DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Jesus Camp (the movie)
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 74, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/06/2015 11:25:06 PM · #1
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Cory, just for the sake of argument, assuming we ARE God's creation, then surely it would make sense that our task, our purpose (so to speak), would be to grow and prosper in strength and understanding? In other words, I'm not convinced that the fact that science has identified cells (and microbes and viruses) when God Herself never told us about them, is any proof or even indication that She doesn't exist :-)

I think science/religion is a false dichotomy.


I thought the bible said your task is to spread the gospel and procreate? ;-)

...

Yeah, that all sounds reasonable enough - my problem isn't that there's no room for a God or gods, it's simply that I have seen literally zero evidence that I found compelling and trustworthy...

I also think that if, for the sake of argument, if we assume God is real, then I'm almost certain that every preacher, pastor, pope and parishioner will have more to worry about than myself when a case has to be made before God for their deeds while walking the earth. I don't for a second believe that IF there is a god it's the vindictive sadistic narcissistic bastard the bible describes, or if he is, I certainly do NOT want to spend eternity with that motherfu*#&r.

Message edited by author 2015-02-06 23:31:31.
02/06/2015 10:35:30 PM · #2
Cory, just for the sake of argument, assuming we ARE God's creation, then surely it would make sense that our task, our purpose (so to speak), would be to grow and prosper in strength and understanding? In other words, I'm not convinced that the fact that science has identified cells (and microbes and viruses) when God Herself never told us about them, is any proof or even indication that She doesn't exist :-)

I think science/religion is a false dichotomy.

Message edited by author 2015-02-06 22:36:19.
02/06/2015 08:25:16 PM · #3
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Cory:



come up with something better and make sure you prove it, the theists can wait.


It's proof to him and that's all that matters. just let people believe what they want.

Ray


Evidence.. not proof.
02/06/2015 07:38:52 PM · #4
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Cory:



come up with something better and make sure you prove it, the theists can wait.


It's proof to him and that's all that matters. just let people believe what they want.

Ray
02/06/2015 12:57:32 PM · #5
I'll agree with you that leaning heavily on belief can stifle technological growth, but you have to admit, it also keeps us in check with moral decisions.

what you have demonstrated is that God probably doesn't play as big a role humans lives as initially thought, but despite that, that course could steer veer off. there are still many mysteries that humans are so far from unlocking and while many theories we have come up with may be grounded in logic, they are still theory.
02/06/2015 11:03:18 AM · #6
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Cory:



come up with something better and make sure you prove it, the theists can wait.


Frankly, I think we have. Science has slowly, but steadily and continuously, replaced religion as the source of answers.

Do remember that just a few hundred years ago we literally had NO idea about cells at all, religion has had tens of thousands of years to lead us to answers, and frankly, it didn't really ever do anything of the sort - it just made us feel OK about NOT having the answers. Which, arguably WAS a fine thing to do when there was no possibility of finding the answers, but today we should be ashamed to accept 'God did it' instead of looking for a real answer, because we now have the tools that have proven, time and time again, to deliver answers that are demonstrably real.

Now, at this point you're probably going, "That's your idea of real, mine is different", so let me just throw out one very real example.

Medicine - before science came along we had to rely on random trial and error, and knew basically nothing of biology. Today, because of science, we can literally regrow organs and other body parts, and successfully use them. We can perform a legion of 'miracles' with medicine, and this is only a single place where Science has repeatedly proven to give results that are far superior to the religious approach.

And of course, most theists are perfectly happy to accept the fruit of science, but refuse to water the tree of knowledge, and that does bother me to some degree.

Message edited by author 2015-02-06 11:04:02.
02/06/2015 10:55:52 AM · #7
Originally posted by Cory:


I haven't seen the Bible's textual claims squared up against scientific evidence quite like that before. Nice.
02/06/2015 06:34:04 AM · #8
Originally posted by Cory:



come up with something better and make sure you prove it, the theists can wait.

02/06/2015 02:05:19 AM · #9
02/05/2015 09:20:16 PM · #10
Yup. You heard it. Except I said I won't do that.
02/05/2015 08:32:07 PM · #11
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What Bear said. "proof" is really a synonym in this context for "evidence". I was being too loose with my terms and that is always trouble. There is no Proof (with a capital P) that God exists, but there is really no Proof for you that I exist.

As far as "evidence" I think we can include logical, mathematical, philosophical, and revelational. None of these are equivalent to "scientific" (which, in this case, generally means the utilization of the Scientific Method.) So to summarize my point again, I often see the argument where the atheist says the burden of proof is on the theist and then when the theist brings up potential evidence in the above magisteria (to borrow from Gould) the atheist retorts, "THAT'S not evidence!" and demands something from the scientific magisterium. The discussion generally goes south from there.


I started a new thread on this subject. Fascinating line of reasoning. Let's let this thread be about Jesus Camp crazies, and let's have a serious discussion over there.


Frankly I'm over those conversations here. Too much Groundhogs Day.


What's that? I heard you just say "I can't do that".. :-)
02/05/2015 08:22:10 PM · #12
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What Bear said. "proof" is really a synonym in this context for "evidence". I was being too loose with my terms and that is always trouble. There is no Proof (with a capital P) that God exists, but there is really no Proof for you that I exist.

As far as "evidence" I think we can include logical, mathematical, philosophical, and revelational. None of these are equivalent to "scientific" (which, in this case, generally means the utilization of the Scientific Method.) So to summarize my point again, I often see the argument where the atheist says the burden of proof is on the theist and then when the theist brings up potential evidence in the above magisteria (to borrow from Gould) the atheist retorts, "THAT'S not evidence!" and demands something from the scientific magisterium. The discussion generally goes south from there.


I started a new thread on this subject. Fascinating line of reasoning. Let's let this thread be about Jesus Camp crazies, and let's have a serious discussion over there.


Frankly I'm over those conversations here. Too much Groundhogs Day.
02/05/2015 08:20:03 PM · #13
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

... If your mind is closed to what a theist considers "evidence" that God exists, then "proof" is not a possible outcome of any discussion of same.


I will forego the debate on proving or disproving that God exists.

I would however bring to the fore the fact that the Catholic church seemingly has a significant smaller number of individuals that are beatified/canonized of late and wonder if that might be attributable to the possibility that their deeds might not withstand scientific scrutiny.

Let the games begin. :O)

Ray

Message edited by author 2015-02-05 20:21:01.
02/05/2015 07:59:14 PM · #14
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What Bear said. "proof" is really a synonym in this context for "evidence". I was being too loose with my terms and that is always trouble. There is no Proof (with a capital P) that God exists, but there is really no Proof for you that I exist.

As far as "evidence" I think we can include logical, mathematical, philosophical, and revelational. None of these are equivalent to "scientific" (which, in this case, generally means the utilization of the Scientific Method.) So to summarize my point again, I often see the argument where the atheist says the burden of proof is on the theist and then when the theist brings up potential evidence in the above magisteria (to borrow from Gould) the atheist retorts, "THAT'S not evidence!" and demands something from the scientific magisterium. The discussion generally goes south from there.


I started a new thread on this subject. Fascinating line of reasoning. Let's let this thread be about Jesus Camp crazies, and let's have a serious discussion over there.
02/05/2015 07:49:20 PM · #15
What Bear said. "proof" is really a synonym in this context for "evidence". I was being too loose with my terms and that is always trouble. There is no Proof (with a capital P) that God exists, but there is really no Proof for you that I exist.

As far as "evidence" I think we can include logical, mathematical, philosophical, and revelational. None of these are equivalent to "scientific" (which, in this case, generally means the utilization of the Scientific Method.) So to summarize my point again, I often see the argument where the atheist says the burden of proof is on the theist and then when the theist brings up potential evidence in the above magisteria (to borrow from Gould) the atheist retorts, "THAT'S not evidence!" and demands something from the scientific magisterium. The discussion generally goes south from there.
02/05/2015 07:43:58 PM · #16
Originally posted by Mike:

For starter's the only way you could really ever prove that God doesn't exist is to prove that the earth or universe is infinite. I.e. no creation or big bang or anything of the sorts.


? Are you trying to make sense here? How would that prove that God doesn't exist? I wouldn't even accept that as evidence against God.
02/05/2015 07:39:04 PM · #17
So, let's take this a different direction, in the hope of fresh perspective.

Read this, and take particular note of the beliefs presented at the beginning of the article.

Originally posted by article:

A great quarrel followed the death of a pregnant Guinean woman in June. Mourners refused to allow a team of outsiders dressed in what looked like white space suits to bury her Ebola-infected corpse. If she was to be saved from eternal wandering and reach the village of the dead, they insisted, her fetus must be removed.

Impossible, the outsiders said. Her virus-laden blood was far too contagious for anyone to cut into her body.

Yet the villagers would not relent. In their traditional Kissi culture, a woman buried with her fetus disturbs the world’s natural cycles—beginnings and endings among humans, animals, and plants. In the same way, it is said, mixing the seeds of last year’s harvest with this year’s complicates the fertility of the crop, as well as the fertility of women. Even if the surgery was as dangerous as the outsiders suggested, the villagers worried that the results of disrupted natural cycles could be worse.


Now, do you find that reasonable? What evidence could they offer you to 'prove' to your satisfaction that this is truth?

Perhaps if you, as a Christian, can tell me what would prove Muslim values true, or explain what evidence there is for this, then I'm going to be better equipped to understand your justifications when applied to your own religion. (see the neat 'trick' here is that you are now forced out of circular references, but you are able to stay well within religious beliefs)
02/05/2015 07:33:05 PM · #18
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

.... delve into our collective need to provide reassurance in the face of the unknowable, which the god-construct is very good at :-)


If that was all religion did, you can bet I'd have no problem with it.

02/05/2015 07:23:22 PM · #19
Originally posted by Cory:

Ok, just for fun. Define proof.

Frankly, I've never even seen any weak evidence of god, let alone proof.

In the context of this discussion, "evidence" and "proof" are pretty much the same thing. If your mind is closed to what a theist considers "evidence" that God exists, then "proof" is not a possible outcome of any discussion of same. And vice-versa with technology, sort of: show a primitive tribe, one never exposed to Western technology, certain commonplaces of our cultures and they will assume magic, or a god. That's not a really good analogy, but it does have some utility. It can be argued that any sufficiently advanced race must, of necessity, be godlike to a lesser one. So the most viable way to speak of God, really, might be to sidestep the issue of whether She "exists" or not, and delve into our collective need to provide reassurance in the face of the unknowable, which the god-construct is very good at :-)
02/05/2015 07:21:38 PM · #20
For starter's the only way you could really ever prove that God doesn't exist is to prove that the earth or universe is infinite. I.e. no creation or big bang or anything of the sorts.

Message edited by author 2015-02-05 19:22:55.
02/05/2015 07:09:11 PM · #21
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The problem with the above argument is that using science to prove/disprove God is like using a French dictionary to prove/disprove whether an English sentence is grammatically correct.

So what I have found in these situations is the conversation centers on what constitutes "proof" and what is allowed in the conversation. The "burden of proof" is a reasonable thing to put at the feet of a theist, but the subsequent limiting of "proof" to the empiric/scientific realm (which almost invariably follows) is not.

Just my two cents anyway. We've all seen these arguments play out a hundred times and that's what they nearly always look like to me.


Ok, just for fun. Define proof.

Frankly, I've never even seen any weak evidence of god, let alone proof.

Message edited by author 2015-02-05 19:09:37.
02/05/2015 05:33:41 PM · #22
The problem with the above argument is that using science to prove/disprove God is like using a French dictionary to prove/disprove whether an English sentence is grammatically correct.

So what I have found in these situations is the conversation centers on what constitutes "proof" and what is allowed in the conversation. The "burden of proof" is a reasonable thing to put at the feet of a theist, but the subsequent limiting of "proof" to the empiric/scientific realm (which almost invariably follows) is not.

Just my two cents anyway. We've all seen these arguments play out a hundred times and that's what they nearly always look like to me.

Message edited by author 2015-02-05 17:34:36.
02/04/2015 05:12:11 PM · #23
Ok that makes sense.
02/04/2015 03:55:50 PM · #24
Originally posted by Mike:

and if the test hasn't been devised yet? The Higgs boson was proposed decades ago, yet was only able to be tested after decades and billions of dollars.


I do not know of any legislation that passed based solely on belief in the Higgs boson. I often hear of legislation passed based on religious belief. Once you move from the private sphere of personal faith, into the sphere of coercing the behavior of those with different beliefs through legislation, the standard to test the basis of those beliefs is essential. If you are going to limit another's actions or require their children to learn something, there is a much higher standard of proof required.

That said, to respond to the original question; As Jason said Jesus camp is worth watching because it is not part of the experience of the average American. I do not know anyone who holds the views shared in the film, it is far from the norm, at least in the pockets of America I have traveled in. Frankly it creeped me out.
02/04/2015 03:48:25 PM · #25
Originally posted by Mike:

The Higgs boson was proposed decades ago, yet was only able to be tested after decades and billions of dollars.

The Higgs boson was a hypothesis, not a theory. In science, a theory is a model already supported by substantial evidence that explains a whole series of facts and observations.

That said, the Higgs Boson was proposed as a RESULT of direct theoretical and physical evidence, not in lieu of it. Sort of like inferring the existence of a black hole from direct observations and models of surrounding matter even though the black hole itself is invisible. If you pick up a paper grocery bag and it weighs 30lbs, you have direct, tanglible evidence that something unseen must be in there.

Message edited by author 2015-02-04 15:50:28.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 10:22:29 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 10:22:29 AM EDT.