The ONLY Religion and Philosophy Thread


PDA

View Full Version : The ONLY Religion and Philosophy Thread


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161

tushmeister
02-08-2009, 09:50 AM
Sorry, ex-Christian butting in here.

Jesus said nothing of Christianity because Christianity did not exist until he died (this is what made Christianity...Christianity, and not Judaism).


Exactly the point, may I ask what led to you leaving your Faith? I believe you mentioned it in a thread earlier related to drug-use etc, and you saying it didn't help but hindered, nonetheless, I'm interested if you're willing


Jesus did not come directly to tear down religion, either, bibically speaking. He even stated that religious customs are acceptible within reason, but some things just push the envelope to people losing sight of why they are being religious. Your words also make no sense, "a gathering" is in essence what "the church" is (or should be). Church in modern day has come to be known as the place where people worship, however church described the act of people coming together under one thought. Many people "do church", atheists also.

Would you agree that those religious customs he deemed unacceptable are oft practised today among Christians? Since many seem to lose sight of their beliefs and instead use them for self-gain (see war in particular...)


-God is a racist. It is funny how it okay for God to have a chosen people, but if I stated to the universe "my chosen people are white males who are drunk" then I would probably be sued.

A bizarre point being that Jesus would've been far from white, so why on Earth he's always depicted as it is beyond me, moreso why it seems mostly Europeans (and Americans through colonisation) seem to be Christian


-Jesus did not come to tear down all of the old rules. The ten commandments still exist. Jesus said he came to "complete" the law, not abolish it like so many people think. The "law" is everyones moral code, which is embedded in all people; and was vital for humanity to exist. It is what causes many people NOT to murder, NOT to rape. Morality still exists today, even for Christians (one would assume). However, for the religious, Christ came as an "extension" to the law, if you will.

According to the verse previously quoted, once Christ had came we were 'no longer supervised by the law'
Surely that effectively makes them null? If you're not supervised by a law, it isn't a law, it's not anything, it's just a sentence with no meaning, no obvious cause.

Hot Pants
02-08-2009, 09:51 AM
Sorry, ex-Christian butting in here.

Jesus said nothing of Christianity because Christianity did not exist until he died (this is what made Christianity...Christianity, and not Judaism).

Jesus did not come directly to tear down religion, either, bibically speaking. He even stated that religious customs are acceptible within reason, but some things just push the envelope to people losing sight of why they are being religious. Your words also make no sense, "a gathering" is in essence what "the church" is (or should be). Church in modern day has come to be known as the place where people worship, however church described the act of people coming together under one thought. Many people "do church", atheists also.

-God is a racist. It is funny how it okay for God to have a chosen people, but if I stated to the universe "my chosen people are white males who are drunk" then I would probably be sued.

-Jesus did not come to tear down all of the old rules. The ten commandments still exist. Jesus said he came to "complete" the law, not abolish it like so many people think. The "law" is everyones moral code, which is embedded in all people; and was vital for humanity to exist. It is what causes many people NOT to murder, NOT to rape. Morality still exists today, even for Christians (one would assume). However, for the religious, Christ came as an "extension" to the law, if you will.
I agree with practically everything you have said minus the racist comment. My thoughts were obviously misconstrued because of pressure to respond quickly to the masses, and for this I apologise.

tushmeister
02-08-2009, 09:54 AM
You are all a pack of dogs trying to separate me from my appendages! I can't speak to 4 people at once, seriously.

The biggest problem with atheistic view of religion is its lack of separation between God and Religion. They are entirely different. Religion is a human construct, formulated to understand the divine in a systematic and comprehensible format.

God Himself is separate. If God is real, Christianity is not simply the correct religion, but the closest thing to the truth about existence that we can hold on to. The point was never Christianity, but truth. If there was a God, he would use this religious medium to communicate incomprehensible ideas to us pathetic humanoids. And if there was a real Satan he WOULD exploit this to formulate other religious paradigms to make a God into a lifestyle choice rather than a truth or non-truth.

I Follow no 'religion', I follow God. The God which has empirically proven himself to exist to me. I am no idiot following blindly, I have very strong opinions and hold everyone else under my apparent religious umbrella to account on their ideas. If I had not experienced, I would not still believe.

You are about to ask me exactly how I know this to be true, and how I dare use the word empiricism in such context, and I will give you truthful answers that you will dismiss for no good reason because such things cannot be proven over the internet.

Shall we just leave it at that my good Atheist crusaders? Or should we fulfill this futile prophecy of mine?


Sorry but Christianity is a Religion
Not a relationship with God
You are religious. You are human and therefore abide by human constructs as the rest of us do, you're not above everyone else, your beliefs hold no greater truth than mine, Slackers, Mohammed Mohammed down the road, Chris Morgenstein over the way, etc
Your beliefs are set by a Bible written by MAN. You believe in a God conceived by MAN, your beliefs are based entirely on what MAN has said about the supposed God.
And empirically?
You realise if you actually had empirical proof you'd be ridiculously rich, famous, and probably not here right now, instead giving speeches in every Church across Earth as either the second coming of Christ or at least the saviour of a floundering religion.


And you being stretched to argue with 4 people means nothing.
We'll all wait for your reply to our point, you could take all day and we'd not be offended, this isn't a dynamic, instantaneous medium, if we were stood around you all talking at once then fine it'd be difficult, but that's not so.


EDIT
As a comparison, when I am confronted by preachers in town (I'm known for my theological debates with them, they get quite heated too..),I often find myself talking to several people at once, random passers by will have their words to say about my blasphemous thoughts etc, and although sometimes I simply have to stop them and ask them to allow me to talk or at least for them to talk one at a time, I'm yet to walk away the apparent 'loser', I'm yet to get that lost or confused
And you've the benefit of being able to read what we say several times and construct an answer based on our exact words
Face to face that's an impossible task

Craigo
02-08-2009, 09:56 AM
You are all a pack of dogs trying to separate me from my appendages! I can't speak to 4 people at once, seriously.

The biggest problem with atheistic view of religion is its lack of separation between God and Religion. They are entirely different. Religion is a human construct, formulated to understand the divine in a systematic and comprehensible format.

God Himself is separate. If God is real, Christianity is not simply the correct religion, but the closest thing to the truth about existence that we can hold on to. The point was never Christianity, but truth. If there was a God, he would use this religious medium to communicate incomprehensible ideas to us pathetic humanoids. And if there was a real Satan he WOULD exploit this to formulate other religious paradigms to make a God into a lifestyle choice rather than a truth or non-truth.

I Follow no 'religion', I follow God. The God which has empirically proven himself to exist to me. I am no idiot following blindly, I have very strong opinions and hold everyone else under my apparent religious umbrella to account on their ideas. If I had not experienced, I would not still believe.

You are about to ask me exactly how I know this to be true, and how I dare use the word empiricism in such context, and I will give you truthful answers that you will dismiss for no good reason because such things cannot be proven over the internet.

Shall we just leave it at that my good Atheist crusaders? Or should we fulfill this futile prophecy of mine?
...I really have no idea where to start. This post is rife with stupidity.

How do you know God? And how do you satisfy him?

Christianity.

I have no idea where you're getting with the Satan and lifestyle thing. And how has God shown himself empirically? Can you test or verify it and show it to others? If it is true, it can be shown over the internet. And I will dismiss it with good reason. What is capable of being empirically proven shouldn't be something which should be limited to privileged access. 'God is true and I know it personally, I've seen it to be true' is not empirical.

Anyway, you are a Christian. You are religious. You cannot escape this. I will end every post, relevant to context or not, with this statement. If you believe in a personal God, you are a theist. You are therefore religious. You are a Christian as you generally accept Jesus' teachings.

EDIT: Four people is also nothing. I set up a site on a Christian forum the other day asking them to prove or show evidence of God to me. I answered to over two pages of discussion and replied to each and every one fine. No-one's posted back either :p:

michal23
02-08-2009, 09:57 AM
Sorry but Christianity is a Religion
Not a relationship with God
You are religious. You are human and therefore abide by human constructs as the rest of us do, you're not above everyone else, your beliefs hold no greater truth than mine, Slackers, Mohammed Mohammed down the road, Chris Morgenstein over the way, etc
Your beliefs are set by a Bible written by MAN. You believe in a God conceived by MAN, your beliefs are based entirely on what MAN has said about the supposed God.
And empirically?
You realise if you actually had empirical proof you'd be ridiculously rich, famous, and probably not here right now, instead giving speeches in every Church across Earth as either the second coming of Christ or at least the saviour of a floundering religion.


And you being stretched to argue with 4 people means nothing.
We'll all wait for your reply to our point, you could take all day and we'd not be offended, this isn't a dynamic, instantaneous medium, if we were stood around you all talking at once then fine it'd be difficult, but that's not so.

QFT.

Hot Pants
02-08-2009, 09:57 AM
I on the other hand, am a historian, not officaily of course, no letters or anything after my name, but it has been a passion for me for at least 30 years.
I haven't formulated it specificaly as a weapon against Chhristians, it's simply something that I've come across during research for other stuff and realised that it's quite contradictory, it's something I ask all Christians about and to this day, I have never had a satisfactory explanation.
I, on the other hand, am an 18 year old with not enough knowledge. I search for the same answers.


It definately says Jews, in the verse you quote, it has people following Jews for their religious enlightenment, which definately suggests Judaism, if Jesus came to tear down their religious principles and everything they stood for in order to instigate the new covenant created through his death, then that makes him an enemy of that same Judaism, the Judaism that the prophecy says people will be drawn towards.
You can choose to interpret it differently to what it actualy says if you want, but that doesn't actualy do anything for your argument does it?
Ah, sorry to say this, but the NIV quote I made stands exactly as I typed it. There is no two ways about that, so our argument cannot continue unless we agree.

"...nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe..."

SlackerBabbath
02-08-2009, 09:58 AM
'
Gimme a break, I've been typing like mad against two people, and you didn't even mention my lengthy post about Genesis :(


Sorry bud, just having a laugh, but like we said earlier, we've already ripped Genesis to shreds on this forum, I can even tell you the entire history of the evolution Judaism and therefore of Genesis too from Egyptian Atenism and ancient Semitic polytheistic mythology if you wish, I can show you how the story of Noah and the flood was based on stories from Mesopotamia about a character called Gilgamesh, which in turn were based on the flooding of the Black Sea at the end of the last Ice Age.
Only, it'll probably have to be tomorrow because I'm going out soon.

Craigo
02-08-2009, 10:02 AM
Sorry bud, just having a laugh, but like we said earlier, we've already ripped Genesis to shreds on this forum, I can even tell you the entire history of the evolution Judaism and therefore of Genesis too from Egyptian Atenism and ancient Semitic polytheistic mythology if you wish, I can show you how the story of Noah and the flood was based on stories from Mesopotamia about a character called Gilgamesh, which in turn were based on the flooding of the Black Sea at the end of the last Ice Age.
Only, it'll probably have to be tomorrow because I'm going out soon.
I swear you should keep your posts saved in a folder on your PC for quick copy and paste reference :)

tushmeister
02-08-2009, 10:03 AM
I, on the other hand, am an 18 year old with not enough knowledge. I search for the same answers.



Ah, sorry to say this, but the NIV quote I made stands exactly as I typed it. There is no two ways about that, so our argument cannot continue unless we agree.

"...nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe..."

If your Faith can't stand up to facts, it doesn't matter how old you are, or your opponent.
Age is irrelevant (heck, God exists outside of time right?)



And;
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."'"

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
This is what the LORD of Armies says: In those days ten people from every language found among the nations will take hold of the clothes of a Jew. They will say, "Let us go with you because we have heard that God is with you."

King James Bible
Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

American King James Version
Thus said the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

American Standard Version
Thus saith Jehovah of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass , that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, they shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.


'We will go with you' strongly supports Slacker's argument
But here lies another problem
How come there is such difference in something that is supposed to be the Word of God? How can the translations not agree, you can't have 50 different versions of the Bible, no two are the same religion, and 49 of them would have to be corrupt and 'wrong' no matter how you see it.

Not only can you not argue your faith being better than Islam, Judaism, Zoroanthroism, Scientology etc
You can't argue it being truer than any other form of Christianity, which is absolutely ridiculous.
As I've said before, every Christian in essence lives by a different set of beliefs, meaning none of them truly follow God, none of them are true believers, only one person can be right.

Hot Pants
02-08-2009, 10:05 AM
...I really have no idea where to start. This post is rife with stupidity.

How do you know God? And how do you satisfy him?

Christianity.

I have no idea where you're getting with the Satan and lifestyle thing. And how has God shown himself empirically? Can you test or verify it and show it to others? If it is true, it can be shown over the internet. And I will dismiss it with good reason. What is capable of being empirically proven shouldn't be something which should be limited to privileged access. 'God is true and I know it personally, I've seen it to be true' is not empirical.

Anyway, you are a Christian. You are religious. You cannot escape this. I will end every post, relevant to context or not, with this statement. If you believe in a personal God, you are a theist. You are therefore religious. You are a Christian as you generally accept Jesus' teachings.
There are a million things I could say that you will ignore. I could give you empiricism, I could tell you exactly why it is that I don't consider myself religious, and why religion has cost the earth dearly. But the fact remains that you and all of these people WILL ignore it and persist in your ideals regardless of what I give you. I will, for this reason, not bother.

Hot Pants
02-08-2009, 10:08 AM
...I really have no idea where to start. This post is rife with stupidity.

How do you know God? And how do you satisfy him?

Christianity.

I have no idea where you're getting with the Satan and lifestyle thing. And how has God shown himself empirically? Can you test or verify it and show it to others? If it is true, it can be shown over the internet. And I will dismiss it with good reason. What is capable of being empirically proven shouldn't be something which should be limited to privileged access. 'God is true and I know it personally, I've seen it to be true' is not empirical.

Anyway, you are a Christian. You are religious. You cannot escape this. I will end every post, relevant to context or not, with this statement. If you believe in a personal God, you are a theist. You are therefore religious. You are a Christian as you generally accept Jesus' teachings.
There are a million things I could say that you will ignore. I could give you empiricism, I could tell you exactly why it is that I don't consider myself religious, and why religion has cost the earth dearly. But the fact remains that you and all of these people WILL ignore it and persist in your ideals regardless of what I give you. I will, for this reason, not bother.

I've been to this thread a million times with the same result.

SlackerBabbath
02-08-2009, 10:08 AM
I, on the other hand, am an 18 year old with not enough knowledge. I search for the same answers.
Fair enough, if you find any, especialy to the 'first prophecy' question, will you let me know?



Ah, sorry to say this, but the NIV quote I made stands exactly as I typed it. There is no two ways about that, so our argument cannot continue unless we agree.

"...nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe..."

And that one Jew was Jewish, the religion he taught was Jewish, the traditions he followed were Jewish.
Christianity only became the Christianity you know after Emperor Constantine the first had completely altered it and used it as a tool for unifying a split empire around 300AD.
If the world suddenly follow Christianity as you know it, they are going against the prophecy because Christianity is simply a human construct that arose after Jesus' death and was twisted and used as a power basis.

It stands to reason, if you follow a pre-Christianity Jew, you follow Judaism.

tushmeister
02-08-2009, 10:10 AM
There are a million things I could say that you will ignore. I could give you empiricism, I could tell you exactly why it is that I don't consider myself religious, and why religion has cost the earth dearly. But the fact remains that you and all of these people WILL ignore it and persist in your ideals regardless of what I give you. I will, for this reason, not bother.

I've been to this thread a million times with the same result.

There is no such thing as empirical proof of God
As I've said
If there was, and you had it, you'd be rich, famous and touring Churches giving speeches on it.
Don't throw the word empirical around, you don't deserve to.


EDIT
And the reason it always turns out the same is simple
At one point the ratio of religious:non-religious User in this thread would've been relatively equal, over time the religious posters have been batted out of the park.
You're outnumbered and oft seemingly defeated ironically due to 'survival of the fittest', in this case our arguments actually make sense. They work, they are logical and apply. Heck Slacker alone could probably do a good job of keeping this thread balanced in our favour, the man's a practical black-hole of knowledge, consuming all. As a result, we've survived here.

Hot Pants
02-08-2009, 10:24 AM
There is no such thing as empirical proof of God
As I've said
If there was, and you had it, you'd be rich, famous and touring Churches giving speeches on it.
Don't throw the word empirical around, you don't deserve to.
Like I said there is no point making argument anymore. As soon as one person comes in for a discussion, they get hit with the apparent hatred of 5 Atheists. I cannot do it.

I keep telling myself that this thread is pointless and will achieve nothing yet I continue to posts in it, My fault for doing so.

Whoever said that arguing against 5 is easier over the internet and will not affect the quality of my posts/arguments, that is absolute bull. It's 1am and 5 people hounding you to respond so that they can once again prove their unmoving faith in non-faith is impossibly futile and more than the effort is worth.

Craigo
02-08-2009, 10:26 AM
There are a million things I could say that you will ignore. I could give you empiricism, I could tell you exactly why it is that I don't consider myself religious, and why religion has cost the earth dearly. But the fact remains that you and all of these people WILL ignore it and persist in your ideals regardless of what I give you. I will, for this reason, not bother.
That's just arrogance.

'Yeah, I got lots of reasons, but you wouldn't care would you?'

Back up your point. Give me a million things.

And you are religious. End of. Just because people have done bad things in the name of religion doesn't mean you aren't because you haven't. I consider myself an unemployed philosopher, but that doesn't mean shouldn't call myself a philosopher because people have killed in the name of philosophy.

Avoiding to face scrutiny only strikes away the credit of your point. You are showing no credit to yourself by avoiding to show the reasons why, because you're almost acting like a coward.

If God is empirical, he can be shown through the internet fairly well. So show us.

SlackerBabbath
02-08-2009, 10:26 AM
There are a million things I could say that you will ignore. I could give you empiricism, I could tell you exactly why it is that I don't consider myself religious, and why religion has cost the earth dearly. But the fact remains that you and all of these people WILL ignore it and persist in your ideals regardless of what I give you. I will, for this reason, not bother.

I've been to this thread a million times with the same result.
I do agree that religion has cost the earth dearly but I don't see how you can believe in Jesus in a purely Christian way, without being religious.
It's sorta understandable if you say, I believe in a form of Christianity but without all the silly hocus pocus, or I believe in the teachings of Jesus in the same way that I believe in the teachings of Aesop, but to believe that Jesus truly was the mythical Messiah, the son of God and God Himself at the same time while also being the Holy Ghost too, which is simply the pagan trinity system introduced during Constantines reign to make it easier to convert pagans to Christianity (along with Jesus sharing his birthday with pagan winter festivals).... then that really takes 'religious' thinking rather than 'rational' thinking.

tushmeister
02-08-2009, 10:27 AM
Like I said there is no point making argument anymore. As soon as one person comes in for a discussion, they get hit with the apparent hatred of 5 Atheists. I cannot do it.

I keep telling myself that this thread is pointless and will achieve nothing yet I continue to posts in it, My fault for doing so.

Whoever said that arguing against 5 is easier over the internet and will not affect the quality of my posts/arguments, that is absolute bull. It's 1am and 5 people hounding you to respond so that they can once again prove their unmoving faith in non-faith is impossibly futile and more than the effort is worth.


That person was me
And it's not bull at all
You've whatever time frame you want to reply in, you could easily post a reply to everyone in one go, then wait for each retort (or at least save your next reply until everyone has spoken), that way you can focus on each answer and actually say something worthwhile

I'm completely willing to continue this via PM's, as I'm sure everyone else would be
Making it even easier again, as you can have each discussion individually.

You can't argue our passion is a bad characteristic. Your ad hominem arguments are weak even as ad hominem arguments...

Craigo
02-08-2009, 10:30 AM
Like I said there is no point making argument anymore. As soon as one person comes in for a discussion, they get hit with the apparent hatred of 5 Atheists. I cannot do it.

I keep telling myself that this thread is pointless and will achieve nothing yet I continue to posts in it, My fault for doing so.

Whoever said that arguing against 5 is easier over the internet and will not affect the quality of my posts/arguments, that is absolute bull. It's 1am and 5 people hounding you to respond so that they can once again prove their unmoving faith in non-faith is impossibly futile and more than the effort is worth.
You made points, when people striked them down you disguised your failures to come back and defend them.

If it's 1am, you can just come back later. Revolutionary.

You're religious. You're a Christian.

Craigo
02-08-2009, 10:31 AM
I've been to this thread a million times with the same result.
If God is so empirical, what does that tell you about him?

SlackerBabbath
02-08-2009, 10:32 AM
Like I said there is no point making argument anymore. As soon as one person comes in for a discussion, they get hit with the apparent hatred of 5 Atheists. I cannot do it.

Woah, hang on, let's get this straight. I do NOT 'hate' you. I simply disagree with your point of view.
I see problems with the whole basis of all religion, Christianity is no different to me than Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Aboriginal Dreamtime or even Greek Mythology.

I'm actualy quite a nice guy once you get to know me and I feel that I would be doing you a great disservice by not pointing out these flaws that I have found in your chosen religion.
It's like seeing your mate walking down the street with his flies undone, you'd tell him because you're a nice guy, right?

Craigo
02-08-2009, 10:36 AM
Woah, hang on, let's get this straight. I do NOT 'hate' you. I simply disagree with your point of view.
I see problems with the whole basis of all religion, Christianity is no different to me than Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Aboriginal Dreamtime or even Greek Mythology.

I'm actualy quite a nice guy once you get to know me and I feel that I would be doing you a great disservice by not pointing out these flaws that I have found in your chosen religion.
It's like seeing your mate walking down the street with his flies undone, you'd tell him because you're a nice guy, right?
I missed the hatred part.

We don't hate anyone in this thread, we actually don't.

We don't attack, we question. We're cool skeptics like that.

JamesDouglas
02-08-2009, 10:37 AM
Like I said there is no point making argument anymore. As soon as one person comes in for a discussion, they get hit with the apparent hatred of 5 Atheists. I cannot do it.

I keep telling myself that this thread is pointless and will achieve nothing yet I continue to posts in it, My fault for doing so.

Whoever said that arguing against 5 is easier over the internet and will not affect the quality of my posts/arguments, that is absolute bull. It's 1am and 5 people hounding you to respond so that they can once again prove their unmoving faith in non-faith is impossibly futile and more than the effort is worth.

We don't hate you, we hate stupidity. Hate the idiocy, not the idiot.

tushmeister
02-08-2009, 10:37 AM
I missed the hatred part.

We don't hate anyone in this thread, we actually don't.


Except rock_freebase
We all hate him

Craigo
02-08-2009, 10:40 AM
Except rock_freebase
We all hate him
Definitely.

Word on the street is that he's one of those drug taking, women beating, anarchist, fornicating, child molesting, homosexual atheists.

SlackerBabbath
02-08-2009, 10:40 AM
Except rock_freebase
We all hate him
:haha :haha :haha

Yeah, he'll steal your sweeties. :D

Hot Pants
02-08-2009, 10:43 AM
Hatred was a bit of a hyperbole fellas, I'm sure you're all nice guys. I'm a nice guy, I like beer and spectator sport :D

But you all know that there's no point in me responding to all this. You'll walk all over me in sheer numbers and you're all very intelligent obviously. Nothing will be achieved from me remaining in argument with all of you, no opinions changed. Go through and have a look at how much of my time would be taken up replying to all of you. No offense guys but I have better things to do.

I AM, however, extremely interested in philosophy.

Who likes metaphysics?

JamesDouglas
02-08-2009, 10:46 AM
Hatred was a bit of a hyperbole fellas, I'm sure you're all nice guys. I'm a nice guy, I like beer and spectator sport :D

But you all know that there's no point in me responding to all this. You'll walk all over me in sheer numbers and you're all very intelligent obviously. Nothing will be achieved from me remaining in argument with all of you, no opinions changed. Go through and have a look at how much of my time would be taken up replying to all of you. No offense guys but I have better things to do.

I AM, however, extremely interested in philosophy.

Who likes metaphysics?

I frikkin' hate metaphysics. Do something worthwhile: physics.

LordBishek
02-08-2009, 10:47 AM
:haha :haha :haha

Yeah, he'll steal your sweeties. :D

AND he listens to Avril

Hot Pants
02-08-2009, 10:50 AM
I frikkin' hate metaphysics. Do something worthwhile: physics.
I also love physics, Quantum physics especially, even though I don't know a lot.

I can see how metaphysics would get down your throat however, if you were a particularly passionate physicist.

SlackerBabbath
02-08-2009, 10:50 AM
AND he listens to Avril

He's a wobber and a wapist! :D

Craigo
02-08-2009, 10:52 AM
Hatred was a bit of a hyperbole fellas, I'm sure you're all nice guys. I'm a nice guy, I like beer and spectator sport :D

But you all know that there's no point in me responding to all this. You'll walk all over me in sheer numbers and you're all very intelligent obviously. Nothing will be achieved from me remaining in argument with all of you, no opinions changed. Go through and have a look at how much of my time would be taken up replying to all of you. No offense guys but I have better things to do.

I AM, however, extremely interested in philosophy.

Who likes metaphysics?
I'm sorry, but you are a coward.

SlackerBabbath
02-08-2009, 10:56 AM
^
Hmmm, a tad harsh there Craigo. It's not easy completely re-thinking your entire belief system and accepting something totaly new to you.
Hatred was a bit of a hyperbole fellas, I'm sure you're all nice guys. I'm a nice guy, I like beer and spectator sport :D

But you all know that there's no point in me responding to all this. You'll walk all over me in sheer numbers and you're all very intelligent obviously. Nothing will be achieved from me remaining in argument with all of you, no opinions changed. Go through and have a look at how much of my time would be taken up replying to all of you. No offense guys but I have better things to do.
Fair enough, I can understand that we've been a little overwhelming, but at least read what we have to say and have a good think about it

tushmeister
02-08-2009, 10:57 AM
I'm sorry, but you are a coward.

I didn't want to say it, simply for the sake of letting it die (I really need to do these notes, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is hardly the easiest topic of Sunday afternoon digestion as it is :p: )
But now it's been said, I can only agree. Sorry but it just stinks of being true

SlackerBabbath
02-08-2009, 11:13 AM
God Himself is separate. If God is real, Christianity is not simply the correct religion, but the closest thing to the truth about existence that we can hold on to. The point was never Christianity, but truth. If there was a God, he would use this religious medium to communicate incomprehensible ideas to us pathetic humanoids. And if there was a real Satan he WOULD exploit this to formulate other religious paradigms to make a God into a lifestyle choice rather than a truth or non-truth.



I just re-read this and I feel I should answer it.
Logicaly, if a deity exists, and if that deity created man then the only person we can safely say 'knew' that deity was the first man, let's call him Adam.
So, it stands to reason that the earliest religion to worship a deity would be the most correct, yes?
The earliest worshipped deity that we know of is the Mother Goddess.

dark&broken
02-08-2009, 12:50 PM
EDIT
And the reason it always turns out the same is simple
At one point the ratio of religious:non-religious User in this thread would've been relatively equal, over time the religious posters have been batted out of the park.
You're outnumbered and oft seemingly defeated ironically due to 'survival of the fittest', in this case our arguments actually make sense. They work, they are logical and apply. Heck Slacker alone could probably do a good job of keeping this thread balanced in our favour, the man's a practical black-hole of knowledge, consuming all. As a result, we've survived here.

Evolution - 1
Whackjobs - 0

(Not that I'm saying Hotpants is a whackjob, this is just a comment on the fact that evolution is being supported by a display of natural selection here :p: )

I just re-read this and I feel I should answer it.
Logicaly, if a deity exists, and if that deity created man then the only person we can safely say 'knew' that deity was the first man, let's call him Adam.
So, it stands to reason that the earliest religion to worship a deity would be the most correct, yes?
The earliest worshipped deity that we know of is the Mother Goddess.
If there was anything religious that I would subscribe to, it would likely be this.

As I see it, the Mother Goddess is just a sort of personalization of absolute wonder at nature. As it stands, the closest to believing in a deity I get is the realization that there must be some kind of underlying "force" (for lack of a better term) that just makes everything go. Something that just makes things work; that pushes everything along to become the nature that we all see around us.

In a way, the Mother Goddess idea is just that represented as a concrete idea/being that can be subject of worship, and if there's anything that deserves worship in the world, it's ****in nature.

tushmeister
02-08-2009, 12:53 PM
Evolution - 1
Whackjobs - 0

(Not that I'm saying Hotpants is a whackjob, this is just a comment on the fact that evolution is being supported by a display of natural selection here :p: )


If there was anything religious that I would subscribe to, it would likely be this.

As I see it, the Mother Goddess is just a sort of personalization of absolute wonder at nature. As it stands, the closest to believing in a deity I get is the realization that there must be some kind of underlying "force" (for lack of a better term) that just makes everything go. Something that just makes things work; that pushes everything along to become the nature that we all see around us.

In a way, the Mother Goddess idea is just that represented as a concrete idea/being that can be subject of worship, and if there's anything that deserves worship in the world, it's ****in nature.

Unless you mean the Higgs Boson I now hate you.

I am of course kidding, I hated you anyway :p:

Nah, kidding again, I love you guise :)

Ur all $h1t
02-08-2009, 01:01 PM
Hatred was a bit of a hyperbole fellas, I'm sure you're all nice guys. I'm a nice guy, I like beer and spectator sport :D

But you all know that there's no point in me responding to all this. You'll walk all over me in sheer numbers and you're all very intelligent obviously. Nothing will be achieved from me remaining in argument with all of you, no opinions changed. Go through and have a look at how much of my time would be taken up replying to all of you. No offense guys but I have better things to do.

I AM, however, extremely interested in philosophy.

Who likes metaphysics?
Well something would be gained in that you would at least learn something.

Craigo
02-08-2009, 01:14 PM
^
Hmmm, a tad harsh there Craigo. It's not easy completely re-thinking your entire belief system and accepting something totaly new to you.
This would count if he was close minded, but he isn't. I know that. He's come into a discussion thread and didn't begin with anyone directly questioning him. And he isn't here to preach either. He's got the capacity to show some acknowledgment. He says he knows that God is real but fails to provide us why because we'll be dismissive of it. He seems to be wary of testing himself when he has walked into a discussion.

Not stubborn, not closed minded, but possibly afraid of being wrong.

EDIT: Although, I could come back to rue this. Have been feeling bitter lately.

dark&broken
02-08-2009, 01:23 PM
Unless you mean the Higgs Boson I now hate you.

I am of course kidding, I hated you anyway :p:

Nah, kidding again, I love you guise :)

Is that suppose to be a clever way of still saying you hate us all... :peace:

tushmeister
02-08-2009, 01:24 PM
Is that suppose to be a clever way of still saying you hate us all... :peace:

Me, clever? Pshh

hethamulburton
02-08-2009, 03:07 PM
As I see it, the Mother Goddess is just a sort of personalization of absolute wonder at nature. As it stands, the closest to believing in a deity I get is the realization that there must be some kind of underlying "force" (for lack of a better term) that just makes everything go. Something that just makes things work; that pushes everything along to become the nature that we all see around us.


Gravitational, weak, strong, and electromagnetic... lol, there's your quadnity, of a deity known as quantum gravitation.

I also love physics, Quantum physics especially, even though I don't know a lot.

Maybe you should stick to learning actual science, versus, say... metaphysics, the sodomized, retarded, thrice removed cousin of physics.


I can see how metaphysics would get down your throat however, if you were a particularly passionate physicist.

Or... a positivist.

dark&broken
02-08-2009, 03:11 PM
Gravitational, weak, strong, and electromagnetic... lol, there's your quadnity, of a deity known as quantum gravitation.

Not exactly what I meant lol... but I suppose that would be part of it.

I meant more along the lines of what drives things to want to survive.

If you think about it, we're all nothing but giant chemical reaction factories, but for some reason, something makes these giant chemical reactions prefer procreation and survival. But why though? What is it that drives them to change and morph and such?
What is it that seems to balance everything in nature and stuff... (It's a very vague idea in my head that I have a hard time putting into words) If there was anything I'd call God, that would be it.

hethamulburton
02-08-2009, 03:16 PM
Not exactly what I meant lol... but I suppose that would be part of it.

I meant more along the lines of what drives things to want to survive.

If you think about it, we're all nothing but giant chemical reaction factories, but for some reason, something makes these giant chemical reactions prefer procreation and survival. But why though? What is it that drives them to change and morph and such?
What is it that seems to balance everything in nature and stuff... (It's a very vague idea in my head that I have a hard time putting into words) If there was anything I'd call God, that would be it.

You mean like a force that drives life, specifically, to want to survive?

Martin Nowak is working on equations right now to discern, at least, in abiogenesis mindsets, how some molecules saw it fit to begin to replicate, describing the advantages of procreation versus remaining a sterile cell, without a child-- so-to-speak.

It's funny though, but you could also possibly derive this 'will to be' from the fundamental forces, how they interact within your body, how it causes the chemicals to perform, as if to protect the entity they have built... I don't know, that's getting into some math, with many, many assumptions.

To family party I head... woo...

LordBishek
02-08-2009, 03:23 PM
^^^ Where in fuck's name have you been?

rock freebase
02-08-2009, 04:27 PM
Except rock_freebase
We all hate him

Word on the street is that he's one of those drug taking, women beating, anarchist, fornicating, child molesting, homosexual atheists.
Yeah, he'll steal your sweeties.
AND he listens to Avril

:haha I love you guys, in a purely queer as a bottle of chips, way. :D

tushmeister
02-08-2009, 04:37 PM
:haha I love you guys, in a purely queer as a bottle of chips, way. :D


:heart:
Hows things gorgeous?

rock freebase
02-08-2009, 04:42 PM
:heart:
Hows things gorgeous? :heart:
Very good, did a couple of cracking gigs over the weekend, and earned a ****-load of money in the process, I love my job, sometimes. *smug* So, did anyone answer my earlier question about whether that guy contradicted himself regarding Deism?

Edit. Does anyone know why Fassa was banned?

dark&broken
02-08-2009, 05:59 PM
Edit. Does anyone know why Fassa was banned?
According to random comments on her profile, Carmel closed one of her threads and warned her, but she must have had a live warning and got banned.

:shrug:

Who really cares, all I need to know is that we don't have to worry bout hearing random unfounded opinions that have already been debunked.

nikki82
02-08-2009, 06:10 PM
im an atheist

TheQuailman
02-08-2009, 06:10 PM
According to random comments on her profile, Carmel closed one of her threads and warned her, but she must have had a live warning and got banned.
Yep. The thread was about biting your fingernails, if anyone cares.

blues-guitarist
02-08-2009, 06:15 PM
Can anyone recommend me good philosophy sites?

rock freebase
02-08-2009, 06:45 PM
Can anyone recommend me good philosophy sites?I believe there's a site called, ultimate-guitar.com, with a thread devoted to that very subject (with religion thrown in for a laugh). Some of the guys there really know their stuff. Is there any branch of philosophy or any philosopher you're particularly interested in?

Who really cares, all I need to know is that we don't have to worry bout hearing random unfounded opinions that have already been debunked. As usual, I have to admire the flawless logic of your post, sir. :D
Yep. The thread was about biting your fingernails, if anyone cares. WTF?

blues-guitarist
02-08-2009, 07:01 PM
I believe there's a site called, ultimate-guitar.com, with a thread devoted to that very subject (with religion thrown in for a laugh). Some of the guys there really know their stuff. Is there any branch of philosophy or any philosopher you're particularly interested in?

I've been checking out the last pages of this thread and most of it is religion so that's why I asked for another source...nah, Im not interested on anything specific, just looking for something interesting to read

tushmeister
02-08-2009, 07:06 PM
I've been checking out the last pages of this thread and most of it is religion so that's why I asked for another source...nah, Im not interested on anything specific, just looking for something interesting to read

I believe the old git was being facetious
Forgive him, soon he'll be forgetting how to type at all :p:


And in response to your question, I can't really give much of an answer, personally I enjoy reading from books, I'd recommend Voltaire's Candide if you can find it online, if not, consider perhaps purchasing it :)
It's not explicitly philosophy, but it's a brilliant read

rock freebase
02-08-2009, 07:13 PM
I believe the old git was being facetious
Forgive him, soon he'll be forgetting how to type at all :p: :haha


And in response to your question, I can't really give much of an answer, personally I enjoy reading from books, I'd recommend Voltaire's Candide if you can find it online, if not, consider perhaps purchasing it :)
It's not explicitly philosophy, but it's a brilliant readYup, that's the best way in my opinion. I've said it before and I'll say it again, An Introduction To Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russsell is an excellent book to get you started.

Craigo
02-08-2009, 07:16 PM
I've been checking out the last pages of this thread and most of it is religion so that's why I asked for another source...nah, Im not interested on anything specific, just looking for something interesting to read
Watcha interested in? I'll see what I can recommend.

Standford Encyclopedia is pretty good, but it's best for skimming research or quick looking into.

If you want to brief over texts, squashed philosophers is pretty cool.

EDIT: Candide is so awesome.

blues-guitarist
02-08-2009, 07:16 PM
I believe the old git was being facetious
Forgive him, soon he'll be forgetting how to type at all :p:


And in response to your question, I can't really give much of an answer, personally I enjoy reading from books, I'd recommend Voltaire's Candide if you can find it online, if not, consider perhaps purchasing it :)
It's not explicitly philosophy, but it's a brilliant read
Thanks, I've read Candide though, I had to read it for my humanities class last year, I really liked it. Can you recommend me another book?

Craigo
02-08-2009, 07:19 PM
Thanks, I've read Candide though, I had to read it for my humanities class last year, I really liked it. Can you recommend me another book?
Sartre (most notably Existentialism and Humanism, or Existentialism is a Humanism, same thing) is very accessible. It's easy to read, easy to get but it's enough to satisfy your inquiry into philosophy and is a good starting point to get into reading other books.

EDIT: Here it is!

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

blues-guitarist
02-08-2009, 07:22 PM
Sartre (most notably Existentialism and Humanism, or Existentialism is a Humanism, same thing) is very accessible. It's easy to read, easy to get but it's enough to satisfy your inquiry into philosophy and is a good starting point to get into reading other books.

EDIT: Here it is!

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm
Thanks man!

Craigo
02-08-2009, 07:26 PM
It's alright. Anything you're particularly interested in? We can discuss anything you want here and we can recommend some stuff.

dark&broken
02-08-2009, 07:46 PM
It's alright. Anything you're particularly interested in? We can discuss anything you want here and we can recommend some stuff.

Speaking of recommending, what's going on with the book club?

Craigo
02-08-2009, 07:48 PM
Speaking of recommending, what's going on with the book club?
I've been feeling bitter (all for good reason) and need to finish off my History synoptic. Planning to get it finished tomorrow. You should hear from me hopefully Tuesday in this thread, I'll make sure everyone knows.

dark&broken
02-08-2009, 07:53 PM
I've been feeling bitter (all for good reason) and need to finish off my History synoptic. Planning to get it finished tomorrow. You should hear from me hopefully Tuesday in this thread, I'll make sure everyone knows.

I'd suggest starting a thread to discuss book choices on the group page, but then we'd have to make sure everyone actually checks the group page...

Craigo
02-08-2009, 07:56 PM
I'd suggest starting a thread to discuss book choices on the group page, but then we'd have to make sure everyone actually checks the group page...
The reason I never made one was because I thought a few mods wouldn't approve of a thread of it. Keep it through this thread and word of mouth casually should be good.

When we get the ball going, I'll sig the link.

tushmeister
02-08-2009, 07:58 PM
I've been feeling bitter (all for good reason) and need to finish off my History synoptic. Planning to get it finished tomorrow. You should hear from me hopefully Tuesday in this thread, I'll make sure everyone knows.

If you need a chat about anything mate I'm about ok?

I've actually managed to lessen my workload quite impressively over the last few days, I've still got a lot to do, but it's all optional (I'm writing my notes up in neat/adding to them now instead of around exam time, so I can focus more on revising through questions come that time), so I can allow myself SOME time to breathe :)

And I may start re-reading Candide tonight actually, it's been a short while, and it's the sort of book I can read again for some reason, most I simply can't hack it.

dark&broken
02-08-2009, 08:08 PM
The reason I never made one was because I thought a few mods wouldn't approve of a thread of it. Keep it through this thread and word of mouth casually should be good.

When we get the ball going, I'll sig the link.

I mean a thread on the group page, not in the forums, or do they transfer over?

I just saw a start thread button on the group page and assumed it would only be with the group.. oh well this thread works fine anyways, and really most of the regulars are in the group anyway.

Craigo
02-08-2009, 08:11 PM
I mean a thread on the group page, not in the forums, or do they transfer over?

I just saw a start thread button on the group page and assumed it would only be with the group.. oh well this thread works fine anyways, and really most of the regulars are in the group anyway.
Definitely. Anyone is welcome to make a thread though, that's all cool. I don't want to claim authority. I thought you meant a pit thread.

dark&broken
02-08-2009, 08:52 PM
Definitely. Anyone is welcome to make a thread though, that's all cool. I don't want to claim authority. I thought you meant a pit thread.

I would've done it, but like I said, the problem is making sure everyone actually sees it. It would probably work better to just use this thread anyways.

Vornik
02-08-2009, 09:59 PM
Hatred was a bit of a hyperbole fellas, I'm sure you're all nice guys. I'm a nice guy, I like beer and spectator sport :D

But you all know that there's no point in me responding to all this. You'll walk all over me in sheer numbers and you're all very intelligent obviously. Nothing will be achieved from me remaining in argument with all of you, no opinions changed. Go through and have a look at how much of my time would be taken up replying to all of you. No offense guys but I have better things to do.

Then **** off. All you're doing is complaining that this thread isn't worth your time.


Who likes metaphysics?
Quine.

Maybe you should stick to learning actual science, versus, say... metaphysics, the sodomized, retarded, thrice removed cousin of physics.

You have absolutely no idea what what the term 'metaphysics' refers to, do you?

Are there contingent identities? Answer that with your "actual science".

hethamulburton
02-08-2009, 10:29 PM
You have absolutely no idea what what the term 'metaphysics' refers to, do you?

Are there contingent identities? Answer that with your "actual science".

It was for the lulz, chillax.
:D

^^^ Where in fuck's name have you been?

Waiting for a time I happened to stumble upon a scientific discussion, as it was happening... oddly, even in this thread it took awhile since my online time has been shortened due to work and the like.

Twyman88
02-09-2009, 01:56 AM
Howdy fellas, I have a question for you all. Do you believe that Jesus was a real person, and why?
Go.

SeveralSpecies
02-09-2009, 02:23 AM
Howdy fellas, I have a question for you all. Do you believe that Jesus was a real person, and why?
Go.


I think there is sufficient evidence to say that he was a real person, or that there was someone who fits roughly the same description as him. Him being real or not bears little effect on him being the actual son of god, however, so I don't even look into trying to disprove his existence.

I think he actually existed, but was just a normal person.

Twyman88
02-09-2009, 02:34 AM
Ok, so let's say "someone" existed who fit at least some of those characteristics. Whether or not he was actually the son of god, do you believe he at least thought he was or pretended he was, yes? And that this man had followers who he tought things to and were his "disciples" as such.
Now for a similar question, do you believe that there was a man who was accused of being a self styled "King of the Jews" was crucified by Pontius Pilate?

SeveralSpecies
02-09-2009, 02:39 AM
Ok, so let's say "someone" existed who fit at least some of those characteristics. Whether or not he was actually the son of god, do you believe he at least thought he was or pretended he was, yes? And that this man had followers who he tought things to and were his "disciples" as such.
Now for a similar question, do you believe that there was a man who was accused of being a self styled "King of the Jews" was crucified by Pontius Pilate?


The details I don't think are evident enough to be confirmed, so I wouldn't know about how it's portrayed in the bible. He was a man of importance, though.

Zapht
02-09-2009, 02:57 AM
well there was that ancient bible these police(or someone like that) in the middle east found with gold lettering n crap.

i dont know too much about it i just glimpsed at the article.

sorry if i bring up past discussions im just joining.

Twyman88
02-09-2009, 03:52 AM
Well, at least two non-christian sources mention a man named jesus around that time. The jewish historian Josephus in his chronicle Testimonium Flavianum mentions (although controversially, many say it is fake due to certain awkward language, which it may be) "About this time there lived a man named Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man...he was the christ.When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing...condemned [him]to be crucified."
Even if this passage is a fake, he also mentions in his The Antiquities, "he [Ananias, a jewish priest] convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought them before a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. he accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them to be stoned."
If, as some claim, this was added later by christian writers it would have been significantly more biased towards presenting James in a positive light.

For a non-Jewish reference we can go to Tacitus, the famous Roman historian, writing in apx A.D.115. "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians. Christus, whom the name had its origin, suffered extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate."

There are also accounts from Pliny the Younger, Thallus and in the Talmud, a jewish work, that all have references to Christ and seem to conclude that jesus was a) a jewish teacher b) some people believed he did miracles and he was the christ c) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate and d) Followers seem to believe he was raised from the dead and there were many of these followers in Rome by AD 64.

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 04:01 AM
For a non-Jewish reference we can go to Tacitus, the famous Roman historian, writing in apx A.D.115. "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians. Christus, whom the name had its origin, suffered extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate."





I'm just nipping through
And I kind of agree with you
But these sources are poor, as you've said, the first is potentially fake (it's something I've a brief knowledge of, pretty much what you posted)

And this, well see the emboldened type, that's not a good sign for a source from this period, with nothing else concrete to compare it too, it's not the most reliable thing on Earth.

I think it was Slacker who pointed out over the last few pages that documents written barely a decade or two after Jesus' (supposed) death were considered to be untrue and contain either made-up data, or badly recalled data.
For a source to come 80 years later undermines its validity.

But yeah, off to lectures on the Chemistry of the Cosmos I go ^.^

Twyman88
02-09-2009, 04:14 AM
I'm just nipping through
And I kind of agree with you
But these sources are poor, as you've said, the first is potentially fake (it's something I've a brief knowledge of, pretty much what you posted)

And this, well see the emboldened type, that's not a good sign for a source from this period, with nothing else concrete to compare it too, it's not the most reliable thing on Earth.

I think it was Slacker who pointed out over the last few pages that documents written barely a decade or two after Jesus' (supposed) death were considered to be untrue and contain either made-up data, or badly recalled data.
For a source to come 80 years later undermines its validity.

But yeah, off to lectures on the Chemistry of the Cosmos I go ^.^

But you will find that for most religions, heck, a lot of general information was written a while after it happened. The earliest biographies of Alexander werent written untill 400 years after his death. The Gathas of Zoroaster, about 1000BC, believed to be authentic, were mostly not written until the third century AD. The scriptures of buddha were not put into writing untill after the christian era. In relation to this, 80 years or so is nothing.
Even then, the fact that it is not detailed, but still maintains a mention would at least seem to infer some truth in there for the myth to be based on. Multiple mentions maintaining the same kernels of truth would seem corroborate with each other.

SlackerBabbath
02-09-2009, 04:28 AM
If there was anything religious that I would subscribe to, it would likely be this.

As I see it, the Mother Goddess is just a sort of personalization of absolute wonder at nature. As it stands, the closest to believing in a deity I get is the realization that there must be some kind of underlying "force" (for lack of a better term) that just makes everything go. Something that just makes things work; that pushes everything along to become the nature that we all see around us.

In a way, the Mother Goddess idea is just that represented as a concrete idea/being that can be subject of worship, and if there's anything that deserves worship in the world, it's ****in nature.
Yeah, I know what you mean, Mother Goddess worship is basicaly the worship of a provider deity, something like a godlike parent, she gave birth to us all and now she provides for us, which is probably something that evolved straight from ancestor worship (ancestors can be thought of in the same way as the Mother Goddess, without the ancestors, we wouldn't exist) as the ancestors were (and still are in some places) thought to provide for the living, so she's like the ultimate ancestor, (in cirtain canibalistic tribal societies, when an older person dies of natural causes, they are traditionaly eaten, this is literaly seen as an ancestor providing food) but if we're talking about a creator deity then we must look to the sun.
The sun created our solar system, so it also created us in a way. It provides for us in the same way as the Mother Goddess and the ancestors do by making crops grow which in turn feeds livestock and it keeps us warm and gives us light (it enlightens and illuminates us)
And because there are many suns in the sky (or stars) then there must be many deities.
Welcome to polytheism.
Of course the sun is bigger than the stars (from our perspective) so it must be much more powerful, and probably even created those deities as well.
Hmmm, my religion is becoming henotheistic.
Infact, fu*k it, all those others are just sparks off the great, the one, the only, solar deity.

Wow, my religion is suddenly monotheistic, and pretty similar to Atenism.

I wonder where it will lead to next? :D

Howdy fellas, I have a question for you all. Do you believe that Jesus was a real person, and why?
Go.

Yep, I believe he was because of the different correlating sources claiming he existed.
We have the early Christians, the Gnostics and the Romans.
The Roman historian Tacitus, who was a well respected Roman senator who by and large took his information from official sources within the empire mentions a character called 'Christus' of who he said 'suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.'
Tacitus is regarded by historians as a very safe source of Roman history.

LordBishek
02-09-2009, 04:32 AM
I wonder where it will lead to next? :D
Genocide and MTV. Hopefully not too much MTV.

Meths
02-09-2009, 07:46 AM
Howdy fellas, I have a question for you all. Do you believe that Jesus was a real person, and why?
Go.

Kind of. There probably was a guy called Jesus but most of the stories about him were fictional and made up after (or possibly during) his life. Same kind of thing as King Arthur.

Ok, so let's say "someone" existed who fit at least some of those characteristics. Whether or not he was actually the son of god, do you believe he at least thought he was or pretended he was, yes? And that this man had followers who he tought things to and were his "disciples" as such.
Now for a similar question, do you believe that there was a man who was accused of being a self styled "King of the Jews" was crucified by Pontius Pilate?

He probably did. Most messiahs of the time probably did.
And yeah, they might well have done too.
Probably yeah. Mentioned by Tacitus and we take a lot of Roman history as fact basedo n his word. He's reliable.

Well, at least two non-christian sources mention a man named jesus around that time. The jewish historian Josephus in his chronicle Testimonium Flavianum mentions (although controversially, many say it is fake due to certain awkward language, which it may be) "About this time there lived a man named Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man...he was the christ.When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing...condemned [him]to be crucified."
Even if this passage is a fake, he also mentions in his The Antiquities, "he [Ananias, a jewish priest] convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought them before a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. he accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them to be stoned."
If, as some claim, this was added later by christian writers it would have been significantly more biased towards presenting James in a positive light.

Jesus had a brother? That sounds un-Biblical.

And that passage [in the Testimonium Flavianum] is probably fake.

Twyman88
02-09-2009, 10:27 AM
Jesus had a brother? That sounds un-Biblical.

And that passage [in the Testimonium Flavianum] is probably fake.
I agree parts of it are definitely fake, but i think some parts are also real, its just difficult to determine whats what. Damn early christians messing things up.
Some people say it his brother born to Joseph and mary after jesus was born, others say it was Joseph's to another wife.
Jesus had multiple siblings apparently, and even they didn't believe he was the messiah. Mark 3:21 "When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him away. 'Hes out of his mind' they said" Also John 7:3-5 mentions his brothers.

But im off topic here, my next question to you is, how do you believe the resurrection story came about?

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 10:34 AM
I agree parts of it are definitely fake, but i think some parts are also real, its just difficult to determine whats what. Damn early christians messing things up.
Some people say it his brother born to Joseph and mary after jesus was born, others say it was Joseph's to another wife.
Jesus had multiple siblings apparently, and even they didn't believe he was the messiah. Mark 3:21 "When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him away. 'Hes out of his mind' they said" Also John 7:3-5 mentions his brothers.

But im off topic here, my next question to you is, how do you believe the resurrection story came about?

Again I'm not going to provide much of a useful response here
But I'm certain Slacker said it was to fulfil one as the prophecies as the Messiah, I'd glance over the last few pages (though it'd be difficult to find I expect), I may well be imagining things however.

Twyman88
02-09-2009, 10:46 AM
Again I'm not going to provide much of a useful response here
But I'm certain Slacker said it was to fulfil one as the prophecies as the Messiah, I'd glance over the last few pages (though it'd be difficult to find I expect), I may well be imagining things however.
Im actually surprised Slacker hasnt said anything yet, this is his thing, history. I;m waiting for a wall of text that debunks everything ive said so far :)
So if it was to fulfil one of the prophecies, why Jesus, why not someone else like Simon Bar Kokhba, who seemed to be more of a Leader of the jewish people taking back their land, which is what the Jews expected from the messiah.
Saying this Jesus guy, who was hated by many Jews, was the messiah really would seem to have no advantages.
Plus the prohecies are very vague, as prophecies tend to be, so the exact story, of the crucifixion, the tomb and the stone being rolled away after three days was not necessarily mentioned, "The messiah" could have died any number of ways.

dark&broken
02-09-2009, 11:07 AM
Im actually surprised Slacker hasnt said anything yet, this is his thing, history. I;m waiting for a wall of text that debunks everything ive said so far :)
So if it was to fulfil one of the prophecies, why Jesus, why not someone else like Simon Bar Kokhba, who seemed to be more of a Leader of the jewish people taking back their land, which is what the Jews expected from the messiah.
Saying this Jesus guy, who was hated by many Jews, was the messiah really would seem to have no advantages.
Plus the prohecies are very vague, as prophecies tend to be, so the exact story, of the crucifixion, the tomb and the stone being rolled away after three days was not necessarily mentioned, "The messiah" could have died any number of ways.

Jesus might have been somewhat of a genius for his time, and very skilled with illusion and trickery, which would certainly help with all the miracles.

He could well have been like the Houdini of his time, just not well known yet, so they took him as the messiah because he could actually pull off the stunts.

Whether he was recruited, if there even was some crazy plot, who knows, but it's a thought :shrug:

SlackerBabbath
02-09-2009, 11:13 AM
Im actually surprised Slacker hasnt said anything yet, this is his thing, history. I;m waiting for a wall of text

Here ya go, enjoy. ;)Ok, so let's say "someone" existed who fit at least some of those characteristics. Whether or not he was actually the son of god, do you believe he at least thought he was or pretended he was, yes? And that this man had followers who he tought things to and were his "disciples" as such.
Now for a similar question, do you believe that there was a man who was accused of being a self styled "King of the Jews" was crucified by Pontius Pilate?
I have a hypothesis, no real proof for it, but bare with me, it kinda makes sense but it's a long story to tell.

Ok, first let's place ourselves in the position of a person 2000 years ago. Gods and such are considered to be very real, especialy the Hellenistic Greek and Roman gods and each nation kinda has it's own local version of these gods (Even in the area of Judea, previous to being monotheistic, Semitic mythology worshipped a kind of pantheon with the god called 'El' at it's head who was married to the Mother Goddess)
Nations went to war with each other under the names of their nation's personal gods, and if a nation won a war, it was thought that they won because they had very powerful gods on their side, so religion was kinda like an arms race.
Those nations that were successful in warfare, like the Romans for instance, would be seen to have the most powerful gods and people would convert to that religion because they wanted to be on the side of the most powerful gods, they'd be lining up to join.
Buit things were slightly different in Judea, there they had a monotheistic religion, practicaly the only one around at the time, so it was quite a bit harder to get them to convert at first, and the Romans really wanted them to convert because they realised that if you control the people's religion, then you control the people themseves, and the Romans were all about controling people, so in Judea, they had to try slightly harder.
Temples to Roman gods sprang up everywhere throughout Judea (we know this from the archeology of the area) and they gained many converts, Judea began to become Romanised.
Herod the Great was appointed as a Roman client king of Judaea, Herod is known for his colossal building projects in Jerusalem and other parts of the ancient world, and what he built was built in a very Roman style, including the huge Jewish Temple he had built which had Roman pillars and arches throughout it's design. He'd ripped down a traditional Jewish temple to build this so let's just say that among the faithful Jews, he was probably about as popular as rabies in a guide dog's home.
But to a lot of people in the area, he was very popular, his building programs brought work, wealth and sanitation, the Roman way, the place was definately improving and people were starting to accept this Roman way of life, and more people converted to it and it's religion, they became Roman citizens and joined the club. Some of them would retain their Jewishnes and become Hellenistic Jews, Judaism with Hellenistic traditions.
True Judaism, the Judaism of the Hebrews looked to have a very shakey future.

Enter one Jesus of Nazereth.
Think of this guy a little bit like Gandhi, he could see the decline his religion was going through, he could see this alien empire taking over and completely swallowing up his nation's culture and traditions and twisting his religion and he wanted to do something about it, he wanted to change things. He wanted a religious revolution, but a peacefull one.
He needed to somehow give the people a reason to believe in the Judaistic God again, some proof that their monotheistic God was real and therefore that the Roman gods were false gods. He needed something to convince them.
A supposed manifestation of God's representative, The Messiah, would do nicely thank you.

So, he set himself up with a few helpers and set about performing 'miracles' or 'street magic' to make people think he was the Messiah. Apparently he'd spent a lot of time in Egypt as a child, which also happens to be the birthplace of traditional street magic a few hundred years earlier. It was perfomed (and still is) by magicians called 'Gali Gali men' and the act generaly includes the cup and ball trick, some masterful conjouring (including turning staffs into snakes) and pain control such as piercing themselves or sitting on nails. The tradition also caught on in India, where the people to this day who perform these tricks are actualy thought to be doing real miracles by most of the population in poor run down areas and are venerated as 'holy men.' (there's even an organisation in India called the 'God Squad' made up of professional magicians who follow these 'holy men' around and show the crowd how they did the tricks afterwards, it quite often gets violent as you can imagine)

In Judea, it was a similar story, there were guys like Simon Magus performing street magic, infact Simon was even said to be able to levitate.
His death is interesting.
Simon is performing magic in the Forum, and in order to prove himself to be a god, he levitates up into the air above the Forum. The apostle Peter prays to God to stop his flying, and he stops mid-air and falls into a place called the Sacra Via (meaning, Holy Way), breaking his legs "in three parts". The previously non-hostile crowd then stones him.
Now, how did Peter do this? Obviously he knew how it was done, he'd sent some guys to break whatever contrivance Simon was using to raise him up in the air, said a prayer and down came Simon, and how did Peter know how it was done? Because he was one of Jesus' first disciples, or, magician's 'helpers'.
Many of the miracles could have simply been rumour, spread by the disciples, like the walking on water trick (which I have seen performed by the way) which apparently was only witnessed by the same disciples, and the supposed power over life and death as in the raising of Lazarus for example, was all done behind closed doors, not in public places.
But of course, these major miracles, which probably never happened, would be held up by the minor ones, the everyday stuff like miraculous cures. (c'mon it's easy, we see faith healing acts every day on TV, all you need is for someone to pretend they're ill)

[continued next post]

SlackerBabbath
02-09-2009, 11:14 AM
Jesus became quite popular and concentrated on re-converting people who had 'fallen by the wayside' but of course, for Jesus to be accepted as the Messiah, he needed to fulfill several Messianic prophecies. For one, he needed to be Jesus of Bethlehem not Jesus of Nazereth, so a story was made up about him being born in Bethlehem, a story which actualy contains falsehoods, if Jesus was born at the time of Herod, then the Census of Quirinius which apparently sent his folks to Bethlehem to the place of Josephs ancestors (which is bull, the census never required people to do that, just traveling traders to remain home) wouldn't happen until at least 10 years later.
For another prophecy, he needed to be from the line of David, true heir to the throne so to speak and that's where it get's really interesting.
Forget the Sanhedrin trying him for blasphemy, he had influence with at least two of them, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, the really interesting thing is this 'true king' thing that Rome really cannot be doing with. A true heir to the throne turning up incites revolution so it has to be stopped there and then.
Word get's out that that Jesus is to be arrested and a plan is formed.

And what a plan it was. Simplicity itself, but very cunning.
Remember the close followers of Jesus were in on the act, mere stage hands, but they were also a bit like revolutionaries, trying to bring about a religious revolution. They had a cause they were loyal to, something worth dying for, so it was decided that Judas, who had luckily been offered some money to identify Jesus, (obviously meaning that the authorities didn't know what he actualy looked like) would simply kiss someone else, who would sacrifice himself for the cause. And believe me, people sacrificing themself for the cause is something that's repeated time after time throughout history. Who it was and how they decided, I dunno, maybe they drew straws or something, but it happened at the last supper.

So this poor guy was crucified. (he may have been poisoned to ease his suffering because he only lasted three hours) Judas felt so guilty about it (well, you would wouldn't you.) he commited suicide, or at least he may have done, there are four different known versions of his death.
Joseph of Arimathea supplied the tomb and the 'chosen disciple's' body was placed within.
A few days later, the guards in front of the tomb are somehow delt with (they worked for the Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea was one of the Sanhedrin and owned the tomb, I can't see there being much of a problem there really) the tomb is opened, the body is removed and Jesus appears alive and well, let's everyone see that he's alive and well.... then does one, he hightails it outta there as fast as his little legs will carry him, (probably towards the Himalayas where there is a tradition of Jesus going after the resurection stunt) before anyone else has to 'die for the cause', leaving his brother James in charge of the now quite popular church of Jesus that had been formed by Jesus' followers and converts with a mission to continue to bring the people back to Judaism. (which is all Jesus wanted to do in the first place)
And it seemed to be working too, until a Hellenistic Jew (yeah, one of Herod's fans) called Paul got involved.
He'd never even met Jesus, but apparently he claimed he'd had a vision of Jesus and like... well he just had to join up and get involved. He called himself the "Apostle to the Gentiles" (interesting that apostles can name themselves eh?) and went about changing early Christianity from a strictly Hebraic Jewish religion to something more similar to his own Hellenistic Judaism. Gone was the need to be circumcised, to be Jewish if you wanted to be a Christian, anyone could be a Christian now, (and boy did James hate it) so why did Paul do this?
Power. It's a simple sum. Remember that bit about controling people's religion, which in turn controls the people? Well if people = power, but your power base is limited to only Jews, do away with the Jews only sign, the power base widens, more people join up and you become more powerful.

A few hundred years later a Roman Emperor called Constantine used Christianity in exactly the same way to help re-unite a split empire.
Before a decisive battle (that he knew he would easily win) he claimed to have had a vision from the Christian God, got all his soldiers to paint crosses on their shields then kicked some ass. The religious arms race thing happens, people think, 'Ahhh, I wanna be on this guy's side, because his God is more powerful than my God!' and Christianity spreads throughout the empire, kinda.
It changed though, obviously pagans right at the other end of the empire don't wanna convert so those put in charge of convincing them tell them that Jesus was born during their winter religious celebrations and like their gods, Jesus too is part of a trinity. 'Heck.. it's practicaly the same religion, you may as well convert because the rest of the empire is doing and there will be 'cirtain' advantages to being a Christian in the 'New' empire.
Thanks to Rome's eventual victory over the Judaistic religious arms race, Christianity is now controlled by Rome. The empire will eventualy fail, as an empire, but the control of the religion, and therefore the control of the people, will remain forever in Rome.

PatchworkMan
02-09-2009, 11:19 AM
Holy giant long posts, Batman.

SlackerBabbath
02-09-2009, 11:21 AM
Holy giant long posts, Batman.
I'm goin for a lie down now guys, back in a bit. ;)

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 11:30 AM
Slacker, that's honestly the most brilliant idea I've read in a fair while
It seems plausible to me, of course it's hard to prove in parts, but I'd never considered that Judas having to kiss Jesus was a sign that they didn't know him by face. Very interesting idea indeed :)

PatchworkMan
02-09-2009, 11:42 AM
but I'd never considered that Judas having to kiss Jesus was a sign that they didn't know him by face. Very interesting idea indeed :)
I think the Bible explains it exactly this way. It doesn't seem all that strange to me. Many people in the ancient world became quite famous without anyone knowing what they looked like.

It seems strange to us in the postmodern world, because even the guy who rescues a dog from a sewer drain gets his picture sent all around the world on the internet. But imagine living in a world with no internet, no television, no newspapers, no photography, etc. For example, everyone in England in 1192 knew Richard the Lionhearted was their king, but how many of them could have picked him out of a lineup?

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 11:43 AM
I think the Bible explains it exactly this way. It doesn't seem all that strange to me. Many people in the ancient world became quite famous without anyone knowing what they looked like.

It seems strange to us in the postmodern world, because even the guy who rescues a dog from a sewer drain gets his picture sent all around the world on the internet. But imagine living in a world with no internet, television, no newspapers, no photography, etc. For example, everyone in England in 1192 knew Richard the Lionhearted was their king, but how many of them could have picked him out of a lineup?

What I mean was I didn't think of the idea of it not being Jesus who was killed, and that being the method achieving it
Though your point is true, it's difficult to imagine

And, for comparison, the Monty Python sketch in the Holy Grail
'Who are you?'
'I am your King! King Arthur'
'Whos that?'

:)

SlackerBabbath
02-09-2009, 11:52 AM
Slacker, that's honestly the most brilliant idea I've read in a fair while
It seems plausible to me, of course it's hard to prove in parts, but I'd never considered that Judas having to kiss Jesus was a sign that they didn't know him by face. Very interesting idea indeed :)

:cheers: I think the Bible explains it exactly this way. It doesn't seem all that strange to me. Many people in the ancient world became quite famous without anyone knowing what they looked like.
Which makes my version even easier to pull off. ;)

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 12:22 PM
So, does anyone miss Fassa? *tries to stifle laughter and fails*

LordBishek
02-09-2009, 01:07 PM
Meanie! :no:

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 01:17 PM
Meanie! :no:
Aw, how thoughtful, you answered in her style. :D

Craigo
02-09-2009, 01:18 PM
:cry:

LordBishek
02-09-2009, 01:23 PM
Well I could have posted some meaningless drivel with ellipses at the end...

Craigo
02-09-2009, 01:31 PM
Well I could have posted some meaningless drivel with ellipses at the end...
That tends to be characteristic of every other Christian who can't argue though.

LordBishek
02-09-2009, 01:34 PM
Well to me it just seems like the poster has ADD and has just wandered off in the middle of the...

denizenz
02-09-2009, 01:36 PM
That tends to be characteristic of every other Christian who can't argue though.
Hey, I love ellipses...



Oh, wait. :peace:

LordBishek
02-09-2009, 01:38 PM
:haha












I'm so bored.

Craigo
02-09-2009, 01:39 PM
Hey, I love ellipses...



Oh, wait. :peace:
Problem is you know the correct application of them. The other ones don't.

denizenz
02-09-2009, 01:40 PM
Problem is you know the correct application of them. The other ones don't.
I fail to see the problem here. ;)

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 02:38 PM
I fail to see the problem here. ;)
So Denny, where were we on the discussion about the scientific method? I seem to remember you losing...or something. :p: :D

marc137
02-09-2009, 03:02 PM
Could anyone debunk this crap article from AIG? I'm not very good with philosophy stuff.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 03:07 PM
Could anyone debunk this crap article from AIG? I'm not very good with philosophy stuff.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational

'The atheist might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” But this is no different than the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.” This isn’t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him.'

I got to there and gave up
You can't argue against it, since it's a complete load of nonsense.

You can't hinge an argument on God's existence on the existence of God
THAT is illogical.

I can, however, hinge my lack of a belief in any God on my logical thought patterns, and the evidence at my feet.


EDIT
So i read further on

'The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are material—they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain.” But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn’t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one’s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain.'


By that argument God doesn't exist because I believe he doesn't, in my head God is non-existent, and if he doesn't exist in my brain as a result of logical thinking, and they argue rather well that logic is universal, God can't exist for as long as my logic does.

freedoms_stain
02-09-2009, 03:13 PM
Could anyone debunk this crap article from AIG? I'm not very good with philosophy stuff.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrationalI dunno, massive logical hole with an incorrect definition and interpretation of logic?

Logic occurs in ones head, one's head consists of matter, thoughts consist of matter.

It's just balls all over.

TheQuailman
02-09-2009, 03:20 PM
It just sounds like a good old circular argument to me. Quite popular nowadays.

There is no real arguing against something that doesn't even rely on basic logic.

PatchworkMan
02-09-2009, 03:35 PM
'The atheist might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” But this is no different than the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.” This isn’t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him.'

This makes perfect sense. It doesn't prove God, but it neutralizes a cheap one-liner argument against God.

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 03:40 PM
This makes perfect sense. It doesn't prove God, but it neutralizes a cheap one-liner argument against God.

How on Earth does that make sense?
And that's not a disproof of God either way
Me being able to reason could be with or without God

Sorry but that quote is the part that I believe was the stupidest, it was a completely pathetic analogy.

TheQuailman
02-09-2009, 03:40 PM
This makes perfect sense. It doesn't prove God, but it neutralizes a cheap one-liner argument against God.
What argument would that be? Not being sarcastic here, I honestly don't know.


Sorry but that quote is the part that I believe was the stupidest, it was a completely pathetic analogy.
That is kinda what I thought. For it to make any sense, you must be a Christian to begin with.

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 03:44 PM
What argument would that be? Not being sarcastic here, I honestly don't know.


That is kinda what I thought. For it to make any sense, you must be a Christian to begin with.

Exactly
It hinged on God existing to proof God existed.

When I claim to be able to reason perfectly well, without God, I'm not basing it on the fact I can reason well. I'm basing on the fact that, by empirical experiences, I HAVE reasoned well, and I believe myself able to still do so.
You can't use God in the same way, since your belief in God is questionable empirically from any view point, you're using biased unproven evidence for a biased unproven idea.

My reasoning can be tested through word problems to be shown as true (and even measured comparatively)
God's existence can not be. Your belief, perhaps so, but your belief does not make God real.

PatchworkMan
02-09-2009, 03:48 PM
How on Earth does that make sense?
And that's not a disproof of God either way
Me being able to reason could be with or without God

Sorry but that quote is the part that I believe was the stupidest, it was a completely pathetic analogy.
You're missing the point. The quote is a response to the argument, "God can't be the source of my reasoning because I can reason without believing in God." The quote is pointing out that this argument doesn't make sense, because if God exists, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe in Him.

He's not trying to prove that God is the source of reason; he's trying to show that a specific one-line argument against the existence of God fails in the light of objective reasoning.

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 03:51 PM
Could anyone debunk this crap article from AIG? I'm not very good with philosophy stuff.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational
What a cheeky bastard :D, whoever wrote this deserves a slap. I'm rather busy just now, but I'll go through it line by line and tear it to shreds, if you really want me to. :D

TheQuailman
02-09-2009, 03:53 PM
You're missing the point. The quote is a response to the argument, "God can't be the source of my reasoning because I can reason without believing in God." The quote is pointing out that this argument doesn't make sense, because if God exists, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe in Him.

He's not trying to prove that God is the source of reason; he's trying to show that a specific one-line argument against the existence of God fails in the light of objective reasoning.
To be quite frank though, there is no reason for anyone to ever make that argument in the first place.

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 03:54 PM
You're missing the point. The quote is a response to the argument, "God can't be the source of my reasoning because I can reason without believing in God." The quote is pointing out that this argument doesn't make sense, because if God exists, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe in Him.

He's not trying to prove that God is the source of reason; he's trying to show that a specific one-line argument against the existence of God fails in the light of objective reasoning.


But it responds by saying

'Logic exists because God exists'
It's argument is that 'God exists because logic exists'

That's circular.
Not only is it a point I don't think I've ever made (unless they've used logic that allows me too, defeating them by their own standards, since I've had people say 'God exists because I believe') but that response is completely flawed anyway

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 04:01 PM
He's not trying to prove that God is the source of reason; he's trying to show that a specific one-line argument against the existence of God fails in the light of objective reasoning.You sure about that?
The following is from the article.

"The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.
Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God."

Looks to me that that's just what he's doing. :p:

PatchworkMan
02-09-2009, 04:09 PM
You sure about that?
The following is from the article.

"The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.
Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God."

Looks to me that that's just what he's doing
Let me rephrase myself: the excerpt I posted was not an attempt to prove God.

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 04:11 PM
Let me rephrase myself: the excerpt I posted was not an attempt to prove God.

But it's part of an article, and an argument, that IS attempting to prove God.

You can't extract a sentence and claim it has a different purpose, it's there solely to provide support for what they consider, the evidence of God's existence as a result of the existence of logic...

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 04:13 PM
Let me rephrase myself: the excerpt I posted was not an attempt to prove God.
We're not talking about proving God, you said he's not trying to prove that God is the source of logic and reasoning.

TheQuailman
02-09-2009, 04:14 PM
But it's part of an article, and an argument, that IS attempting to prove God.

You can't extract a sentence and claim it has a different purpose, it's there solely to provide support for what they consider, the evidence of God's existence as a result of the existence of logic...

Cut him some slack man. He probably didn't read the whole article and only told us what he thought about that one excerpt. It's not like he's trying to rub it in our faces.

PatchworkMan
02-09-2009, 04:15 PM
We're not talking about proving God, you said he's not trying to prove that God is the source of logic and reasoning.
It's the same thing. If God is proven to be the source of our logic and reason, He is proven to exist.

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 04:16 PM
Cut him some slack man. He probably didn't read the whole article and only told us what he thought about that one excerpt. It's not like he's trying to rub it in our faces.

I don't see where I need to cut him slack, I didn't attack him in any way
If he didn't read the entire article, how can he comment on it several times?
Either he read it, in which case I've every right to counter
Or he didn't, in which case it'd be somewhat silly posting an opinion at all...

It's the same thing. If God is proven to be the source of our logic and reason, He is proven to exist.

You realise that's exactly the argument I just called redundant right?
Since it relies on God being real to prove logic relies on God's existence, in turn proving God is real?

*sighs*

PatchworkMan
02-09-2009, 04:17 PM
But it's part of an article, and an argument, that IS attempting to prove God.

You can't extract a sentence and claim it has a different purpose, it's there solely to provide support for what they consider, the evidence of God's existence as a result of the existence of logic...
I picked an excerpt that someone else had used, and pointed out that said excerpt does, in and of itself, make sense. That's all. I was replying to someone who was speaking about it separately.

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 04:21 PM
I picked an excerpt that someone else had used, and pointed out that said excerpt does, in and of itself, make sense. That's all. I was replying to someone who was speaking about it separately.

That someone was me, and I also posted why I believed that excerpt to be ridiculous in context.
I fail to see why you took it out of context to defend it, I'm lost for words as to how pointless a task that seems to me.

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 04:22 PM
It's the same thing. If God is proven to be the source of our logic and reason, He is proven to exist.
Not really. It it could prove that some sort of God exists, but not necessarily the Christian God. Anyway, we're getting off the point, I blame you entirely. :p: :D


Cut him some slack man. He probably didn't read the whole article and only told us what he thought about that one excerpt. It's not like he's trying to rub it in our faces.
Pussy. :p: :D

TheQuailman
02-09-2009, 04:24 PM
I don't see where I need to cut him slack, I didn't attack him in any way
If he didn't read the entire article, how can he comment on it several times?
Either he read it, in which case I've every right to counter
Or he didn't, in which case it'd be somewhat silly posting an opinion at all...
I don't know how you do it, but I analyse texts section for section, it works perfectly fine for that excerpt because it does not depend on the context.

Also, let's stop arguing, okay? We both agree that the whole text is basically nonsense, so let's just leave it at that. :)

Craigo
02-09-2009, 04:28 PM
Could anyone debunk this crap article from AIG? I'm not very good with philosophy stuff.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational
Language is not material, yet it is real. We'd be stupid to deny it. Yet we can trace it back to how it originated.

There are no laws of logic. Logic is just, what is logical. What makes sense. Things make sense in a number of ways. For example, you could say that a political idea is logical, or a motive is logical, however, that's not because of some form of law of logic.

So, how to judge what makes sense? Reasoning skills. These exist in many ways. Logical deduction is one of them, yet that doesn't seem to abide by any laws.

PatchworkMan
02-09-2009, 04:51 PM
That AIG article attempts to make an argument that many apologists make: whether or not we admit it, we all acknowledge the existence of absolute truths that cannot be addressed by the science of the physical world, and that, therefore, these truths must come from a source that trascends the physical world. Many people have done a good job with this argument (Miracles by C.S. Lewis comes to mind).

This article, though, breaks down right here:
Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: “We use the laws of logic because they work.” Unfortunately for him, that isn’t the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they’re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place?
The assumption is made here that what works must be a universal law. The possibilty that what this article calls "laws of logic" might just be our observations about how things in this universe work is not addressed.

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 05:01 PM
That AIG article attempts to make an argument that many apologists make: whether or not we admit it, we all acknowledge the existence of absolute truths that cannot be addressed by the science of the physical world, and that, therefore, these truths must come from a source that trascends the physical world. Many people have done a good job with this argument (Miracles by C.S. Lewis comes to mind).

This article, though, breaks down right here:

The assumption is made here that what works must be a universal law. The possibilty that what this article calls "laws of logic" might just be our observations about how things in this universe work is not addressed.
By the way, what the hell is a man of marc137's intelligence doing on AIG, anyway? I presume the 137 is his I.Q, and what the hell are we all still trying to explain this utter **** for?

Edit. Sorry, I'm a bit out if it. :p:

marc137
02-09-2009, 05:56 PM
By the way, what the hell is a man of marc137's intelligence doing on AIG, anyway? I presume the 137 is his I.Q, and what the hell are we all still trying to explain this utter **** for?
Edit. Sorry, I'm a bit out if it. :p:
:haha :haha :haha I never thought of the 137 that way, but anyway I was on another forum debating some foundies when they pulled that crap out. Seeing as I don't know much about philosophy, I wasn't exactly sure how to respond to it so I asked here since most of you guys know a lot of about it.

Thanks to everyone who replied to it, makes much more sense now.

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 05:58 PM
By the way, what the hell is a man of marc137's intelligence doing on AIG, anyway? I presume the 137 is his I.Q, and what the hell are we all still trying to explain this utter **** for?

Edit. Sorry, I'm a bit out if it. :p:

137 is probably him mis-spelling leet in leetspeak

marc137
02-09-2009, 06:06 PM
137 is probably him mis-spelling leet in leetspeak
Strangely enough, I had no idea what l337 speak was when I made the user name, and then people started noticing that lol

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 06:32 PM
:haha :haha :haha I never thought of the 137 that way, but anyway I was on another forum debating some foundies when they pulled that crap out. Seeing as I don't know much about philosophy, I wasn't exactly sure how to respond to it so I asked here since most of you guys know a lot of about it.

Thanks to everyone who replied to it, makes much more sense now.
I could write and PM you a thorough refutation of it, if you wish. I hardly think it's worth it, though. :)

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 06:37 PM
:haha :haha :haha I never thought of the 137 that way, but anyway I was on another forum debating some foundies when they pulled that crap out. Seeing as I don't know much about philosophy, I wasn't exactly sure how to respond to it so I asked here since most of you guys know a lot of about it.

Thanks to everyone who replied to it, makes much more sense now.

Wait, another forum?
What the hell?
Have I made a quantum leap into another universe?
Is this the future?
There's more than one :eek:

Mad Marius
02-09-2009, 06:41 PM
It's the same thing. If God is proven to be the source of our logic and reason, He is proven to exist.

Wouldn't that be ironic... that the source of logic and reason requires us to abandon them.

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 06:43 PM
Wouldn't that be ironic... that the source of logic and reason requires us to abandon them.

Oh he went thur

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 06:43 PM
Wait, another forum?
What the hell?
Have I made a quantum leap into another universe?
Is this the future?
There's more than one :eek:
Calm down pipsqueak. Uncle Freebase didn't want you to get too much excitement all at once, so he decided to keep certain things from you. There are even girls out there (not that you'd be interested in that kind of thing). :D

Wouldn't that be ironic... that the source of logic and reason requires us to abandon them.
That's an excellent point.

tushmeister
02-09-2009, 06:48 PM
Calm down pipsqueak. Uncle Freebase didn't want you to get too much excitement all at once, so he decided to keep certain things from you. There are even girls out there (not that you'd be interested in that kind of thing). :D




Pshh I've used a grill several times
*refuses to accept reality*

marc137
02-09-2009, 06:52 PM
I could write and PM you a thorough refutation of it, if you wish. I hardly think it's worth it, though. :)Nah, it's not worth it lol

Wait, another forum?
What the hell?
Have I made a quantum leap into another universe?
Is this the future?
There's more than one :eek:
It's always hard to get use to life outside the pit :p:

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 06:57 PM
Pshh I've used a grill several times
*refuses to accept reality*
:D

Meths
02-09-2009, 07:10 PM
I agree parts of it are definitely fake, but i think some parts are also real, its just difficult to determine whats what. Damn early christians messing things up.
Some people say it his brother born to Joseph and mary after jesus was born, others say it was Joseph's to another wife.
Jesus had multiple siblings apparently, and even they didn't believe he was the messiah. Mark 3:21 "When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him away. 'Hes out of his mind' they said" Also John 7:3-5 mentions his brothers.

But im off topic here, my next question to you is, how do you believe the resurrection story came about?

I think it was made up after his death.

It seems strange to us in the postmodern world, because even the guy who rescues a dog from a sewer drain gets his picture sent all around the world on the internet. But imagine living in a world with no internet, no television, no newspapers, no photography, etc. For example, everyone in England in 1192 knew Richard the Lionhearted was their king, but how many of them could have picked him out of a lineup?

King was a poor choice, their faces were printed on all the coins... :p:

Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.

Epic lol. God and human at the same time. Didn't get further than there, disproving your own point of view at the beginning of your argument is not a good sign.

That AIG article attempts to make an argument that many apologists make: whether or not we admit it, we all acknowledge the existence of absolute truths that cannot be addressed by the science of the physical world, and that, therefore, these truths must come from a source that trascends the physical world. Many people have done a good job with this argument (Miracles by C.S. Lewis comes to mind).

Such as?

sloppyjoe109
02-09-2009, 09:27 PM
I need to write a paper on Plato's Apology and Crito. I was wondering more or less what my professor is asking for, I'm sort of lost in the class.

What is the conception of the philosopher that Plato presents in Apology, through the character of Socrates? How does the drama of Crito, (in which Socrates puts Crito to "sleep") challenge this conception? Finally, can the drama of the Crito be reconciled with the conception advanced in Apology? Why or why not?

Thanks guys, any little piece of advice would be great.

-JJ

Vornik
02-09-2009, 09:28 PM
Language is not material, yet it is real. We'd be stupid to deny it. Yet we can trace it back to how it originated.

There are no laws of logic. Logic is just, what is logical. What makes sense. Things make sense in a number of ways. For example, you could say that a political idea is logical, or a motive is logical, however, that's not because of some form of law of logic.

So, how to judge what makes sense? Reasoning skills. These exist in many ways. Logical deduction is one of them, yet that doesn't seem to abide by any laws.
Are you familiar with formal logic or First Order Logic? Rules of inference? Leibniz' Law?

sloppyjoe109
02-09-2009, 09:38 PM
I have no idea where to start :/

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 09:45 PM
Are you familiar with formal logic or First Order Logic? Rules of inference? Leibniz' Law?
Actually, if I may, I'm not that familiar with Leibniz. Could you elaborate, please?

sloppyjoe109
02-09-2009, 09:55 PM
buuump

sloppyjoe109
02-09-2009, 10:07 PM
Anyone?

Vornik
02-09-2009, 10:13 PM
Actually, if I may, I'm not that familiar with Leibniz. Could you elaborate, please?
I'm not very familiar with Leibniz, either, but (for some reason) his name is attributed with the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals. That is, that for any x and for any y, if x = y, then for any property F of x, y has the same property.

(x)(y) (Fx ^ x=y) --> Fy.

If you want to speak in terms of modality, then it is necessary that x=x. Another way of stating this is to say that x has the property of being necessarily identical to x. If x=y, then y must have the same properties, including the modal properties (such as being necessarily identical to x). So, if it's necessary that x=x and x=y, then it is necessary that x=y. This is the basis of arguments against contingent identities.

Some people defend the theory that certain identities are contingent (not necessary) but I don't think I buy it.

The only reason I brought this up is to demonstrate that there are in fact 'laws of logic'.

Vornik
02-09-2009, 10:14 PM
I have no idea where to start :/
I suggest you start by reading Crito and Apology, which is something i haven't done so I can't offer any further advice.

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 10:18 PM
I have no idea where to start :/I'm afraid I'm no expert on Plato. I've read a fair number of his works, but that was some time ago, and I never really got into him, as I didn't think his work was particularly relevant. From what I remember, he would often develop an idea by having Socrates argue with a Sophist or whatever. Though I believe Socrates himself said, "What has this young man made me say." He's fairly easy to understand, and can be quite enjoyable to read, but I was always much more interested in the more modern philosophers, like Kant, and Hume etc. So, not much help to you at all, I'm afraid. I believe James Douglas was reading The Republic quite recently, so he may have some useful knowledge relating to Plato in general. I'd also be surprised if Vornik and Craigo couldn't be of assistance. Though Vornik is a bit of a grumpy old bugger (just kidding, Vorny. Sorry, Devon. :D ).


Some people defend the theory that certain identities are contingent (not necessary) but I don't think I buy it.
Yeah, I think Leibniz himself sometimes alternated between them being either contingent or necessary.

sloppyjoe109
02-09-2009, 10:20 PM
^Okay, no problem guys.

Thank you!

Vornik
02-09-2009, 10:34 PM
I'm afraid I'm no expert on Plato. I've read a fair number of his works, but that was some time ago, and I never really got into him, as I didn't think his work was particularly relevant. From what I remember, he would often develop an idea by having Socrates argue with a Sophist or whatever. Though I believe Socrates himself said, "What has this young man made me say." He's fairly easy to understand, and can be quite enjoyable to read, but I was always much more interested in the more modern philosophers, like Kant, and Hume etc. So, not much help to you at all, I'm afraid. I believe James Douglas was reading The Republic quite recently, so he may have some useful knowledge relating to Plato in general. I'd also be surprised if Vornik and Craigo couldn't be of assistance. Though Vornik is a bit of a grumpy old bugger (just kidding, Vorny. Sorry, Devon. :D ).

Socrates never 'said' anything. All accounts of things Socrates said come second hand from Plato (I believe after the death of Socrates) - the actual man left no writings.

Also, I'm not even 20...

^Okay, no problem guys.

Thank you!
Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, I don't care much for Plato.
I think that question is a bad question, by the way. Let your teacher know this!

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 10:43 PM
Socrates never 'said' anything. All accounts of things Socrates said come second hand from Plato (I believe after the death of Socrates) - the actual man left no writings. I know there's nothing written by Socrates, but I definitely read that he was reported to have said that.

Also, I'm not even 20...
Ha ha, I know, man. I was just kidding. Sorry. :o

So, if it's necessary that x=x and x=y, then it is necessary that x=y. This is the basis of arguments against contingent identities.
Shouldn't that be, if it's necessary that x=x and y=y then it is necessary that x=y?
You're almost exactly a year older than me
And nowhere near as pretty, Paddy. :D

Ur all $h1t
02-09-2009, 10:51 PM
Also, I'm not even 20...


You're almost exactly a year older than me :p:

tikidrummer
02-09-2009, 11:00 PM
Not to be a thread killer but what do you guys think of buddhism. i'm buddhist and i kind of curious what most people think of my chosen belief.

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 11:02 PM
Not to be a thread killer but what do you guys think of buddhism. i'm buddhist and i kind of curious what most people think of my chosen belief.
I really don't know enough about it to comment. Tell me the main tenets, and I'll give you my opinion.

Ur all $h1t
02-09-2009, 11:09 PM
Not to be a thread killer but what do you guys think of buddhism. i'm buddhist and i kind of curious what most people think of my chosen belief.
i think he whole "punsihment thrgh reincarnatio" is bull. It often removes sympathy for the handicapped on the bais that "he must've been horiblein a past life"

tikidrummer
02-09-2009, 11:09 PM
I really don't know enough about it to comment. Tell me the main tenets, and I'll give you my opinion.

The Four Noble Truths

1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

The Noble Eightfold Path

1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

About Buddhism

The greatest achievement is selflessness.
The greatest worth is self-mastery.
The greatest quality is seeking to serve others.
The greatest precept is continual awareness.
The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything.
The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds ways.
The greatest magic is transmuting the passions.
The greatest generosity is non-attachment.
The greatest goodness is a peaceful mind.
The greatest patience is humility.
The greatest effort is not concerned with results.
The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go.
The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances

i know i just copy and pasted a bunch of stuff it gets pretty deep. Mostly it's a philosophical view. There are no gods or deities to worship. The buddha is looked upon in many different ways but never as a god. he himself made clear that he was just a man. if you would like any more info i'll post some links but this is a rough core of it.

tikidrummer
02-09-2009, 11:16 PM
i think he whole "punsihment thrgh reincarnatio" is bull. It often removes sympathy for the handicapped on the bais that "he must've been horiblein a past life"

not to turn a religion into a salad bar but the buddha himself said don't believe anything that you have read or heard if it disagrees with your own logic. Most zen buddhist, which is what i am, understand that as time goes on religion gets replaced with science. I personally do no believe in reincarnation because of that flaw. it's to harmful of others to be buddhist.

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 11:21 PM
The Four Noble Truths

1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.
So, lots of suffering, then. :rolleyes:

The Noble Eightfold Path

1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

About Buddhism

The greatest achievement is selflessness.
The greatest worth is self-mastery.
The greatest quality is seeking to serve others.
The greatest precept is continual awareness.
The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything.
The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds ways.
The greatest magic is transmuting the passions.
The greatest generosity is non-attachment.
The greatest goodness is a peaceful mind.
The greatest patience is humility.
The greatest effort is not concerned with results.
The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go.
The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances

i know i just copy and pasted a bunch of stuff it gets pretty deep. Mostly it's a philosophical view. There are no gods or deities to worship. The buddha is looked upon in many different ways but never as a god. he himself made clear that he was just a man. if you would like any more info i'll post some links but this is a rough core of it.
Actually, I'm too tired to go into this now. I'll have a proper look tomorrow.

Edit. Did you miss my comment above, Paddy? Or are you just being your usual bashful self? :D

Ur all $h1t
02-09-2009, 11:32 PM
Edit. Did you miss my comment above, Paddy? Or are you just being your usual bashful self? :D
:haha, I just caught it right now after the edit.


I wish my prettiness translated to a bj rather than a "Paddy, don't ring me every time you come home from the pub, you're not getting sex just because you're around and horny"
:(

Although I did get a free taxi and a construction sign

Paddy 1 Clarke's construction 0

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 11:38 PM
:haha, I just caught it right now after the edit.


I wish my prettiness translated to a bj rather than a "Paddy, don't ring me every time you come home from the pub, you're not getting sex just because you're around and horny"
:(

Although I did get a free taxi and a construction sign

Paddy 1 Clarke's construction 0
:haha On you go, mate. :D
Shame about the bj, though.

Ur all $h1t
02-09-2009, 11:40 PM
:haha On you go, mate. :D
Shame about the bj, though.
:haha, my housemates just got back. They all stole bicycles.
:( I feel so inadequate

rock freebase
02-09-2009, 11:44 PM
:haha, my housemates just got back. They all stole bicycles.
:( I feel so inadequate
Ah, but I bet they'll feel bad in the morning. Speaking of which, I have to be up quite early. Later. :wavey:

Ur all $h1t
02-09-2009, 11:53 PM
Ah, but I bet they'll feel bad in the morning. Speaking of which, I have to be up quite early. Later. :wavey:
:haha, knowing them they almost certianly won't. They'll still be impressed at Murph's achievement of, in his own words "ripping the locks clean off them"

Twyman88
02-10-2009, 12:14 AM
Some of them would retain their Jewishness and become Hellenistic Jews, Judaism with Hellenistic traditions.
True Judaism, the Judaism of the Hebrews looked to have a very shakey future.

Well actually, the Jewish people were and are extremely resistant to change. All their laws and customs have been made and adapted over the years specifically to ensure they kept their own way of life. Throughout years without a home, captivity in babylon, even in modern times when they had no home state and currently they are spread throughout the world, their religion is resistant to change- something many evangelists to the Jewish people complain about. They have a 4000 year history with little change in their customs, its actually quite remarkable.

The census never required people to do that, just traveling traders to remain home, wouldn't happen until at least 10 years later.

Actually, evidence has been found in egypt stating that people must return home. dated AD 104 it reads "Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt (says) Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments"
Another Papyrus from AD48 states that the whole family was involved in this. Archaeologists have also found a coin which has the name Quirinius on it written in micrographic letters which dates him ruling as proconsul of Syria from 11BC to the death of Herod. There are actually two explanations for this- either there were two rulers with the name Quirinius, which is not uncommon, or that perhaps he ruled twice.

In terms of the actual death of Jesus. All evidence points towards a supposed death, yes? No one has ever claimed that Jesus did not at least appear to die. The romans state that he died, as does the Jewish Talmud, which means someone died on the crucifix. So either a) he did, or b) there was some sort of cover up.
If there was a cover up then why do the romans still maintain that he did die, You would think they would do anything to discourage the idea of Jesus death if people were spreading the idea that he then was resurrected.
In any sort of cover up, some witnesses must have been around which could eaily have exposed it. Also, if someone other than Jesus died on the cross, you have to remember there were witnesses in Jerusalem who HAD seen him, and would have complained if the apostles then decided to proclaim his resurrection.
That doesn't even account for the deaths of the apostles. These people died for their belief in jesus- AGAINST- popular consensus amongst Jews, in fact much of what they were teaching was contrary to the Jewish beliefs. If they were involved in a scam about his death, why would they die for it. No one has ever died for a lie. So, the apostles at least truly believed he died, and rose from the dead.

As for Constantine using christianity as a power base, I completely agree. Many christian historians believe that Constantines "conversion" to christianity was the worst thing to happen to christianity.

dark&broken
02-10-2009, 01:16 AM
I
Shouldn't that be, if it's necessary that x=x and y=y then it is necessary that x=y?


I don't really know anything about this.. but just looking at this, I don't see how you're reaching the conclusion that x=y...

You state that x must necessarily equal x, and y must necessarily equal why, but you have no premise regarding the relation between x and y, yet you conclude that x=y

I don't see how that works :confused:

Vornik
02-10-2009, 01:23 AM
I know there's nothing written by Socrates, but I definitely read that he was reported to have said that.

Hm.

Shouldn't that be, if it's necessary that x=x and y=y then it is necessary that x=y?
No, it doesn't really matter to the formulation of the argument that y=y (although it is implicit).
You're almost exactly a year older than me :p:
I have a much better birthday. 6/24. Look at all the math in that combo.

rock freebase
02-10-2009, 04:04 AM
I don't really know anything about this.. but just looking at this, I don't see how you're reaching the conclusion that x=y...

You state that x must necessarily equal x, and y must necessarily equal why, but you have no premise regarding the relation between x and y, yet you conclude that x=y

I don't see how that works :confused: Vornik and I were talking about things that are identical, i.e if x=y. I was just pointing something out to him.
No, it doesn't really matter to the formulation of the argument that y=y (although it is implicit). Yeah, I see what you mean. Basically, it's saying,
if x necessarily=y then x necessarily=y where x necessarily=x.
That has to be one of the most pointless tautologies I've ever seen.
It certainly doesn't prove that there is any x that is identical to some y.
Perhaps that's what's meant by there being contingency involved.

SlackerBabbath
02-10-2009, 04:15 AM
Some people say it his brother born to Joseph and mary after jesus was born, others say it was Joseph's to another wife.
Jesus had multiple siblings apparently, and even they didn't believe he was the messiah. Mark 3:21 "When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him away. 'Hes out of his mind' they said" Also John 7:3-5 mentions his brothers.

Jesus Brother James, and the rest of his siblings were apparently from a previous marrage of Joseph's. Joseph was quite an old man by the time he met and married the 14 year old Mary.

rock freebase
02-10-2009, 04:27 AM
Jesus Brother James, and the rest of his siblings were apparently from a previous marrage of Joseph's. Joseph was quite an old man by the time he met and married the 14 year old Mary.
Dirty old bastard. :D

Twyman88
02-10-2009, 04:31 AM
Dirty old bastard. :D

Indeed, but apparently thats how the ancient civilisations rolled. Older men with barely-hitting-puberty teens. I guess it gives the girl plenty of time to pop out some heirs.

SlackerBabbath
02-10-2009, 06:33 AM
Well actually, the Jewish people were and are extremely resistant to change. All their laws and customs have been made and adapted over the years specifically to ensure they kept their own way of life. Throughout years without a home, captivity in babylon, even in modern times when they had no home state and currently they are spread throughout the world, their religion is resistant to change- something many evangelists to the Jewish people complain about. They have a 4000 year history with little change in their customs, its actually quite remarkable.
And yet we have the archeological evidence of all those Roman temples all over Judea that suggests differently. Also, if that were the case, why exactly would they need guys like Jesus reminding them to stay true to their faith and to be respectful inside temples rather than doing stuff like money lending in them?
And if they are so resistant to change, how did Hellenistic Judaism and Christianity itself come about?
Oh, and you appear to have added a thousand years to the history of Judaism.
Before 3000 years ago, monotheistic Judaism didn't exist.
In the area of the Levant, there were nomadic raiders called the 'Habiru', these Habiru are variously described as nomadic, rebels, outlaws, raiders, mercenaries and bowmen, servants, slaves, migrant laborers, etc. Basicly they were outcasts from the surrounding societies of Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt, their religion was what we call 'Semitic mythology' which iwas the pantheon of polytheistic gods that Judaism would eventualy partly evolve from, headed by a supreme deity called 'El' (which is recognised as one of the names of God in Judaism and Christianity) who was depicted as the 'creator god' of humankind and all creatures and the husband of the Mother Goddess 'Asherah' as attested in the 'tablets of Ugarit'.
We know all of this because of the 'Amarna letters', which were sent to the pharaoh Akhenaten (and, briefly, his two successors) from vassal kings in Canaan and Syria in the 1300s BC. These letters complain about attacks by Habiru who are described as armed groups who were willing to fight and plunder on any side of the local wars in exchange for equipment, provisions, and quarters.
It is only Christianity that traditionaly dates Abraham to 2000 BC, but Judaism itself dates him to about 500 years later.
But Judaism still didn't exist even then. If Abraham existed he had to be a member of the Habiru, originaly from Mesopotamia, who had settled somewhere around the land of Canaan.
So think of the Habiru as the Twelve Tribes.
Now, although Abraham is credited with being the patriarch of Judaism and monotheism, there is nothing historical to back this up. The earliest historical monotheism was the Egyptian Atenism started by Akhenaten, the same pharaoh that the Canaan kings wrote to about the Habiru. And seeing as how we know that Akhenaten ruled from around 1353 BC to 1336 BC, we have a date to work from.
After Akhenaten's death and the violent fall of the monotheistic Atenism, many Atenists would either be killed or were expelled or would flee from Egypt. Those that left made their way into the Levant where they met up with the Habiru and eventualy joined them.
This is where Exodus originates, dating Moses to around this time.

The Habiru's Semitic Mythology religion was crossed with Atenist monotheism and Judaism was born.
Now, if all this happened just 200 years after Judaism dates Abraham living in 1500, and if we slightly alter the timeline of Abraham to 200 years later, then Abraham could easily have been the Habiru leader who was responsible for this cultural crossing of religions, by accepting the monotheism aspect of Atenism but insisting that God was actualy the creator god 'El' from his own Semitic mythology religion.
Or, alternatively, if we want to date him earlier, like Judaism does, we can say he might have been the person who introduced 'Semitic Mythology' to the Habiru hundreds of years before.
It even says in Exodus 6.2–3: 'I revealed myself to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but was not known to them by my name Yahweh.'

Psalm 82.1 says:
'God' stands in the council of ’ēl
he judges among the gods (elohim).

That's 'gods', plural, this refers to no monotheism, it's polytheism, right there in the Psalms, and it shows Judaism's roots.

Traces of Atenism can also be found the Psalms too, in Psalm 104, which strikes an uncanny resemblence to the 'Great Hymn to the Aten' which was actualy written by Akhenaten himself.
Aten was also a trinity god, comprising of Ra (the father) Horus (the son) and Akhenaten himself (spirit of Aten) so we can see where Christianity partly got the idea from.

Anyhow, I digress, to cut a long story short, over the next couple of hundred years, the Habiru become the Hebrews and adopt the Egyptian Atenist's more settled way of life, abandoning their nomadic raider lifestyle, and populating and building up already established trade centres, such as Jerusalem, and then around 1025 BCE, the tribes united to form the united Kingdom of Israel and as you'll already know, Samuel anointed Saul ben Kish from the (previously Habiru) tribe of Benjamin as the first king of the Israelites.
Y'see, it's around the same time that the Hebrews begin to exist and the Habiru suddenly disappear.

Believe me, I've been over this whole thing with a fine toothed comb. I've studied the written history, the archeology and the religious accounts
And this version of events is the only way that historical accounts, archeology, and traditional religious accounts can all correlate in any way shape or form, by shifting the time frame by just 200 years, which is nothing compared with the thousands of years of history that we are dealing with, so that makes this version, while possibly not 100% accurate, still the most accurate that we can figure out without completely re-writing the Bible.

rock freebase
02-10-2009, 07:24 AM
Indeed, but apparently thats how the ancient civilisations rolled. Older men with barely-hitting-puberty teens. I guess it gives the girl plenty of time to pop out some heirs.
Mind you, I can talk. I'm 45 and I got off with a very firm 23 year old young lady a couple of months ago. I do feel a bit ashamed as it was the firmness I was interested in, rather than her intellect. :D

Edit. Bollocks, I've just realised, Paddy will pull me up on this one. :o

SlackerBabbath
02-10-2009, 07:57 AM
Actually, evidence has been found in egypt stating that people must return home. dated AD 104 it reads "Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt (says) Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments"
This refers only to migrant workers returning to their family 'home', where they lived, not their ancestral home.

Another Papyrus from AD48 states that the whole family was involved in this. Archaeologists have also found a coin which has the name Quirinius on it written in micrographic letters which dates him ruling as proconsul of Syria from 11BC to the death of Herod. There are actually two explanations for this- either there were two rulers with the name Quirinius, which is not uncommon, or that perhaps he ruled twice.Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria, after the banishment of Herod Archelaus in AD 6.
Y'see, he was a 'consul' first, during the reign of Herod Archelaus (son and heir to Herod the Great) then became 'governor' after Herod Archelaus was banished.
That's what a 'proconsul' was, it was someone who served for a while as consul under someone else, then spent a year as a governor of a province, kinda like an on the spot training job for 'governor' with a guaranteed year of actualy being governor at the end of it, but in order for him to become 'governor' the guy in charge, they obviously had to depose Herod Archelaus first.
Then once he was appointed governor for a year in AD 6, his first act was the Census of Quirinius.


In terms of the actual death of Jesus. All evidence points towards a supposed death, yes? No one has ever claimed that Jesus did not at least appear to die. The romans state that he died, as does the Jewish Talmud, which means someone died on the crucifix. So either a) he did, or b) there was some sort of cover up.
If there was a cover up then why do the romans still maintain that he did die, You would think they would do anything to discourage the idea of Jesus death if people were spreading the idea that he then was resurrected.
In the eyes of Roman law, he died, they crucified a person identified as Jesus of Nazereth and that was it, end of the line of David, end of story. What? D'yer really think that if the Romans really thought that Jesus was still alive, they'd admit to someone fooling them like that by searching for him?
C'mon, some people claim that Elvis is still alive, how many people take that seriously? The Romans would have treated these rumours no differently

In any sort of cover up, some witnesses must have been around which could eaily have exposed it. Also, if someone other than Jesus died on the cross, you have to remember there were witnesses in Jerusalem who HAD seen him, and would have complained if the apostles then decided to proclaim his resurrection.
Wasn't this guy beaten to a pulp? Didn't he have a crown of thorns on his head leaving trails of blood in lines down his face?
If he had a similar beard and hair to Jesus, he could have been anybody and not even Jesus' own mother would have known it wasn't him.


That doesn't even account for the deaths of the apostles. These people died for their belief in jesus- AGAINST- popular consensus amongst Jews, in fact much of what they were teaching was contrary to the Jewish beliefs. If they were involved in a scam about his death, why would they die for it. No one has ever died for a lie. So, the apostles at least truly believed he died, and rose from the dead.

Look, if they claimed they believed in Jesus, they're dead, if on the other hand they admit to the deception and blasphemy of helping to depict Jesus as The Messiah, they're also dead.
a) they die for a lie, or b) they die for an admitted lie.
Remember these guys had a reason for doing what they did, to save Judaism from Romanisation, they had a cause, if they told the truth, they'd still die and the cause would be lost, at least by keeping quiet about his death scam the cause would continue.

As for Constantine using christianity as a power base, I completely agree. Many christian historians believe that Constantines "conversion" to christianity was the worst thing to happen to christianity.
:cheers:Mind you, I can talk. I'm 45 and I got off with a very firm 23 year old young lady a couple of months ago. I do feel a bit ashamed as it was the firmness I was interested in, rather than her intellect. :D
Y'know, that's interestin' because when I was 21 I got off with a very experienced 42 year old woman, and I didn't feel a bit ashamed of myself. ;)

Vornik
02-10-2009, 07:58 AM
Vornik and I were talking about things that are identical, i.e if x=y. I was just pointing something out to him.
Yeah, I see what you mean. Basically, it's saying,
if x necessarily=y then x necessarily=y where x necessarily=x.
That has to be one of the most pointless tautologies I've ever seen.
It certainly doesn't prove that there is any x that is identical to some y.
Perhaps that's what's meant by there being contingency involved.

Hmmm I don't really think it is a tautology, though.
x=x is a tautology.
x=y is a tautology.
(x=x) is necessary could arguably be a tautology
but
(x)(y) (x=y ^ (Necessarily)x=x) --> (Necessarily)x=y
doesn't seem to be a tautology.

It is only true that x necessarily = y because x necessarily = x and y must have all the same properties (including modal properties) as x in order to be identical to x.

rock freebase
02-10-2009, 08:16 AM
Hmmm I don't really think it is a tautology, though.
x=x is a tautology.
x=y is a tautology.
(x=x) is necessary could arguably be a tautology
but
(x)(y) (x=y ^ (Necessarily)x=x) --> (Necessarily)x=y
doesn't seem to be a tautology.

It is only true that x necessarily = y because x necessarily = x and y must have all the same properties (including modal properties) as x in order to be identical to x.
What do you think about the contingent aspect of it, as in, 'if' x=y. Obviously, x=x is apriori.

denizenz
02-10-2009, 10:24 AM
blah blah blah

More with the historical sciences. Any time someone has to look into the past and venture a guess at what the hell some half standing ruins in the middle of the desert mean, you can guarantee that their current ideology is going to weigh so heavily on the "facts" that you may as well be seeking truth in a book by Mother Goose.

Look into the account of Minoan civilization given by Sir Arthur Evans. He viewed them as a peaceful society devoted to art and sport, and weaved Knossos into almost a Utopian palace. He viewed the many rooms as having a utilitarian purpose, and observed a complex plumbing system.

Years later, the view was shattered by the account given by Hans Wunderlich who connected the site at Knossos to the Greek myths involving Crete and King Minos. He posited that the rooms served ritual purposes and were likely used to store the dead, and that the complex plumbing system was actually used for embalming. Wunderlich stated, "The palaces of Knossos, Phaistos, Hagia Triada, Mallia, and Kato Zakro, therefore, were not the gay residences of peaceful and artistic rulers, as the imaginations of Sir Arthur and his successors have made them. In reality, they were highly involved cult structures built for venerations and burial of the dead."

Another archaeologist, John Bintliff reflects on why these scientific "facts" were interpreted, and so given meaning, in such a drastically different manner.


Evan's revitalization of a wondrous world of peaceful prosperity, stable divine autocrats, and benevolent aristocracy, owes a great deal to the general political, social and emotional "Angst" in Europe of his time.

This is why I constantly badger you about speculation, Slacker. Because 99% of what you've got to say in your gargantuan posts is useless.

rock freebase
02-10-2009, 10:33 AM
More with the historical sciences. Any time someone has to look into the past and venture a guess at what the hell some half standing ruins in the middle of the desert mean, you can guarantee that their current ideology is going to weigh so heavily on the "facts" that you may as well be seeking truth in a book by Mother Goose.
Presumably, everything you've just said is subject to your own, current ideology.

denizenz
02-10-2009, 10:35 AM
Presumably, everything you've just said is subject to your own, current ideology.
Everything everyone says is affected by current ideology.


Did I, in my post, make any historical guesses?

SlackerBabbath
02-10-2009, 10:53 AM
More with the historical sciences. Any time someone has to look into the past and venture a guess at what the hell some half standing ruins in the middle of the desert mean, you can guarantee that their current ideology is going to weigh so heavily on the "facts" that you may as well be seeking truth in a book by Mother Goose. Or perhaps the Bible?
As I said earlier in the post you obviously didn't read but are responding to anyway, the way I have it is the only way that makes sense of the historical written accounts, archeological history and religious accounts, otherwise history as we apparently know it re-writes much of the Bible.
I'd have thought you would have been all for something that shows the Bible actualy making some sort of sense.

Look into the account of Minoan civilization given by Sir Arthur Evans. He viewed them as a peaceful society devoted to art and sport, and weaved Knossos into almost a Utopian palace. He viewed the many rooms as having a utilitarian purpose, and observed a complex plumbing system.

Years later, the view was shattered by the account given by Hans Wunderlich who connected the site at Knossos to the Greek myths involving Crete and King Minos. He posited that the rooms served ritual purposes and were likely used to store the dead, and that the complex plumbing system was actually used for embalming. Wunderlich stated, "The palaces of Knossos, Phaistos, Hagia Triada, Mallia, and Kato Zakro, therefore, were not the gay residences of peaceful and artistic rulers, as the imaginations of Sir Arthur and his successors have made them. In reality, they were highly involved cult structures built for venerations and burial of the dead."

Another archaeologist, John Bintliff reflects on why these scientific "facts" were interpreted, and so given meaning, in such a drastically different manner.



This is why I constantly badger you about speculation, Slacker. Because 99% of what you've got to say in your gargantuan posts is useless.
Why? Because one historian updated an earlier historian's view on something? That happens all the time, same as any other science, that doesn't mean history is wrong, that just means we're getting better at interpreting it because we have developed better practices and dating techniques and different historians are cross checking other people's research more often, bringing more and more correlations.
Arthur Evans (July 8 1851 – July 11 1941) lived long before archeological practice evolved into the fairly precise science it's become today, which has only really happened in the last 40 years. What he said was simply a thing of faith, a feeling he had, same as religion, and has only been proven wrong by advancing the science of archeology to modern standards.
As I keep having to remind you again and again, I do not claim that any of this is exactly what happened, just the most likely, in my opinion.
Now, I know my opinion means as little to you as yours does to me, but at least it's an opinion that has been arrived at through actual research and cross referencing and digging, rather than simply taking the word of a book about mythology, magic and miracles compiled sometime in the early first millenium as literaly true.



Did I, in my post, make any historical guesses?
Well you generaly guess that the Bible is historicaly correct, so yeah, that's pretty much what we're presuming.

denizenz
02-10-2009, 11:01 AM
Why? Because one historian updated an earlier historian's view on something? That happens all the time, same as any other science
Ding! Ding! Ding!

that doesn't mean history is wrong, that just means we're getting better at interpreting it
:haha

No. It doesn't necessarily mean that.



Now, I know my opinion means as little to you as yours does to me, but at least it's an opinion that has been arrived at through actual research and cross referencing and digging, rather than simply taking the word of a book about mythology, magic and miracles compiled sometime in the early first millenium as literaly true.

Now now. Although my knowledge of history and archeology leave something to be desired, you can hardly say I've done no research.

SlackerBabbath
02-10-2009, 11:08 AM
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Ahhh, sensible debate, I wish. :rolleyes:


:haha

No. It doesn't necessarily mean that.
So why did you use an example of a more modern archeologist proving an older archeologist wrong as an example of modern historians being more accurate than historians of years ago?
Doesn't this damage your point of view, seeing as how your point of view was written over 1700 years ago?




Now now. Although my knowledge of history and archeology leave something to be desired, you can hardly say I've done no research.
Yet you're saying my research is 'useless'? How so? And what makes your research (which starts with the point of view that whatever you find, if it contradicts the Bible, it's wrong) worth more than my research?

Infact, let's see just how good your research is.


The Hebrew word used in Genesis is yom or yowm, which simply means a period of time.


'Yom Kippur' known in English as the Day of Atonement.
'Yom HaShoah' or Remembrance Day for the Holocaust
'Yom Ha'atzmaut' or independence day of Israel.
'Yom Hazikaron' or Memorial Day
'Yom Tov' or holiday
'Tevul Yom' or Bathing (of the) day
'Yom Yerushalayim' or Jerusalem Day
'Yom Hillula' or day of the anniversary of someone's passing.
'Yom Huledet' or Happy Birthday
'Hayom Yom' or Today is the day...

The list goes on, you've obviously researched this or you wouldn't be making such a statement, so can you please give us an example of 'yom' meaning a period of time other than a 'day' ?

Ur all $h1t
02-10-2009, 11:32 AM
Mind you, I can talk. I'm 45 and I got off with a very firm 23 year old young lady a couple of months ago. I do feel a bit ashamed as it was the firmness I was interested in, rather than her intellect. :D

Edit. Bollocks, I've just realised, Paddy will pull me up on this one. :o
:haha
Great motivation to work harder at music

rock freebase
02-10-2009, 12:15 PM
Ding! Ding! Ding!


:haha

No. It doesn't necessarily mean that.




Now now. Although my knowledge of history and archeology leave something to be desired, you can hardly say I've done no research.
Hmm, this sort of reply looks rather familiar. I'd say you just got owned, m'laddo. :D

Well you generaly guess that the Bible is historicaly correct, so yeah, that's pretty much what we're presuming
My thoughts exactly.

Everything everyone says is affected by current ideology.
Did I, in my post, make any historical guesses?
I guess everyone does, yet you seem to forget about this when (as Slacker pointed out), your version of events in The Bible are somehow exempt. And you have the cheek to criticize the scientific method, regardless of peer review and constant confirmation of theories by empirical data. But all the time you miss the huge point, that science gets results... abso****inglutely, bastard, amazing results. And I know why, Denny. It's because deep down, you're **** scared that your little relationship with God is going to be turned on it's head. Bit by bit The Bible's truths (I use the term for convenience), are being eroded. Science can show that the flood couldn't possibly have happened, that humans do have a common ancestor with the other primates, in fact, if you go far enough back, with everything. That the Universe is one hell of a lot older than the genealogies of the Bible would suggest. It wasn't so far back that another explanation was sought for the fossils of creatures that had gone extinct. After all, surely God couldn't have designed and made something that would become extinct, could he? Excuse after excuse has had to be made, as science has discovered the truth. One day soon, it will show that the Universe does not require a creator for it's existence, and then Denny, your God will be truly redundant.

Now, what was that you were saying? Oh yes, Ding! Ding! Ding! Hmm, is that a towel I see, flying across the ring?

Vornik
02-10-2009, 07:16 PM
What do you think about the contingent aspect of it, as in, 'if' x=y. Obviously, x=x is apriori.
What does that have to do with contingency?

rock freebase
02-10-2009, 07:28 PM
What does that have to do with contingency?
Well, I guess the use of the word 'if', which to me, suggests the necessity of an example to confirm its validity, as opposed to, say, x=x which is completely apriori and therefore independent of such examples. I'm not sure, I'm happy to be corrected.

Vornik
02-10-2009, 09:12 PM
Well, I guess the use of the word 'if', which to me, suggests the necessity of an example to confirm its validity, as opposed to, say, x=x which is completely apriori and therefore independent of such examples. I'm not sure, I'm happy to be corrected.

Just because something is a conditional doesn't mean it requires an example.

If P then Q
If Q then R
P
---
R.

It doesn't matter what the truth value of P is, or the truth value of the conditional 'If P then Q', the argument is still valid. You don't need an example to see that it is.

Now, I doubt you would argue that the expression (x==x^x=y) => (x==y) [== expressing a necessary identity] expresses a necessary identity rather than a contingent one.

Making it a conditional doesn't change that. Instead of expressing it as "there is an x such that Fx and there is a y such that x=y, therefore Fy" you're just changing the wording a bit so that it's "If (x==x ^x=y) then x==y". It still expresses a necessary identity. I don't understand where the contingency you talked of comes from.

Contingent identity is expressed as [(x==x ^x=y) ^ Possible(x=/=y)]. that is to say, x=y but it is possible that x could not = y. Since identity is a relation a thing can have only with itself, I don't really want to accept that a thing could possibly not be identical to itself. (Although many people do).

One example of supposedly contingent identity from Kripke is that of the inventor of bifocals being identical with the first Postmaster general of the United States. There is an x such that x is the inventor of bifocals and there is a y such that y is the first postmaster general of the U.S and x=y. Obviously it isn't necessary that the first postmater be the inventor of bifocals, so it is certainly contingent that they happen to be the same person, but the identity of that person to himself is not contingent. x=Benjamin Franklin and y=Benjamin Franklin. Benjamin Franklin == Benjamin Franklin. Had Franklin not invented bifocals, it woudln't follow that Benjamin Franklin =/= Benjamin Franklin. (Unless you're of the opinion that to be the inventor of bifocals is an essential property of Ben Franklin, but that hardly seems the case, as Franklin was himself before he invented bifocals, and would not have ceased to be himself if it had happened that he didn't invent bifocals).

So, it may be contingent that Fx ^ Gx, but in the expression [there is an x and there is a y such that (Fx ^ Gy ^ x=y)] you aren't referring to two objects which are contingently identical, you're referring to one object which has two (arguably) non-essential properties, and that object is necessarily self-identical.

Twyman88
02-10-2009, 10:44 PM
I guess everyone does, yet you seem to forget about this when (as Slacker pointed out), your version of events in The Bible are somehow exempt. And you have the cheek to criticize the scientific method, regardless of peer review and constant confirmation of theories by empirical data. But all the time you miss the huge point, that science gets results... abso****inglutely, bastard, amazing results. And I know why, Denny. It's because deep down, you're **** scared that your little relationship with God is going to be turned on it's head. Bit by bit The Bible's truths (I use the term for convenience), are being eroded. All of a sudden, science can show that the flood couldn't possibly have happened, that humans do have a common ancestor with the other primates, in fact, if you go far enough back, with everything. That the Universe is one hell of a lot older than the genealogies of the Bible would suggest. It wasn't so far back that another explanation was sought for the fossils of creatures that had gone extinct. After all, surely God couldn't have designed and made something that would become extinct, could he? Excuse after excuse has had to be made, as science has discovered the truth. One day soon, it will show that the Universe does not require a creator for it's existence, and then Denny, your God will be truly redundant.

I don't believe science has eroded anything. It is merely people's viewpoints changing that pushes them further from God. A common ancestor, or just common building blocks? An old universe? Not many will say God actually did create the universe in 6 days, time is no constraint to him and for the first few "days" there was no record of time. Plus, genesis does not set out to describe in detail the creation- its not a science book, it emphasises God and his relationship to humanity.
And no, God wouldnt design something that he really wants to go extinct, but man and nature can make it go extinct.
The flood didnt happen?, and yet multiple civilisations have records of some sort of a flood, and a "flood hero".
I believe nothing in science truly explains away God, just people choosing to interpret them how they will. Its a matter of interpretation, as everything is.

marc137
02-10-2009, 10:53 PM
A common ancestor, or just common building blocks?Common building block with fused chromosome? Common building block with endogenous retroviruses at the exact same location?

And no, God wouldnt design something that he really wants to go extinct, but man and nature can make it go extinct.You want to list every specie that went extinct? If your god is our designer he failed horribly.

The flood didnt happen?, and yet multiple civilisations have records of some sort of a flood, and a "flood hero".
And?

I believe nothing in science truly explains away God, just people choosing to interpret them how they will. Its a matter of interpretation, as everything is.
People interpreting things isn't science, they need evidence. If there is no evidence for something, a different interpretation will not change anything to that.

thsrayas
02-10-2009, 10:56 PM
I don't believe science has eroded anything. It is merely people's viewpoints changing that pushes them further from God. A common ancestor, or just common building blocks?

Common ancestor, it's pretty much beyond doubt that we evolved from a common ancestor we share with other apes.

And no, God wouldnt design something that he really wants to go extinct

Dinosaurs.


The flood didnt happen?, and yet multiple civilisations have records of some sort of a flood, and a "flood hero".

It still doesn't mean that the entire world was flooded like the Bible describes, there's evidence against it and none for it.

Twyman88
02-10-2009, 11:04 PM
Common building block with fused chromosome? Common building block with endogenous retroviruses at the exact same location?
You want to list every specie that went extinct? If your god is our designer he failed horribly.
People interpreting things isn't science, they need evidence. If there is no evidence for something, a different interpretation will not change anything to that.


I was waiting for a tirade. :)

Listen, I'm not disagreeing with the evidence, I'm just saying the evidence does NOT necessarily contradict anything in the bible. Extinct species does not mean anything, God did not fail, but life happens, as much as people like to think, God does not come and intervene in everyday life, to save a species from extinction. I can't say I know much about biology, but what little I do know is enough to convince me of the incredible design of all living systems.

thsrayas
02-10-2009, 11:07 PM
I was waiting for a tirade. :)

Listen, I'm not disagreeing with the evidence, I'm just saying the evidence does NOT necessarily contradict anything in the bible. Extinct species does not mean anything, God did not fail, but life happens, as much as people like to think, God does not come and intervene in everyday life, to save a species from extinction. I can't say I know much about biology, but what little I do know is enough to convince me of the incredible design of all living systems.

This is kind of contradictory. Basically what you're saying is "I don't know much about biology so instead of trying to figure out how things really work and see what the modern biology theories say I'm just going to go ahead and assume that God designed everything." If you would study biology more, see how things work individually and see how they have evolved you probably wouldn't think things were so complicated.

freedoms_stain
02-10-2009, 11:09 PM
I was waiting for a tirade. :)

Listen, I'm not disagreeing with the evidence, I'm just saying the evidence does NOT necessarily contradict anything in the bible. Extinct species does not mean anything, God did not fail, but life happens, as much as people like to think, God does not come and intervene in everyday life, to save a species from extinction. I can't say I know much about biology, but what little I do know is enough to convince me of the incredible design of all living systems.Dig a little deeper and you'll learn that it's incredible adaptation and not design at all.

If it's a design it's incredibly bad in many respects.

marc137
02-10-2009, 11:13 PM
Listen, I'm not disagreeing with the evidence, I'm just saying the evidence does NOT necessarily contradict anything in the bible.It contradicts pretty much everything in the bible except for the accurate historical stuff, like historical jesus.

Extinct species does not mean anything, God did not fail, but life happens, as much as people like to think, God does not come and intervene in everyday life, to save a species from extinction.But according to you god does not want the stuff he designed to go extinct, going by that logic if things do go extinct is that evidence against god?

I can't say I know much about biology, but what little I do know is enough to convince me of the incredible design of all living systems. What are these things that convince you that we are designed?

Twyman88
02-10-2009, 11:19 PM
This is kind of contradictory. Basically what you're saying is "I don't know much about biology so instead of trying to figure out how things really work and see what the modern biology theories say I'm just going to go ahead and assume that God designed everything." If you would study biology more, see how things work individually and see how they have evolved you probably wouldn't think things were so complicated.

No, what I'm saying is I don't do a biology course so i don't know the incredible details and intricacies as some of you do, but from the basics (high school science and some neuroscience in my psychology course) of how they work, I can see they work extremely well.

Dig a little deeper and you'll learn that it's incredible adaptation and not design at all.

If it's a design it's incredibly bad in many respects.

Iv'e heard how many aspects of our bodies are not "perfect", eg- the eye and its blind spot, pointless organs etc. But how do we know these are not perfectly suited for what we need, no one else has had any different. Sure, we know eagle's eyes seem to see better, but do we know if they can see the fine details up close that we require to use tools? (that is honestly a question, I dont know ;) )
You see adaptation, I see the incredible diversity of life forms and the common aspects that make them effective in what they need to do. I'm not saying that microevolutionary changes do not exist- we can see the evidence, but that entire species deviating from others in a "tree of life" has no evidence for it.

ACG
02-10-2009, 11:22 PM
I can't say I know much about biology, but what little I do know is enough to convince me of the incredible design of all living systems.

That sentence made me pretty mad.
:)

Twyman88
02-10-2009, 11:26 PM
It contradicts pretty much everything in the bible except for the accurate historical stuff, like historical jesus.?
What are these things?

But according to you god does not want the stuff he designed to go extinct, going by that logic if things do go extinct is that evidence against god??
Of course its not prefered, but neither is the genocide of millions of people. Its the same principle. God does not interfere in things like that to make life "better" for us. The "why do bad things happen to good people" argument is no argument against God. If you want a really lame reason, could say he caused them to go extinct specifically to test our faith, much like right now.

What are these things that convince you that we are designed?
the irreducible complexity of the human eye, the way the cells are effectively a manufacturing plant that can reproduce highly specific proteins with little mistakes and high efficiency. We as humans can't even make anything close to that efficiency.

marc137
02-10-2009, 11:28 PM
You see adaptation, I see the incredible diversity of life forms and the common aspects that make them effective in what they need to do. I'm not saying that microevolutionary changes do not exist- we can see the evidence, but that entire species deviating from others in a "tree of life" has no evidence for it. False, not only does it have evidence such as phylogeny, chromosome fusion, ERV, mitochondiral DNA, fossil record etc but we can actually observe speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

freedoms_stain
02-10-2009, 11:32 PM
Iv'e heard how many aspects of our bodies are not "perfect", eg- the eye and its blind spot, pointless organs etc. But how do we know these are not perfectly suited for what we need, no one else has had any different. Sure, we know eagle's eyes seem to see better, but do we know if they can see the fine details up close that we require to use tools? (that is honestly a question, I dont know ;) )Well, our spines aren't perfectly suited to what we need, they're quite clearly not perfectly suited for bipedal support, much more suited to quadrupeds. On a related note our knees don't appear to be 'designed' for bipedal support either, they're clearly ill-suited to bearing the entire weight of a human.

Pointless organs? No, vestigial, i.e. they appear to have performed a function in the past that they now no longer perform.

We're not looking to compare our eyes with eagle eyes, we want to know why the designer would design an eye that appears to be "wired" incorrectly, causes a blindspot, and has blood vessels in the way. Not only that, but an organ that is so very good at failing, even in children.
You see adaptation, I see the incredible diversity of life forms and the common aspects that make them effective in what they need to do. I'm not saying that microevolutionary changes do not exist- we can see the evidence, but that entire species deviating from others in a "tree of life" has no evidence for it.There's plenty of evidence for common ancestry, stacks of it in fact, all laid out in the geological column, and stuffed into our chromosomes.

Porsche31
02-10-2009, 11:32 PM
About the blood transfusion thing, my friend was a jehova, he was in a car crash and died in a helicopter on the way to the hospital because he wasn't allowed a blood transfusion. Kinda sucks.


Yeah... that sucks... my religion is similar to jehova, but we accept the blood-transfusion thing. We're not allowed to eat blood recipe though.

marc137
02-10-2009, 11:32 PM
What are these things?.Turning water into wine, science proves that you cannot turn water into wine by pointing at it, science also says that you can't walk on water.

Of course its not prefered, but neither is the genocide of millions of people. Its the same principle. God does not interfere in things like that to make life "better" for us. The "why do bad things happen to good people" argument is no argument against God. If you want a really lame reason, could say he caused them to go extinct specifically to test our faith, much like right now..So when does your god intervene if he exists?


the irreducible complexity of the human eye, the way the cells are effectively a manufacturing plant that can reproduce highly specific proteins with little mistakes and high efficiency. We as humans can't even make anything close to that efficiency.The eye is not irreducible, there is a perfectly possible way the eye could have evolved which is supported by living organism
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/43/79543-004-C3F00EE8.jpg
And yes human can effectively make proteins, but even if we couldn't that doesn't mean we didn't evolve.

freedoms_stain
02-10-2009, 11:35 PM
the irreducible complexity of the human eye, the way the cells are effectively a manufacturing plant that can reproduce highly specific proteins with little mistakes and high efficiency. We as humans can't even make anything close to that efficiency.Eyes are not irreducibly complex as evidenced by the wide array of simpler eyes and photo sensors found in nature.

3 billion years btw, is plenty of time to rack up your efficiency through trial and error, or natural selection as we like to call it.

Twyman88
02-10-2009, 11:47 PM
False, not only does it have evidence such as phylogeny, chromosome fusion, ERV, mitochondiral DNA, fossil record etc but we can actually observe speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I cant argue with that first part as I don't know what most of those things are, but reading that article, it seems that the difficulty is in describing what a "new" species actually is. If speciation did occur, and accounted for creating entirely new species, why is there not a vast number more species?



We're not looking to compare our eyes with eagle eyes, we want to know why the designer would design an eye that appears to be "wired" incorrectly, causes a blindspot, and has blood vessels in the way. Not only that, but an organ that is so very good at failing, even in children.
There's plenty of evidence for common ancestry, stacks of it in fact, all laid out in the geological column, and stuffed into our chromosomes.
Well actually, there is a physiological trade off in the eye that this "flaw" actually allows it to process the vast amount of oxygen it needs in us as invertebrates. Plus we have two eyes, which helps cancel it out.
As for the fossil record, the best we have are fragments of teeth and bones, only a miniscule few are attributed to being ancestors to humans. With this kind of evidence, tracing a lineage would be like trying to reconstruct the plot of war and peace using just thirteen pages of the book.
I also have a question, related yet not, how do you explain the existence of the hymen in human females, and yet not in any of our ancestors?

Twyman88
02-11-2009, 12:00 AM
Turning water into wine, science proves that you cannot turn water into wine by pointing at it, science also says that you can't walk on water.
No, WE can't. My argument here is not going to be able to be explained in a way you want, as it hinges on the fact of God existing. Hypothetically, say he did. We as humans on this earth cannot do those things, but God who created it can. Feel free to blast this as a cop out, but its the only way to explain it.

So when does your god intervene if he exists?
He is involved with people personally. He does not come down and blast people with lightning as such (at least not regularly anymore). He is involved with me and my life. I can't explain it much moe than that unless you want a page long theological debate. This is a major argument theologians have been debating over for years.

The eye is not irreducible, there is a perfectly possible way the eye could have evolved which is supported by living organism
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/43/79543-004-C3F00EE8.jpg
And yes human can effectively make proteins, but even if we couldn't that doesn't mean we didn't evolve.

I see what you're getting at there, but the thing is, those different species are still rather different to each other, and the eye has to be pin point precise in exactly where these things go, as well as being made of the correst stuff. Why would a cell just one day (even with 3 billion years of trial and error, the odds are against it.)begin to make the proteins for a cornea, let alone enough to create the whole retina in the correst shape and position. In that I see design- the designer putting together a device, adding the necessary components.

freedoms_stain
02-11-2009, 12:02 AM
Well actually, there is a physiological trade off in the eye that this "flaw" actually allows it to process the vast amount of oxygen it needs in us as invertebrates. Plus we have two eyes, which helps cancel it out.Why does a divine designer need to make physiological trade offs?

And when we criticise the human eye we usually point to that of the octopus, which is regarded as far more efficient.

And I think you'll find upon closer inspection that we are in fact vertebrates, having spines.

As for the fossil record, the best we have are fragments of teeth and bones, only a miniscule few are attributed to being ancestors to humans. With this kind of evidence, tracing a lineage would be like trying to reconstruct the plot of war and peace using just thirteen pages of the book.That's a common creationist misconception, there are in fact many many fossil remains attributed as human ancestors, including intact or mostly intact skeletons.

I also have a question, related yet not, how do you explain the existence of the hymen in human females, and yet not in any of our ancestors?Hymen are found in many other species, including chimpanzees, our closest relative, how can you make a comment on whether our ancestors had hymen? they're bones, bones don't have skin. However, since chimps do have hymen it's a safe bet that the existence of the hymen is an ancient structure, thus present in all species between the divergence of the human and chimp lines until present date.

thsrayas
02-11-2009, 12:08 AM
As for the fossil record, the best we have are fragments of teeth and bones, only a miniscule few are attributed to being ancestors to humans. With this kind of evidence, tracing a lineage would be like trying to reconstruct the plot of war and peace using just thirteen pages of the book.
I also have a question, related yet not, how do you explain the existence of the hymen in human females, and yet not in any of our ancestors?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/illustr.html

Temanwithnoname
02-11-2009, 12:10 AM
So why is it people feel like they have to have proof of everything?

Serious question, I'm not trying to defeat anyone in logic, or anything like that.
I just wonder why people demand proof of everything? I mean I want proof of things too.

But what is it that makes us long for it?

freedoms_stain
02-11-2009, 12:11 AM
I see what you're getting at there, but the thing is, those different species are still rather different to each other, and the eye has to be pin point precise in exactly where these things go, as well as being made of the correst stuff. Why would a cell just one day (even with 3 billion years of trial and error, the odds are against it.)begin to make the proteins for a cornea, let alone enough to create the whole retina in the correst shape and position. In that I see design- the designer putting together a device, adding the necessary components.They're all mollusks, that's pretty similar.

Originally they wouldn't have been the proteins for a cornea, they'd have been proteins for something else that altered through mutation and became a cornea. There is no "why" in biology, it happens because it is in the nature of DNA to change and thus create new proteins, it happens in a random manner, and which of these alterations survive is decided by natural selection.

You see design because you're looking at the current eye and completely ignoring the precursors marc has already shown you. Initially there was no correct shape or position, it wasn't an eye, it was an indentation on a cell surface, things like shape and position would not have mattered for hundreds of millions of years after the indentation, during this period natural selection would discover the correct shape and position, because those who had the best shape and position survived and those that had crap ones died, thus "correct" simply equals "best for survival"

thsrayas
02-11-2009, 12:12 AM
So why is it people feel like they have to have proof of everything?

Serious question, I'm not trying to defeat anyone in logic, or anything like that.
I just wonder why people demand proof of everything? I mean I want proof of things too.

But what is it that makes us long for it?

Because we like to know that we have a rational reason as to why we believe something. This in most cases demands evidence and explanations of the evidence, which is the main reason we have science. People are curious about something so they study it, they gather evidence, draw conclusions and debate about it until we have the best explanation possible that explains all the evidence.

Temanwithnoname
02-11-2009, 12:15 AM
Because we like to know that we have a rational reason as to why we believe something. This in most cases demands evidence and explanations of the evidence, which is the main reason we have science. People are curious about something so they study it, they gather evidence, draw conclusions and debate about it until we have the best explanation possible that explains all the evidence.


But why do we like to know that we have a rational reason as to why we believe something?

Twyman88
02-11-2009, 12:15 AM
Why does a divine designer need to make physiological trade offs?
Because, as with anyone who designs something, functionality and aesthetics need to be taken into account. Everything ever made will have someone saying, it could be straighter, it could hold more weight, but the best overall design is needed.

And I think you'll find upon closer inspection that we are in fact vertebrates, having spines.
Lol, typo creating a whole different meaning there. I know we are vertebrates, I swear.

That's a common creationist misconception, there are in fact many many fossil remains attributed as human ancestors, including intact or mostly intact skeletons.
And just why are they attributed to being our ancestors? I didn't deny there werent some skeletons that were said to be ancestors. The thing is, the gaps in between the dating has such large time spans that they cannot necessarily be said they are a continuation of the line. You'll find also that many of the fossils seem to be plugged into the gaps where they seem to fit, there are multiple possibilities for the dating.

Hymen are found in many other species, including chimpanzees, our closest relative, how can you make a comment on whether our ancestors had hymen? they're bones, bones don't have skin. However, since chimps do have hymen it's a safe bet that the existence of the hymen is an ancient structure, thus present in all species between the divergence of the human and chimp lines until present date.
Ah, thanks.

blackthought
02-11-2009, 12:18 AM
Because, as with anyone who designs something, functionality and aesthetics need to be taken into account. Everything ever made will have someone saying, it could be straighter, it could hold more weight, but the best overall design is needed.

If God was all powerful, he wouldn't need to compromise between functionality and aesthetics. He'd be able to create "the best of all worlds" (I suppose you'd call it).

thsrayas
02-11-2009, 12:20 AM
But why do we like to know that we have a rational reason as to why we believe something?

I would think it's because there are so many explanations and we want the best one, which is usually the one supported by the most evidence, therefor the most rational.

\And just why are they attributed to being our ancestors? I didn't deny there werent some skeletons that were said to be ancestors. The thing is, the gaps in between the dating has such large time spans that they cannot necessarily be said they are a continuation of the line. You'll find also that many of the fossils seem to be plugged into the gaps where they seem to fit, there are multiple possibilities for the dating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

Twyman88
02-11-2009, 12:23 AM
They're all mollusks, that's pretty similar.

Originally they wouldn't have been the proteins for a cornea, they'd have been proteins for something else that altered through mutation and became a cornea. There is no "why" in biology, it happens because it is in the nature of DNA to change and thus create new proteins, it happens in a random manner, and which of these alterations survive is decided by natural selection.
And you say creationists are fools for going on faith? Because I say a designer added something, I'm wrong, but for random reasons DNA changes something, thats right? What if I say DNA was designed by God?

You see design because you're looking at the current eye and completely ignoring the precursors marc has already shown you. Initially there was no correct shape or position, it wasn't an eye, it was an indentation on a cell surface, things like shape and position would not have mattered for hundreds of millions of years after the indentation, during this period natural selection would discover the correct shape and position, because those who had the best shape and position survived and those that had crap ones died, thus "correct" simply equals "best for survival"
I'm not ignoring them. Im seeing that the cornea is only there in the final design, as with the ciliary muscles, and I'm asking myself, how does gradual processes lead up to that design.
Ill pose the design of a mousetrap to you. if i take one part away it doesnt work. So if i start and build up to it, it will only work in the final stage. Gradually making the spring longer, and through trial and error of materials and design will not make it work any better.

thsrayas
02-11-2009, 12:26 AM
And you say creationists are fools for going on faith? Because I say a designer added something, I'm wrong, but for random reasons DNA changes something, thats right? What if I say DNA was designed by God?

DNA replication isn't perfect so mutation is always going to occur.

I'm not ignoring them. Im seeing that the cornea is only there in the final design, as with the ciliary muscles, and I'm asking myself, how does gradual processes lead up to that design.
Ill pose the design of a mousetrap to you. if i take one part away it doesnt work. So if i start and build up to it, it will only work in the final stage. Gradually making the spring longer, and through trial and error of materials and design will not make it work any better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM

If you don't want to watch the video, it shows how a mousetrap DOESN'T work without all the pieces present, but it still has other functions. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity, there has never been a case where it has been shown to exist.

freedoms_stain
02-11-2009, 12:30 AM
Because, as with anyone who designs something, functionality and aesthetics need to be taken into account. Everything ever made will have someone saying, it could be straighter, it could hold more weight, but the best overall design is needed.My point was that divinity should not need to make compromises on any scale, if it wants something to work in a particular way then that should just be, no trade-off necessary. What you said applies to us, not to the magic man in the sky.
And just why are they attributed to being our ancestors? I didn't deny there werent some skeletons that were said to be ancestors. The thing is, the gaps in between the dating has such large time spans that they cannot necessarily be said they are a continuation of the line. You'll find also that many of the fossils seem to be plugged into the gaps where they seem to fit, there are multiple possibilities for the dating.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc

mybe you wanna watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&feature=PlayList&p=126AFB53A6F002CC&index=8

and this, because everything you just said, Creationist propaganda.

Twyman88
02-11-2009, 12:30 AM
If God was all powerful, he wouldn't need to compromise between functionality and aesthetics. He'd be able to create "the best of all worlds" (I suppose you'd call it).
He has...!!?? -truthfully, we dont know any better. Could you say that about the earth, why are there natural disasters?, in a "perfect world" there wouldnt be any. We're not in heaven yet.
I would think it's because there are so many explanations and we want the best one, which is usually the one supported by the most evidence, therefor the most rational.
And I see a designer as being the most rational. You want to play the odds, Design accounts for the a)Creation of universe b) creation of life c) diversity of species. b) is unaccounted for in other explanations. No one has been able to explain how the first cell came about. I go with the one that accounts for most things.

thsrayas
02-11-2009, 12:38 AM
And I see a designer as being the most rational. You want to play the odds, Design accounts for the a)Creation of universe b) creation of life c) diversity of species. b) is unaccounted for in other explanations. No one has been able to explain how the first cell came about. I go with the one that accounts for most things.

Design has no evidence, if it did then scientists would start developing a theory of design. The Big Bang accounts for our universe, abiogenesis is on its way, evolution explains the diversity of life. Design doesn't explain any of those, all it does is say "God did it", that's not an explanation it's a cop out. The scientific explanations are based on evidence, design isn't based on any, therefor the rational response is to accept the scientific explanations because they have an infinite amount more evidence than design does.

freedoms_stain
02-11-2009, 12:41 AM
And you say creationists are fools for going on faith? Because I say a designer added something, I'm wrong, but for random reasons DNA changes something, thats right? What if I say DNA was designed by God?What random reasons? DNA is mutable, it undergoes imperfect replication, is subject to continual mutagenic events, is maintained by imperfect repair mechanisms and by its very chemical composition is inherently changeable. These are facts we can observe and test, DNA changes, proven fact through experimentation, can you prove design?
I'm not ignoring them. Im seeing that the cornea is only there in the final design, as with the ciliary muscles, and I'm asking myself, how does gradual processes lead up to that design.
Ill pose the design of a mousetrap to you. if i take one part away it doesnt work. So if i start and build up to it, it will only work in the final stage. Gradually making the spring longer, and through trial and error of materials and design will not make it work any better.You're still only looking at the final product.

If I show a mouse trap to you can you deduce all the steps it took me to build and design it just by looking at the final product?

No, because I may have made 10 prototypes, each one an improvement on the last, I may have used parts in prototype 1 that were removed in prototypes 5 onwards because I found a better way of doing it.

The eye may have developed in a similar way, the parts that led up to the final are no longer present, therefore we cannot accurately deduce how the final part came to be, this does not mean the precursors never existed, in fact, if we concede that the evidence points towards common descent, it's a reasonable assumption that they did.

PatchworkMan
02-11-2009, 12:44 AM
And I see a designer as being the most rational. You want to play the odds, Design accounts for the a)Creation of universe b) creation of life c) diversity of species. b) is unaccounted for in other explanations. No one has been able to explain how the first cell came about. I go with the one that accounts for most things.
Design has no evidence, if it did then scientists would start developing a theory of design. The Big Bang accounts for our universe, abiogenesis is on its way, evolution explains the diversity of life. Design doesn't explain any of those, all it does is say "God did it", that's not an explanation it's a cop out. The scientific explanations are based on evidence, design isn't based on any, therefor the rational response is to accept the scientific explanations because they have an infinite amount more evidence than design does.
The generally accepted scientific explanations for the origins of the universe, life, and species do not necessarily conflict with belief in a creator. It seems to me the arguments above are trying to choose between two things that are not mutually exclusive.

Temanwithnoname
02-11-2009, 12:45 AM
I would think it's because there are so many explanations and we want the best one, which is usually the one supported by the most evidence, therefor the most rational.





But why are explanations needed? Why do we demand them? Why do we have a want to know what is rational? Why do we have the desire?

freedoms_stain
02-11-2009, 12:45 AM
And I see a designer as being the most rational. You want to play the odds, Design accounts for the a)Creation of universe b) creation of life c) diversity of species. b) is unaccounted for in other explanations. No one has been able to explain how the first cell came about. I go with the one that accounts for most things.There are plenty of abiogenic hypotheses for the development of early life, therefore I judge your position ill-informed as you appear not to be aware of them.

Design is also at odds with the fossil record. Where are the bunnies in the cambrian? Or the horses? Or badgers? Or parrots? Or HUMANS?

dark&broken
02-11-2009, 12:50 AM
But why are explanations needed? Why do we demand them? Why do we have a want to know what is rational? Why do we have the desire?

How the **** should we know? And why should we care, the point is, we do, and therefore we search for explanations.

thsrayas
02-11-2009, 12:53 AM
The generally accepted scientific explanations for the origins of the universe, life, and species do not necessarily conflict with belief in a creator. It seems to me the arguments above are trying to choose between two things that are not mutually exclusive.

No, they don't conflict with a creator. But we can see how they happened through natural means so the only place that a creator is necessary is at the beginning of the Big Bang and maybe not even there.

Temanwithnoname
02-11-2009, 12:54 AM
How the **** should we know? And why should we care, the point is, we do, and therefore we search for explanations.


Well I figured someone might be able to answer my question.

Why should we care?
Well Charles Manson had a desire to kill people, so he did, doesn't that make you curious to as why he was motivated to do it, or why he desired to?
^Just an example, no idea if he really desired it.

thsrayas
02-11-2009, 12:55 AM
Well I figured someone might be able to answer my question.

Why should we care?
Well Charles Manson had a desire to kill people, so he did, doesn't that make you curious to as why he was motivated to do it, or why he desired to?
^Just an example, no idea if he really desired it.

Probably a chemical imbalance.

PatchworkMan
02-11-2009, 12:57 AM
Well I figured someone might be able to answer my question.

Why should we care?
Well Charles Manson had a desire to kill people, so he did, doesn't that make you curious to as why he was motivated to do it, or why he desired to?
^Just an example, no idea if he really desired it.
Manson was a racist. He was hoping to blame the murders on blacks and start the final war between the races (which he called Helter Skelter) which would exterminate black people in America.

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg

Twyman88
02-11-2009, 12:59 AM
If you don't want to watch the video, it shows how a mousetrap DOESN'T work without all the pieces present, but it still has other functions. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity, there has never been a case where it has been shown to exist.
But then its not a mouse trap ie- an eye. Plus, even with the mouse trap case, the parts themselves are fully formed and functional. Its not gradual, as you continue to propose.

My point was that divinity should not need to make compromises on any scale, if it wants something to work in a particular way then that should just be, no trade-off necessary. What you said applies to us, not to the magic man in the sky.
Why doesnt it apply, and as ive said before, we have no "better" human to compare to. God is divine, but as you have already proposed, mutations occur for one, plus we had to have been made to exist on this imperfect world-otherwise effectively we are angels.

As for those movies, it doesnt disprove me. I never said i dont believe in microevolution. The cambrian explosion ie- the reversal of darwins tree of life. merely goes to show that there was already a variety of species existing to "evolve" from.
The bones of home erectus? a skull and femur. Java man has been proven not to have been an ancestor.
I can argue over the Archaeopteryx, but I wont.
I'm not saying these other hominids didnt exist. Species have gone extinct, these may have as well. Similar mitochondrial DNA, we share that with many things, i maintain we are all built on common building blocks, much like living lego blocks.
Those videos maintain two different points, one that we and the apes have one common ancestor (the video about the chromosome fusing) and another that the many sub-hominids are all completely different and we evolved from them. Which is it?
Do you think, if we found the fossils of say, a person with downs syndrome or dwarfism, today we would attribute it to being an ancestor due to the different bone structure?

PatchworkMan
02-11-2009, 12:59 AM
No, they don't conflict with a creator. But we can see how they happened through natural means so the only place that a creator is necessary is at the beginning of the Big Bang and maybe not even there.
A creator is not necessary at all, at least in terms of science. More power to you if you believe (I do), but as Pascal said and Lewis echoed, if all the argument we have for God is nature we have no argument at all.

thsrayas
02-11-2009, 01:09 AM
But then its not a mouse trap ie- an eye. Plus, even with the mouse trap case, the parts themselves are fully formed and functional. Its not gradual, as you continue to propose.


Nor are the early stages of the "eye", they weren't actual eyes, they were what eyes evolved from. The pre-eyes were fully functional as well, it's not like they were just useless tissue, they served a purpose, if they didn't then the eye never would have formed in the first place.


Why doesnt it apply, and as ive said before, we have no "better" human to compare to. God is divine, but as you have already proposed, mutations occur for one, plus we had to have been made to exist on this imperfect world-otherwise effectively we are angels.


We have other organisms to compare to, we don't need better humans because we can compare ourselves to the other living creatures that have better parts than us.


As for those movies, it doesnt disprove me. I never said i dont believe in microevolution.

Macroevolution is just microevolution over a larger period of time. Small changes added up turn into big changes over thousands of years. We have observed speciation, it's a fact, you can't deny it.


I can argue over the Archaeopteryx, but I wont.
I'm not saying these other hominids didnt exist. Species have gone extinct, these may have as well. Similar mitochondrial DNA, we share that with many things, i maintain we are all built on common building blocks, much like living lego blocks.
Those videos maintain two different points, one that we and the apes have one common ancestor (the video about the chromosome fusing) and another that the many sub-hominids are all completely different and we evolved from them. Which is it?


We share a common ancestor with modern apes. That ancestor shared a common ancestor with other apes during its time, and that ancestor shared a common ancestor with other apes during its time and so on. I don't know what you're trying to get at here.

A creator is not necessary at all, at least in terms of science. More power to you if you believe (I do), but as Pascal said and Lewis echoed, if all the argument we have for God is nature we have no argument at all.

I'm leaning between a deist and an atheist, I'm still trying to figure out what I believe.

Twyman88
02-11-2009, 01:10 AM
What random reasons? DNA is mutable, it undergoes imperfect replication, is subject to continual mutagenic events, is maintained by imperfect repair mechanisms and by its very chemical composition is inherently changeable. These are facts we can observe and test, DNA changes, proven fact through experimentation, can you prove design?
You're still only looking at the final product.
No, I can't prove it in the way you want. I know thats where you get most of your ammo and where its hardest for you to understand. To be honest, I know most of this debating is pointless, both you and I know we are right and nothing the other can say will change our opinion. The thing with faith is just that- it's faith. God wants us to believe in him through faith. If he gave us all the evidence then whats the point?

If I show a mouse trap to you can you deduce all the steps it took me to build and design it just by looking at the final product?

No, because I may have made 10 prototypes, each one an improvement on the last, I may have used parts in prototype 1 that were removed in prototypes 5 onwards because I found a better way of doing it.

The eye may have developed in a similar way, the parts that led up to the final are no longer present, therefore we cannot accurately deduce how the final part came to be, this does not mean the precursors never existed, in fact, if we concede that the evidence points towards common descent, it's a reasonable assumption that they did.
But once again, those designs you make are completely different- i.e- they are not eyes anymore. You need to show me a mouse trap that works as a mouse trap from step one till the end-adding only the slightest changes.

thsrayas
02-11-2009, 01:17 AM
No, I can't prove it in the way you want. I know thats where you get most of your ammo and where its hardest for you to understand. To be honest, I know most of this debating is pointless, both you and I know we are right and nothing the other can say will change our opinion. The thing with faith is just that- it's faith. God wants us to believe in him through faith. If he gave us all the evidence then whats the point?

I'm willing to bet that if there was some solid evidence showing that evolution is wrong FS would stop believing it and question everything like most scientists would. I'm also willing to bet that if there was proof that God didn't exist you would still believe in him because you want to.

But once again, those designs you make are completely different- i.e- they are not eyes anymore. You need to show me a mouse trap that works as a mouse trap from step one till the end-adding only the slightest changes.

They aren't supposed to function like an actual eye! I don't know why that's so difficult. We're not saying that a mousetrap missing a part is going to function like a mousetrap, we're saying it has a different purpose that you're not seeing. Just like the primitive eyes don't function like modern ones, they didn't have lenses or anything. Some of them simply detected light and that's all they had to do, they didn't have to see an actual image they just had to detect a change in amount of light and that's all that's necessary for the eye to start evolving. There were BIG changes with they eye, they happened over a large period of time. We're not saying it was small changes, we're saying that there were a lot of small changes that turned into big changes over a VERY long period of time.

Twyman88
02-11-2009, 01:18 AM
Nor are the early stages of the "eye", they weren't actual eyes, they were what eyes evolved from. The pre-eyes were fully functional as well, it's not like they were just useless tissue, they served a purpose, if they didn't then the eye never would have formed in the first place.

In my mouse trap analogy- at the start the mouse trap serves a purpose as a paperweight- many things can do that though. But random, slight, succesive changes to that paperweight will not cause it to become a mousetrap, you see what im saying?


We have other organisms to compare to, we don't need better humans because we can compare ourselves to the other living creatures that have better parts than us.

So you want to compare ourselves to an octopus because it has better eyes..we have better brains. The whole package for us is optimaor as optimal as it can be in this sin filled, imperfect world.


Macroevolution is just microevolution over a larger period of time. Small changes added up turn into big changes over thousands of years. We have observed speciation, it's a fact, you can't deny it.

Macroevolution hinges on my mousetrap theory, slight changes in hair color, a bone shape mutation here, yes, but entire new species?

We share a common ancestor with modern apes. That ancestor shared a common ancestor with other apes during its time, and that ancestor shared a common ancestor with other apes during its time and so on. I don't know what you're trying to get at here.

The fused chromosome theory maintains that we shared a common ancestor with the great apes. With the fossil records we have, is there any way of telling what sort of chromosomes they had. My theory is that all these fossils are either extinct species or mutated humans, or wishful thinking when constructing their form. I'm not denying we have similar DNA or body shapes- we share 98% DNA with chimps- but I'm saying this is because we ARE similar- in shape and capabilities- not because we were similar.

thsrayas
02-11-2009, 01:26 AM
In my mouse trap analogy- at the start the mouse trap serves a purpose as a paperweight- many things can do that though. But random, slight, succesive changes to that paperweight will not cause it to become a mousetrap, you see what im saying?

Your analogy fails because there isn't a selective pressure for your paperweight to become a mousetrap nor do paperweights reproduce.

So you want to compare ourselves to an octopus because it has better eyes..we have better brains. The whole package for us is optimaor as optimal as it can be in this sin filled, imperfect world.

My point still stands, I simply said that we have other means of comparison, we don't need to have a "better" human to compare to when there are other organisms that have better parts.

Macroevolution hinges on my mousetrap theory, slight changes in hair color, a bone shape mutation here, yes, but entire new species?

We have observed speciation. Speciation = macroevolution. Therefor we have observed macroevolution.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


The fused chromosome theory maintains that we shared a common ancestor with the great apes. With the fossil records we have, is there any way of telling what sort of chromosomes they had. My theory is that all these fossils are either extinct species or mutated humans, or wishful thinking when constructing their form. I'm not denying we have similar DNA or body shapes- we share 98% DNA with chimps- but I'm saying this is because we ARE similar- in shape and capabilities- not because we were similar.

Did you even look at anything we posted about human evolution?

Twyman88
02-11-2009, 01:27 AM
I'm willing to bet that if there was some solid evidence showing that evolution is wrong FS would stop believing it and question everything like most scientists would. I'm also willing to bet that if there was proof that God didn't exist you would still believe in him because you want to.
I'd take that bet. And I don't believe because I want to.



They aren't supposed to function like an actual eye! I don't know why that's so difficult. We're not saying that a mousetrap missing a part is going to function like a mousetrap, we're saying it has a different purpose that you're not seeing. Just like the primitive eyes don't function like modern ones, they didn't have lenses or anything. Some of them simply detected light and that's all they had to do, they didn't have to see an actual image they just had to detect a change in amount of light and that's all that's necessary for the eye to start evolving. There were BIG changes with they eye, they happened over a large period of time. We're not saying it was small changes, we're saying that there were a lot of small changes that turned into big changes over a VERY long period of time.

I know they arent supposed to function like an actual eye, but as you said they still detect light or something similar. But if I had a paperweight for an eye (sorta mixing my analogies here)- its purpose is to weigh things down- as the simple eyes purpose is to detect light or movement. If I change that paperweight, whatever way slightly, I would say it would stay as a paperweight-its same function. For you're theory to work, there would need to be a series of creatures in between the simple eye and ours, that were blind and had some other strange organism in its place. the succesive changes are random- so all sorts of things could come of it- what are the chances that on an eye made of a paperweight would develop a part that then- a) completely changes its purpose, which could effectively make it weker and less likely to survive in the survival of the fittest and b) makes a device that is remotely complex?

Twyman88
02-11-2009, 01:34 AM
Your analogy fails because there isn't a selective pressure for your paperweight to become a mousetrap nor do paperweights reproduce.
Lol, Kinda missed my point there. I dont get why you bring up the mating habits of paperweights?



My point still stands, I simply said that we have other means of comparison, we don't need to have a "better" human to compare to when there are other organisms that have better parts.
Yeah, once again missed my point- "the whole package".



We have observed speciation. Speciation = macroevolution. Therefore we have observed macroevolution.
Did you even look at anything we posted about human evolution?
I can see we are running in circles here. I did read it. Speciation in no way creates a horse from a bird, horse from zebra yes. In terms of the housefly experiments, I know scientists have created new 'species' of house fly with 4 wings and such, the thing is, the 2nd pair of wings are not functional, counting out natural selection in the wild, plus they cant mate with others. Its kinda counter productive.

thsrayas
02-11-2009, 01:38 AM
I'd take that bet. And I don't believe because I want to.

You fooled me, you keep ignoring evidence that's posted.



I know they arent supposed to function like an actual eye, but as you said they still detect light or something similar. But if I had a paperweight for an eye (sorta mixing my analogies here)- its purpose is to weigh things down- as the simple eyes purpose is to detect light or movement. If I change that paperweight, whatever way slightly, I would say it would stay as a paperweight-its same function. For you're theory to work, there would need to be a series of creatures in between the simple eye and ours, that were blind and had some other strange organism in its place. the succesive changes are random- so all sorts of things could come of it- what are the chances that on an eye made of a paperweight would develop a part that then- a) completely changes its purpose, which could effectively make it weker and less likely to survive in the survival of the fittest and b) makes a device that is remotely complex?

Well in your example a mouse trap can function like a paperweight, just like an eye detects light. They both still serve their previous function but they also do more. Just because it's more complex and it's main function changed doesn't mean that it's previous purpose doesn't still exist. Previous mutations of the eye could make a creature weaker, natural selection would have killed that creature off and the ones who had a better "eye" would have survived. You're also right that there were probably some strange creatures with pretty crappy eyes and were blind, but they would still survive more easily than a creature without crappy eyes because they have more senses, thus they would have a better survival rate.

thsrayas
02-11-2009, 01:42 AM
Lol, Kinda missed my point there. I dont get why you bring up the mating habits of paperweights?

You missed my point. A paperweight doesn't have mutations like an eye would, so they eye WOULD change over time while a paperweight won't.

Yeah, once again missed my point- "the whole package".

And you missed mine, yet again.


I can see we are running in circles here. I did read it. Speciation in no way creates a horse from a bird, horse from zebra yes. In terms of the housefly experiments, I know scientists have created new 'species' of house fly with 4 wings and such, the thing is, the 2nd pair of wings are not functional, counting out natural selection in the wild, plus they cant mate with others. Its kinda counter productive.

Nobody is saying horses came from a bird. And a species has to be able to reproduce, a single organism isn't a species, it's just a mutated organism. But if the entire population mutates and can reproduce successfully and has significant differences from its ancestors then it's a new species.

Twyman88
02-11-2009, 01:56 AM
It seems thsrayas, we are getting no where. Ill admit, I did miss some of your points. I'm sorry if im frustrating you.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that imagine the simple eye as a paperweight made of wood (like the base of a mouse trap) They are both simple, and serve their purpose effectively for what they are needed to do.
No amount of changes can get that paperweight to a mouse trap- by succesive, small changes. Even if their was a need for a mouse trap (a need for a better eye) you would need highly specific parts, put together in a highly specific way, made of a highly specific material. I know evolution is about random changes, and only some surviving in the survival of the fittest. But almost every change to the paperweight will render it NOT a paperweight any more (not functioning as an eye anymore) which means it will die, as the purpose it's needed it for is not fulfilled. Even adding some extra receptors, keeps it the same basic construct. Its when things like cornea (spring), or the optic nerve (trap)start to develop that it would appear they need to have some sort of previous design in mind for them to fit and work effectively.
I hope you get my point, im signing out for today..damn UG drains my time and life.

thsrayas
02-11-2009, 01:59 AM
It seems thsrayas, we are getting no where. Ill admit, I did miss some of your points. I'm sorry if im frustrating you.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that imagine the simple eye as a paperweight made of wood (like the base of a mouse trap) They are both simple, and serve their purpose effectively for what they are needed to do.
No amount of changes can get that paperweight to a mouse trap- by succesive, small changes. Even if their was a need for a mouse trap (a need for a better eye) you would need highly specific parts, put together in a highly specific way, made of a highly specific material. I know evolution is about random changes, and only some surviving in the survival of the fittest. But almost every change to the paperweight will render it NOT a paperweight any more (not functioning as an eye anymore) which means it will die, as the purpose it's needed it for is not fulfilled. Even adding some extra receptors, keeps it the same basic construct. Its when things like cornea (spring), or the optic nerve (trap)start to develop that it would appear they need to have some sort of previous design in mind for them to fit and work effectively.
I hope you get my point, im signing out for today..damn UG drains my time and life.

All I'm getting out of your posts is that you think that evolution doesn't work. Just because you don't think that things can become complex over time with small changes doesn't mean that they don't.

Kiwi Ace
02-11-2009, 02:06 AM
On the whole mouse trap analogy... watch this Twyman88

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM

SlackerBabbath
02-11-2009, 04:06 AM
I don't believe science has eroded anything. It is merely people's viewpoints changing that pushes them further from God. A common ancestor, or just common building blocks? An old universe? Not many will say God actually did create the universe in 6 days,Apart from in the Bible.
time is no constraint to him and for the first few "days" there was no record of time.
So how did the 6 day thing end up in the Bible?
Plus, genesis does not set out to describe in detail the creation- its not a science book, it emphasises God and his relationship to humanity.
And no, God wouldnt design something that he really wants to go extinct, but man and nature can make it go extinct.
Y'know, since life began 3.7 billion years ago, something like 99% of all the versions of life that has ever existed has become extinct.
Species becoming extinct is actualy part of the evolution process, as one species disappears, especially if it's a predator, another species takes over it's evolutionary niche. If that asteroid never hit earth and if the Dinosaurs for instance didn't become extinct, mammals wouldn't have had the chance to flourish and evolve, so we wouldn't exist.
You say God wouldn't design such a process? But that's the process we have.

The flood didnt happen?, and yet multiple civilisations have records of some sort of a flood, and a "flood hero".
We know fully well that many different large flooding events happened during the end of the last ice age when the ice melted raising sea levels to what we have today, that floods happened is not in question, what is in question is the Biblical version where every piece of land including the highest mountain is under water and the only human survivors are Noah and his family, which has been proven to be incorrect.
Just the fact that 'multiple' civilisations have records of some sort of a flood, and very different "flood heroes" shows this to be wrong.

I believe nothing in science truly explains away God, just people choosing to interpret them how they will. Its a matter of interpretation, as everything is.
I'd agree, to a point, but modern science has shown us that cirtain things did not happen the way it says in Biblical mythology, which kinda steers our interpretation on cirtain points of the Bible.
Of course, there are other completely different religious intepretations too. Tell me, why did you choose your particular religion and reject all these other possibilities? Infact, don't even bother answering the first bit about why you chose your particular religion if you don't want to, that's not really important in this particular question, let's just concentrate on why you rejected all the other religions.
There must be a reason or several reasons why you think they are wrong.

So why is it people feel like they have to have proof of everything?

Serious question, I'm not trying to defeat anyone in logic, or anything like that.
I just wonder why people demand proof of everything? I mean I want proof of things too.

But what is it that makes us long for it?
Oh that's simple, we just don't like people telling us lies. So if somone tells an obvious lie like 'This guy I know can do actual magic, not the pretend stuff but real magic and he has complete control over life and death too.' then we ask for proof to test the validity of what we are being told.
Being gullible is actualy an evolutionary disadvantage, if some tribe way back in the days of hunter gatherers told another gullible tribe that the next vally on contained magic stones that turned into fully cooked meals, when infact it contained dangerous predators or hidden quicksand, that wouldn't be good for the gullible tribe.
Humankind managed to survive and evolve, even though it had no claws or sharp teeth or great strength but because it had greater intelligence, and also because it was cautious.
So if someone tells you about something that sounds impossible, like miracles for instance, our natural survival instincts take over and we answer with 'Prove it.'

Godly Moose
02-11-2009, 04:20 AM
Was Jesus good at any physical activities with a pertained set of rules? I would imagine he was good at water sports with the bod he has.

SlackerBabbath
02-11-2009, 06:16 AM
And you say creationists are fools for going on faith? Because I say a designer added something, I'm wrong, but for random reasons DNA changes something, thats right? What if I say DNA was designed by God?

Well that would of course be something that we cannot prove or provide evidence to say otherwise, but look at what you are doing to your faith by taking this position.
You are entering into the realms of the 'god of gaps'.

Thousands of years ago, we didn't have anything like the same knowledge we have now, if something was too complex to understand, then the explanation usualy went along the lines of 'God did it'

There was a big gap between stuff happening and our knowledge of how and why stuff happens, so we filled that gap with 'God'
Now, as we gain more and more knowledge, stuff that we used to attribute to God now has other better, more 'definate' answers, such as the ending of the Ice Age flood hypothesis for instance which replaces the Biblical version.
That big gap got smaller and smaller as science chipped away at religion, debunking this, disproving that, leaving lots of little gaps.
One of the last ones to be filled was human evolution. Previously it was thought that God actualy physicaly made a man out of dirt and breathed life into it, a bit like creating a golem, then took a rib from that man and made a woman from it.
Man suddenly magicaly appearing on earth has been well and truly debunked, we have quite a substancial fossil record of man's evolution, and DNA study has proven the relationship with man's other close relatives, including another specied of hominid called the Neanderthals which lived alongside man. (which evolved previously to homo sapiens, which means that if 'god did it' then he also created another version of mankind before us)
Evolution itself has been proven to exist among all living species and speciation has even been observed in some.
So the average religious person then changes their belief. They say 'OK, I'll accept evolution because the evidence is just too overwhelming, so instead of God physicaly making the first man and woman, let's say that God designed the DNA that was responsible for than evolution.' Which is fine, but where does that leave your religion? It quite clearly states that God personaly made the first man and woman in the Bible but if you no longer can accept that because of science, then the only other option is to say 'The religion is simply wrong.'
At least, that particular aspect of the religion is wrong anyway, but what does that say about everything in the Bible that's supposed to be true?
We know this bit is wrong, many Christians have even changed their opinion as you are suggesting to counter it, doesn't that then make the 'truthfulness' of the Bible that little bit more shakey? Doesn't it then say that the Bible is 'not' the reliable source that people once thought it was?
Bit by bit, science chips away at the religion, disproving this and that, making the Bible less and less reliable until the only safe thing that religion can claim is that God was personaly responsible for the big bang, which is something that science simply cannot touch, we have no evidence to counter that argument, but what's left of the original religion and it's claims? What is left of the systems of beliefs that you used to base your 'faith' upon?
And who's to say that sometime in the distant future we might not even become advanced enough to actualy figure out what was responsible for triggering the big bang? It looks quite likely to happen sometime. Which would, in turn, move God back even further and trigger the inevitable claim that God was responsible for what was responsible for the big bang.

But then its not a mouse trap ie- an eye. Plus, even with the mouse trap case, the parts themselves are fully formed and functional. Its not gradual, as you continue to propose.


But the difference between a moustrap and an eye is that an eye will still function as an eye with bits taken away, just not as efficiently. The simplest eyes can only determine the difference between light and dark and are made up of a few light sensitive cells, which is still a useful survival tool to have, (a shadow casts over you, you react and move rapidly into the light, you've just avoided a predator) they lack the ball shape, lense, cornea, ciliary muscles ect, ect, that more advanced eyes have, but they still function as eyes. Slightly more complex eyes are the same cells but placed in a 'pit' so that they can determin which direction light is coming from.
Still lacking most of what comprised a more complex eye, but still a functioning eye nontheless.

Take away part of a moustrap and it stops working, because it's a designed thing, take away part of the eye and it still functions on some level like a more primitive eye, because it developed or 'evolved.'

tushmeister
02-11-2009, 06:21 AM
And I see a designer as being the most rational. You want to play the odds, Design accounts for the a)Creation of universe b) creation of life c) diversity of species. b) is unaccounted for in other explanations. No one has been able to explain how the first cell came about. I go with the one that accounts for most things.


Sorry. I've read the entire argument, and I understand that freedom mentioned this, but abiogenesis can be explained very rationally and logically.
You clearly haven't even attempted to learn the facts (or opposing ideas :rolleyes: ), making it pointless talking to you, you've several times claimed 'we've no proof for this' and been shown the Biological theories that nigh-on prove it to an undistinguishable margin of error.

StewieSwan
02-11-2009, 06:32 AM
I'm sorry Twyman88, but if you're gonna spew that "You have to have faith" BS, then get the hell out of a debate thread.

SlackerBabbath
02-11-2009, 07:40 AM
Sure, we know eagle's eyes seem to see better, but do we know if they can see the fine details up close that we require to use tools? (that is honestly a question, I dont know ;) )

Just noticed this, and I believe I can answer that one for you.
The Blue Jay, the Brown-headed Nuthatch, the Burrowing Owl, the Chestnut-backed Chickadee, the Egyptian Vulture, the Green Heron, the Green Jay, the New Caledonian Crow and the Woodpecker Finch are all birds that are regarded as tool users, so I suppose the answer is that quite a wide range of species of birds must obviously have eyes that can see fine details up close.
The Egyptian Vulture in particular is of interest here because it's a member of the Accipitridae family, as are eagles and are also known for their long distance sight as well.