the ark...Pangea, but do to continental drift we would not notice this.

We don't even know if Noah really existed. We have to take some ancient bugger's word for it. And those animals did not exist back then, you prat.

Sorry. One thing is, The Great Flood. There is only one way Noah could've gotten two of every kind of animal on the ark...Pangea, but do to continental drift we would not notice this.
Uh, the Great Flood never happened. It's not at all supported by geologic evidence; indeed, it actually refutes it.

Lacking belief doesn't give someone the right to criticize religion itself or those who believe in it.
I agree. Lacking belief doesn't give you that right, because you already have it. You have the right to criticize any belief.

We don't even know if Noah really existed. We have to take some ancient bugger's word for it. And those animals did not exist back then, you prat.

Actually, we know that Noah* did not exist.

*by that I mean "Noah, who built an ark and survived a world-wide flood," not "some guy named Noah."

I "100% don't believe in religion or deities".

That's not the same as saying there are no gods, though. I just don't believe in any. I don't follow any religion, either - but I don't deny religions exist...

Are you saying that I'm not really an Atheist, because I won't state an article of faith that denies the possibilities of gods?
I'm not asking for a reason why your an athiest. Nor should I. Neither should you ask why I'm religious. That's common courtesy. Also I should not be trying to explain what an athiest is to someone who says there an athiest. The fact is criticizes any god means you believe in that god. You can't criticize something you don't believe exists. An outspoken athiest would be trying to prove the non existence of any god not talking about them as if they do exist.

*snip*

Nope. Not evidence. A conjecture. A theory. It doesn't even come close to "disproving Christianity".

1. You say you can prove that humans are social animals and we interact with humans, animals, and the spiritual. Good. But you do not answer why we are social animals.

2. Saying that we are really insignificant and there is no reason that a god would take interest to us assumes that...you are a god and knows how gods think, or how God would think.

We don't even know if Noah really existed. We have to take some ancient bugger's word for it. And those animals did not exist back then, you prat.

back then? the world is only about 10,000 years old, i have to go, if you want to keep arguing about this send me a telegram. see ya laterz peoples
:) :cool:

Nope, it doesn't extend further than that other than a statement of fact and perhaps an ideal. Even the most "godly" people make grave mistakes, but it doesn't mean that they make the acts right.


Statement of fact? Ideal?

Both os those seem a little speculative... articles of faith, rather than empirical truth.

What is the 'grave mistake' of which you speak? David had multiple partners, in-and-out of marriage... the text suggests a homosexual relationship, and that's far from his greatest 'relationship sin'... and yet God (allegedly) holds David up as being a paragon, even so.


Personally, I believe that since sexuality is going to be as important as gender at the very end (i.e. nil), I'm not going to hammer anybody who has other sexualities in this life.

Curious redaction... what brought about the edit? I agree with the philosophy, though.. but I'll go a step further, and will actively oppose those who (especially, through resort to their personal theological beliefs) would deny personhood or 'rights' to people based on something as inconsequential as who they want to sleep with.

I'm not asking for a reason why your an athiest. Nor should I. Neither should you ask why I'm religious. That's common courtesy. Also I should not be trying to explain what an athiest is to someone who says there an athiest. The fact is criticizes any god means you believe in that god. You can't criticize something you don't believe exists. An outspoken athiest would be trying to prove the non existence of any god not talking about them as if they do exist.

I disagree. I can clearly say that Voldemort is a pretty evil villain, even though I know that Harry Potter is fiction, can I not?

How do you know Noah doesn't exist were you around a couple thousand years ago?

back then? the world is only about 10,000 years old, i have to go, if you want to keep arguing about this send me a telegram. see ya laterz peoples
:) :cool:

See what I mean about religion and holding back acceptance of science? :D :p

How do you know Noah doesn't exist were you around a couple thousand years ago?

Because by Noah, I meant "Noah, a man who survived a world-wide flood."
There was clearly no such person, because there was no such flood.

I'm not asking for a reason why your an athiest. Nor should I. Neither should you ask why I'm religious. That's common courtesy. Also I should not be trying to explain what an athiest is to someone who says there an athiest. The fact is criticizes any god means you believe in that god. You can't criticize something you don't believe exists. An outspoken athiest would be trying to prove the non existence of any god not talking about them as if they do exist.

No, an atheist talks about the evidence that said deity does not exist, not tries to prove it does not exist by proving it exists or any other cheat like that. We don't say 'that is a cruel god', we say that 'there is no god, cruel or otherwise.'

You're confusing me. :p

Statement of fact? Ideal?

Both os those seem a little speculative... articles of faith, rather than empirical truth.

Aye...it's 3.30a.m. Please forgive my weak ability to express myself at this hour.


What is the 'grave mistake' of which you speak? David had multiple partners, in-and-out of marriage... the text suggests a homosexual relationship, and that's far from his greatest 'relationship sin'... and yet God (allegedly) holds David up as being a paragon, even so.

God holds David up as being a paragon? No - bloody - way.


Curious redaction... what brought about the edit? I agree with the philosophy, though.. but I'll go a step further, and will actively oppose those who (especially, through resort to their personal theological beliefs) would deny personhood or 'rights' to people based on something as inconsequential as who they want to sleep with.
A bit of...um...unChristian attitude displayed if I didn't edit it.

Yeah...but what are rights (a rhetorical question)?

[QUOTE=Pirated Corsairs;13720642]


I agree. Lacking belief doesn't give you that right, because you already have it. You have the right to criticize any belief.



QUOTE]ok I don't who you are but you do not have the right to criticize beliefs if you don't believe in those beliefs.also how about not taking what I say and try to mangle it to fit your argument again?Please have some decency in that regard.

Actually, we know that Noah* did not exist.

*by that I mean "Noah, who built an ark and survived a world-wide flood," not "some guy named Noah."

Not strictly true - there is a lot of evidence to suggest that 'Noah' is based on an earlier Mesopotamian figure - although the 'flood' would have been a local rather than global phenomenon, and the Mesopotamian version includes a cargo of animals, but not two (or more) or every animal on the earth.

(Incidentally - it's another one of those things that exists in forensic form in the Hebrew scripture - we KNOW where the Flood is supposed to have taken place, and it's limits, because Abram is described as walking around it).

back then? the world is only about 10,000 years old, i have to go, if you want to keep arguing about this send me a telegram. see ya laterz peoples
:) :cool:

Geological evidence says the world is at least a few billion years old. Get your facts right, bible-thumper.

The great flood happened it says so in my textbook.

Not strictly true - there is a lot of evidence to suggest that 'Noah' is based on an earlier Mesopotamian figure - although the 'flood' would have been a local rather than global phenomenon, and the Mesopotamian version includes a cargo of animals, but not two (or more) or every animal on the earth.

(Incidentally - it's another one of those things that exists in forensic form in the Hebrew scripture - we KNOW where the Flood is supposed to have taken place, and it's limits, because Abram is described as walking around it).

Well, that's why I made sure to define "Noah" in the manner I did. And the figure he's based on wouldn't be Noah, it'd be (most likely) Gilgamesh. :D

But I digress. The point is, we know there was no world-wide flood, and that was just my (very failed) attempt to (semi)wittingly say that.

Geological evidence says the world is at least a few billion years old. Get your facts right, bible-thumper.

Prove it!

The great flood happened it says so in my textbook.

Whoever wrote your textbook is made of fail.

I'm not asking for a reason why your an athiest. Nor should I. Neither should you ask why I'm religious. That's common courtesy. Also I should not be trying to explain what an athiest is to someone who says there an athiest. The fact is criticizes any god means you believe in that god. You can't criticize something you don't believe exists. An outspoken athiest would be trying to prove the non existence of any god not talking about them as if they do exist.

What?

Sorry - this doesn't seem to make sense to me... you seem to be saying I can't be critical of the evidence of religion, because I don't follow said religion? That doesn't make sense... how could anyone ever convert to a religion if they can't critique the evidence?

I can criticise the accounts of gods, because I can objectively analyse the data... it doesn't mean I have to assume the data is true.

The great flood happened it says so in my textbook.

You home-schooled, go to catholic school, or live in Kansas?

Actually Moses wrote it. It's called Genesis which is found in the bible.

The great flood happened it says so in my textbook.

Which textbook?

Prove it!

Prove there is a supreme deity. Just because I don't have the carbon dating results at my fingers, doesn't mean it's not true. Just because you don't have an electron microscope, does that mean that air doesn't exist?

Well, if YOU knew YOUR facts you'd know carbon dating only goes back a few thousand years.

Actually Moses wrote it. It's called Genesis which is found in the bible.

So... Home-schooled or do you live in Kansas? Those are the only possible scenarios when that issue should be brought up.

Actually Moses wrote it. It's called Genesis which is found in the bible.

I'm calling troll.

I hope I'm right, or I fear for humanity.

well der volkenland the reason I'm confusing you is because your not sure what your talking about.you can't say one minute there's no such thing as gods or goddesses then the next say this particular god or goddess isn't as great as made out to be.

Well, if YOU knew YOUR facts you'd know carbon dating only goes back a few thousand years.

That's true.

Good thing we have other dating methods, eh?

So... Home-schooled or do you live in Kansas? Those are the only possible scenarios when that issue should be brought up.

Well if I had to choose one I'd say home-schooled because I will NEVER live in Kansas!

Well, that's why I made sure to define "Noah" in the manner I did. And the figure he's based on wouldn't be Noah, it'd be (most likely) Gilgamesh. :D

But I digress. The point is, we know there was no world-wide flood, and that was just my (very failed) attempt to (semi)wittingly say that.

Ziusudra ('king' of Shuruppak) is the most likely origin of the Noah myth, actually. Not only do the accounts of Ziusudra match the accounts of Noah, but little details match - even down to specific phrasing that is identical (besides translation) in the Biblical and pre-biblical accounts.

That's true.

Good thing we have other dating methods, eh?

What?

well der volkenland the reason I'm confusing you is because your not sure what your talking about.you can't say one minute there's no such thing as gods or goddesses then the next say this particular god or goddess isn't as great as made out to be.

What you're doing is saying that just because you can't logically think about something it doesn't exist. What are you, American?

Ziusudra ('king' of Shuruppak) is the most likely origin of the Noah myth, actually. Not only do the accounts of Ziusudra match the accounts of Noah, but little details match - even down to specific phrasing that is identical (besides translation) in the Biblical and pre-biblical accounts.

Huh. I was under the impression that it had likely been copied of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I suppose I was incorrect on that.

What?

Carbon dating is not the only method available to us.

I know what are the others?

Huh. I was under the impression that it had likely been copied of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I suppose I was incorrect on that.

They are all probably inter-related.

Why does it seem that all of the religous people on this topic either can't spell, have bad grammar, or don't know the facts.

What you're doing is saying that just because you can't logically think about something it doesn't exist. What are you, American?
No I'm not saying that and excuse me was that supposed to be personal? Cause if it was you might as well eject yourself from this debate because you've lost a lot of credibility. I don't know if you know this but you don't use personal attacks in debates.

Huh. I was under the impression that it had likely been copied of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I suppose I was incorrect on that.

Just throwing something in the works. As an ethnic Chinese I have come across theories that say that Chinese language and mythology suggest that they knew of a flood story very similar to the Biblical account of Noah's flood.

They are all probably inter-related.

Why does it seem that all of the religous people on this topic either can't spell, have bad grammar, or don't know the facts.

Well yeah, but one is likely a direct ancestor to the Noah myth.

They are all probably inter-related.

Why does it seem that all of the religous people on this topic either can't spell, have bad grammar, or don't know the facts.

AD HOMINEM!!!!!! I may not know all the facts, but I can spell and I probably have better grammar than you!!! :gundge:





:p

I know what are the others?

There are at least 2 others. Absolute dating encompasses Carbon 14 dating, while relative dating tells the general time period of an event (in this case, the formation of the earth).

formation of the Earth is disrupted by earthquakes. what else you got?

No I'm not saying that and excuse me was that supposed to be personal? Cause if it was you might as well eject yourself from this debate because you've lost a lot of credibility. I don't know if you know this but you don't use personal attacks in debates.

Sorry. Still, the great majority of Americans are christian or religous in some way, shape, or form.
Edit: I count non-practising christians as religous.

Now we deal with the historical evidence. The development of religion very much resembles an instance of Darwin's survival of the fittest- the religions that are most capable of surviving pass on their ideologies to the next generation while those unable to do so stagnate and die. For example, as much as Christians love to think of the bible as original, much of it is an amalgam of previous works. The first five books of the old testament were taken from previous Jewish paganism, and if one looks very closely, one can see the dying pagan references in these books (for example, the Nephalim, mentioned in Genesis 5 or around there). However, this early form of Judaism was very different from today's Judaism. It lacked an afterlife, a Satan figure, a heaven or a hell, and a Judgement day, or even a clear monotheistic stance. Now, if you remember your history, the Jews were taken into captivity and relocated in Babylon, where they were exposed to an ancient Persian religion, Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is as old as Judaism, and, far removed from Palestine, had independently developed concepts of a dualistic universe centering on good and evil locked in an eternal struggle (coincidently, the evil side was named, in ancient Farsi, Shaitin. Satan, anyone?) They also developed a heaven and a hell, and a Judgement day where good would ultimately win. They professed a rigorous monotheistic stance, and, oddly enough preached one day the appearance of the son of God who would proclaim Judgement Day. Suddenly, after the Jewish captivity, the bible abounds in references to such concepts when it had been lacking before. We skip over history to Jesus Christ. Jesus himself, to the best of our knowledge, never wrote anything down, but we have four writings who largely plagarize of each other who do detail his exploits. However, these Gospel writers, and subsequent writers such as Paul, hellenize the message of Christianity, infusing and bastardizing it with Greek philosophical concepts, many of which come from Zoroastrianism. In addition, Christianity molds and takes the characteristics of the pagan societies it overwhelms (for example, the date of Christmas.) Very little about Christianity is actually Christian.

Now we deal with the historical evidence. The development of religion very much resembles an instance of Darwin's survival of the fittest- the religions that are most capable of surviving pass on their ideologies to the next generation while those unable to do so stagnate and die. For example, as much as Christians love to think of the bible as original, much of it is an amalgam of previous works. The first five books of the old testament were taken from previous Jewish paganism, and if one looks very closely, one can see the dying pagan references in these books (for example, the Nephalim, mentioned in Genesis 5 or around there). However, this early form of Judaism was very different from today's Judaism. It lacked an afterlife, a Satan figure, a heaven or a hell, and a Judgement day, or even a clear monotheistic stance. Now, if you remember your history, the Jews were taken into captivity and relocated in Babylon, where they were exposed to an ancient Persian religion, Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is as old as Judaism, and, far removed from Palestine, had independently developed concepts of a dualistic universe centering on good and evil locked in an eternal struggle (coincidently, the evil side was named, in ancient Farsi, Shaitin. Satan, anyone?) They also developed a heaven and a hell, and a Judgement day where good would ultimately win. They professed a rigorous monotheistic stance, and, oddly enough preached one day the appearance of the son of God who would proclaim Judgement Day. Suddenly, after the Jewish captivity, the bible abounds in references to such concepts when it had been lacking before. We skip over history to Jesus Christ. Jesus himself, to the best of our knowledge, never wrote anything down, but we have four writings who largely plagarize of each other who do detail his exploits. However, these Gospel writers, and subsequent writers such as Paul, hellenize the message of Christianity, infusing and bastardizing it with Greek philosophical concepts, many of which come from Zoroastrianism. In addition, Christianity molds and takes the characteristics of the pagan societies it overwhelms (for example, the date of Christmas.) Very little about Christianity is actually Christian.

I was going to read this until I ran into Darwin and decided it was probably false information.

Sorry. Still, the great majority of Americans are christian or religous in some way, shape, or form.
apology accepted.Please don't use insults in debates.There not needed.That applies to everyone.Including me.Yes I'm in fact american.I'm also religious for several reasons.For 1 there is no scientific answer for why some of those who die come back as ghosts or spirits.As someone who's seen ghosts of some of those in my family who've died, a few I've never even met just seen pictures of religion helped me through the times when I was scared by it.

Well, if YOU knew YOUR facts you'd know carbon dating only goes back a few thousand years.

Carbon dating has varying degrees of reliability, depending on the circumstances in which you are using it. For example - if you are trying to analyse the age of something that has spent a lot of time in water, you expect the results to be skewed accordingly. This isn't a 'flaw' in Carbon Dating, it's one of the established parameters.

Similarly, while you can only measure to a limit of - say - 5730 years with the halflife of Carbon, you can calculate much further than that, if you find proportionally smaller populations of one isotope to the other.

Example: Carbon 14 population in LIVING material should equal (approximately) the Carbon 14 population in the air. As a consequence, we can work out how long ago something lived by finding out how far this figure has migrated.

We know that Carbon 14 has a halflife of 5730 years.

If we find half the native population of Carbon 14 isotope (compared to the Carbon 14 population in the air), we know the living matierial was last living about five and a half thousand years ago.

If we find a fourth of the native population, we know our living material was last alive about 11,000 thousand years ago.

The mechanism is pretty reliable, and yields strong results up until about...60,000 years. Again, not a weakness - these are established parameters which scientists using Carbon Dating are familiar with.

It sounds like you are using halftruths to try to muddy the waters.

This water was already muddy.

all history is muddy.All we really have to use to figure it out is what's been written by our ancestors.prehistory of course refers to what happened before writing came to be so that is even more muddier

Huh. I was under the impression that it had likely been copied of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I suppose I was incorrect on that.

A lot of Genesis is directly related to the Gilgamesh stories, just as a lot of Levitical Law bears a striking resemblence to Hammurabi's Code of Laws... even down to being 'carved in stone'. The Hebrew scripture seems strongly influenced by a lot of local (early Mesopotamian) 'history'.

Just throwing something in the works. As an ethnic Chinese I have come across theories that say that Chinese language and mythology suggest that they knew of a flood story very similar to the Biblical account of Noah's flood.

Many cultures have flood myths. Almost all cultures arise around available water sources, which are often a double-edged blade... a blessing till they flood. From an objective viewpoint, then - it's hardly surprising that most cultures contain water to have some mystical connection to the divine, and have histories of being punished with water.

Yes but what if all of those stories were based off of the story of Noah just translated.