| Author | Message | ||
     Danger_dave |
>>Is it a problem that a lot of people's beliefs may be incorrect? << What if it's yours? | ||
| Kenm123t |
I know for a fact God has a sense of Humour Visit Walmart and look at the customers | ||
| Danger_dave |
Mooseknuckle. http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?page_id=9798&paged =10 | ||
| Blake |
>>> What if it's yours? Then Jesus and those who documented his life were liars who risked/gave their lives for no explicable reason. Why not answer my question?  Swordsman, Seeing as how it was a Catholic priest who first published the theory of the hot big bang, I guess I'd be looking for examples in modern Christian doctrine, or even something in the millenniums old Bible (old testament) that fits such a characterization. Mainly, I'm just wondering what examples typify the kind of statement that Geforce made, ">>> "Time and again, 'supernatural' events are eventually understood through scientific means." Specifically what events or phenomenon in the past two hundred years have been characterized as "supernatural" that are now understood through scientific means? | ||
| Blake |
I'm not saying false explanations of phenomenon haven't happened or don't happen. I'm just curious what the actual instances are that support such a statement. Which beliefs are we talking about? What phenomenon are we talking about? | ||
| Blake |
I just don't buy into the logical fallacy proposed by so many atheists that since some prior supernatural explanations for phenomenon have been found false, that it then follows that no intelligent force could have been involved in the creation of our universe and of the life in it. That kind of fallacious logic has no place in a thoughtful discussion, especially not one purporting to uphold or revere the integrity of the scientific method. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Then Jesus and those who documented his life were liars who risked/gave their lives for no explicable reason. So? plenty of people from all faiths throughout history have given their lives for no good reason at all. That statement alone proves nothing. | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, One of the definitions of philosophy... Philosophy: The science comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. In philosophy, logical truths may be tested for integrity via rigorous objective analysis. That is the science of logic and ideas. In this way we can either refute or support the validity of ideas and theories. The lack of the physical does not preclude the application of science. | ||
| Blake |
>>> So? plenty of people from all faiths throughout history have given their lives for no good reason at all. That statement alone proves nothing. That statement alone was a direct honest answer to a question. That statement was not intended to prove anything. One objectively would be obliged however to recognize the improbability of so many knowingly sacrificing so much for a lie. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Some Muslims kill each other and non-believers on a daily basis over lies. Fanaticism isn't logical. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Ferris its very logical if your a Muslim. Reality doesnt change just your point of view. | ||
| Slaughter |
Remember the good old days when the Baptists were being burned at the stake for their heresies by the Anglicans in England? Of course, that was after the Anglicans had split from the Catholics because of Henry VIII's "issues" with the Pope. How about the Northern Ireland "Troubles?" | ||
| Kenm123t |
Slaughter you remember the theocracies. The divine right of kings was interwoven with politics as away to limit access of the people to power. Luther, Calvin and Wesley and other leaders of the Reformation Separated the church from Government. Governments had used the church for a source of control over the people. The church was being used as a tool of politicians to persecute the masses. | ||
| Davegess |
Separating church from state was one of the things they want, though there were many other things higher up the list, BUT they didn't really succeed. The rulers just changed religion to fit the popular one. The divine right of kings was not ended with the reformation, far from it. Who is right about god? Can't prove it one way or the other. Buddhists believe they are right and die for there religion. This rapidly becomes an argument of faith and faith is not something that can be founded in logical, provable truth. If it could be than it would not be faith. Converting the host and wine into the body and blood of Christ during a mass, that is purely faith. Logical and science say it does not happen BUT it does happen for those with FAITH. Trying to prove god and creation in a logical scientific fashion is pointless. Can't be done. You need faith. You have it or you don't. | ||
| Blake |
>>> plenty of people from all faiths throughout history have given their lives for no good reason at all. Would you please cite three examples of that? Do you put Jesus in that class? His apostles? His cousin John? Note the vital word "knowingly" in my answer to your first question. That means that people who knew their beliefs were based on a lie sacrificed themselves. That is not the same scenario as you describe. Ken has truth and knowledge. Very cool. But back on topic. ID is a firmly established scientific parameter. Archeologists employ it quite frequently. | ||
| Blake |
Dave, >>> Trying to prove god and creation in a logical scientific fashion is pointless. Can't be done. You need faith. You have it or you don't. For your consideration, I submit the following quote from the esteemed Dr. William Craig: Scientific evidence can support a premiss in an argument leading to a conclusion having theological significance. Then to the well-accepted scientific principles that matter does not arise from non-matter, and life does not arise from non-life. Yet matter and life exist. Then there is the scientific evidence showing that time and our universe did indeed have a beginning. Everything that has a beginning has/had a cause. Apply logic. It's a pretty simple proof using scientifically accepted theories and principles to theorize that something must have caused the universe and life to begin. | ||
| Blake |
The faith part only enters the issue when we start to talk about the will and nature of the cause. And even then there are of analytical and logical means to test the probable veracity of any such claims. | ||
| Davegess |
sophistry | ||
| Bwbhighspl |
It's important to remember that the religious beliefs to how life began are just that: beliefs. When you start calling them "theories", you've already lost the argument. It's funny how teachers are taught to discuss science vs religion today, and it's because religious is now called "theory". The problem is that in grade school, the scientific process is taught, and that theories come out of it. You can't apply the scientific process to a belief, because of the lack of evidence. As a 5th grader, they can't get things straight. So, the teachers are taught to dance around it, and to say there are two definitions for "theory". The definition in science class is based on the scientific process, and that is what they'll teach. They don't address the other approach because it goes into god, which is a no-no. | ||
| Reindog |
No its not. | ||
| Reindog |
Yes it is. | ||
| Sifo |
Your both wrong. | ||
| Slaughter |
NO he's not | ||
| Slaughter |
Yes he is. | ||
| Danger_dave |
'Faith: Not wanting to know what is true.' - Neitzsche | ||
| Danger_dave |
'Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. ' Bertrand Russell PS I do know that debating with a devout Christian is a waste of time. They have circular answers to all, ending with 'Only God knows' but it's good web fodder. | ||
| Danger_dave |
 | ||
| Sifo |
It's important to remember that the religious beliefs to how life began are just that: beliefs. When you start calling them "theories", you've already lost the argument. It's funny how teachers are taught to discuss science vs religion today, and it's because religious is now called "theory". The problem is that in grade school, the scientific process is taught, and that theories come out of it. You can't apply the scientific process to a belief, because of the lack of evidence. As a 5th grader, they can't get things straight. I'm guessing you didn't read the opening posts to this thread. | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>Scientific evidence can support a premiss in an argument leading to a conclusion having theological significance.<< Why they burned heretics. :-) | ||
| Blake |
Dave, >>> Sophistry. Baloney.  Danger Man, Nietzsche, Friedrich (Wilhelm) (1844-1900), German philosopher, poet, and classical philologist, who was one of the most provocative and influential thinkers of the 19th century. Born in Röcken, Prussia, Nietzsche studied at the Universities of Bonn and Leipzig and was appointed professor of classical philology at the University of Basel. ... he suffered a mental breakdown in 1889 and never recovered. Nietzsche was wrong and apparently quite troubled. I do know that debating with a devout atheist is a waste of time. They have circular answers to all, ending with 'science is the answer' but it's good web fodder. |
