Do you believe in evolution?

I would disagree. There are far fewer unsupported assumptions in science then in religion.

Science must limit itself to what can be observed and quatified. What's wrong with that? The thing about science however is that if it can not answer a question it doesn't fall back on the God theory. When new evidence comes to light - theories change to accommodate that new evidence. Religion is incapable of that by it's nature.
.


I agree. I did not say that there were more or less empirically unsupported assumptions in one or the other. I said that there are more in science than one might think.

The problem with limiting oneself to only what is observable is that if reality contains any aspect which is immaterial then that avenue of research cannot even be explored. We would hope that scientists would have the courage to always say "We don't know" in these situations. But in reality what they do is force themselves to develop theories that shape the data into a form that fits the assumption that all of reality is physical rather than allowing the data to shape the theories even if it may lead toward the acknowledgement of a spiritual reality.

Religion is often incapable of change. The good aspect of this is that if the religious idea proves to be incompatible with reality then we can scrap all of it rather than just modifying it endlessly. In science modifying a theory endlessly is a good thing, in religion not so much.
 
Werbung:
OK.....fair enough.
What created all of the conditions necessary for science to explain what little it has concluded about our universe........or for that matter the existence of the universe itself. The scientific theories about this are as sketchy as those proposed by religion. Where did it all begin, How did it all begin, Why? Simple blind luck or something else. Science often creates more questions than it answers. Are we to apply the same blind faith theories to these unanswered questions that religion often does?
-Castle

No, not at all, science uncovers more questions everytime it answers one, that's the nature of things because we know so little. Science admits that they don't have all the answers, thousands of scientists go to work every day because they know we don't know. Theories are just that: theories. Hypothesis--antithesis--synthesis and then start over again in an endless search. Individual scientists become almost religious about things, but eventually the old guard dies and a new generation arises that goes beyond the old. We've come a long ways since the Dark Ages, there are more scientists working in labs today than the number of scientists in all the rest of human history. It's a journey of discovery. I've no use for antiquated religions, tribal god images, myths and taboos, or religious bigotry that denigrates people on the basis of their gender, skin color, sexual orientation, or any of the other myriad things that have been used by religious demogogues to divide and conquer the world's population. Spirituality has a place in a person's heart, but it should never be used for harm or to take from others any right that you claim for yourself.
 
It's almost midnight, there are so many holes in this post of yours that I despair of addressing all of them tonight. Maybe I'll just start with the first paragraph and see how it goes.

There certainly is a lot of conjecture in many religions.
As near as I can tell, it's all conjecture. You talk about you and Joe, let's remember that Joe Smith started the Mormon religion and 10 good men testified to the existence of the gold tablets. You buy that? The idea that if a bunch of people agree to something that the agreement makes it truth is nonsense. Everybody used to believe that the world was flat, it was Christian Church doctrine and people were killed for saying otherwise. So much for consensus. The word you're looking for is "empirical" evidence.

With more than 2500 sects of Christians there seems to be little consensus amongst you folks if your consensus gets much beyond the "me and Joe" level. That doesn't make anybody have much faith in your version of the truth or in the Christian "truth" in general. On the other hand, if we take two good Christians from every one of those 2500 churches and give each pair a brick, after they have taken turns (as many as they need to for supporting replication) dropping that brick on each other's heads from a distance of 24 inches, all of them will have gotten the same basic experience and demonstated the Law of Gravity. None of them will argue gravity dogma, will they?

The only part of religion that is not conjecture is truth that has been revealed from God.
Before we even get to God's revealed truth we have to find out if there IS a god. So far there is nothing to support a Christian-style god except a book of plaigarized myths and stories. I realize that there is a deep-down need to believe in god, but let's at least be honest enough to admit that there is not a single shred of empirical proof. I believe in God, but I don't claim to have any proof beyond my own internal experience, and I certainly don't go around telling other people that their internal experience is wrong and mine is right.

Of course, it is pretty hard to differentiate revelation from hallucination.
Truer words were never spoken. If the hallucination is good enough, there is no way to tell it from reality. Look at what Abraham did to his son, Isaac, talk about a good hallucination! He darn near killed his own son on the basis of the word of a vaporous hominid in the sky.

But just because something is hard does not mean that it is not worth pursuing. It does mean that one should be very careful about judging other people's belief systems based on one's own views. And certainly no one should use their religion as an excuse for bigotry and hatred.
It's good to hear you say that, but your attitude towards women makes me question your sincerity. How do you feel about homosexual people being given equal rights?

Every single observation anyone ever makes about the world is a subjective experience that only he and he alone has. When enough people share a subjective experience then it is recognized as reality.
Bull feathers! The world is not flat. If all the people on Earth experienced the world as being flat, that would not make it flat, if everybody agreed that the reality of it was that the world was flat--it STILL wouldn't be flat. Sorry. You can't prove the Bible is true because a bunch of people think so, reality is not a popularity contest and the subjective experience with the most supporters wins and becomes reality. Islam is just as real a Christianity. So is Santeria and Wicca and Jainism. None of them has a single piece of empirical evidence to prove their veracity.

I see that the table in front of me is brown. when Joe, who is with me, agrees then we know that we are seeing reality and not an illusion.

This is how all truth is established. Both in science and in religion. The basis of all truth shared subjective experiences which are all consistent with the other things we know about reality. When enough people see the same thing then the confidence we have in it's reality increases. Certainly more than just Joe and I have seen brown tables and as a result I trust my senses not only when Joe is with me but also when I am alone.

When enough people see the same thing then the confidence we have in it's reality increases.
Twaddle, see above

So how do you know if there is a God or not? First you have a subjective experience in which you experience god. Then you confirm it against other people's experiences and everything we know about reality. If you don't first have this experience and you choose to believe in God anyway then you are trusting the word of others who have told you about God. Make sure that they are trustworthy.
Were the 10 men who swore for the veracity of Joe Smith trustworthy? How exactly does one determine trustworthyness?

The Bible tells us that if a person claims to have a revelation from God that he must pass a test to be trusted. 1) he must never ever be wrong 2) he must never ever contradict what other prophets have told us about God. Often they must offer signs to testify about the reality of their subjective experience.

Many prophets have predicted future events. We have seen these events come to pass. This is a sign.
More of the same here, nothing but baseless statements.

Many have tried to find falsehoods in the Bible. And while many claim that they are numerous there has not been one yet that holds enough water to sway intelligent Christians. If there were then we would see a mass exodus of people abandoning Christianity - which we do not see.
There are whole websites devoted to detailing the mistakes, contradictions, and nonsense in the Bible. If Adam and Eve were the first people, to whom did Cain turn to find a wife after he slew Abel? The truth here is that you will not look at the contradictions in the Bible because you believe and don't want your belief shaken. Invincible ignorance it's called.

Many prophets have performed miracles strong enough to convince the people who have actually witnessed them. Skeptics today doubt the miracles because they themselves have never seen one. But we all know that not seeing something is not proof that it does not exist.
Not seeing something doesn't mean that it DOES exist either. You are relying on stories told by people who died thousands of years ago, their stories were stolen by other people and collected in a book. Somebody in a position of authority told you the book was the Word of God and you decided to believe them. End of story. No proof, not a single bit.
 

DrWho said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrWho View Post
Every single observation anyone ever makes about the world is a subjective experience that only he and he alone has. When enough people share a subjective experience then it is recognized as reality.

Mare Tranquillity said:
Bull feathers! The world is not flat. If all the people on Earth experienced the world as being flat, that would not make it flat, if everybody agreed that the reality of it was that the world was flat--it STILL wouldn't be flat. Sorry. You can't prove the Bible is true because a bunch of people think so, reality is not a popularity contest and the subjective experience with the most supporters wins and becomes reality. Islam is just as real a Christianity. So is Santeria and Wicca and Jainism. None of them has a single piece of empirical evidence to prove their veracity.

He's a wee bit confused there wouldn't ya say mare? Is he purporting that objectivity in and of itself does not exist? from the definition; of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. There is a minor issue with objectivity/subjectivity and their bipartite definitions, but it's really niether here nor there and is an integral fact that can be by all reason left ignored...The world as we see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, feel it, consume it, understand it, or otherwise, are ALL subject to one fact, we only can use our 5 senses to make any assumptions about the world around us; there is nothing else for which we can use. These five senses without any outside deterministic ability are assumed to be true. Whether or not this is in fact the case, DOES NOT MATTER (this is where his little quibble is falliciously contrived), He is asserting that our senses are all subjective sense nothing can be determined outside of them. However he fails to realize that we as human's recognize our senses AS the final determination (whether assisted by scientific gadgetry or not) and thus all data to be found OBJECTIVELY will be that of the five sense sans mind and emotion. Yes the table is brown, because everyone who is standard will see it as brown, I'd also like to note that one could use an instrument to gauge the light that is reflected from the brown table and determine it's wavelength to also support the Brown Table hypothesis. I don't know why I ramble I simply couldv'e not gone this route and said, subjectivity is by definition something that is the product of the mind ABOUT an object, rather than data directly gathered from the object (such as color, smell, taste) please, go read some science books. I believe I have one I forgot to return in the 3rd grade you may borrow.
 
No, God created man...
So, are you going with the whole Adam and Eve, 6000 year old Earth, dinosaur bones put here by Satan to confuse us, version? Or the newer God had aliens come here and modify our genetic patterns so that we would evolve more rapidly version?
 
hahahahaa

So, are you going with the whole Adam and Eve, 6000 year old Earth, dinosaur bones put here by Satan to confuse us, version? Or the newer God had aliens come here and modify our genetic patterns so that we would evolve more rapidly version?

Animals are part of God's creation too:D Read Old Testament:p :cool:
 
Animals are part of God's creation too:D Read Old Testament:p :cool:

Of course, but your post only mentioned man. I'm intrigued by the latest revision of the Bible in which the 6th Commandment is being re-written from: Thou shalt not kill. to Thou shalt not murder.

It's fun for me to watch the inerrant Word of God, kept pure down through the ages by the hand of God, and every word is literal truth, being changed right before our eyes. Will miracles never cease!
 
Of course, but your post only mentioned man. I'm intrigued by the latest revision of the Bible in which the 6th Commandment is being re-written from: Thou shalt not kill. to Thou shalt not murder.

It's fun for me to watch the inerrant Word of God, kept pure down through the ages by the hand of God, and every word is literal truth, being changed right before our eyes. Will miracles never cease!

If the inerrant word of god is the literal interpretation of the Bible, then there are a lot of contradicitons in that inerrant word.

Of course, "thou shalt not kill" cannot be absolute, not unless we're all willing to be vegans and not drive over 10 MPH (to save our little six legged friends, of course). That phrase was translated from now dead languages several times, then into modern languages. The original meaning was lost without a doubt.

Then, there are the commandments to stone people to death for various sins, including adultery. The Taliban seems to take that one seriously, but no one else does. Read Leviticus sometime if you really believe that the Bible is to be taken literally.
 
If the inerrant word of god is the literal interpretation of the Bible, then there are a lot of contradicitons in that inerrant word.

Of course, "thou shalt not kill" cannot be absolute, not unless we're all willing to be vegans and not drive over 10 MPH (to save our little six legged friends, of course). That phrase was translated from now dead languages several times, then into modern languages. The original meaning was lost without a doubt.

Then, there are the commandments to stone people to death for various sins, including adultery. The Taliban seems to take that one seriously, but no one else does. Read Leviticus sometime if you really believe that the Bible is to be taken literally.

I agree, the Bible is a rubber yardstick and no in the least dependable as a guide.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top