Science and Theology, the sequel

Canon FD 70-210mm �4.0 MF

04/07/2008 06:10:46 PM · #226

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's a review of The Pagan Christ which pretty well says what I'm contending

Ahh... so it's not that the theologian and journalist Harpur is a joke- it's that his claims lack credible sources and therefore can't be relied upon. Well gee, I certainly can't argue with that. By the same reasoning, if Mark's claims were backed with something like, "An interview with a witness who saw Jesus walking on water revealed the following account..." or if Luke had cited research from a respected Jewish historian, then we might afford those texts some degree of reliability too. Unfortunately, all we have are claims that Jesus said or did something... claims that vary in scope and detail. At least we know Harpur's real name, personal credentials and source material- none of which can be said of anything written in the Bible.

You are so funny jumping back and forth over the fence Shannon. Weren't you talking about Baccus and Jesus a little while back and the mythic inscription on the temple of Mithras? No sources needed there. Talk about the gospels and we need credible sources. Go back to Horus and Jesus and now we're happy with crappy sources.

Make up your friggin mind.

The truth is, as much as Louis likes to paint Harpur as a smart guy, he's fringe. Fringe to both secular and religious new testament scholars. You guys are starting to remind me of my roommate in college. He was a great guy, really smart, and hardcore atheist. However, he would eat a conspiracy theory up like it was chocolate. He's the one who told me about the reverse engineering of UFO technology at Area 51. He also had some great stuff about the face on Mars. Right about now, I think you guys would get along just great.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

04/07/2008 06:12:25 PM · #227

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Consalato Dei? (forgive my crappy Latin)

Well, your crappy latin is bettern than mine because I'm not sure what you mean here. :)

Sorry - my understanding of the phrase is that it means something to the effect of "I believe because it consoles me." But without the translation's potential flippancy. Karen Armstrong has used this phrase to express why she continues to engage in monotheistic religious practices and observances, even though she does not believe in a literal divine entity.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm �4.0 MF

04/07/2008 06:16:44 PM · #228

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You guys are starting to remind me of my roommate in college. He was a great guy, really smart, and hardcore atheist. However, he would eat a conspiracy theory up like it was chocolate. He's the one who told me about the reverse engineering of UFO technology at Area 51. He also had some great stuff about the face on Mars. Right about now, I think you guys would get along just great.

Come on! Everybody knows that the whole Area 51 thing is just a ruse cooked up by the government to hide the fact that the Illuminati has been in control of all world governments since the early Dark Ages and have been using mind control through subliminal advertising to control the population and keep us all docile.

;)

04/07/2008 07:15:07 PM · #229

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You guys are starting to remind me of my roommate in college. He was a great guy, really smart, and hardcore atheist. However, he would eat a conspiracy theory up like it was chocolate. He's the one who told me about the reverse engineering of UFO technology at Area 51. He also had some great stuff about the face on Mars. Right about now, I think you guys would get along just great.

Come on! Everybody knows that the whole Area 51 thing is just a ruse cooked up by the government to hide the fact that the Illuminati has been in control of all world governments since the early Dark Ages and have been using mind control through subliminal advertising to control the population and keep us all docile.

;)

Don't I know it! At least Mike warned me all those years ago... :)

04/07/2008 07:55:34 PM · #230

I think you guys are jumping all over dpon because you are asking him to prove "revelation" in a scientific realm when this is really an absurdity. If dpon feels he has a revelation about a relationship with God, it's his right. Sure, it may be false, but then it may be true. Trying to logic or prove our way to it makes no sense because we are trying to apply scientific tools to a philosophical idea. It's sorta like proving love or envy or any other emotion using only science.

I certainly know why you are doing it, but I think it reflects badly on the typical atheist to jump on dpon's statement so vehemently. It may have been the cause for L1 to ask "why do you guys care so much?"

I'm thinking "jackals to an antelope" again... :/

04/07/2008 07:57:02 PM · #231

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Consalato Dei? (forgive my crappy Latin)

Well, your crappy latin is bettern than mine because I'm not sure what you mean here. :)

Sorry - my understanding of the phrase is that it means something to the effect of "I believe because it consoles me." But without the translation's potential flippancy. Karen Armstrong has used this phrase to express why she continues to engage in monotheistic religious practices and observances, even though she does not believe in a literal divine entity.

That's an interesting thought. I think it would be fair to say there is some of that in there, although I wouldn't reduce or limit my faith to that phrase.

04/07/2008 08:37:53 PM · #232

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think you guys are jumping all over dpon because you are asking him to prove "revelation" in a scientific realm when this is really an absurdity.

No, he's being jumped all over because he mocked evolutionary theory while not understanding it, he likened evolution by natural selection with a Rolex watch appearing out of thin air, and he concluded "logically" that because he'd be an idiot to believe in something that doesn't exist, and because he believes in God, God is of course completely real. Then, just before his departure, he wished us all a fiery and brimstoney eternity in the special hell he imagines Jesus is preparing for us even as we speak.

He wrote the cheque, and others cashed it.

You are perfectly at your liberty to defend this type of flakey cheek if you like, but nobody dragged him into the conversation kicking and screaming, forced his hands at the keyboard time and again, and compelled him to participate for the past few days.

04/07/2008 08:44:15 PM · #233

Dpon is capable of arguing his own brand of discourse. I'll help where I can, but his argument will stand or fall in its own merits. I did make some comments somewhere above about some things which got overlooked (likely for easier prey). Maybe I'll quote the most pertinent:

Originally posted by DrAchoo, the wise:

I wasn't holding them to be on the same level. I'm just saying that "fact" as mentioned by someone above means a different thing when we're talking about a prospective drug trial versus geologic reconstruction. Dpon feels it's hard to believe evolution can produce an eye. He has that right since it is not hard fact (nobody has witnessed an eye evolve and nobody has more than a general idea of how it would happen (photosensitive cell to cup to retina etc). When he feels it's rational to disbelieve that, merely saying "it's a fact" is a response that, in actuality, involves conjecture. Sure, you feel that's reasonable conjecture, but it's conjecture nonetheless.

That's the thing about conjecture. While you assert that the "beliefs" of science are on a different level than religion, others would agree but put the religious beliefs as higher than the scientific ones. It depends on your worldview. Clearly if you are a materialist you have a priori rejected the religious axioms so it's no surprise how you feel. Those who are open to both possibilities are likely the ones to listen to in such matters.

scalvert

04/07/2008 08:51:54 PM · #234

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I never mentioned Bacchus anywhere, and I think Louis was the one who initially brought up Mithra. You asked for a reference to virgin birth and I provided one. You responded that we don't know the source of that reference, so I pointed out that we don't know the source of gospel accounts either. Moving on to Horus, you dismissed Harpur as a joke, so I listed his credentials as a respected scholar of ancient theology. You then waved off the credibility of his sources and I repeated that we don't even know the original sources of the gospels (much less the real names or credentials of the authors), which you ignored and accused me of jumping back and forth. As you can see, at every point I've only been following your arguments. The "jumping" was intentional to prove a point: if you demand credible sources, then Biblical accounts must be subject to the same rules. If you can accept gospel accounts without any requirement of credibility, then you're in no position to demand it from others. ;-)

chalice

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

04/07/2008 09:20:05 PM · #235

Originally posted by Matthew:

...it would be very easy to disprove evolution if it were not true. All you need is one fossil out of place in the geological record.

The seventh fossil in the geological record is out of place. ;-P

04/07/2008 11:02:01 PM · #236

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are so funny jumping back and forth over the fence Shannon. Weren't you talking about Baccus and Jesus a little while back and the mythic inscription on the temple of Mithras? No sources needed there. Talk about the gospels and we need credible sources. Go back to Horus and Jesus and now we're happy with crappy sources.

I never mentioned Bacchus anywhere, and I think Louis was the one who initially brought up Mithra. You asked for a reference to virgin birth and I provided one. You responded that we don't know the source of that reference, so I pointed out that we don't know the source of gospel accounts either. Moving on to Horus, you dismissed Harpur as a joke, so I listed his credentials as a respected scholar of ancient theology. You then waved off the credibility of his sources and I repeated that we don't even know the original sources of the gospels (much less the real names or credentials of the authors), which you ignored and accused me of jumping back and forth. As you can see, at every point I've only been following your arguments. The "jumping" was intentional to prove a point: if you demand credible sources, then Biblical accounts must be subject to the same rules. If you can accept gospel accounts without any requirement of credibility, then you're in no position to demand it from others. ;-)

I guess I'm thinking that "credibility" has a different connotation for a modern thesis and an ancient text. The first would be more along the lines of "do other people agree with this and if not how much evidence do you have to show they are wrong?" the second would be "do we know a) what we have is faithful to what was originally written and b) is there reason to believe what was written reflects true history (assuming it's a historical text and not some other genre). So as far as the gospels go we pretty well have a) locked down more than any other historical text and b), of course, is open to some debate (which I admit). I think there is internal and external evidence to say we can be fairly confident. While I can understand the skeptic worrying that nothing has been altered, the further down the continuum you go, the less, I feel, you have to stand on. That's why I think Harpur is junk. He is way on the extreme contending that the whole thing is allegory and fiction. Mainstream history would disagree with that and as the reviewer eloquently put it, "These are serious charges with enormous consequences, requiring a meticulous assemblage of evidence."

Man I swear you mentioned Baccus. Maybe it was Dionysus. Something to do with wine and the last supper. Maybe it was someone else.

EDIT: Ya, it was Louis. Although I did find a post where you used the word Dionysus. :) But it wasn't what I was thinking about.

Message edited by author 2008-04-07 23:05:42.

04/07/2008 11:34:49 PM · #237

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
I'm going to make this my last post regarding this subject and bow out of the conversation as it is going nowhere.

Otherwise known as, "I'm losing the argument, so screw you guys I'm going home."

Originally posted by dponlyme:
I wish all of you well.

Since you basically threatened me with Christ's wrath in his second coming, I doubt it.

I just can't seem to help myself from posting again. I'm not losing the argument. That is where you have fallen off of the trolley. All I was trying to get you guys to do is to admit that it is possible that there is a God. I figured if you could do that then just maybe at some point down the road you would figure it out. I think that is the biggest problem with these debates and why people get bent out of shape. It is frustrating to Know that God exists and know that he loves all of us and yet through stubborness you refuse to even acknowledge that you might be wrong in your conviction that God does not exist. You invariably assume that I think I am somehow superior to yourself when that is definitely not the case. I consider myself lucky and blessed but certainly it is not because of anything I have done to deserve it.I didn't threaten you with Hell. God is the one to judge. Though I can understand how you might take it another way (sorry!). All I was saying is that if you wait until you have concrete scientific proof of God to investigate your own spirituality then when that proof does come He will not be able to have much mercy on you. It will be too late. That is definitely not what I am hoping for. It was my sincere goal to be a help to you. You may not want what I have to offer and I am not going to shove it down your throat (any further I suppose) because it will do no good. I do wish you well. Sincerely. I would hope that you could feel the same toward me.

04/07/2008 11:56:17 PM · #238

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
I'm going to make this my last post regarding this subject and bow out of the conversation as it is going nowhere.

Translation: I've dug myself a deep hole and I can't get out, so I'm taking my ball and going home.

Will you admit to the possibility of God? If not then there truly is nothing further to discuss. If you can't come to that conclusion at the very least how then can I further the discourse to show you how to come into the same knowledge which I hold? That is my goal. Not to win an argument. What would I win. This to me is not a game of wits to see who can out debate the other as it seems to be to you. If you take that approach to it then it is already decided in your mind that you have 'won' before you ever type a word. All you need do is have made the decision to deny that God exists and there is no possibility that he does. You see I don't dispute any of the evidence that you have for evolution. I just question the thory which has been drawn in light of that evidence. From a scientific perspective it is about as good as you can get but it does not explain all as I tried pointing out with the eye. I can even admit that the Gold watch example I gave was a poor one. Science is a great tool of man to understand the world around him but it should not ever be elevated to the level of being the only way to gain knowledge and it does not give anyone wisdom. That is what I think you fail to understand. Of course you will come back with more of the same defensiveness no matter how much I try to convince you of my good motives so I won't reply when you do. I do wish you well.

04/07/2008 11:56:24 PM · #239

Originally posted by dponlyme:

It is frustrating to Know that God exists and know that he loves all of us and yet through stubborness you refuse to even acknowledge that you might be wrong in your conviction that God does not exist.

Same goes. It is frustrating for me to know that there is no god, yet through stubborness, or fear, people like you refuse to acknowledge that you may be wrong in your conviction that God exists, and that you are denying yourself a life of intellectual freedom that is truly liberating.

By extension, you are wishing upon good people a life of servitude to what they see as an empty ideology, and, whether intentionally or not, you are insulting their intelligence by chanting articles of your faith by rote, articles that include a vision of eternal suffering for decent human beings who have done nothing wrong. I know that it is important as a matter of your faith to believe that you aren't permitted to judge others, but you judge them all the same.

Many atheists consider people like you the unlucky ones.

The godless universe is beautiful.

04/08/2008 12:10:55 AM · #240

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
1. we are limited by our 5 senses. We simply cannot detect everything with them no matter what we do or what instruments we use.

You might be interested to know that we have a lot more than 5 senses.

Originally posted by dponlyme:
2. evolution theory presupposes random mutations and natural selection formed complex organs.

It does not. You have misunderstood this. If you are going to denounce your enemy, then it is usually best to know it a bit better than you do, as it is otherwise very easy to dismiss your arguments.

Originally posted by dponlyme:
3. You can no more prove God doesn't exist than I can prove evolution isn't the answer scientifically

I admit that it is impossible for us to disprove god - but it would be very easy to disprove evolution if it were not true. All you need is one fossil out of place in the geological record.

Originally posted by dponlyme:
4. Since I experience a relationship with God I know he exists even if you don't

Internal "knowledge" = belief. You believe in god, and no-one here would doubt that.

Originally posted by dponlyme:
5. You refuse to even open your minds to the possibility that God might exist regardless of the rational and obviously educated people around you who know him.

As I said, I acknowledge the extraordinarily remote possibility. Otherwise, you know little about me or others here.

Originally posted by dponlyme:
I wish all of you well.

Likewise.

I would be interested to know about our other senses. Please explain further. I do not regard evolutionary theory as my enemy. I would also be interested to know what it is in greater detail. Can you point me toward a source that would explain it further or let me know yourself. I admittedly am not an expert on evolution and all I have said about it is limited by my understanding of it. Hopefully there is something of more substance than that eye video. It was not in my opinion scientific but near pure speculation. Help me out here. I respectfully disagree that I do not hold actual knowledge of God. That actual Knowledge coming from your perspective and being unproven scientifically is not persuasive I understand and I don't expect you to change your mind on this. I would explain that my knowledge of God came as a result of believing first and then He revealed himself to me giving rise to the actual knowledge. It does all start with belief. On your final point you have finally admitted to the fact that God might actually exist. I am stunned and very pleased. Would you be interested in exploring this possibility further? If so I would love to. This would of course require you to set aside science and look at things in a totally different way. Can you do that. I am not asking for miracles here (meaning that in more of a colloquial way and not a religious way) but just to explore the possibility of God? There would be no scientific proof you understand. Would you be willing? Would anyone else be willing?

scalvert

04/08/2008 12:25:30 AM · #241

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Would anyone else be willing?

It's roughly on par with admitting the possibility of fairies, dragons and Hercules. Absent a shred of evidence (even intangible evidence), there's really no reason to do so. An omnipotent deity should certainly have the ability to make his existence plainly obvious to everyone without the need for ancient scrolls or interpretation, and that shouldn't be too much to expect when the absence of such evidence leads to the death and/or condemnation of so many.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/08/2008 12:46:23 AM · #242

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
It is frustrating to Know that God exists and know that he loves all of us and yet through stubborness you refuse to even acknowledge that you might be wrong in your conviction that God does not exist.

Same goes. It is frustrating for me to know that there is no god, yet through stubborness, or fear, people like you refuse to acknowledge that you may be wrong in your conviction that God exists, and that you are denying yourself a life of intellectual freedom that is truly liberating.

By extension, you are wishing upon good people a life of servitude to what they see as an empty ideology, and, whether intentionally or not, you are insulting their intelligence by chanting articles of your faith by rote, articles that include a vision of eternal suffering for decent human beings who have done nothing wrong. I know that it is important as a matter of your faith to believe that you aren't permitted to judge others, but you judge them all the same.

Many atheists consider people like you the unlucky ones.

The godless universe is beautiful.

Louis, you have obviously given this whole God thing a lot of thought but I could no more think that God does not exist than you could admit that fossils don't exist. We both know the latter to be true and it would be ridiculous to say otherwise. Similarly it would be ridiculous of me to say there is a chance that God does not exist. I know because he has revealed himself to me the way one may dig in the dirt and find a fossil. It is right in front of you. God's Holy Spirit lives in me and is very real. He guides me to do things I would never do if left to my own devices. He convicts of things that I have done wrong that I would never even know were wrong if it weren't for his intervention. My prayers are answered time and time and time again. He speaks to me. He gives me peace when my circumstance are out of control. I have a relationship with God. It is not imaginary as you must suppose. I only wish that you could come to that same knowledge. It would change your life for the better. It is not a life of servitude in the manner in which you speak. I serve God because I love him. I try to do what He wants me to do because I agree with Him that he knows what is best for me. I have struggled with sin in my life and I have gone through periods of ignoring God in favor of doing it my way. He makes sure that my way leads to trial and tribulation not to punish and enslave me to do his bidding but because he knows that to do otherwise does entail necessarily that when I die there would be no more me and he knows that I know this. He wants me to be with him in heaven for eternity with him. He wants to show me the path that leads to life even in physical death. I have absolute intellectual freedom because he does not force me to serve him. I can absolutely do as I please. If I made it clear to him that I was rejecting him and told him to leave me alone he would. That is termed as blaspheming against the Holy Ghost. That's religious talk for I knew the truth and rejected it. That is the only unforgivable sin. To have the absolute knowledge of God and yet still reject him is unforgivable and it should be. I hope that you will come to an understanding of all of these things which cannot be arrived at from scientific inquiry at some point before your physical body does give out. This is my testimony to you. Do with it what you will.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/08/2008 12:52:07 AM · #243

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by L1:
Serious question...Why does it matter so much to nonbelievers to disprove God's very existence?

It doesn't matter at all. To a non-believer, God doesn't exist, and there's nothing to "disprove". It is entirely up to the believer to "prove it" to the satisfaction of the non-believer... which is of course completely impossible.

I often ask the same question you've just asked, but in reverse. Why do some believers care if there exist hard atheists? Why are they so adamant that a complete lack of belief has to be challenged, sometimes with vitriol, sometimes with vapid arguments, sometimes with mawkish sentiment, but always with such gusto that it seems almost a panicked reaction to the very notion that some people just don't believe any of it?

As an agnostic I tend to view both extremes in a similar light. Both come across as foolish when claiming to know the absolute truth. It's as if we have already explored our entire universe a 1000 times over and know it like the back of our hand, when in fact that's not the case or even close to it. One could argue that our knowledge of it is so infinitesimal that if put to a percentage it would round down to zero but that doesn't stop us from making grandiose claims about it one way or the other.

Just imagine if this is how we approached medicine?

Message edited by author 2008-04-08 00:57:08.

04/08/2008 12:54:16 AM · #244

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:
Would anyone else be willing?

It's roughly on par with admitting the possibility of fairies, dragons and Hercules. Absent a shred of evidence (even intangible evidence), there's really no reason to do so. An omnipotent deity should certainly have the ability to make his existence plainly obvious to everyone without the need for ancient scrolls or interpretation, and that shouldn't be too much to expect when the absence of such evidence leads to the death and/or condemnation of so many.

scalvert your statement supposes God's existence and then denounces his methods. Who are you to say what is the best way an omnipotent deity should conduct himself. You are not omnipotent. It would seem that the omnipotent one would be in a better position to determine a correct course. He will not fail to reveal himself to you If you truly desire him to with the intention that if he does that you would want to worship and serve him. I can show you how. Do you want to know? If indeed God does exist would you want to worship and serve him? This last question is paramount because if the answer is no then he will have no reason to reveal himself to you.

04/08/2008 01:39:27 AM · #245

See, one thing that really bugs me is the prosyletizing. It is so intellectually demeaning.

04/08/2008 03:22:35 AM · #246

Originally posted by Louis:

See, one thing that really bugs me is the prosyletizing. It is so intellectually demeaning.

Proselytizing is what we Christians do. I want everyone to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, God the Father and His Holy Spirit. I don't see why it is intellectually demeaning. Why don't you answer the question. If the answer is no then our conversation is at an end. If indeed their is a God and indeed if he is the Christian God would you want to worship and serve him? If you would then I can show you how. God will reveal himself to you as he has to me. I am not asking you to take my word for it.

scalvert

04/08/2008 09:07:04 AM · #247

Originally posted by dponlyme:

God will reveal himself to you as he has to me....

Dang.... now I have to clean tea off my monitor. Since you're fairly new to these threads, I'll assume you're ignorant of the deeply religious backgrounds of Louis, myself and likely others. Suffice it to say... been there, done that. We probably both "knew" that Santa Claus existed, too.