| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/06/2008 07:06:39 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Oh please...stop with the martyr complex BS, you're gonna make me all teary. |
I have no martyr complex. Just explaining why belief and knowledge of God is not like doing crack. Being ridiculed by people like you is not causing endorphins to rush around in my head causing me to feel ecstatic. I get no such payoff for my submission to God's Holy Spirit. |
I'm not ridiculing anything that's not already ridiculous. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 07:44:23 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You guys know where I stand on evolution, but I would agree that any scientific branch that deals with the past is based, in some part, on conjecture. Paleontology, archeology, etc. |
I agree with DrAchoo. And where the "conjecture" part is involved, the necessary linkages to make the related "theory" consistent also involve "belief". |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 08:01:26 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by chalice:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You guys know where I stand on evolution, but I would agree that any scientific branch that deals with the past is based, in some part, on conjecture. Paleontology, archeology, etc. |
I agree with DrAchoo. And where the "conjecture" part is involved, the necessary linkages to make the related "theory" consistent also involve "belief". |
No. Not the kind of belief you're trying to allude to here. Not the "in lieu of facts insert anything you like" kind of belief. A theory remains consistent when it can't be disproved by facts obtained through experimentation. A theory is consistent with other theories when, through experimentation, the conclusions of each are upheld. "Belief" of the kind you're trying to link science with has nothing to do with theorizing, or science. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 08:21:36 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by chalice:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You guys know where I stand on evolution, but I would agree that any scientific branch that deals with the past is based, in some part, on conjecture. Paleontology, archeology, etc. |
I agree with DrAchoo. And where the "conjecture" part is involved, the necessary linkages to make the related "theory" consistent also involve "belief". |
No. Not the kind of belief you're trying to allude to here. Not the "in lieu of facts insert anything you like" kind of belief. A theory remains consistent when it can't be disproved by facts obtained through experimentation. A theory is consistent with other theories when, through experimentation, the conclusions of each are upheld. "Belief" of the kind you're trying to link science with has nothing to do with theorizing, or science. |
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.
Message edited by author 2008-04-06 20:25:49. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 11:04:43 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I would suggest your user generated wikipedia definition does not accurately describe what a scientific theory really is or do you worship wikipedia the way you worship evolutionary THEORY(as defined by about.com). |
From the About.com page you appear to reference: "Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true."
You were saying? If that's your preferred reference, here's a couple more from About.com:
"A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis (or group of related hypotheses) which has been confirmed through repeated testing, almost always conducted over a span of many years."
"A key factor to keep in mind is that the term "theory" is used by scientists in a manner different from common usage. For most contexts, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy idea about how things work - in fact, one which has a low probability of being true. This is where we get the complaint that something in science is "only a theory" and hence shouldn't be given a great deal of credibility. For scientists, however, a theory is a conceptual structure which is used to explain existing facts and predict new ones."
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I would also suggest that to be certain there is no God when most of the people living on the earth would disagree with you simply because you cannot detect him with your 5 senses is not only being deliberately obtuse but foolish as well. |
Only a small minority of the people who ever lived on earth believe(d) in a god anything like yours. Given most deities' disapproval of competing beliefs, chances are you're in the same boat with any atheist. ;-) |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 11:07:36 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
That is why God has sent the Holy Spirit to live inside of the true Christian. |
Are you suggesting that God speaks only to Christians? Sure no God would be so exclusionary as to cast aside all those that never had the chance to hear of the word of God.
Just asking,
Rau |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 11:11:51 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Oh please...stop with the martyr complex BS, you're gonna make me all teary. |
I have no martyr complex. Just explaining why belief and knowledge of God is not like doing crack. Being ridiculed by people like you is not causing endorphins to rush around in my head causing me to feel ecstatic. I get no such payoff for my submission to God's Holy Spirit. |
I'm not ridiculing anything that's not already ridiculous. |
Resorting to personal attacks does not advance your position one iota and does not bother me in the least. Keep it up, I actually get a good deal of satisfaction from knowing that you have run out of all logical reasoning to support your position that God certainly and without a doubt does not exist.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2008 11:18:48 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Really? I thought it was termed the Law of Gravity for the very reasons you state. |
Urm, which 'Law of Gravity' ? If you mean Newton's theory, that's mostly been superseded and doesn't generally apply. (which is one of Einstein's major contributions with his general theory of relativity)
All theories. The lay definition of a theory and the scientific use of the words differ and usually lead to these sorts of conversations.
So yes, gravity isn't a fact, but it is generally held to be true, similarly evolution.
Message edited by author 2008-04-06 23:19:58. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 11:20:51 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
...you have run out of all logical reasoning to support your position that God certainly and without a doubt does not exist. |
Can you offer any logical reasoning that would support a conclusion that Zeus or fire breathing dragons certainly and without a doubt do not exist (that wouldn't equally apply to God), or do you believe in those too? |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 11:30:08 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I would suggest your user generated wikipedia definition does not accurately describe what a scientific theory really is or do you worship wikipedia the way you worship evolutionary THEORY(as defined by about.com). |
From the About.com page you appear to reference: "Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true."
You were saying? If that's your preferred reference, here's a couple more from About.com:
"A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis (or group of related hypotheses) which has been confirmed through repeated testing, almost always conducted over a span of many years."
"A key factor to keep in mind is that the term "theory" is used by scientists in a manner different from common usage. For most contexts, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy idea about how things work - in fact, one which has a low probability of being true. This is where we get the complaint that something in science is "only a theory" and hence shouldn't be given a great deal of credibility. For scientists, however, a theory is a conceptual structure which is used to explain existing facts and predict new ones."
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I would also suggest that to be certain there is no God when most of the people living on the earth would disagree with you simply because you cannot detect him with your 5 senses is not only being deliberately obtuse but foolish as well. |
Only a small minority of the people who ever lived on earth believe(d) in a god anything like yours. Given most deities' disapproval of competing beliefs, chances are you're in the same boat with any atheist. ;-) |
I read the entire definition and all of the accompanying points and I would agree that the definition of theory within the scope of scientific endeavor has a more specific meaning than the general use of the word theory. It also states that theories no matter how much evidence are not necessarily equivalent to facts (this is implied also in the definition from wikipedia). In the case of gravity their is a high degree of certainty as compared to evolution which is filled with gaps and holes in the evidence that if were available may show that evolution theory does not adequately explain the processes that it purports to explain. Perhaps not. We simply do not know. To your second point: we have not even gotten to the point where I can find one person to even acknowledge the rational possibility of the existence of a god, any god much less the one true God(who did not already hold that belief). If I ever get that far then I will be more than happy to discuss why the Christian God is that one true God. If you come with me that far, to admit it's a possibility for there to be a being that could be termed as a god then I will explain to you why I know that the Christian God is the one true God.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2008 11:39:28 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
In the case of gravity their is a high degree of certainty |
Which theory of gravity are you talking about here ? |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 11:41:59 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Oh please...stop with the martyr complex BS, you're gonna make me all teary. |
I have no martyr complex. Just explaining why belief and knowledge of God is not like doing crack. Being ridiculed by people like you is not causing endorphins to rush around in my head causing me to feel ecstatic. I get no such payoff for my submission to God's Holy Spirit. |
I'm not ridiculing anything that's not already ridiculous. |
Resorting to personal attacks does not advance your position one iota and does not bother me in the least. Keep it up, I actually get a good deal of satisfaction from knowing that you have run out of all logical reasoning to support your position that God certainly and without a doubt does not exist. |
You're the one who brought up the persecution of Christians, evidently to make some kind of point. It's a ridiculous argument since nearly every religion has suffered persecution, often at the hands of some other religious group who has, at other times been persecuted.
All religions that I can think have both been persecuted and been the persecutor at some point in history. If you have some evidence that makes Christianity special in that regard, please do share.
I don't have to prove God doesn't exist, the burden is on you to prove he does.
Message edited by author 2008-04-06 23:45:08. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 12:06:23 AM · #163 |
| Regarding comparative religions, specifically the stories of Horus and Jesus, this page outlines some of the most obvious similarities between the two. Note that Tom Harpur is one of Canada's most respected theologians, and when I was Catholic before age 18 (almost thirty years ago), he was certainly one of my mentors. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 12:48:44 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Regarding comparative religions, specifically the stories of Horus and Jesus, this page outlines some of the most obvious similarities between the two. Note that Tom Harpur is one of Canada's most respected theologians, and when I was Catholic before age 18 (almost thirty years ago), he was certainly one of my mentors. |
This guy is a joke. I looked into the first four or five of them and came away with very little to corroborate his theory.
1) Both born of a virgin.
The site you link admits itself that "there is some doubt about this matter". Wiki says Isis conceived Horus after putting the dead pieces of Osiris back together and making a penis of gold because Set had chucked poor Osiris' weiner into the river. Does having sex with a dead person still make you a virgin? Tough call.
2) Both the only begotten Son of God.
Wiki says that Horus was eventually thought of as, "...the brother of Osiris, Isis, Set, and Nephthys, as this was the only plausible level at which he could meaningfully rule over the sun and the pharaoh's kingdom." Now I do know from the great game "Age of Mythology" that the god power "Son of Osiris" did kick total ass. It's too bad they didn't have a "My boss is a jewish carpenter" god power in the expansion to complete the obvious parallels.
3) Mother's names both sound strangly alike "Meri" and "Mary".
A) I couldn't find any link to the term "Meri" mentioned with Horus outside pages which were about Jesus and Horus parallels. B) The bigger problem, of course, is that Meri sounds mostly like "Mary" which is the anglicanized version of her name.
4) Fathers names were both Joseph.
Here I don't really get it. They list "Seb" as his step-father and then put (Jo-seph) in parenthases. Seb doesn't sound much like Joseph, but "Jo-Seph" sure does! I'm convinced!
5) In a cave.
Jesus could have been born in a cave. Of course it's not listed as a cave but rather a stable (which could have been a cave). But if we really wanted to draw from the Horus tradition, why didn't we just say cave to get the point across that Jesus is Horus! Stupid authors.
I didn't keep going at that point. It's a joke. You can probably draw from my sarcasm that I feel that way...
Here's one for you. In two minutes I can list at least five ways in which Jesus WASN'T like Horus.
1) Jesus turned water into wine.
2) Jesus walked on water.
3) Jesus was killed after being found guilty of trumped up charges.
4) Jesus is returning again.
5) Jesus hung out with the poor and undesirables of the time.
6) Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered the line of Merovingian kings.
Oh wait. That one might not be right. I'm reading another crackpot...
Crap. We're gonna have to go back to find another deity to find parallels to those.
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 00:50:03. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 01:03:35 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
we have not even gotten to the point where I can find one person to even acknowledge the rational possibility of the existence of a god, any god much less the one true God... |
Jealous gods define themselves as infinite, invisible, intangible, unprovable and forbid their followers from acknowledging even the possibility that they do not exist. To do so is tantamount to forfeiting one's faith, yet you demand an assumption of faith from people who favor broadly accepted scientific theories backed by multiple lines of physical evidence? |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 01:07:15 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In two minutes I can list at least five ways in which Jesus WASN'T like Horus... |
...all of them attributed to a book of dubious origin and unknown authorship. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 01:08:37 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't keep going at that point. It's a joke. You can probably draw from my sarcasm that I feel that way... |
You do know you sound a lot like how most non-believers feel in regards to the other column right? :) |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 01:11:44 AM · #168 |
| Just as a random thought... Jesus was widely reported to be a carpenter. I wonder what a chair made by Jesus would fetch on eBay these days? The craftsmanship must have been awesome. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 01:16:32 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Just as a random thought... Jesus was widely reported to be a carpenter. I wonder what a chair made by Jesus would fetch on eBay these days? The craftsmanship must have been awesome. |
Hopefully more than what this knockoff goes for.
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 01:16:50. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 01:30:43 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't have to prove God doesn't exist, the burden is on you to prove he does. |
To be fair a belief doesn't require proof so why would you or anybody else demand it? I'm sure at some point in your life you questioned whether or not you're a good person. In doing so did you take the scientific approach to prove it or did you simply go with your gut or whatever your biased mind told you? :P
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 01:31:35. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 09:11:22 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't have to prove God doesn't exist, the burden is on you to prove he does. |
To be fair a belief doesn't require proof so why would you or anybody else demand it? I'm sure at some point in your life you questioned whether or not you're a good person. In doing so did you take the scientific approach to prove it or did you simply go with your gut or whatever your biased mind told you? :P |
Until I see proof, Bigfoot, Nessie and the Yeti don't exist either. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 10:44:07 AM · #172 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
When one talks about the "theory" of evolution, one is necessarily referring to the scientific meaning of the word. Evolution is a well proven theory. No credible biologist doubts or questions the overarching theory. Science's understanding of the specific mechanics are continually being enhanced, and refined as we develop better tools and methods and further increase the amount of direct evidence available (aka, fossil record, genetics, etc.).
So tell me, my little monkey brother, do you really not understand, or are you just being deliberately obtuse? |
It does not surprise me that you resort to insults. You are so scared that you may not be right about everything you hold so dear that you feel you must make yourself feel superior by doing this. |
What insult? Perhaps you have a problem being little more than an uppity, (mostly) hairless primate. But it doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, I think there is a real sense of wonder and humility that comes with scientific explanations for the world. The natural processes of our universe are much more impressive than some old guy in a white beard simply poofing us all into existence to be the equivalent of his little train set.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 10:49:03 AM · #173 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't have to prove God doesn't exist, the burden is on you to prove he does. |
To be fair a belief doesn't require proof so why would you or anybody else demand it? I'm sure at some point in your life you questioned whether or not you're a good person. In doing so did you take the scientific approach to prove it or did you simply go with your gut or whatever your biased mind told you? :P |
I'm not so demanding. I don't need absolute proof, but I'd be very interested in some objective evidence for the existence of <> supernatural deity or entity. Something that doesn't rely on faith or the willingness of the credulous.
That would really be exciting news. Man that would be some cool s**t and you wouldn't be able to keep the theists quiet about it. Their whole "separate spheres" argument would be quickly tossed out the window and forgotten about, post haste you can be sure. Alas, nothing yet. Maybe tomorrow. We live in hope.
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 10:50:03. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 11:30:18 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In two minutes I can list at least five ways in which Jesus WASN'T like Horus... |
...all of them attributed to a book of dubious origin and unknown authorship. |
And you'd consider the Horus attributes to be mentioned in credible books of known authorship? I was just listing things assuming it's all a story. Just wondered why the authors chose to include things that don't have to do with Horus. Really, the bigger question would be why Jews, who have 2,000 years of previous culture hammering around their skull that there is only one true God, would choose to base their messiah on an ancient god of egyptian heritage. This is why I think it's so crazy. I've also read authors who claim that we are reverse engineering UFO technology at Area 51. They are crazy too, but when you read the book it all seems to make sense. Conspiracy theorists love to accentuate the data they feel supports their case and totally ignore all other data.
I'm with you on the chair though. That would fetch a pretty penny eh?
I hear ya Yank. I know how it sounds. Just because I believe in something doesn't mean I believe in everything. :)
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 11:31:21.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 11:40:06 AM · #175 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...you'd consider the Horus attributes to be mentioned in credible books of known authorship? |
As we don't know either source, I'd say they're about equal in that regard. ;-) |
|
