Its 2010, and anyone who has crowbarred their tiny minds out of the stone age is well aware from Science class at High School that we are related to every animal that walks the earth, just some more than others!
TBone knows "look up" means his ball has landed on the top of the sofa, and he can look to retrieve there. unfortunately:
1) he has to relearn EVERY WEEKEND that what look up means, and it really is EVERY WEEKEND.
2) Once he gets up there he has the unfortunate habit of "having a senior moment" as we call it. He stares into space for a while and has to sit down for a bit to figure out what world he's on.
3) About 10% of the time, when jumping down, the Shanker, who will have been in my lap at the time, will run over and body slam him, causing a 30 second Wienie War in the middle of the den, which the Shanker inevitably loses.
mattyrm wrote:Interesting! Who says we are "unique" anyway?
Its 2010, and anyone who has crowbarred their tiny minds out of the stone age is well aware from Science class at High School that we are related to every animal that walks the earth, just some more than others!
Frazzled wrote:TBone knows "look up" means his ball has landed on the top of the sofa, and he can look to retrieve there. unfortunately:
1) he has to relearn EVERY WEEKEND that what look up means, and it really is EVERY WEEKEND.
2) Once he gets up there he has the unfortunate habit of "having a senior moment" as we call it. He stares into space for a while and has to sit down for a bit to figure out what world he's on.
3) About 10% of the time, when jumping down, the Shanker, who will have been in my lap at the time, will run over and body slam him, causing a 30 second Wienie War in the middle of the den, which the Shanker inevitably loses.
Oh man you need to make a video of this ands post it!!
Frazzled wrote:TBone knows "look up" means his ball has landed on the top of the sofa, and he can look to retrieve there. unfortunately:
1) he has to relearn EVERY WEEKEND that what look up means, and it really is EVERY WEEKEND.
2) Once he gets up there he has the unfortunate habit of "having a senior moment" as we call it. He stares into space for a while and has to sit down for a bit to figure out what world he's on.
3) About 10% of the time, when jumping down, the Shanker, who will have been in my lap at the time, will run over and body slam him, causing a 30 second Wienie War in the middle of the den, which the Shanker inevitably loses.
Oh man you need to make a video of this ands post it!!
Dachshund Wrasslin' for the win.
GG
Weiner dog fights are usually like an episode of Westside Story mixed with WWF style wrestling. Its not like a conventional dog fight.
Rodney always, always loses to TBone. You don't with the Darth Vader of the Weiner World.
Quite a few examples exist. There is a species of bird that uses twigs to winkle grubs and insects out of trees.
Thrushes use stones to smash snail shells.
Have seen film of terns or a type of gull, forget which, dropping stones onto shellfish on the beach.
We all know that we are the third smartest species on the planet after Dolphins and White Mice!
Yea, I guess the fact that you posted this using a computer, that was made in a factory that was built by humans, that was inturn replied on this internet forum, again made by humans, by other humans, doesnt matter. We arnt unique compared to a monkey that uses a twig to get food.
KingCracker wrote:Yea, I guess the fact that you posted this using a computer, that was made in a factory that was built by humans, that was inturn replied on this internet forum, again made by humans, by other humans, doesnt matter. We arnt unique compared to a monkey that uses a twig to get food.
KingCracker wrote:Yea, I guess the fact that you posted this using a computer, that was made in a factory that was built by humans, that was inturn replied on this internet forum, again made by humans, by other humans, doesnt matter. We arnt unique compared to a monkey that uses a twig to get food.
The point is that the differences are of scale, not of kind.
KingCracker wrote:Yea, I guess the fact that you posted this using a computer, that was made in a factory that was built by humans, that was inturn replied on this internet forum, again made by humans, by other humans, doesnt matter. We arnt unique compared to a monkey that uses a twig to get food.
It takes many times longer to get from using a stick to catch ants to lighting fire to farming crops than it does from farming crops to making a computer.
Give them time... or GM them. Though I'd use something less aggressive than a Chimp.
Well I think the OP is true to a point. Humans aren't unique in that God has given us certain traits when he created us. Just like he did when he created the animal kingdom. But I think what King Cracker's point was(correct me if I'm wrong King) the level of sophistication difference between a chimp/otter/bird who uses very simple tools such as rocks, twigs, etc.etc. Vs Humanity which has CREATED, a very important distinction here. Humans have CREATED tools going back to fire making tools out of flint, and ways to control the fire , to the wheel, to the primitive farming tools and primitive irrigation tools, and hunting tools.
The animal kingdom can't come close to even noncomplex primitive tools, much less any thing modern like electronic, mechanical, or even chemical.
So we are unique after all.....I think context is important here.
For something to count as a tool, it must have been adapted from it's original shape for the task at hand. For example, a sharpened stick used as a spear as opposed to a stick that you found that was sharp because it broke off at a sharp angle. Or a rock flattened into a hammer rather than a rock that you found that erosion had left nice and flat. That's why otters don't count as tool users- they don't adapt the rocks themselves. They use them as they find them. Chimps and Caledonian Crows, to my knowledge, are proper tool users, as they adapt the objects they find for specific tasks. AFAIK there are some others floating around but I can't recall which they are, specifically. The parrot in the OP is not a tool user, but is still very smart for a bird.
generalgrog wrote:Well I think the OP is true to a point. Humans aren't unique in that God has given us certain traits when he created us. Just like he did when he created the animal kingdom. But I think what King Cracker's point was(correct me if I'm wrong King) the level of sophistication difference between a chimp/otter/bird who uses very simple tools such as rocks, twigs, etc.etc. Vs Humanity which has CREATED, a very important distinction here. Humans have CREATED tools going back to fire making tools out of flint, and ways to control the fire , to the wheel, to the primitive farming tools and primitive irrigation tools, and hunting tools.
The animal kingdom can't come close to even noncomplex primitive tools, much less any thing modern like electronic, mechanical, or even chemical.
So we are unique after all.....I think context is important here.
GG
I'd like to see you make a noncomplex chemical tool.
Da Boss wrote:AFAIK there are some others floating around but I can't recall which they are, specifically.
Dolphins will trim and place aquatic sponges on their rostrums for protection. I've also heard of tool use among domestic cats and dogs, though I don't think there are any credible studies to support the anecdotes.
GeneralGrog wrote:Well I think the OP is true to a point. Humans aren't unique in that God has given us certain traits when he created us. Just like he did when he created the animal kingdom.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I'm serious. What's a noncomplex chemical tool?
I really don't know either, but perhaps GG was referring to something along the lines of ants using fungus for various reasons?
Still seems like it would be a human thing only. Maybe fire is what he was suggested, but I have definitely never heard of an animal doing much but run from fire.
We as a species have accomplished a great deal of things, using a great deal of tools. When you begin to look at the average person, and what they can create on a daily basis, you are no longer talking about spaceships and nuclear power plants. On the whole we can accomplish things that require a great deal more intelligence, but individually we are usually not creating any tools, ever. I would go so far as to say that we have become less creative in terms of specific tools, unless you want to start talking about specific guy Bob, who is a toolmaker.
You don't make your car, you don't make your oven, you don't make your toilet, and you don't make your house... among practically every other tool that we use, we make next to none of them through an individuals means, and would be without those advanced tools if not for factors beyond tool making, and well into social organizing. Bob makes the tools and we use them.
All that I ask is that anyone in this thread make a pair of working shears (scissors), without aid provided by a factory, or anything else that they would not be able to create by themselves. Scissors are simple... right?
generalgrog wrote: Well I think the OP is true to a point. Humans aren't unique in that God has given us certain traits when he created us. Just like he did when he created the animal kingdom.
GG
Allegedly.
We have a very full understanding of the tree of life and the animal kingdom due to a truly overwhelming amount of scientific evidence.
We arent unique because "God" made us similar to other things that "he" created. I have logical empirical evidence on my side and you have a questionably translated book of desert fables. Why not trust the science that cures cancer and makes planes fly and cars move and antibiotics work.
Just thought id point that out. Your free to believe in anything you like. Toothfairy, leprecauns, whatever. I just want to add a counterpoint. Im aware that many of you arent happy with people disagreeing with your religious beliefs though so ill shut up from now on in.
It doesn't matter whether God made everything or it grew up from physical laws.
The point is whether animals can be assessed on the same scale of intelligence as humans, because some of them use a stick to pick up ants or something like that.
If they can, it would be very low down compared to humans, in my opinion.
Da Boss wrote:For something to count as a tool, it must have been adapted from it's original shape for the task at hand. For example, a sharpened stick used as a spear as opposed to a stick that you found that was sharp because it broke off at a sharp angle. Or a rock flattened into a hammer rather than a rock that you found that erosion had left nice and flat. That's why otters don't count as tool users- they don't adapt the rocks themselves. They use them as they find them. Chimps and Caledonian Crows, to my knowledge, are proper tool users, as they adapt the objects they find for specific tasks. AFAIK there are some others floating around but I can't recall which they are, specifically. The parrot in the OP is not a tool user, but is still very smart for a bird.
A tool is simply an object used to perform a task.
A rock used to chip flints into arrow heads by your definition would not count as a tool.
A non complex chemical tool?
An acid used in etching?
And as far as noncomplex chemical tools, I guess I was referring to things like octopuss squirting ink to confuse predators, skunks stink bomb, poison dart frogs skin..etc. of course those aren't tools in the sense of a blackpowder device or dynamite, or even an acid battery, but it's what I was referring to and the fact that the animal kingdom doesn't use such things. Like blackpowder weapons and explosives are a key difference in the creativity and sophistication(good and bad) of Humans vs animals.
The definition I was using is the one used by behavioural ecologists to distinguish the important step of tool creation from the simple utilisation of objects in the environment. It's got a slightly more specific definition than the general definition.
I agree, that in normal everyday language these things might be tools, but I do think the line between adapted and discovered tools is important when discussing animal intelligence.
generalgrog wrote: Well I think the OP is true to a point. Humans aren't unique in that God has given us certain traits when he created us. Just like he did when he created the animal kingdom.
GG
Allegedly.
We have a very full understanding of the tree of life and the animal kingdom due to a truly overwhelming amount of scientific evidence.
We arent unique because "God" made us similar to other things that "he" created. I have logical empirical evidence on my side and you have a questionably translated book of desert fables. Why not trust the science that cures cancer and makes planes fly and cars move and antibiotics work.
Just thought id point that out. Your free to believe in anything you like. Toothfairy, leprecauns, whatever. I just want to add a counterpoint. Im aware that many of you arent happy with people disagreeing with your religious beliefs though so ill shut up from now on in.
I don't mind you disagreeing, the problem with you matty is that you routinely cross the line from disagreeing to just being insulting. And that's being naughty
Of course I would counter that your "full understanding" of the tree of life is based on a truly overwhelming biased scientific communities presupposed and I might add incredibly faith based system of scientific uniformitarianism.
You guys love to make out like people like me are just being insulting, but you make ridiculous polarizing statements and then get pissed off when i am (forced) into making a counterpoint. And i make them because im presuming young and impressionable people will read this forum and i dont want them going to school and saying
" Humans aren't unique in that God has given us certain traits when he created us. Just like he did when he created the animal kingdom"
I dont WANT to argue about religion every chance i get, but as long as there is a chance that kids read lines like that i will of course do my civic duty and point it out! I love the way you say it so matter of factly as well
" Humans aren't unique in that God has given us certain traits when he created us. Just like he did when he created the animal kingdom"
You dont even say "Christians believe" or "I personally think" its basically God did this and thats the way it is.
I dont even think religion as a whole is a bad thing, it makes people do many charitable things, but you love to make out like this stuff is fact.
And it isnt. And the scientific community and the education system is on my side, not yours. You represent a belief in the "supernatural" just as outlandish as spirits and ghosts, and i will never ever accept it as an "explanation" for anything. You should point that out before you post and then i would be able to keep my mouth shut!
Sorry if you think im insulting mate, but thats the way of it. Its your opinion and nothing else.
You guys love to make out like people like me are just being insulting, but you make ridiculous polarizing statements and then get pissed off when i am (forced) into making a counterpoint. And i make them because im presuming young and impressionable people will read this forum and i dont want them going to school and saying
" Humans aren't unique in that God has given us certain traits when he created us. Just like he did when he created the animal kingdom"
I dont WANT to argue about religion every chance i get, but as long as there is a chance that kids read lines like that i will of course do my civic duty and point it out! I love the way you say it so matter of factly as well
" Humans aren't unique in that God has given us certain traits when he created us. Just like he did when he created the animal kingdom"
You dont even say "Christians believe" or "I personally think" its basically God did this and thats the way it is.
I dont even think religion as a whole is a bad thing, it makes people do many charitable things, but you love to make out like this stuff is fact.
And it isnt. And the scientific community and the education system is on my side, not yours. You represent a belief in the "supernatural" just as outlandish as spirits and ghosts, and i will never ever accept it as an "explanation" for anything. You should point that out before you post and then i would be able to keep my mouth shut!
Sorry if you think im insulting mate, but thats the way of it. Its your opinion and nothing else.
This post wasn't insulting, because you stated an opinion that wasn't followed up with "you an idiot" or some such thing. Bravo
And I'm sorry if you think that me stating my belief that God created human beings and animals is insulting. It's not an insult to state my belief, however it would be an insult if I followed my belief with something like "God created humans and your an idiot if you don't believe this." Of course that is kind of like what you used to do all the time with your "Creationists are idiots" lines. I applaud you for toning things down and participating in rational discourse. Maybe we can make some progress now?
I dont think its insulting at all mate, your more than entitled to your opinion, and several billion people agree with you. I was just saying, opinion is the operative word here.
Anyway, ive had ten pints and im off to bed. Night!
Da Boss wrote:The definition I was using is the one used by behavioural ecologists to distinguish the important step of tool creation from the simple utilisation of objects in the environment. It's got a slightly more specific definition than the general definition.
I agree, that in normal everyday language these things might be tools, but I do think the line between adapted and discovered tools is important when discussing animal intelligence.
In that case, the behavioural ecologists have it wrong
I was going to say, it isn't simply a question of semantics. The problem is how the behaviouralists are defining the perameters of study.
It is making assumptions based on a given world view. So maybe it is semantic.
There is obviously a qualitative difference between a simple learned use of a twig, and the relatively simple shaping to suit as per the Chimpanzee.
Again, by that definition the found/selected rock (an object in the environment) used for producing flint tools is not a tool. This is a ridiculous judgement, as the skill level involved is very high. There is no adaptation afaik of an elk or deer antler, yet thet have been used to dig the pits for mining the flint.
The learned clam cracking behaviour of the otter is still using a tool whether regardless of a specific restriction imposed by scientists. The use of one object to break another object, is no different in action and outcome, from a convict breaking stones with a hammer. The difference may be the ability of our species to imagine the cause and effect and put it into practice. Probably the chimpanzee has some similar cognitive ability also.
CBB wrote:The learned clam cracking behaviour of the otter is still using a tool whether regardless of a specific restriction imposed by scientists. The use of one object to break another object, is no different in action and outcome, from a convict breaking stones with a hammer. The difference may be the ability of our species to imagine the cause and effect and put it into practice. Probably the chimpanzee has some similar cognitive ability also.
My experience picking up rocks and using them to drive stakes into the ground, after breaking every single hammer I had, will attest to this. The rocks did a fine job of helping me complete the task. A rock attached to a stick doesn't really make it a 'true tool'... It's action and use makes it the tool.
It's not about whether it can be used to complete the task, it's about whether the animal can conceptualise it as other than it is, and work towards making it different in a focused way.
That is a very different way of thinking to simply using something you found.
As I suggested before, the difference between the abilities of a single human, and many humans, can be considered quite vast. The difference between a single human, and a single chimp, can be great, but no so great as to conclude we are on a completely different level of intelligence.
Perhaps we are on the cusp of being so (in terms of tool making and conceptual thinking) much more intelligent than one of our closest relatives, but I still don't consider it to be a massive difference, on the scale of individuals. Our social constructs appear to be one of the main reasons we are so successful; advanced language, varied roles within a group (which is something that is present in most animals, though not in such a complex way), and the list goes on.
Comparing what types of tools the chimps are able to make on their own, to what we are able to make on our own, shows a very basic similarity. I consider this evidence that we are no where near as smart as we think we are.
I don't like posting links a bunch of times, but this is one of my favorite 'science' clips.
KingCracker wrote:Yea, I guess the fact that you posted this using a computer, that was made in a factory that was built by humans, that was inturn replied on this internet forum, again made by humans, by other humans, doesnt matter. We arnt unique compared to a monkey that uses a twig to get food.
Factory workers are trained to do one simplistic step of a long, complicated process. You could train a chimp to do that. Of course, they have more dignity and self respect than Humans, so they would most likely rather throw poop at you, because throwing poop at people rules!!!
Wrexasaur wrote:The individual animal or the group?
As I suggested before, the difference between the abilities of a single human, and many humans, can be considered quite vast. The difference between a single human, and a single chimp, can be great, but no so great as to conclude we are on a completely different level of intelligence.
Perhaps we are on the cusp of being so (in terms of tool making and conceptual thinking) much more intelligent than one of our closest relatives, but I still don't consider it to be a massive difference, on the scale of individuals. Our social constructs appear to be one of the main reasons we are so successful; advanced language, varied roles within a group (which is something that is present in most animals, though not in such a complex way), and the list goes on.
Comparing what types of tools the chimps are able to make on their own, to what we are able to make on our own, shows a very basic similarity. I consider this evidence that we are no where near as smart as we think we are.
I don't like posting links a bunch of times, but this is one of my favorite 'science' clips.
Aw man I love Dr. Tyson, the man is awesome. I love how he explains insanely smart things to normal dumb people like myself, and I get it.
But yea I was making a point along the lines of what GG was getting at. Sure if you scale our successes to a chimps success, they might seem comparable. And sure you can train a factory worker to build this junk we hold in such high esteem, how to build it assembly line style. But the fact still remains we built this stuff. We can chew up the earth and pull ruble from it, melt it down, and build automobiles from it. We can clear entire forests and build buildings and homes from what was once there. We send people into incredibly complex rockets, and shoot them into space to do sciencey space stuff.
You really want to compare that to chimps? Really? The closest chimps came to space flight on their own was when the alpha male chased something up a tree and then fell from it.
I did not suggest that comparison, and provided many statements to make my own comparison clear.
As a species we have accomplished a great deal, but as individuals we for the most part, just haven't. We are not a species chock a block with geniuses IMO, and even in their case, they are not producing much besides ideas. Ideas have value, but practical implementation is simply MORE valuable.
It doesn't matter if I know how to turn farts into ice cream, if there is not a construct there to bring that idea to life. Maybe chimps dream things that would completely astound us in their complexity, but their social constructs are not developed enough to even begin to express their abilities. This doesn't mean that we are no more intelligent than chimps, but for me at least, I don't see us being all that further along on whatever track we are talking about right now.
I think the comparison of interstellar travel compared to our technology at the moment, begins to give some sort of reason to the limitations we face, and the very obvious obstacles that we may simply never overcome.
We are still stuck living on the same planet as those dumb-ass chimps... just sayin.'. Our survival strategy may turn out to be a bit of a short lived concept, after all, we haven't been poking this planet for that long as it is, certainly not within what we consider the 10k years or so of civilization. We may be within the very first steps of actually being sentient and capable of advanced thought, where chimps simply reside within the first two steps... out of 100 steps or so.
generalgrog wrote:Of course I would counter that your "full understanding" of the tree of life is based on a truly overwhelming biased scientific communities presupposed and I might add incredibly faith based system of scientific uniformitarianism.
GG
There is no image macro that can express what I am feeling right now.
generalgrog wrote:Of course I would counter that your "full understanding" of the tree of life is based on a truly overwhelming biased scientific communities presupposed and I might add incredibly faith based system of scientific uniformitarianism.
GG
There is no image macro that can express what I am feeling right now.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
There is no image macro that can express what I am feeling right now.
Its ok, we've had this conversation many times before. The conclusion has always been that Grog doesn't understand the distinction between faith and belief; ie. the presence or absence of empirical evidence.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
There is no image macro that can express what I am feeling right now.
Its ok, we've had this conversation many times before. The conclusion has always been that Grog doesn't understand the distinction between faith and belief; ie. the presence or absence of empirical evidence.
Yes we have been here many times and I never cease to be amazed at the level of word twisting that my friend Dogma loves to engage in.
The fact is... there is really only a semantic distinction between faith and belief, and Dogma should know better than to try and create a false dichotomy between them.
And he also should know that one persons empirical evidence is another persons empirical fallacy.
GG
generalgrog wrote:The fact is... there is really only a semantic distinction between faith and belief, and Dogma should know better than to try and create a false dichotomy between them.
If by "semantic distinction" you mean that they're two different words, then I guess you're right, they're two different words! Faith has several meanings and belief, often prefaced with "reasonable" or some other word to distinguish it from belief without evidence, has several others, though faith is usually meant in the way that religious folk use it in dialogue, in that their faith excuses them from having to find evidence for their beliefs and/or statements, which is the primary difference between the two. Faith supplants evidence, while (scientific) belief is used to show that the scientist in question thinks that there is a causal connection between two or more things. eg I believe that the tau lepton is affected negatively by the etc because the thetans and so on, as opposed to goddidit.
But otherwise holy crap where do I get the brain bleach.
generalgrog wrote:
Yes we have been here many times and I never cease to be amazed at the level of word twisting that my friend Dogma loves to engage in.
The only reason that you believe I twist words is that you are largely ignorant with respect to the meanings of much of the technical language you utilize.
generalgrog wrote:
The fact is... there is really only a semantic distinction between faith and belief, and Dogma should know better than to try and create a false dichotomy between them.
No, that's entirely false. Belief is based on evidence, faith is belief despite the absence of evidence, or in the face of countermanding evidence. This is not a semantic distinction as it is a matter of kind, rather than a matter of connotation.
Moreover, to state that two things are distinct from one another is not a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is a situation in which only two options are presented as possible, despite the presence of other logically possible solutions. For example, people who claim that holes in the fossil record are proof of creationism are operating under a false dichotomy; ie. if evolution fails to explain something, then there must be a God.
generalgrog wrote:
And he also should know that one persons empirical evidence is another persons empirical fallacy.
GG
There is no such thing as an empirical fallacy. There are fallacious arguments. Again, you don't seem to understand the terminology surrounding logical argument, and I think that goes a long way to explaining your confusion regarding things like fact, belief, knowledge, and faith.
Empirical evidence is what it is because it cannot be fallacious. The arguments which are constructed on, or supported by, empirical evidence can be fallacious, but that merely indicates that the argument is flawed.
Yeah, there are animals that use tools, and that's pretty cool, and it's an indication of the types of early tool use our ancestors might have first been capable of. And there are several orders of magnitude between that and the levels of sophistication we take for granted every day.
Which really just leads us to consider what evolutionary pressures might cause a speices capable of simple tool use to become increasingly smarter, even when increasingly large brains (and the skulls to fit them in) make birth much harder, even requiring the mother to give birth relatively early in the child's development.
Wrexasaur wrote:We as a species have accomplished a great deal of things, using a great deal of tools. When you begin to look at the average person, and what they can create on a daily basis, you are no longer talking about spaceships and nuclear power plants. On the whole we can accomplish things that require a great deal more intelligence, but individually we are usually not creating any tools, ever. I would go so far as to say that we have become less creative in terms of specific tools, unless you want to start talking about specific guy Bob, who is a toolmaker.
You don't make your car, you don't make your oven, you don't make your toilet, and you don't make your house... among practically every other tool that we use, we make next to none of them through an individuals means, and would be without those advanced tools if not for factors beyond tool making, and well into social organizing. Bob makes the tools and we use them.
No, and no individual ant could ever conceive of building something as complex as an ant's nest, but they all complete their individual pieces and between them they build something incredible. I would argue though that this makes ants more fascinating and more brilliant than if one ant had built the whole thing himself. I'd argue the same for humanity, we've built a society which contains more sophistication than anyone one of us could ever come to fully understand, even if he dedicated his life to it.
generalgrog wrote:Yes we have been here many times and I never cease to be amazed at the level of word twisting that my friend Dogma loves to engage in.
The fact is... there is really only a semantic distinction between faith and belief, and Dogma should know better than to try and create a false dichotomy between them.
No, seriously, there is a difference between the scientific method and religion. There is. They answer different questions in wholly different ways, and it is a really bad idea to mix them up. It is bad for science and it is bad for religion.
Faith takes truth before evidence, which is fine and a very good way of answering some big questions. A belief (or whatever term you use to define it) takes the evidence and forms the most logical view, then looks to challenge that view by gathering more evidence.
Now, you can argue (and almost certainly will ) that science has some level of dogmatism that restricts the scientific method (and in specific instances in more or less I would agree to a limited extent) but you can't claim that the two processes are the same. They just aren't.
And this is the point in the thread where dogma starts throwing words like "your ignorant" and "you don't seem to understand" around, as a way to try and undermine is debate opponent. It happens in every thread where someone doesn't buy into his psycho babble double talk and an ad hominem attack is needed to cover his tracks.
Anyway...to continue
be·lief
/bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled[bih-leef] Show IPA
–noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
faith
–noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.
Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
Those are from dictionary online..You can argue with the writers of the dictionary if you want to, but they certainly are close enough to be interchangeable..
Also from the Bible.
Heb 11:1(KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Now to empirical
em·pir·i·cal
/ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/ Show Spelled[em-pir-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2.
depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3.
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
The problem of course which is what I repeatably remind Dogma is that just because some scientist performs an empirical experiment doesn't mean his results haven't been skewed by some of his internal scientific bias...thus creating an empirical fallacy.
You can support an empirical evidence with biased skewed data all day long it doesn't make your empirical evidence true. And you know that is what I meant but you prefer to go ad hominem.
We can play the semantic game all you want Dogma....but please try and keep your emotions out of this.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
generalgrog wrote:The fact is... there is really only a semantic distinction between faith and belief, and Dogma should know better than to try and create a false dichotomy between them.
If by "semantic distinction" you mean that they're two different words, then I guess you're right, they're two different words! Faith has several meanings and belief, often prefaced with "reasonable" or some other word to distinguish it from belief without evidence, has several others, though faith is usually meant in the way that religious folk use it in dialogue, in that their faith excuses them from having to find evidence for their beliefs and/or statements, which is the primary difference between the two. Faith supplants evidence, while (scientific) belief is used to show that the scientist in question thinks that there is a causal connection between two or more things. eg I believe that the tau lepton is affected negatively by the etc because the thetans and so on, as opposed to goddidit.
But otherwise holy crap where do I get the brain bleach.
warboss ---What you are talking about is "blind faith"...if you think there is no evidence for a creator I suggest you walk outside your door, look up at the night sky, look at some of the stuff the hubble telescope has seen, and even taking this back to the beginning of the thread, the very fact that man has an intelligent spark to be able to think creatively is evidence. That's just the simple basic stuff, not to mention the gene code which points to a designer or creator, or even the concept of irreducible complexity. And of course the millons of people that claim to have a relationship with the crator is even more evidence. But go on believing that there is no evidence for God.
Also as I reminded dogma, scientific belief or faith is based on a set of principles called uniformitarianism which says that the basic laws of the universe have always been the same.. never changing... always constant. That's a pretty amazing faith system if you ask me..especially seeing that modern science is really only a few 100 years old. They weren't around when the earth was created, yet we are expected to believe their 4 billlion year old earth doctrines because it "makes more sense" than a Divine Creator? The whole radioisotope dating system is one HUGE faith system. How do they know that the decay rates have always been the same? Could they have been altered in some way? just because they jump to the conclusion of a 4billion year old earth based on an assumption that radioisotope dating is accurate doesn't mean I have to.
For example why do we find radiocarbons in diamonds which are supposed to be some of the oldest materials on earth,. much older than the 60,000 or so years radiocarbon is good for dating to.
generalgrog, how do you reconcile your idea that science is influenced by some bias towards a worldview that doesn't match a literal view of the Bible, with the fact that many, many accepted and estabslished scientists are Christians. Likely more are self-identified, committed Christians than are self-identified, committed atheists.
Science finds what science finds, and conclusions are drawn from that. There is bad science and there is bias, but part of the process is constantly re-examine and question assumptions. The bias you're claiming would only be possible if the scientific community was overwhelmingly atheist, and it isn't.
generalgrog wrote:And this is the point in the thread where dogma starts throwing words like "your ignorant" and "you don't seem to understand" around, as a way to try and undermine is debate opponent. It happens in every thread where someone doesn't buy into his psycho babble double talk and an ad hominem attack is needed to cover his tracks.
I have no tracks to cover, everything I stated was clear, precise, and easily referenced. I call them as I see them, and you misused 4 different terms in your post. Had you not misused those words, it would not have appeared as though you did not understand them, or that were ignorant of their meaning. You say that I engage in 'psycho babble', but that seems rather ridiculous given that I only used language taken directly from your post. If you consider that terminology to be 'psycho babble' then I must ask why you would bother to use it, as 'psycho babble' generally denotes terminology used in the course of argument to lend an air of authority without substantive contribution; implying that the speaker is either fabricating terminology, or ignorant of the meaning of the terminology.
Additionally, it bears mentioning that ad hominem is not necessarily fallacious. If the characteristics being referenced, in this case understanding and knowledge, are relevant to the matter at hand, then the argument is not fallacious.
generalgrog wrote:
Those are from dictionary online..You can argue with the writers of the dictionary if you want to, but they certainly are close enough to be interchangeable..
Actually, they aren't, not outside of colloquial exchange. Notably your definition of faith posits that it is explicitly related both religion, and the absence of proof. While your definition of belief explicitly notes that it is related to the acceptance of that which isn't susceptible to rigorous proof; a good example of this being formal logic.
generalgrog wrote:
The problem of course which is what I repeatably remind Dogma is that just because some scientist performs an empirical experiment doesn't mean his results haven't been skewed by some of his internal scientific bias...thus creating an empirical fallacy.
Again, there's no such thing as an empirical fallacy. Empirical evidence can be corrupted, inaccurate, skewed, or non-representative, but it cannot be fallacious.
Of course, that's why peer review and repeatability are so important to the scientific method. Its not as if one experiment is done, and the results are then taken to be representative of general fact. Sure, that happens sometimes, but that's simply bad science.
generalgrog wrote:
You can support an empirical evidence with biased skewed data all day long it doesn't make your empirical evidence true. And you know that is what I meant but you prefer to go ad hominem.
No, I had no idea what you meant, because you misused the word fallacy.
Also, data is a form of empirical evidence, not something which supports it.
generalgrog wrote:
We can play the semantic game all you want Dogma....but please try and keep your emotions out of this.
I'm not emotional, you're reading emotion into my posts. Most likely because I'm using strong language, however that's only related to the simplicity of the errors you're making.
generalgrog wrote:
Also as I reminded dogma, scientific belief or faith is based on a set of principles called uniformitarianism which says that the basic laws of the universe have always been the same.. never changing... always constant. That's a pretty amazing faith system if you ask me..especially seeing that modern science is really only a few 100 years old.
Science isn't based on uniformitarianism. Science is based on the scientific method, which is itself based on the idea that mechanical laws can be discovered through rigorous, extended observation. Not all scientists are uniformitarians (you'll find a lot of non-uniformitarians in theoretical physics), and that doctrine is dominant only because it has far and away the most practical applications.
generalgrog wrote:
What you are talking about is "blind faith"...if you think there is no evidence for a creator I suggest you walk outside your door, look up at the night sky, look at some of the stuff the hubble telescope has seen, and even taking this back to the beginning of the thread, the very fact that man has an intelligent spark to be able to think creatively is evidence. That's just the simple basic stuff, not to mention the gene code which points to a designer or creator, or even the concept of irreducible complexity. And of course the millons of people that claim to have a relationship with the crator is even more evidence. But go on believing that there is no evidence for God.
Even if you accept those things as evidence of God, they are not evidence of a young Earth.
generalgrog wrote:
They weren't around when the earth was created, yet we are expected to believe their 4 billlion year old earth doctrines because it "makes more sense" than a Divine Creator?
The notion that the Earth is 4 billion years old does not contradict the notion that there is a God, it only contradicts the notion that the Earth is less, or more, than 4 billion years old.
generalgrog wrote:
The whole radioisotope dating system is one HUGE faith system. How do they know that the decay rates have always been the same? Could they have been altered in some way? just because they jump to the conclusion of a 4billion year old earth based on an assumption that radioisotope dating is accurate doesn't mean I have to.
The vast majority of empirical evidence (notably the decay of compounds with short half-lives) points to it being accurate. Now, if in fact radiometric dating is inaccurate, and the Earth is either much older or younger, that fact still would not be evidence of God's existence.
generalgrog wrote:
For example why do we find radiocarbons in diamonds which are supposed to be some of the oldest materials on earth,. much older than the 60,000 or so years radiocarbon is good for dating to.
The 60,000 isn't based on the total disappearance of C-14 from a sample, but an approximation of the period during which C-14 production in the upper atmosphere has remained largely constant. Its a standard of accuracy, not a statement regarding the presence of C-14 in any sample of any age.
Wrexasaur wrote:We as a species have accomplished a great deal of things, using a great deal of tools. When you begin to look at the average person, and what they can create on a daily basis, you are no longer talking about spaceships and nuclear power plants. On the whole we can accomplish things that require a great deal more intelligence, but individually we are usually not creating any tools, ever. I would go so far as to say that we have become less creative in terms of specific tools, unless you want to start talking about specific guy Bob, who is a toolmaker.
You don't make your car, you don't make your oven, you don't make your toilet, and you don't make your house... among practically every other tool that we use, we make next to none of them through an individuals means, and would be without those advanced tools if not for factors beyond tool making, and well into social organizing. Bob makes the tools and we use them.
No, and no individual ant could ever conceive of building something as complex as an ant's nest, but they all complete their individual pieces and between them they build something incredible. I would argue though that this makes ants more fascinating and more brilliant than if one ant had built the whole thing himself. I'd argue the same for humanity, we've built a society which contains more sophistication than anyone one of us could ever come to fully understand, even if he dedicated his life to it.
Sometimes I just feel that we don't solve many problems, simply because we don't have the ability to do so.
Over the course of human civilization, more and more advancements have been made, and no single person can lay claim to that progress. I have no problem with 'human pride', or whatever you want to call it, I just feel that in general our future may not be long-lived. My opinion is bound to change to some degree over the course of my lifetime, and seeing progress being made is likely to be the cause of that.
I know that we are quite a unique species (at least on some level, there are some pretty amazing things besides us on this planet), but as individuals we just aren't particularly amazing in general. I've known amazing people, but in groups a lot of that is obscured by the way we interact on a larger scale than person to person. It's nice to have computers, clothing, houses, and modern medicine; no doubt about that.
A lot of this comes down to how you think about people in general, and I tend to think a bit more about the bad stuff, TBH. Maybe that makes me negative, but seeing the amount of problems left to solve leaves me with a bit of a cold feeling. I may be living a pretty comfortable life all things considered, but I know of more than enough situations in which people are barely living, let alone living comfortably. This, like I said, leaves me with less admiration of the human species, than it does a lack of understanding of human societies. I hope to learn more so that I may balance that out a bit.
We appear to be quite vicious creatures on the whole of it, even if we have the ability to create complex societies that are quite beyond the realm of complete understanding. I dunno, I feel like I may be ranting at this point. Carry on.
sebster wrote:generalgrog, how do you reconcile your idea that science is influenced by some bias towards a worldview that doesn't match a literal view of the Bible, with the fact that many, many accepted and estabslished scientists are Christians. Likely more are self-identified, committed Christians than are self-identified, committed atheists.
I want to answer this...
Science finds what science finds, and conclusions are drawn from that. There is bad science and there is bias, but part of the process is constantly re-examine and question assumptions. The bias you're claiming would only be possible if the scientific community was overwhelmingly atheist, and it isn't.
It seems like GG is referring to the foundation of many fields of science, though he may be directly referencing the very concept of science itself; It is kind of hard to tell. There is a great deal of science that is simply not re-evaluated anymore, though much anything that would be essential to the validity of an entire field of study, is automatically adjusted for IMHO. If 2 becomes three then you are going to have to an awful lot of rethinking, but I don't know of many instances where entire scientific fields are thrown upside-down. That seems more a fantasy than anything else, although it is true that some things do change, but not in such drastic ways as GG is suggesting... or seems to be suggesting.
Given the fact that I usually ignore threads in which GG is accusing people of 'psycho-babble', at least for my part it is safe to assume that I don't agree with most of what he says in those situations. More than that, I have a hard time following why the conversations are necessary, as they generally have a pattern consistent with having no resolution whatsoever.
Wrexasaur wrote:Sometimes I just feel that we don't solve many problems, simply because we don't have the ability to do so.
Is that possibly, to some extent, a product of where we tend to focus instead on the problems we haven’t solved, instead of the ones we have. We don’t talk about achievements like overcoming polio anymore, because, well, we’ve achieved it and now we’re looking at the next problem.
The evidence of how far we’ve come can be found in how much more we expect. A miscarriage or an infant death is seen now as horrible, horrible tragedy, something that shouldn’t happen. We are a few generations from a time when it was almost more common than not.
Over the course of human civilization, more and more advancements have been made, and no single person can lay claim to that progress. I have no problem with 'human pride', or whatever you want to call it, I just feel that in general our future may not be long-lived. My opinion is bound to change to some degree over the course of my lifetime, and seeing progress being made is likely to be the cause of that.
See, I’d say the opposite, I’d be more worried about our ability to survive if we were dependant on individual geniuses to save us from problems. As it is, we’re dependant on every person adapting to his own circumstances, and society being a reflection of each individual doing just that.
I know that we are quite a unique species (at least on some level, there are some pretty amazing things besides us on this planet), but as individuals we just aren't particularly amazing in general. I've known amazing people, but in groups a lot of that is obscured by the way we interact on a larger scale than person to person. It's nice to have computers, clothing, houses, and modern medicine; no doubt about that.
See, that’s the thing, no person is smart enough to understand everything we’ve accomplished. They way some individuals have created ideas, and come together with other people with other ideas, and then with other people with unique skills, and built all the things we take for granted is a kind of genius that’s miles beyond anyone one person.
Seriously, ant’s nests are incredibly intricate, and full of all kinds of pieces that are put exactly where they need to be, but individual ants are incredibly stupid. Well, we’re many orders of magnitude smarter than ants, and our combined creation is even more incredible.
I may be living a pretty comfortable life all things considered, but I know of more than enough situations in which people are barely living, let alone living comfortably. This, like I said, leaves me with less admiration of the human species, than it does a lack of understanding of human societies. I hope to learn more so that I may balance that out a bit.
Sure, life is cruel and arbitrary, hunger and malnutrition are common among all manner of species. That we’ve built such wealth without completely conquering hunger among our own species isn’t something to be proud of, but it shouldn’t discount how much of the normal state of hunger we have overcome.
We appear to be quite vicious creatures on the whole of it, even if we have the ability to create complex societies that are quite beyond the realm of complete understanding. I dunno, I feel like I may be ranting at this point. Carry on.
There is plenty of viciousness in our species, but also a great deal of empathy and kindness. It is a strange thing that we focus so much on the cruelty of others, and not the kindness, though.
It seems like GG is referring to the foundation of many fields of science, though he may be directly referencing the very concept of science itself; It is kind of hard to tell. There is a great deal of science that is simply not re-evaluated anymore, though much anything that would be essential to the validity of an entire field of study, is automatically adjusted for IMHO. If 2 becomes three then you are going to have to an awful lot of rethinking, but I don't know of many instances where entire scientific fields are thrown upside-down.
We do throw whole fields of science up in the air, we’ve done so quite a few times in the last century. The people who win Nobel prizes are generally the people who’ve changed the thinking of the scientific community on an issue. More often than not the new ideas will face some resistance,
The challenges creationism gives to science aren’t ignored because science is stuck with some kind of atheist conviction, it’s because the challenges creationism gives to science have no scientific basis. There’s no hypothesis, and certainly no testing of that hypothesis. Instead there’s a collection of misunderstood scientific concepts (often times deliberately mangled) that exist as talking points. It works well enough for rhetoric, hence the large numbers of people believing there really is a controversy, but it isn’t science.
generalgrog wrote:And this is the point in the thread where dogma starts throwing words like "your ignorant" and "you don't seem to understand" around, as a way to try and undermine is debate opponent. It happens in every thread where someone doesn't buy into his psycho babble double talk and an ad hominem attack is needed to cover his tracks.
I have no tracks to cover, everything I stated was clear, precise, and easily referenced. I call them as I see them, and you misused 4 different terms in your post. Had you not misused those words, it would not have appeared as though you did not understand them, or that were ignorant of their meaning. You say that I engage in 'psycho babble', but that seems rather ridiculous given that I only used language taken directly from your post. If you consider that terminology to be 'psycho babble' then I must ask why you would bother to use it, as 'psycho babble' generally denotes terminology used in the course of argument to lend an air of authority without substantive contribution; implying that the speaker is either fabricating terminology, or ignorant of the meaning of the terminology.
Additionally, it bears mentioning that ad hominem is not necessarily fallacious. If the characteristics being referenced, in this case understanding and knowledge, are relevant to the matter at hand, then the argument is not fallacious.
generalgrog wrote:
Those are from dictionary online..You can argue with the writers of the dictionary if you want to, but they certainly are close enough to be interchangeable..
Actually, they aren't, not outside of colloquial exchange. Notably your definition of faith posits that it is explicitly related both religion, and the absence of proof. While your definition of belief explicitly notes that it is related to the acceptance of that which isn't susceptible to rigorous proof; a good example of this being formal logic.
generalgrog wrote:
The problem of course which is what I repeatably remind Dogma is that just because some scientist performs an empirical experiment doesn't mean his results haven't been skewed by some of his internal scientific bias...thus creating an empirical fallacy.
Again, there's no such thing as an empirical fallacy. Empirical evidence can be corrupted, inaccurate, skewed, or non-representative, but it cannot be fallacious.
Of course, that's why peer review and repeatability are so important to the scientific method. Its not as if one experiment is done, and the results are then taken to be representative of general fact. Sure, that happens sometimes, but that's simply bad science.
generalgrog wrote:
You can support an empirical evidence with biased skewed data all day long it doesn't make your empirical evidence true. And you know that is what I meant but you prefer to go ad hominem.
No, I had no idea what you meant, because you misused the word fallacy.
Also, data is a form of empirical evidence, not something which supports it.
generalgrog wrote:
We can play the semantic game all you want Dogma....but please try and keep your emotions out of this.
I'm not emotional, you're reading emotion into my posts. Most likely because I'm using strong language, however that's only related to the simplicity of the errors you're making.
generalgrog wrote:
Also as I reminded dogma, scientific belief or faith is based on a set of principles called uniformitarianism which says that the basic laws of the universe have always been the same.. never changing... always constant. That's a pretty amazing faith system if you ask me..especially seeing that modern science is really only a few 100 years old.
Science isn't based on uniformitarianism. Science is based on the scientific method, which is itself based on the idea that mechanical laws can be discovered through rigorous, extended observation. Not all scientists are uniformitarians (you'll find a lot of non-uniformitarians in theoretical physics), and that doctrine is dominant only because it has far and away the most practical applications.
generalgrog wrote:
What you are talking about is "blind faith"...if you think there is no evidence for a creator I suggest you walk outside your door, look up at the night sky, look at some of the stuff the hubble telescope has seen, and even taking this back to the beginning of the thread, the very fact that man has an intelligent spark to be able to think creatively is evidence. That's just the simple basic stuff, not to mention the gene code which points to a designer or creator, or even the concept of irreducible complexity. And of course the millons of people that claim to have a relationship with the crator is even more evidence. But go on believing that there is no evidence for God.
Even if you accept those things as evidence of God, they are not evidence of a young Earth.
generalgrog wrote:
They weren't around when the earth was created, yet we are expected to believe their 4 billlion year old earth doctrines because it "makes more sense" than a Divine Creator?
The notion that the Earth is 4 billion years old does not contradict the notion that there is a God, it only contradicts the notion that the Earth is less, or more, than 4 billion years old.
generalgrog wrote:
The whole radioisotope dating system is one HUGE faith system. How do they know that the decay rates have always been the same? Could they have been altered in some way? just because they jump to the conclusion of a 4billion year old earth based on an assumption that radioisotope dating is accurate doesn't mean I have to.
The vast majority of empirical evidence (notably the decay of compounds with short half-lives) points to it being accurate. Now, if in fact radiometric dating is inaccurate, and the Earth is either much older or younger, that fact still would not be evidence of God's existence.
generalgrog wrote:
For example why do we find radiocarbons in diamonds which are supposed to be some of the oldest materials on earth,. much older than the 60,000 or so years radiocarbon is good for dating to.
The 60,000 isn't based on the total disappearance of C-14 from a sample, but an approximation of the period during which C-14 production in the upper atmosphere has remained largely constant. Its a standard of accuracy, not a statement regarding the presence of C-14 in any sample of any age.
I find it terribly amusing when creationists start listing their evidence, it really is absurd stuff they come out with, and it is made all the more amusing to me because i have sat through several of disgraced "doctor" Kent Hovinds seminars and they just parrot all the exact same stuff he came out with. It has been debunked so many times it really isnt worth bothering to type rebuttals such as yours Dogma.
Its easier to simply say that most mono-theists know that evolution is so well supported that is has to be taken as a fact, and educated theologians from the Pope down are firm in their support of evolution and the modern Science that has backed it up so firmly for 200 years since. Creationism is just a fruity little club and they dont have any credibility whatsoever. They have been beaten in the courts and they are being beaten by plain old common sense.
What i really dont understand though, is why would a Scientist be "biased" anyway? What would he gain from it? Do they get any reward for lying to everyone?
Well, the theory goes that uniformitarian scientists set out to prove that there is no place for a certain sort of God in natural history, and so, somehow, massage the relevant data when determining the age of the Earth. How that data is massaged is never explained, its just sort of hand waved. Never mind that legitimate evidence supporting the idea that the Earth is much younger than it appears, or that God exists, would be so earth shattering as to make the scientist who discovered it one of the most famous and influential people on the planet.
And that's really the weakness of creationism, it doesn't have positive evidence for its position; that God created Earth according to the Biblical description. There is a lot of research done to poke holes in things like evolution, or the age of the Earth, but none of that actually works to prove the original hypothesis. And even then, a lot of the supposed 'proof' is based on poor understanding of the initially disputed claim. The diamond case is a good example of that.
What i really dont understand though, is why would a Scientist be "biased" anyway? What would he gain from it? Do they get any reward for lying to everyone?
Can and does happen Matty, but generally peer review is in place to validate theories.
The only problem is that there can be established viewpoints which reject new ideas.
However most scientists will hold that there is the possibility of new paradigms and that it is possible that current views may be superceded.
Debates rage on in the scientific community but afaik it is mostly non violent.
generalgrog wrote:warboss ---What you are talking about is "blind faith"...if you think there is no evidence for a creator I suggest you walk outside your door, look up at the night sky, look at some of the stuff the hubble telescope has seen...
That you are unable to conceive of a way in which these could have come into existence without a guiding hand is not, in , evidence of a guiding hand. It's just evidence of your lack of imagination.
and even taking this back to the beginning of the thread, the very fact that man has an intelligent spark to be able to think creatively is evidence.
It's evidence of itself, sure.
Evidence of a guiding hand? Not so much. If our bodies were created by an intelligent designer why are our eyes so badly engineered? Why are our backs so weak? Why, when starving, do we lose muscle before fat?
Not that you'll admit that this is evidence against the idea of an intelligent designer, of course.
That's just the simple basic stuff, not to mention the gene code which points to a designer or creator
No it doesn't.
Wait, no, I concede that it points to an unintelligent, lazy, designer who reuses the same basic shapes over and over and doesn't manage to get results better than would be expected by letting a bunch of one-celled organisms loose to reproduce for a billion or so years.
or even the concept of irreducible complexity.
Which has no basis at all in fact. There is no such thing as an irreducibly complex organism.
And of course the millons of people that claim to have a relationship with the crator is even more evidence.
It's evidence that there are millions of people who claim that they have a relationship with god. Throughout recorded history there were millions of people who thought that the sun revolved around the earth. Does this mean that there's strong levels of evidence for that theory?
The answer is no, by the by. The number of people that agree with a given statement does not have any influence on whether or not a given fact is true. Indeed, the only way it could serve as evidence of anything outside of itself is if we first assume your conclusion; that god exists. OF COURSE if god exists there will be people who believe in it. Truly, it would be miraculous if nobody did. However, this does absolutely nothing to advance your cause in a non-fallicious argument.
But go on believing that there is no evidence for God.
I believe that there's some evidence for a god/s. I just happen to also believe that it's utterly unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already believe in god/s.
Also as I reminded dogma, scientific belief or faith is based on a set of principles called uniformitarianism which says that the basic laws of the universe have always been the same.. never changing... always constant. That's a pretty amazing faith system if you ask me..especially seeing that modern science is really only a few 100 years old. They weren't around when the earth was created, yet we are expected to believe their 4 billlion year old earth doctrines because it "makes more sense" than a Divine Creator?
The idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being who never acts within this universe in a way that cannot be seen by reasonable people as an entirely natural event (healing amputees, for example), and whose best plan for removing "original sin" from his creations (who he knew when he created would sin, being omniscient and all) was to send himself to earth and arrange to have himself killed and then raised from the dead, instead of, say, just removing said original sin (which he could have just done, being omnipotent) CLEARLY makes more sense than the idea that events have natural causes that go back forever, or near as damnit, and that while we can't be sure that the laws under which said causes operate have never changed, it makes a lot of sense given the results we have.
@WARBOSS all you did was say why you didn't believe the evidence, just not believing the evidence dosn't make it untrue. I could say that I don't believe in nuclear fission but that wouldn't make it untrue.
@ Dogma..if the diamond case is a "poor understanding of the inital claim" please enlighten us all. I'm sure you will do a google search to scour the internet for an article from talkorigins or somewhere else to find an excuse they have come up with. But those papers actually make radiocarbon dating seem less acurate since they have to come up with all these other tests to "fudge" the results to get the answer they want.
Carbon 14 has a 1/2 life of 5370(approx) years, if a diamond or coal is millions of years old we shouldn't find any carbon 14, it should all be decayed away.
@Sebster..This is my opinion only.... regarding atheists in the scientifuc community comes down an excuse to not serve God. Anyway they can find to try and come up with a way to discredit God, the Bible and especially Christianity furthers their own self interest. As far as people who claim to have a faith or claim to be Christians and still hold to certain tenets of scientific doctrine I really don't have an answer, I mean there are creation scientists that are evolutionists, it's a false assumption to think that all creation scientists are young earthers. Again I don't have an answer to why they would choose to believe something that contradicts the Bible...maybe a weak faith..a poor understanding of theology?..I don't know
@matty and dogma...I have to agree with some of your asessments regarding certain creation scientists. Not all creation scientists are created equal, ther eis certainly some bad science and stuff this is just plain wrong out there. However there is some really good stuff out there as well, and I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water liek you guys seem to be willing to do.
generalgrog wrote:@WARBOSS all you did was say why you didn't believe the evidence, just not believing the evidence dosn't make it untrue. I could say that I don't believe in nuclear fission but that wouldn't make it untrue.
I could say that because you are using a computer to communicate with me that this is evidence that you are a communist from 1738.
Can you see why this is ridiculous?
(in case you can't it's because it's not actually evidence of that fact.)
[just in case this is a thing where you're using a word that you don't know exactly what other people think you mean:
–noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object)
4.
to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5.
to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
—Idiom
6.
in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.]
To spell it out for you: The majority of the examples that you posted are not actually evidence of a god/s because they do not point towards the existence of a god/s as being more likely than if they (the evidences) didn't exist.
edit: Oh hey I didn't really address what you posted.
@WARBOSS all you did was say why you didn't believe the evidence, just not believing the evidence dosn't make it untrue. I could say that I don't believe in nuclear fission but that wouldn't make it untrue.
You could say that you don't believe in nuclear fission. You would then, to convince other people of the validity of your view, have to explain away nuclear weaponry and nuclear reactors, among other things.
There is no such "hard" evidence for a divine creator, and simply saying that there is doesn't make it true.
warboss... you don't have to spell anything out for me...I know exactly what you are saying. It's just I happen to disagree with you.(that it's not evidence)
generalgrog wrote:warboss... you don't have to spell anything out for me...I know exactly what you are saying. It's just I happen to disagree with you.(that it's not evidence)
GG
Specifically, irreducible complexity.
How can it be evidence for anything (except for intellectual dishonesty) when as far as can be ascertained it does not exist?
I dont even bother with all the Science anymore because many normal everyday people just dont seem have a good grasp of it, indeed, i didnt either as a young man, and its taken years of reading to grasp the entirety of this argument. For example, the vast majority of the general public still seems to have a real problem with word 'theory' and many creationists rely on this ignorance when they are purposely misleading people. So i just stick with good old common sense. Why do we suck so badly?! They always hold the eye up as proof of design, even though it sucks utterly. Why do 50% of people need glasses? Why do my knees and back ache so much at such a young age? Why does my jaw not have enough space for all my teeth? If a loving god designed us all, he would have done a far better bloody job! Ive always said this, its a very simple argument, either you CAN get complexity from simplicity, or 'something from nothing' or you cant. If you can, then creationists have no argument at all. And if you cant, well then God cant be real, because 'he' is very complex by definition isnt he? Their argument just seems to defy common sense to me because it argues against itself. If everything complex needs a designer then god absolutely has to have one as well.
generalgrog wrote:
@ Dogma..if the diamond case is a "poor understanding of the inital claim" please enlighten us all. I'm sure you will do a google search to scour the internet for an article from talkorigins or somewhere else to find an excuse they have come up with. But those papers actually make radiocarbon dating seem less acurate since they have to come up with all these other tests to "fudge" the results to get the answer they want.
The accuracy of any given test is determined entirely by its agreement with other, similar tests. The fact that the accuracy of carbon dating is supported by other methods radiometric analysis is not a weakness, its a strength. Even then, why dispute the accuracy of carbon dating? If we are to assume that the presence of C-14 in substances older than 60,000 years is to be taken as evidence of creationism (though its still a long way off the young Earth model), then you should have a vested interest in bolstering its accuracy.
But anyway, I already explained this. Carbon dating is capped at 60,000 years because that is the range in which we can be reasonably certain how much C-14 will appear in an average sample. This average is a function of the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, which is itself a function of the rate of C-14 production at any given time.
You seem to believe that the presence of C-14 in a sample means it cannot be older than 60,000 years. This is incorrect. C-14 can be present in substances far older than 60,000 years, but we would not be able to use that C-14 to date the substance as we have no way of knowing with any certainty how large the original sample was.
generalgrog wrote:
Carbon 14 has a 1/2 life of 5370(approx) years, if a diamond or coal is millions of years old we shouldn't find any carbon 14, it should all be decayed away.
That depends entirely on how large the initial sample of Carbon 14 was, which is why radiocarbon dating is capped at 60,000 years. Prior to that period it becomes very difficult to approximate the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, as C-14 production has been shown to fluctuate with solar activity. And that's just solar activity, we also have to consider volcanic eruption, and other events which release large amounts of energy, plus the effect other radioactive isotopes have on carbonaceous mineral deposits.
Hell, the nuclear testing during the Cold War doubled the amount of C-14 in the northern hemisphere, and significant fluctuation (up or down) in solar radiation would produce far more variations than that.
I think at this stage anyone who has utterly made up their mind on the creationist thing is not going to be swayed too much. But GG, I always do find your reasonings as to why people might hold the opposite view to be sort of insulting. I know you probably don't mean it, but stuff like this:
@Sebster..This is my opinion only.... regarding atheists in the scientifuc community comes down an excuse to not serve God. Anyway they can find to try and come up with a way to discredit God, the Bible and especially Christianity furthers their own self interest. As far as people who claim to have a faith or claim to be Christians and still hold to certain tenets of scientific doctrine I really don't have an answer, I mean there are creation scientists that are evolutionists, it's a false assumption to think that all creation scientists are young earthers. Again I don't have an answer to why they would choose to believe something that contradicts the Bible...maybe a weak faith..a poor understanding of theology?..I don't know
really smacks of arrogance and generally not giving people the benefit of the doubt. I know for myself, I'm not desperately trying to prove god doesn't exist. I don't care too much either way.
I do think it's weird that you would ascribe these motives to such a large and diverse group of people though. Back when I worked in a University biology lab, we could hardly agree on where to eat, let alone on some vast conspiracy to delude the public.
Da Boss wrote:really smacks of arrogance and generally not giving people the benefit of the doubt. I know for myself, I'm not desperately trying to prove god doesn't exist. I don't care too much either way.
I do think it's weird that you would ascribe these motives to such a large and diverse group of people though. Back when I worked in a University biology lab, we could hardly agree on where to eat, let alone on some vast conspiracy to delude the public.
Not even that - even within the religious community there are many splits over what the bible actually says/means regards the age and method of creation of the earth. Some will say it is just a story to make it easier for people to imagine but that it happened more or less as science says it does - it was just god creating life/the universe/everything using the laws of physics. Then some will say that it is the literal truth, that god sat down at his desk and hammered out the Earth and everything on it in 6 days and then had a snooze on Sunday.
How can it be said that "science" seek to discredit god, the bible and Christianity when there are so many views within the church (and believers in general)? Some devout Christians will utterly disagree that science is working against them - that every discovery just brings us closer to understanding how god did it, as it were.
This is not even mentioning all the other religions, alive and dead, which disagree with one another, let alone whatever it is that science says. What makes any one of these more right than the others? How can one (or several) be shown to be true above the rest? If science discovered that the sun was actually being pushed across the sky by a giant beetle, would it suggest that the Egyptians (and probably others) were on the right track, and their gods were the ones active in the universe, and the Christian god is false?
mattyrm wrote:I dont even bother with all the Science anymore because many normal everyday people just dont seem have a good grasp of it, indeed, i didnt either as a young man, and its taken years of reading to grasp the entirety of this argument. For example, the vast majority of the general public still seems to have a real problem with word 'theory' and many creationists rely on this ignorance when they are purposely misleading people. So i just stick with good old common sense. Why do we suck so badly?! They always hold the eye up as proof of design, even though it sucks utterly. Why do 50% of people need glasses? Why do my knees and back ache so much at such a young age? Why does my jaw not have enough space for all my teeth? If a loving god designed us all, he would have done a far better bloody job! Ive always said this, its a very simple argument, either you CAN get complexity from simplicity, or 'something from nothing' or you cant. If you can, then creationists have no argument at all. And if you cant, well then God cant be real, because 'he' is very complex by definition isnt he? Their argument just seems to defy common sense to me because it argues against itself. If everything complex needs a designer then god absolutely has to have one as well.
I have heard this argument before(warboss included). Our bodies aren't perfect therefore a perfect being couldn't have created us. That's the logic of that argument.
Of course that is a philosophical/and maybe even theological argument,not a scientific one. We can get into the idea that Adam and Eve were perect specimens, but then after the fall they were cursed. This curse is possiblywhat has lead to so many problems (healthwise) in humanity. Even the Bible records many people living multiple hundreds of years and I think methusaleh was 700 years or so old before he died.
Also I'm not sure why you have a problem with people bringing up the word theory. Why is that such a problem? Macro evolution is a theory, it cannot be proven, it is not a fact or a law. What's the problem? How is that "purposely misleading people"?
In layman's terms, theory and hypothesis are interchangeable, pretty much, meaning "an idea used to explain how something might work".
In science, a hypothesis is an idea used to explain how something might work, which makes observable predictions. A theory is an idea that might explain how something might work, backed up by experimental evidence. So when we say evolution is a theory, we mean, it is backed up by evidence. When some commentators of evolution say it is a theory, they use it in the layman's meaning to give it less weight than it actually has. (If someone wants to correct my terminology there, feel free, I reckon I got it mostly right though)
Boss basically answered better than i could mate. The word theory means something different to what people seem to think. The 'theory' of evolution is basically how the fact of evolution works, not that its just a random idea that someone has a hunch about. You could argue that there is more evidence for evolution than gravity, but nobody disputes gravity because it doesnt dispute anything that would accept a bible literalist. Most Christians arent creationist are they? I really dont get why some feel so strongly about every single word in there being taken literally?
@ matty&boss I think we said the same thing, just in a different way. Still not sure what the problem is. Most creationsists don't have an issue with the micro evolutionary side, that is to say evolution within kinds. It's the macro evolutionary form, which is to say evolution across kinds that we object to, and by the way.... the part that cannont be proven.
To be clear, I have no problem with you not believing in macro or micro evolution.
I know you're generally a nice guy too, though I disagree with a lot of your views.
So you agree that small changes gradually occur over time to a particular genetic line (for example a particular type of bird) that make it more adept at surviving in its environment, yet you do not agree that if, say, a group of these birds become separated from the main flock (say in a storm - they get blown out to sea and to some remote islands for example), they can then evolve in a different direction, eventually becoming a new species, possibly even going on to become a very different life form over many, many generations?
Say this island has no predators and most of the food that exists is in the form of roots etc, things that are on or under the ground - the birds would gradually adapt to a more pedestrian way of life, spending more and more time on the ground. Perhaps they would almost give up flying, their wings would shrink since they are of no advantage, perhaps even a hindrance when digging through the undergrowth. Their feet may develop claws to dig the ground better, their beaks my get harder and sharper and change shape to break through to the nommy centre of the roots.
Over time they would become very different to their original form, they would become a unique species. Who knows, over millions of years they may resemble more of a mole like creature than a bird?
I'm not suggesting they would go down this path - it is just a thought experiment to show that the belief in any small change in a creature's genetic makeup based on external environmental pressures or internal changes such as random mutation really can't go hand in hand with the denial of macro changes and the evolution of new entire new species (this is my own personal view on the matter - I honestly can't see how it can work. I would of course be interested to see your thinking on this matter - perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick).
mattyrm wrote:Most Christians arent creationist are they? I really dont get why some feel so strongly about every single word in there being taken literally?
Roman Catholics don't believe in biblical fundamentalism. Can't speak to every other denomination, but I can tell you that much.
SilverMK2 wrote:So you agree that small changes gradually occur over time to a particular genetic line (for example a particular type of bird) that make it more adept at surviving in its environment, yet you do not agree that if, say, a group of these birds become separated from the main flock (say in a storm - they get blown out to sea and to some remote islands for example), they can then evolve in a different direction, eventually becoming a new species, possibly even going on to become a very different life form over many, many generations?
Say this island has no predators and most of the food that exists is in the form of roots etc, things that are on or under the ground - the birds would gradually adapt to a more pedestrian way of life, spending more and more time on the ground. Perhaps they would almost give up flying, their wings would shrink since they are of no advantage, perhaps even a hindrance when digging through the undergrowth. Their feet may develop claws to dig the ground better, their beaks my get harder and sharper and change shape to break through to the nommy centre of the roots.
Over time they would become very different to their original form, they would become a unique species. Who knows, over millions of years they may resemble more of a mole like creature than a bird?
I'm not suggesting they would go down this path - it is just a thought experiment to show that the belief in any small change in a creature's genetic makeup based on external environmental pressures or internal changes such as random mutation really can't go hand in hand with the denial of macro changes and the evolution of new entire new species (this is my own personal view on the matter - I honestly can't see how it can work. I would of course be interested to see your thinking on this matter - perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick).
Believe me I know the way macro evolution is theorized to work, remember I wasn't raised up in Church and used to be a hardcore macro-evolutionist myself(as well as an atheist).
But a few things I noticed in your post, and please do not take this as me being insulting because I certainly don't intend it that way. You used a few terms like "imagine" and "possibly" and "perhaps". All of those words are philosophical words not necessarily scientific.
Also in order for macro evolution to work you need a massive amount of time, and that time void is filled very cleverly by radioisotope dating methods, which unfortunately I believe to be flawed. Not necessarily flawed from the technical aspects, but flawed from the standpoint of where the conclusions are based. If you start with a foundation that says radioactive decay rates have always been the same as they are now, then of course everything appears to make sense because we are in the now. But if you start from a foundation of saying, well we weren't around "in the beginning" so it's possible that we don't have the whole story. Then you can allow yourself the possibility that modern uniformitarianism could be wrong and maybe there is another answer, of course I believe the answer to be that The Creator created the earth the universe and all living things.
GG wrote:Also in order for macro evolution to work you need a massive amount of time, and that time void is filled very cleverly by radioisotope dating methods, which unfortunately I believe to be flawed. Not necessarily flawed from the technical aspects, but flawed from the standpoint of where the conclusions are based. (i) If you start with a foundation that says radioactive decay rates have always been the same as they are now, then of course everything appears to make sense because we are in the now. But if you start from a foundation of saying, well we weren't around "in the beginning" so it's possible that we don't have the whole story. Then (ii)you can allow yourself the possibility that modern uniformitarianism could be wrong and maybe there is another answer, of course I believe the answer to be that The Creator created the earth the universe and all living things.
Just a couple of things.
i) What would be your basis for questioning the decay rates, or more specifically, positing a 'variable' rate of decay? Is there a purely scientific case for that? Or is it a case of wanting to 'stretch' the science to fit a scripture-based version of events? I want to make clear that I am not trolling you here, this is a serious question. I would be genuinely interested to look at some source material which outlines the science behind variable decay rates.
ii) Everything can be allowed. I think most people would obviously allow for an alternate explanation for absolutely anything, if the reasoning behind that explanation was sound. As I alluded to earlier, the 'stretch-to-fit' approach is a large part of creationist theory. I think that this is intellectually dangerous. Science doesn't make the facts stretch to fit it. Science isn't dogmatic, neither is it a monolithic system of belief. It's just a different method of gathering information. The difference between science and religion is somewhat akin to the difference between proof and faith. Faith doesn't require proof, proof doesn't need faith.
Scientists can hypothisize, guess and believe like the rest of us - they are human after all. But their 'truth' has to be provable, testable. It has to be rigourously examined.
But religious faith isn't subject to the same rigourous examination - in fact it shuns it. So yes, you can say 'what about the alternative explanations?', but if the basis for such conjecture is scriptural teaching then it will be rightly treated as unscientific. If you're looking for alternative theories that chime more readily with your religious beliefs, that's a dangerous approach, IMO.
mattyrm wrote:
I find it terribly amusing when creationists start listing their evidence, it really is absurd stuff they come out with, and it is made all the more amusing to me because i have sat through several of disgraced "doctor" Kent Hovinds seminars and they just parrot all the exact same stuff he came out with. It has been debunked so many times it really isnt worth bothering to type rebuttals such as yours Dogma.
Its easier to simply say that most mono-theists know that evolution is so well supported that is has to be taken as a fact, and educated theologians from the Pope down are firm in their support of evolution and the modern Science that has backed it up so firmly for 200 years since. Creationism is just a fruity little club and they dont have any credibility whatsoever. They have been beaten in the courts and they are being beaten by plain old common sense.
What i really dont understand though, is why would a Scientist be "biased" anyway? What would he gain from it? Do they get any reward for lying to everyone?
The trouble with the evolution vs creartionism argument is the 'vs'. The idea that the two have any competition is a fabrication by atheists who wish to hijack the scientific debate. It is quite acceptible to beleive the Genesis account and evolution both, as you quite rightly pointed out. Where you err is in the idea that evolution disproves creation or ihndicate that we have moced out of a mental 'stone age' as mentioned in your first post that I beleive provoked Grog into defending his faith on this thread.. It doesnt, it just shows us how life emerges, it shows no hand of the creator but then again the creator passes without trace. He only appears when He wants to.
Take for example the story of the Rainbow appearing to Noah. To a medieval mind it was holy magick, Newton worked out how a rainbow works in his seminal book Optics, however establishing the rainbow in science does not remove it from Gods toolbox.
However there is evidence to suggest God exists.
For evidence for God you have too look elsewhere, He doesn't sign recepts for his work as creator, but does as saviour. Take an old bible, you could take a Bible pruinted yestersay but just esablish in your herad that it is the same book as existed for centuries. This book in the Deuteronomy cross referencee with Isiah predicts the division and restoration of Israel. By the Hebrew calender the Jews were to be exiled from their land for a specified time. This time occured on sacking of Jersusalem by the Persians and expired TO THE DAY in 1948 at the Declaration of the State of Israel. This is a big enough event that it cannot be brushed off as having not existed. I can point out how this can be proved through Bible verses if you like.
It is interesting that I brought up this proof before, and the atheists present ignored the subject. Atheism is a faith after all and the body of science is also often less open minded than it likes to claim. But I am assuming that some atheists here have the open scientific minds they claim to have and will take up this challenge.
What will we get out of it, proof of God? No. I cannot do that, but again God doesn't leave proof just evidence. However a God that keeps his promises written in a book centuries old has to have some credibility if the promises are fulfilled on the day they are prophesied to be.
What has this to do with evolution? Nothing, but religion never really had. It was a theory to expand our scientific knowledge of how the world works, like all others before or since with the same goal. Sadly it was hijacked by atheists who goaded dumb priests in the Church of England at the time Darwin expounded his theories to rise to the bait on queue. The victory over 'creationism' was based on rehetoric rather than reason. even now in debates the wrong people are brought forward to defend a theistic poijnt of view, it is no different than in bishop Usher's day. The knowledge of the origin of life and of the universe is still beyond us and probably will remain so to some extent or other. Noone is saying dont look, least of all the church. We can think, but honest thought leaves room for faith, and faith says there is or is no God, neither has any bounding in sceince, which is how God, assuming He exists, appears to prefer it.
As a final note observe the bumblebee, apparently it is sceintific anomaly, it should fly according to our knowledge of aerodynamics the bee shopuldnt fly, but it does. This has been taken erroneously as proof of faith, but thwen without the 'vs' there never was any need to clutch at that. All I say is that it required an expansion of our knowledge of aerodynamics to account for how the bee flies. however now we know that it does this provides no evidence that God had no hand in the matter, instead it could be as easily saidf that God simply understood the physics before we did.
GG wrote:Also in order for macro evolution to work you need a massive amount of time, and that time void is filled very cleverly by radioisotope dating methods, which unfortunately I believe to be flawed. Not necessarily flawed from the technical aspects, but flawed from the standpoint of where the conclusions are based. (i) If you start with a foundation that says radioactive decay rates have always been the same as they are now, then of course everything appears to make sense because we are in the now. But if you start from a foundation of saying, well we weren't around "in the beginning" so it's possible that we don't have the whole story. Then (ii)you can allow yourself the possibility that modern uniformitarianism could be wrong and maybe there is another answer, of course I believe the answer to be that The Creator created the earth the universe and all living things.
Just a couple of things.
i) What would be your basis for questioning the decay rates, or more specifically, positing a 'variable' rate of decay? Is there a purely scientific case for that? Or is it a case of wanting to 'stretch' the science to fit a scripture-based version of events? I want to make clear that I am not trolling you here, this is a serious question. I would be genuinely interested to look at some source material which outlines the science behind variable decay rates.
ii) Everything can be allowed. I think most people would obviously allow for an alternate explanation for absolutely anything, if the reasoning behind that explanation was sound. As I alluded to earlier, the 'stretch-to-fit' approach is a large part of creationist theory. I think that this is intellectually dangerous. Science doesn't make the facts stretch to fit it. Science isn't dogmatic, neither is it a monolithic system of belief. It's just a different method of gathering information. The difference between science and religion is somewhat akin to the difference between proof and faith. Faith doesn't require proof, proof doesn't need faith.
Scientists can hypothisize, guess and believe like the rest of us - they are human after all. But their 'truth' has to be provable, testable. It has to be rigourously examined.
But religious faith isn't subject to the same rigourous examination - in fact it shuns it. So yes, you can say 'what about the alternative explanations?', but if the basis for such conjecture is scriptural teaching then it will be rightly treated as unscientific. If you're looking for alternative theories that chime more readily with your religious beliefs, that's a dangerous approach, IMO.
In response to (i)I don't know if anyone has "proven" yet that there was an increase in decay rates. There have been some experiments to show how it could have happened. Specifically the RATE(radioisotopes and the age of the earth) project. I haven't fully digested the experiment or the project to effectively comment. Even though I hate to do this I'll post a link so you can read for yourself. http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay
In response to (ii) All I have ever said was that there are alternate explanations to the current scientific thought which is based on assumptions. And if current scientific theories are based on assumptions, I think that is intellectually dangerous.
For example I was watching the science channel the other day, and they were talking about where did the moon come from. A scientist has been postulating that the moon was once part of the earth and that an asteroid or comet hit the earth causing a large chunk of debris to break off, and over a massive amount of time the moon formed out of this debris. The program was presenting this stuff as though it were a fact, when there is no way that kind of theory can be proved. This is exactly my problem with the modern science movement, they present science fiction and imaginary scenarios as though it were fact.
Orlanth wrote:It is interesting that I brought up this proof before, and the atheists present ignored the subject. Atheism is a faith after all and the body of science is also often less open minded than it likes to claim. But I am assuming that some atheists here have the open scientific minds they claim to have and will take up this challenge.
I didn't ignore it. I gave you a couple of more likely explanations - you can of course choose to ignore them because they don't square with your world-view, but that doesn't excuse you from speaking the truth.
I'll state them again, and even add to them:
1) Is it possible that Hebrew scholars were aware of these dates? Could that have been a determining factor in the choosing of that specific date for the creation of Israel?
2) It COULD just be a coincidence. Far-fetched, I know! But is it REALLY any more far-fetched than believing that the date was pre-determined by God, causing us to throw out everything we know about time, space, life, the universe and everything?
3) Nationhood and nationalism didn't exist in the way that it does today at the time the Torah was written. How then could that book predict it? Technically the Kingdom of Israel STILL doesn't exist, making the prophecy inaccurate. Also, The State of Israel didn't (and still doesn't) encompass all of biblical Israel to the best of my knowledge, making the prophecy inaccurate.
4)There were Jews living in Palestine before the creation of Israel. Does the prediction rely on the Jewish homeland being formally recognised by the international community? Was it not a Jewish homeland before that? If it doesn't count as a Jewish homeland pre-Israel, then why is this? Is it because there were Palistinians living there too? Because that's the case at the moment as well.
5) Could the data have been manipulated? Other methods of Bible 'prophecy' have been debunked. I can't imagine there'd be much glory to be had from publishing UNSUCCESSFUL attempts at deciphering biblical 'prophecy', so the person doing that would have a vested interest, apart from the obvious religious motivation.
That's just 5.
Could you post a link to the sources you're talking about? I'd be quite keen to take a look.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GG wrote:For example I was watching the science channel the other day, and they were talking about where did the moon come from. A scientist has been postulating that the moon was once part of the earth and that an asteroid or comet hit the earth causing a large chunk of debris to break off, and over a massive amount of time the moon formed out of this debris. The program was presenting this stuff as though it were a fact, when there is no way that kind of theory can be proved. This is exactly my problem with the modern science movement, they present science fiction and imaginary scenarios as though it were fact.
Does it bother you when religious people present THEIR conjecture as fact?
The scenario you outlined sounds similar to how the earth probably formed. They don't just pluck theories out of the air - theories like that will be based upon what we know about asteroids, gravity - physics in general, really. There has to be some form of rationale: 'we know this, this and this, therefore it's possible that...'
generalgrog wrote:You used a few terms like "imagine" and "possibly" and "perhaps". All of those words are philosophical words not necessarily scientific.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'philosophical' and 'scientific'. I think you mean 'of or related to philosophy' and 'of or related to science'. If that's the case, then I must point out that only the most technical language in either discipline (to the extent that 'science' is a discipline) can be considered 'of or related to the discipline'. Imagine, possibly, and perhaps are not technical terms. They are words denoting theory, and theory is central to science.
generalgrog wrote:
Also in order for macro evolution to work you need a massive amount of time, and that time void is filled very cleverly by radioisotope dating methods, which unfortunately I believe to be flawed. Not necessarily flawed from the technical aspects, but flawed from the standpoint of where the conclusions are based. If you start with a foundation that says radioactive decay rates have always been the same as they are now, then of course everything appears to make sense because we are in the now. But if you start from a foundation of saying, well we weren't around "in the beginning" so it's possible that we don't have the whole story. Then you can allow yourself the possibility that modern uniformitarianism could be wrong and maybe there is another answer, of course I believe the answer to be that The Creator created the earth the universe and all living things.
Those are not mutually incompatible positions. Uniformitarianism, in its modern form, claims only that, in the absence of significant evidence, that which can be attributed to a known cause should be attributed to a known cause. In other words, if we know how one thing works, we shouldn't suppose that a similar thing functions differently without due deference to that which we can already prove. Obviously, this view grants providence to direct observation, and will use that observation to explain everything back through history unless there is some caveat of inconsistency. Its that last part, regarding caveats, that allows uniformitarianism to accept the possibility that our observations may not fully explain the past. It simply does not presume that any such supposition can be usefully considered without a utilitarian reason; eg. in those circumstances where that which is dictated by present observation cannot explain that which was dictated by prior observation.
In contrast, the various forms of creationism work to prove that something specific happened in the distant past by working to find ways in which our present observations might be brought into consistency with a working hypothesis. The trouble here, and the reason creationism is such a contentious issue, is that no one has succeeded in doing so without the ubiquitous "God did it" hand wave. Instead, creation science has chosen to focus primarily on 'poking holes' in established theory; taking each publication as a victory due to false dichotomy I referenced earlier. The problem is that, unless someone comes forward with evidence supporting that the Earth is 5,700 to 10,000 years old, all that's truly occurring is the furthering of the scientific process by which theories are advanced to to explain ever growing amounts of data.
This is very frustrating to people like me, not because it works to advance the cause of science away from some 'world view' you seem to feel that I hold, but because very often creationists take inconsistencies within the predictions of a given scientific theory as a tacit confirmation of your theories. I'll use the diamond example to illustrate. Even if there were no reasonable mechanism by which C-14 could be present in diamonds, and even if radiometric dating was wildly inaccurate, those facts would still not be evidence for the Biblical Creation story as neither directly indicates "Yes, the Earth is 5,700 to 10,000 years old." This is also why I'm often left aghast as creationists trot out their doubt with respect to the veracity of radiometric dating. If radiometric dating is so inaccurate, and you wish to develop proof for the young Earth theory, then how do you propose to do so? Or am I misunderstanding the intent of the project by assuming the idea is to develop proof for one theory, rather than simply trying to develop some kind of equal playing field for faith and observation?
I mean, to my mind there is an obvious and significant difference between allowing for the possibility that the fundamental physical laws of the Universe were different in the past, and proposing that an unsubstantiated manifestation of faith is equivalent to belief supported by a body of evidence. I freely acknowledge the first, adding only that no available evidence suggests that, but the second strikes me as deeply misguided given that there seems to be almost no effort to prove the hypothesis.
I would have no problem with your position if you admitted that you have faith in the myth (used in the sense of 'mythic past') of Biblical Creation, and that your faith is distinct from scientific belief because your faith is not supported by evidence. Everyone is entitled to their faith, but it becomes problematic when they are allowed to consider that faith as something other than what it is.
Albatross wrote:
1) Is it possible that Hebrew scholars were aware of these dates? Could that have been a determining factor in the choosing of that specific date for the creation of Israel?
So the Hebrew scholars arranged everything. I have heard of conspiracy theories before, but this event moved nations and the United Nations. It would have to be a very big conspiracy. They even got the Arabs to play along in the timing. How long was ther conspiracty running for then. The predictions were made in circa 550BC and came to fruiting 2500 years later. At what point did the scholars say stop trying to be independent now we can manufacture a prophesy is we wait a few more months? years? decades even?
I will keep on aside the fact that this numeric calculation was as far as I know first made after the event. The prophesy stated God would restore Israel openly the actual when was not worked out until later hidden in plain text. This is the odd thing about Biblical prophesy, the evidence is often concealed until afterwards then plain to see, best example of this was the events occuring at the gime of the Crucifixion. In order for the prophesy to actually work the Sanhedrin had to play along, they did so in ignorance despite knowing the Bible themselves.
Albatross wrote:
2) It COULD just be a coincidence. Far-fetched, I know! But is it REALLY any more far-fetched than believing that the date was pre-determined by God, causing us to throw out everything we know about time, space, life, the universe and everything?
Here you are relying on the fallacy that the existance of God is at loggerheads with "everything we know about time, space, life, the universe and everything", some forms of atheist would just to prefer to assume that is so and hijack science to say something it does not. There is nothing far fetched about beleiving in God, I credit atheism with the same elementary base credibility, it's a faith choice either way. For some its blind faith, for others the evidence is there. Due to our human natures we view evidence acordingb to our paradigms.
Albatross wrote:
3) Nationhood and nationalism didn't exist in the way that it does today at the time the Torah was written. How then could that book predict it? Technically the Kingdom of Israel STILL doesn't exist, making the prophecy inaccurate. Also, The State of Israel didn't (and still doesn't) encompass all of biblical Israel to the best of my knowledge, making the prophecy inaccurate.
You are putting words into my mouth, nothing was mentioned of the 'kingdom'. Did I mention it in my post? Not. So your comments refute nothing. The restoration of Israel also occured in stages and without a formal king starting with the rebuilding of the Temple, under the Persian king Cyrus, who was moved to do so because he himself read the prophesy saying that he would written a hundred years earlier. However, now you ask, from a Christian point of view Jesus is the permenant King of Israel; not that he is openly accepted as such at the present, but that is another matter.
Albatross wrote:
4)There were Jews living in Palestine before the creation of Israel. Does the prediction rely on the Jewish homeland being formally recognised by the international community? Was it not a Jewish homeland before that? If it doesn't count as a Jewish homeland pre-Israel, then why is this? Is it because there were Palistinians living there too? Because that's the case at the moment as well.
Yes they were there, but never in a self-governing capacity in fact there was no Jewish state at all since the reign of Titus Caesar only Jewish enclaves in a land ruled by someone else. Until 1948.
Albatross wrote:
5) Could the data have been manipulated? Other methods of Bible 'prophecy' have been debunked. I can't imagine there'd be much glory to be had from publishing UNSUCCESSFUL attempts at deciphering biblical 'prophecy', so the person doing that would have a vested interest, apart from the obvious religious motivation.
I would like you to show me what debunking has gone on. I think you are being a little dismissive, the Bible holds a good standard for historicity, in fact the dating of the ancient world was askew by 300 years until scientists stopped pridefully ignoring the Biblical account and revised the dates for ancient events prior to 800BC.
If you are refering to the 'Bible Code' then I will beleive you. The Bible Code is just a media hype thingy and has little theological backing. You can grid reference all sorts of interesting things but you could probasbly do the same grid referrecning a telephone directory or other book of considerable size.
The only bible Code that has any merit is the book of Esther, the entire book that is. The book of esther is the only book that does not contain the word God, however if you grid reference it then the word God appears at regular intervals throughout the entire text making it an unsurpassed (unsurpassable?) masterpiece of literary art.
Albatross wrote:
That's just 5.
That's just 0. Your first comment is the closest to having merit I cannot prove there is no 'Jewish scholars conpiracy', though people disbeleive in 'Jewish banker conspiracies' enough though and Jewish bankers have a lot more clout than Jewish scholars.
Albatross wrote:
Could you post a link to the sources you're talking about? I'd be quite keen to take a look.
I will try and dig up a link or two the evidence I have is from a book I have not tried to find it on the net before. Got to dig out the book first.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
This is very frustrating to people like me, not because it works to advance the cause of science away from some 'world view' you seem to feel that I hold, but because very often creationists take inconsistencies within the predictions of a given scientific theory as a tacit confirmation of your theories.
The real cause of your frustration is your fixation on the 'versus' in the arguement of 'evolution versus creation'. Understand that there is no arguement because there is no versus outside of human pruiide and obstinancy, one does not disprove the other. To an honest atheist evolution is simply part of ther body of scientific knowledge, to a theist it is the same and also the toolbox of God. The honest difference is solely what theology one places upon the world as one ses it, with various forms of atheism and theism open to choose from, but essentially all of them being faith choices at the core.
This understanding is as lacking in atheist fanatics who hijack evolution as a propogandas tool as much as Bible belt fanatics. The fanaticism is founded on the 'versus', remove the versus and you remove the argument but the principles remain. Because the theology and the science both remain intact then the assumed opposition between them is in fact illusory. We cannot prove there is a God, but we can say that God Himself tells us he can pass without trace. We cannot prove there is no God and for all our understanding of physics and nature we still cannot not conclusively say with any scientific integrity there is no room for God to exist. Ultimately its a faith choice and a religious preference whatever choice you make.
Albatross wrote:
1) Is it possible that Hebrew scholars were aware of these dates? Could that have been a determining factor in the choosing of that specific date for the creation of Israel?
So the Hebrew scholars arranged everything. I have heard of conspiracy theories before, but this event moved nations and the United Nations. It would have to be a very big conspiracy. They even got the Arabs to play along in the timing. How long was ther conspiracty running for then. The predictions were made in circa 550BC and came to fruiting 2500 years later. At what point did the scholars say stop trying to be independent now we can manufacture a prophesy is we wait a few more months? years? decades even?
I will keep on aside the fact that this numeric calculation was as far as I know first made after the event. The prophesy stated God would restore Israel openly the actual when was not worked out until later hidden in plain text. This is the odd thing about Biblical prophesy, the evidence is often concealed until afterwards then plain to see, best example of this was the events occuring at the gime of the Crucifixion. In order for the prophesy to actually work the Sanhedrin had to play along, they did so in ignorance despite knowing the Bible themselves.
I didn't say that Jewish scholars arranged everything, I asked if they had prior knowledge. If they did, it wouldn't be inconcievable that hard-core zionists might be aware of that information.
But since you mentioned that the prediction occurred AFTER the event, well you got me! I'm convinced! I mean, there is so much wrong with your argument here that I honestly don't know where to begin. Predicting an event that has already happened is not a miracle, nor is it the work of god. If you know the start date, the end date, and you have an agenda, you can manipulate the evidence to make it fit.
Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
2) It COULD just be a coincidence. Far-fetched, I know! But is it REALLY any more far-fetched than believing that the date was pre-determined by God, causing us to throw out everything we know about time, space, life, the universe and everything?
Here you are relying on the fallacy that the existance of God is at loggerheads with "everything we know about time, space, life, the universe and everything", some forms of atheist would just to prefer to assume that is so and hijack science to say something it does not. There is nothing far fetched about beleiving in God, I credit atheism with the same elementary base credibility, it's a faith choice either way. For some its blind faith, for others the evidence is there. Due to our human natures we view evidence acordingb to our paradigms.
It's less about the existence of god, and more about the ability to see what? 4000 years into the future? 2000?
Also, you didn't address the fact that I said the prediction could really have been set out by the original writers of the Torah, but could just be a coincidence. Is that really any less likely?
I'm not even going to touch the whole 'atheism is faith' nonsense. Again.
Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
3) Nationhood and nationalism didn't exist in the way that it does today at the time the Torah was written. How then could that book predict it? Technically the Kingdom of Israel STILL doesn't exist, making the prophecy inaccurate. Also, The State of Israel didn't (and still doesn't) encompass all of biblical Israel to the best of my knowledge, making the prophecy inaccurate.
You are putting words into my mouth, nothing was mentioned of the 'kingdom'. Did I mention it in my post? Not. So your comments refute nothing.
Again, nationalism didn't exist when the Torah was written, so it's likely that any reference to Israel would be calling it the Kingdom of Israel, would it not? And it isn't, is it? You can say 'Jesus is the permanent king', but Israel is not a monarchy, politically speaking. If the wording of this 'prophecy' mentions the Kingdom of Israel then it is inaccurate. Any reference to the State of Israel would scream 'fraud' to me.
Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
4)There were Jews living in Palestine before the creation of Israel. Does the prediction rely on the Jewish homeland being formally recognised by the international community? Was it not a Jewish homeland before that? If it doesn't count as a Jewish homeland pre-Israel, then why is this? Is it because there were Palistinians living there too? Because that's the case at the moment as well.
Yes they were there, but never in a self-governing capacity in fact there was no Jewish state at all since the reign of Titus Caesar only Jewish enclaves in a land ruled by someone else. Until 1948.
But the entireity of Israeli territory isn't under Jewish rule, meaning that it is not entirely a Jewish state.
Albatross wrote:
5) Could the data have been manipulated? Other methods of Bible 'prophecy' have been debunked. I can't imagine there'd be much glory to be had from publishing UNSUCCESSFUL attempts at deciphering biblical 'prophecy', so the person doing that would have a vested interest, apart from the obvious religious motivation.
I would like you to show me what debunking has gone on. I think you are being a little dismissive, the Bible holds a good standard for historicity, in fact the dating of the ancient world was askew by 300 years until scientists stopped pridefully ignoring the Biblical account and revised the dates for ancient events prior to 800BC.
If you are refering to the 'Bible Code' then I will beleive you. The Bible Code is just a media hype thingy and has little theological backing. You can grid reference all sorts of interesting things but you could probasbly do the same grid referrecning a telephone directory or other book of considerable size.
The man behind 'The Bible Code' was a Hebrew scholar, a fairly respected one as far as I can tell. He isn't any more.
There's really not much more I can do or say until you can furnish me with a link to the exact prophecy you are talking about. There seem to be a lot of this stuff out there, and I want to make sure it's the right one I'm looking at.
Albatross wrote:
That's just 5.
That's just 0. Your first comment is the closest to having merit I cannot prove there is no 'Jewish scholars conpiracy', though people disbeleive in 'Jewish banker conspiracies' enough though and Jewish bankers have a lot more clout than Jewish scholars.
Stay classy, creationists!
Seriously though, I stand by those 5. I don't think you've managed to refute them in any meaningful way.
@GeneralGrog - I looked at the link. Very impressive. I'm sure it's very impressive to you too. It's safe to say that neither of us are scientists, and that blinding people with jargon is great way to create authority for one's viewpoints. I'm not into that, and I can tell when someone is trying to blind me. That article was assuredly guilty of that.
Who knows? The science may be sound, it may not be (here's a discussion which outlines some of the problems:http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/creationism_and_young_earth/accelerated_decay.html) - the problem I have is similar to what dogma outlined: even if the science is correct, it's still a bloody big leap to conclude that 'god did it'! I can accept that they found inconsistencies in rates of decay in different substances, but how do you get from there to 'this means that the creator accelerated the decay rates, probably around the time of the Great Flood and in day two of the Creation Week'? Where's the evidence for ANY of that? The conclusions they draw are mind-blowing. And agenda-driven.
dogma wrote:Even if there were no reasonable mechanism by which C-14 could be present in diamonds, and even if radiometric dating was wildly inaccurate, those facts would still not be evidence for the Biblical Creation story as neither directly indicates "Yes, the Earth is 5,700 to 10,000 years old." This is also why I'm often left aghast as creationists trot out their doubt with respect to the veracity of radiometric dating.
The trouble is you are trying to tar theists with dogmas professed by a number of fringe church members. The problem here are Bible literalists. Bible literalism was always a problem, its why people wanted the all conquering Jesus Son of David to arse kick the Romans out of Judea. By Bible literalism says that is what he was supposed to do, its not how He intended it though. Fro that reason I dont like the term 'intelligent design' because its nothing new, a non literalist creation has long been understood by thinking Christian theists, its just Creationism nothing has changed. If I beleive in a seven day advent; what does that mean? It means prior to the existance of man God ceated the earth in 'seven days'. However how long is a day to a God for whome time is measured differently.
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.--Psalm 90:4
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.--2 Peter 3:8
Even the thousand years is not an indicative figure as in poetic Hebrew the word thousand means 'a lot'. Also we do not actually understand what 'creation' means anyway, and that includes the theologians. If God created cats what happened, did he set in motion events leading to cats, design cats, forsee cats, agree to cats appearing, make cats, take legal responsibility for the existance of cats or whatever. Who creates an automobile? The man on the assemby line, the car designer, the plant manager, the owner of the plant? There is too much that cannot be understood God only asks us to beleive He had an active part in the process somewhere, and still does today. This is a good reason not to like intelligent design, it tries to earmark Gods part in creation wherin it is arrogant of us to assume we can fathom an infinite God. We have the choice to believe or not and no growth in human knowledge is going to take that choice away. In fact it is rather evident of itself that for all our knowledge we are faced with the same conclusions regarding the existance of a creator god that a medieval man does, the only real difference is that the political dynamic of the choice has changed, not its fundamental nature.
Assuming 'creationists' beleive the world was made in 4004BC, is like assuming 'evolutionists' beleive Nazi eugenics with one race being superior because of skull size. That was genuine evolutionary science, just as hardcore bible literalists are genuine creation theologists, but both share a total lack of credibility. However creationists do not largely try to debunk evolutionists as apologists for eugenics as a cheap rhetorical trick, we credit you with more sense than that by default. Its time people stopped assuming any creationist they meet is liable to beleive that God turned up one week and created the world out of nothing some six millenia ago. I have been to a few churches and hob nobbed theologically with three denominations do not know anyone who believes that, nor did they do so before 'intelligent design' was coined, that gak might be popular in the Bible belt, but I doubt it. There overphotographed hardened nutcases with placards are so few, just as the Westboro baptists are so few, yet the Christians are so many. So why the assumption we beleive as they do?
Orlanth wrote:
The trouble with the evolution vs creartionism argument is the 'vs'. The idea that the two have any competition is a fabrication by atheists who wish to hijack the scientific debate.
I think its unfair to presume that the dialogue between evolution and creationism is nothing more than an atheist fabrication. At least in the US the people who set the two at odds stand in both camps. The famous court case over the inclusion of creationism in science class should attest to that.
Orlanth wrote:
Where you err is in the idea that evolution disproves creation...
It definitely contradicts certain kinds of creationism.
Orlanth wrote:
For evidence for God you have too look elsewhere, He doesn't sign recepts for his work as creator, but does as saviour. Take an old bible, you could take a Bible pruinted yestersay but just esablish in your herad that it is the same book as existed for centuries. This book in the Deuteronomy cross referencee with Isiah predicts the division and restoration of Israel. By the Hebrew calender the Jews were to be exiled from their land for a specified time. This time occured on sacking of Jersusalem by the Persians and expired TO THE DAY in 1948 at the Declaration of the State of Israel. This is a big enough event that it cannot be brushed off as having not existed. I can point out how this can be proved through Bible verses if you like.
I believe that you mean to refer to Ezekiel, not Isaiah. I also believe that the derivation of certain prophecy requires a selective reading of the Old Testament. I won't go over each piece of text contributing to the 2,484 solar year punishment, but I will deal with two.
1)
Ezekiel 4:1-6 wrote:
"You also, son of man, take a clay tablet and lay it before you, and portray on it a city, Jerusalem. 2 Lay siege against it, build a siege wall against it, and heap up a mound against it; set camps against it also, and place battering rams against it all around. 3 Moreover take for yourself an iron plate, and set it as an iron wall between you and the city. Set your face against it, and it shall be besieged, and you shall lay siege against it. This will be a sign to the house of Israel. 4 "Lie also on your left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it. According to the number of the days that you lie on it, you shall bear their iniquity. 5 For I have laid on you the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days; so you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. 6 And when you have completed them, lie again on your right side; then you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days. I have laid on you a day for each year.
This passage deals specifically with punishment to be born by Ezekiel, but makes no direct comment on the suffering to be born by the people of Israel. Certain translations do, of course, specifically consider the punishment of the Houses of Israel and Judah (never before discussed as separate entities) as tacit to the punishment of Ezekiel, but not all of them. Notably, the NKJV (from which the above originates) considers only the iniquities (sins) of Judah and Israel, not their punishment.
2)
Ezekiel 4:9-17 wrote:
9 "Also take for yourself wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, and spelt; put them into one vessel, and make bread of them for yourself. During the number of days that you lie on your side, three hundred and ninety days, you shall eat it. 10 And your food which you eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day; from time to time you shall eat it.
The days of suffering allocated to Ezkiel on in representation of the sins of the House of Judah have mysteriously vanished from consideration; at least in any independent sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
The trouble is you are trying to tar theists with dogmas professed by a number of fringe church members.
Not at all, I never stated that all theists believe in the Biblical Creation story. I never even stated that all Christians do. I stated that creationists believe a certain thing, where the word 'creationists' was a short form comment for young Earth creationists. I should have been more precise, but I've also said very clearly that no amount of presently available science can necessarily preclude the presence of some form of God.
Orlanth wrote:
The problem here are Bible literalists. Bible literalism was always a problem, its why people wanted the all conquering Jesus Son of David to arse kick the Romans out of Judea. By Bible literalism says that is what he was supposed to do, its not how He intended it though.
Sure, I'll buy that. My nominal position is that any metaphysical belief which can be brought into agreement with observable reality can be considered valid. Considering the creative ability of man, its pretty difficult to place your beliefs on the outside of that demarcation criterion. In fact, I'd argue that its really only possible in those instances in which one tries to do so.
Arrgh, just lost this post so I have to start again.
Albatross wrote:
But since you mentioned that the prediction occurred AFTER the event, well you got me! I'm convinced! I mean, there is so much wrong with your argument here that I honestly don't know where to begin. Predicting an event that has already happened is not a miracle, nor is it the work of god. If you know the start date, the end date, and you have an agenda, you can manipulate the evidence to make it fit.
Unfair, becauise the events were not nudged a days or two but are a matter of public record.
Albatross wrote:
Also, you didn't address the fact that I said the prediction could really have been set out by the original writers of the Torah, but could just be a coincidence. Is that really any less likely?
Much less likely. So much in science can also be coincidental, but when ther odd lengthen you start to accept that a pattern or a likelyhood emerges. Take weather prediction as an example, we cannot predict weather with any accuracy over more than a few days to give a prediction of rain or shine with the acuracy of a single day. To make a political prediction millenia in advance to come true to a single day is without parallel in predictions. also it was a process of prediction, the restoration of Israel is a sequence of timed events occuring on schedule some in history the last recently. So the prediction is cross referenced as part of a larger ongoing event with the first scheduled return occuring with the rebuilding of th Temple, the second with the rebuilding of Jerusalem..
Albatross wrote:
I'm not even going to touch the whole 'atheism is faith' nonsense. Again.
Nonsense, or you just dont like hearing it? So are you claiming your atheism is scientific? If this is the case theology would be a science too. In any event we would have to rewrite the definition of scientific thought to encompass faith choices one way or another for this to stick. Perhaps this would not be a bad thing as there is more pet belief within science than many in the scientific community would like to admit. We all follow our paradigms in this and other topics, too few people are actually truly open minded.
Albatross wrote:
Again, nationalism didn't exist when the Torah was written, so it's likely that any reference to Israel would be calling it the Kingdom of Israel, would it not? And it isn't, is it? You can say 'Jesus is the permanent king', but Israel is not a monarchy, politically speaking. If the wording of this 'prophecy' mentions the Kingdom of Israel then it is inaccurate. Any reference to the State of Israel would scream 'fraud' to me.
You are perpared to scream 'fraud' at evidence you havent seen yet? This is not how a reasoned scientific attitude ought to work. You would be better off with atheism by faith.
The prediction refers to the return of the Jews to self-governing statehood. This occured in stages and in different forms. Please remember that early Hebrew society was a form of judicial republic before it was a kingdom anyway, so no kingdom is implied in the related verses.
Albatross wrote:
But the entireity of Israeli territory isn't under Jewish rule, meaning that it is not entirely a Jewish state.
It need not be before that date there had been no Jewish state since Titus Caesar. However your comment does lead to a supporting point though. When the Israelites first moved into the promised land under Joshua they officially entered on one day but the conquest of the land took generations, eventually stalled as indicated in Judges chapter 1. Philistia was destroyed by the Babylonians when Jerusalem fell. Wheras Philistia was to remain whenever there was a Jewish state because of Israels sin in accordinace with the prophesy in the book of Judges. When Israel was formed Philistia returned also. The Gaza strip is modern day Philistia.
Albatross wrote:
The man behind 'The Bible Code' was a Hebrew scholar, a fairly respected one as far as I can tell. He isn't any more.
I have no problem with the Bible code predictions or recent proponents of the concept, but do not accept it as Biblical canon. Due to the nature of the Bible the bar for accepting what is written in it is very high, for it is not any ordinary book, it holds great authority. If someone says 'the Bible says this' is holds a lot of clout, so honest theologicans take careful steps to insure any interpretation or translation is done with care. Of course misuse of the bible is rampant thoughout history, but that is no fault of the Bible but of wicked people misusing religion for their own ends. In any case Bible code is not up to those standards and is thus rejected as non canonical for the purposes of discussing the historicity or value of Biblical testimony.
As for 'the man behind the Bible code', he lived in the 13th century. Bible codes as we see them today have been a topic for rabbinic teaching since that time, the recent explosion of the theme has orginated with new computer prograsms which proliferate Bible code analysis and greatly simplify its use.
Albatross wrote:
Stay classy, creationists!
Seriously though, I stand by those 5. I don't think you've managed to refute them in any meaningful way.
If you are going to flat deny that you had to add extra words I never wrote to misinterpret what I did write then I doubt I will be able to convince you of anything.
Albatross wrote:
The problem I have is similar to what dogma outlined: even if the science is correct, it's still a bloody big leap to conclude that 'god did it'!
Same leap as required to say, God was nowhere to be found. In eaither case the leap is faith.
Albatross wrote:
I can accept that they found inconsistencies in rates of decay in different substances, but how do you get from there to 'this means that the creator accelerated the decay rates, probably around the time of the Great Flood and in day two of the Creation Week'? Where's the evidence for ANY of that? The conclusions they draw are mind-blowing. And agenda-driven.
Many theists Christian or otherwise have yet to learn that science is not an enemy is faith, there is no need to protect against it. The battle is an illusion, atheism does not have any science on its side. Science is neutral and unrelated, the evidence for that is plain to see, namely you can add the science you like the choice to beleive in God or not remains the same for the modern physicist or the medieval peasant. The only real difference is in the poltical dynamic not the value of the growth of human knowledge.
When he and other theists like him learn that they do not need to conterst against those who hijack science as a platform for atheism. The sooner they do so, the sooner they can point out that science is not a platform for atheism. This is because the debate is a political dynamic not a sceintific dynamic, this is fuelled when scientific theories, fringe or otherwise are used to back up literal creationism. Taking the Judeo-Christian text as prime example, the Bible is full of apocalyptic poetry, prophetic type, allegorical parables and cautionary tales. Literalism is still adhered to despite the open example that Jesus went against literalism on many occasions by breaking the law, not beating up Romans and all sorts of other things the Mesach apparently should do but didn't do, or did do but apparently shouldn't have done. If Jesus can be so un-literal while 'not removing as jot from the Law' then perhaps all Biblical literalism is subject to suspicion.
I beleive the Bible contains Truth, but how it is true is a matter to be approached with wisdom and caution.
dogma wrote:
I think its unfair to presume that the dialogue between evolution and creationism is nothing more than an atheist fabrication.
It is more thsn but at its heart that is what it is. Darwin was immediately at loggerheads with church bodies because the growing atheist movement in voictorian England siezed evolution as a flagpole for atheism. Darwin himself has become the football just as Einstein has. The personal theology of both men has been brought up as evidence with quotes adhered to from both that claim diametric opposite beliefs to the extent that once must assume they both changed their minds alot or some of the quotes are fabrications. In fact both men were at pains to remain neutral for much of their lives.
Much of the early blame is also to be laid at the church of the time many bishops reacted poorly to Darwins work, which further fuelled its value as an atheistic text at a time when such thinking was becoming excusiably fashionable. In Victorian England the clergy was largely manned by those members of the gentry who were unfit for business, military service or politics. Bishops were the scraping of the upper crust barrel, as they indicated for all to see in the ongoing debates. of the time. Competent clergy was a rarity and possibly also frowned upon, just as it was in New Labour. Appoint useless, stupid and out of touch bishops if you want an easy time with the church. Its good politics, but makes for poor theological leadership. Things have gone downhill since.
dogma wrote:
The famous court case over the inclusion of creationism in science class should attest to that.
I can understand what many Christians are thinking on this subject. The atheist hijacking of science is very frequent phenomena, fuelled by the propogation of fringe science to support Bible literalist dogmas. If there is any question of this look up evolution and creationism videoa on YouTube. They are numerous, hostile to opposing views, assumptive and cyclic. As indicated above the correct approach is to show that science is not a tool of atheism, the idea that it is is a human political arguement not a scientific one. Atheism is publically beleived to be connected to science only by repeated public exposure to the concept, as a weapon in evolution vs creation arguments.
Actually the creationists have it right, but possibly for the wrong motive.
The correct counterpoint should be:
- addendum to science class. Some people think that the teaching you have received (evolution science) is evidence of atheism. However evolution of itself makes no comment on the existence or non existence of any deity or eliminates the possibility that a deity or religious entity had an influence on the process of evolution.
This is as world of difference from
- There is an alternate theory to evolution which is creationism......
The latter belongs in religious studies classes. The emphasis should be on removing the religion from the science altogether, in this case atheism, by restoring neutrality with a suitable caveat.
I would be interested to know exactly what is taught in public class in the US, it may well be that this was what was proposed but it was interpreted by the press as introducing religion to science classes.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Where you err is in the idea that evolution disproves creation...
It definitely contradicts certain kinds of creationism.
I am taking a mainstream Christian point of view here. This is not unfair, most of the evolution vs creation debates are aimed at Christians, occassionally at Jews. Its interesting thast the same guys wont troll the Moslems in the same way. I wonder why that is. One of the frequent calls of the atheist hijackers is in commentary related to Judeo-Christian religion like 'bible myth' or pointing out an assumed belief a creation process of one week. This is not unusual psychologically, most such people have no beef with Hinduism or Buddhism,l eastern relgions are usually ignored in terms of anti creationist rhetoric. The aim is often clearly Christian (occassionally Jew) bashing rather than esposing any scientific reasoning.
Yes some forms of Judeo-Christian based cult or fringe chuch creation beleifs are unequivocably literalist. The Seventh Day Adventist church is not hiding its beliefs here. The 7DA are whacky fringe though, just a quiet non threastening fringe so they cause no problems. As for the minor quasi-church cults out there, hardcore creationism is the least of your worries. I am more concerned with brainwashing, love bombing, bait and switch and three degree doctrines.
dogma wrote:
I believe that you mean to refer to Ezekiel, not Isaiah. I also believe that the derivation of certain prophecy requires a selective reading of the Old Testament. I won't go over each piece of text contributing to the 2,484 solar year punishment, but I will deal with two.
Nice catch but I am refering to IIRC Isaiah and Jeremiah with the sevenfold increase in punishment in Deuteronomy being the key. Ezekiels ordeal covers a seperate but related issue, I think it might come in under some supporting evidence, but I will have to dig out th book to know dfor sure. I dont remember those details at top of head.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
The trouble is you are trying to tar theists with dogmas professed by a number of fringe church members.
Not at all, I never stated that all theists believe in the Biblical Creation story. I never even stated that all Christians do. I stated that creationists believe a certain thing, where the word 'creationists' was a short form comment for young Earth creationists. I should have been more precise, but I've also said very clearly that no amount of presently available science can necessarily preclude the presence of some form of God.
I am perhaps being a little unfair, my comment was not entirely directed at you but critics of theists in general. It is all too often that I hear 'theists think this' from atheists attempting to score points inan evolution vs creation debate. I think it helps to let the people speak for themselves and critique that rather than put words in their mouths. Every time I mention that I am a creationist people instinctively believe that I beleive in a literal seven day advent, some would immeidately at that point disavow me of any credibility before I said a further word, assuming I had the chance to continue any attempt to say otherwise is also taken as a climb down and therefore psychologically half the battle won from an atheist apologists point of view befreo they get to say a word. Most of the battle is based psychological tooling, not any evidence and the battles are won psychologicaly not on science, this is because the battle itself is illusory there is no contest between Judeo-Christian religion and science in this issue when the religion is understood.
Let me give you an example of this. Our old bugbear Dawkins wants to set up an atheist equivalent of a faith school. I have no problem with that, what I have a problem with is that ghe wants to label these new schools 'free-thinking'. How is atheist thought any more free than theist? the only way to give any credence to this is to hijack science as atheistic. If theistic thought and teaching is unwelcome there or portrayed in a negative light then how is such a school any less dogmatic than a faith school is assumed to be.
generalgrog wrote:@Sebster..This is my opinion only.... regarding atheists in the scientifuc community comes down an excuse to not serve God. Anyway they can find to try and come up with a way to discredit God, the Bible and especially Christianity furthers their own self interest. As far as people who claim to have a faith or claim to be Christians and still hold to certain tenets of scientific doctrine I really don't have an answer, I mean there are creation scientists that are evolutionists, it's a false assumption to think that all creation scientists are young earthers. Again I don't have an answer to why they would choose to believe something that contradicts the Bible...maybe a weak faith..a poor understanding of theology?..I don't know
I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. You supposed an institutional bias towards scientific conclusions that rejected creationist ideas, and I pointed out that such an institutional bias would require there to be predominantly atheists working in science. That isn't the case, atheists are a small minority in the population, and while likely more heavily represented in some scientific fields than in the greater community, they remain a minority. Many, many scientists are Christian. As such, the bias against Christianity that you assume simply doesn't exist. Instead, you have to consider the idea that Creationist Science doesn't get any traction in the wider scientific community because very little of it is science, and the rest is very bad science.
And Christians who follow science that contradicts the bible do so because they can accept the truth of the book without requiring every single piece of the text to be literally true. You can believe in a loving God who sent his Son to die for your sins without needing the Earth to be created in 6,000 years.
generalgrog wrote:Also I'm not sure why you have a problem with people bringing up the word theory. Why is that such a problem? Macro evolution is a theory, it cannot be proven, it is not a fact or a law. What's the problem? How is that "purposely misleading people"?
Speciation has been observed. Fruitflies seperated from main population and taken through scientific testing were found, several years later, to no longer be able to breed with the main population.
In science "theory" refers to a collected body of work. A scientist will form hypothesis, test it and report his findings. These findings will go under peer review, and then the findings published. This is added to other similar works to form a combined body of knowledge known as a theory. Similarly, there is the theory of gravity.
Orlanth wrote:The trouble with the evolution vs creartionism argument is the 'vs'. The idea that the two have any competition is a fabrication by atheists who wish to hijack the scientific debate.
Well, hijacked by both atheists and biblical literalists. After all, there aren't any atheists lobbying to get Godless science taught as an alternative in religious classes.
But I agree with what you're saying, there simply isn't a "vs" in the debate. Science does not support a godless universe, it doesn't even bother with the question. Nor does faith require the rejection of any scientific findings.
Orlanth wrote:The trouble with the evolution vs creartionism argument is the 'vs'. The idea that the two have any competition is a fabrication by atheists who wish to hijack the scientific debate.
Well, hijacked by both atheists and biblical literalists. After all, there aren't any atheists lobbying to get Godless science taught as an alternative in religious classes.
I agree in principle but disagree on application. Biblical literalists do hijack science but they are fringe theists hijacking fringe sceince that supports literalist theology. Mainstream atheists informed or otherwise hijack mainstream science. After all this position is pretty well established in the doctrines of YouTube atheist zealots and university intellectual flagships for atheism both. Informed theists may agree with the science without infering that it has no validity as an atheistic argument.
sebster wrote:
But I agree with what you're saying, there simply isn't a "vs" in the debate. Science does not support a godless universe, it doesn't even bother with the question. Nor does faith require the rejection of any scientific findings.
As the 'vs' is a human application for partisan gain, it cannot be dealt with as a scientific arguement to be challenged, but as a rhetorical tool to be disarmed. The disarming can come from observation that an increase in knowledge of itself does not ensure a decrease in faith.
sebster wrote:I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. You supposed an institutional bias towards scientific conclusions that rejected creationist ideas, and I pointed out that such an institutional bias would require there to be predominantly atheists working in science. That isn't the case, atheists are a small minority in the population, and while likely more heavily represented in some scientific fields than in the greater community, they remain a minority.
If we are literally talking about atheists here, 1.6% of the whole, and frankly I would be very surprised if actual atheists (not agnostics) made up any type of majority within the sciences. The numbers on that issue are particularly fuzzy, but there seems to be a smaller part of the worlds population of scientists that are actively religious. Dunno anything specific, the statistics are all over the place, but something like 25% religious scientists, seems like a safe guess.
While many scientists are clearly agnostic, I would be surprised if more than a third were in fact atheists. At any rate, the numbers are highly unlikely to correlate to the 75% or so of the population within the U.S. that are specifically christian, whatever denomination they may be. 3/4 of the U.S. (or more) is actively religious, and christian to boot; you're simply not going to find those numbers amongst people that critically analyze information professionally.
Many, many scientists are Christian. As such, the bias against Christianity that you assume simply doesn't exist. Instead, you have to consider the idea that Creationist Science doesn't get any traction in the wider scientific community because very little of it is science, and the rest is very bad science.
After a certain point it seems to be an issue of just not getting the same things out of the same book. God doesn't have to be, if he already is.
And Christians who follow science that contradicts the bible do so because they can accept the truth of the book without requiring every single piece of the text to be literally true. You can believe in a loving God who sent his Son to die for your sins without needing the Earth to be created in 6,000 years.
I believe in bubbles but I don't expect them to answer all of my questions... oddly enough they have answered quite a few as it is.
Speciation has been observed. Fruitflies seperated from main population and taken through scientific testing were found, several years later, to no longer be able to breed with the main population.
In science "theory" refers to a collected body of work. A scientist will form hypothesis, test it and report his findings. These findings will go under peer review, and then the findings published. This is added to other similar works to form a combined body of knowledge known as a theory. Similarly, there is the theory of gravity.
Observation, Question, Hypothesis, Prediction, Test and repeat. Compile, organize, test and repeat, O/Q/H/P/T+r, test and repeat.
Orlanth wrote:
The correct counterpoint should be:
- addendum to science class. Some people think that the teaching you have received (evolution science) is evidence of atheism. However evolution of itself makes no comment on the existence or non existence of any deity or eliminates the possibility that a deity or religious entity had an influence on the process of evolution.
This is as world of difference from
- There is an alternate theory to evolution which is creationism......
We're pretty much on the same page then. Really, our only point of difference is going to be whether or not atheism constitutes religion in the same sense that Christianity does, but that's another thread.
Orlanth wrote:
I would be interested to know exactly what is taught in public class in the US, it may well be that this was what was proposed but it was interpreted by the press as introducing religion to science classes.
In Illinois creationism isn't given mention in science class, it may be different in other places, but I doubt it given the highly standardized nature of accepted texts. To wit the intention has generally been to "teach the controversy" implying that the desire is the presentation of evolution and creationism as mutually exclusive theories.
Orlanth wrote:
Its interesting thast the same guys wont troll the Moslems in the same way. I wonder why that is.
I think that the main reason for that is the general absence of Muslims of the conversation, and nominal ignorance with respect to what Muslims actually believe. To some extent I also think this is because the Muslim creation myth is far less important to Islam than the Biblical analogue is to Christianity. Islam doesn't have a concept which is analogous to original sin, and therefore the parts of the Koran which deal with the mythic past are of little importance to matters of practical worship. As such, you're far more likely to find that even the most conservative Muslims will be open to the concept that the 6 day creation referenced in the Koran is a matter of allegory, or imprecision. It also helps that the word for 'day' in the Koran is often used to reference an indeterminate period of time.
Orlanth wrote:
Nice catch but I am refering to IIRC Isaiah and Jeremiah with the sevenfold increase in punishment in Deuteronomy being the key. Ezekiels ordeal covers a seperate but related issue, I think it might come in under some supporting evidence, but I will have to dig out th book to know dfor sure. I dont remember those details at top of head.
I don't remember the specific prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, I'll have to dig out my Bible study books.
Orlanth wrote:
Let me give you an example of this. Our old bugbear Dawkins wants to set up an atheist equivalent of a faith school. I have no problem with that, what I have a problem with is that ghe wants to label these new schools 'free-thinking'. How is atheist thought any more free than theist? the only way to give any credence to this is to hijack science as atheistic. If theistic thought and teaching is unwelcome there or portrayed in a negative light then how is such a school any less dogmatic than a faith school is assumed to be.
Yeah, we're fully on the same page with respect to the issues of consistency of message that many of the more militant atheists face.
generalgrog wrote:Believe me I know the way macro evolution is theorized to work, remember I wasn't raised up in Church and used to be a hardcore macro-evolutionist myself(as well as an atheist).
But a few things I noticed in your post, and please do not take this as me being insulting because I certainly don't intend it that way. You used a few terms like "imagine" and "possibly" and "perhaps". All of those words are philosophical words not necessarily scientific.
I used these words for several reasons - I was not sure of your scientific background so I was attempting to be as accessible as possible in the way I posted, I was putting forward a very general case and attempting to get you to visualise the process and how it would work when changes in environment affect the way in which an organism lives and functions. If you really want a scientific example of how species change over time check out the works of scientific discourse on Galapagos finches. They will tell you in detail the changes these birds have undergone due to the new environments they faced.
I'm not insulted by you picking up on the above, as I said, I was not sure of your background, so I felt a more narrative based story approach was the best way to go.
Also in order for macro evolution to work you need a massive amount of time, and that time void is filled very cleverly by radioisotope dating methods, which unfortunately I believe to be flawed. Not necessarily flawed from the technical aspects, but flawed from the standpoint of where the conclusions are based. If you start with a foundation that says radioactive decay rates have always been the same as they are now, then of course everything appears to make sense because we are in the now. But if you start from a foundation of saying, well we weren't around "in the beginning" so it's possible that we don't have the whole story. Then you can allow yourself the possibility that modern uniformitarianism could be wrong and maybe there is another answer, of course I believe the answer to be that The Creator created the earth the universe and all living things.
GG
I think that Dogma and the others pretty much covered this one, so I will leave it.
I also want to say that I admire your continued participation in this thread - I know what it is like posting solo to defend your views against a thread full of people who don't share your views on something
Karon wrote:TBH, comparing us to animals, such as chimps, is like comparing the strength of a aluminum can to a steel beam.
Oddly enough you pretty much answered your own question, if you had one in the first place.
Both aluminum and steel are pretty recent developments when taken in the context of what we were using before, which could be considered tin and iron for their given uses at the time. The important bit is how we are comparing them, and in what context we do so.
Orlanth wrote:
Here you are relying on the fallacy that the existance of God is at loggerheads with "everything we know about time, space, life, the universe and everything", some forms of atheist would just to prefer to assume that is so and hijack science to say something it does not. There is nothing far fetched about beleiving in God
Orlanth, i must say, i find you a most agreeable chap with regards to pretty much everything else, im just at the polar opposite regarding your religious views!
But you and i have argued about this numerous times, so i will simply stay out of the realms of Science as its the same old back and forth, and just ask you the same thing i brought up earlier, you seem to be far more well versed on this whole debate than most Creationists so perhaps you can give me a satisfactory answer.
Exactly how would you explain the infinite regress? I have never heard a good answer and i figure if anyone can come up with one it will be you.
As i said earlier, discounting everything else that has been covered it seems very simple to me. Either you CAN get complexity from simplicity or you cannot.
If you can, then Creationists have no argument at all. Even without all of the evidence, it just makes more sense that this is the case.
And if you cant, then surely you cant have a God? By definition, a being that can do "magic" and make everything IS complex, so he would absolutely HAVE to have a maker wouldnt he?
The only thing people say is "oh God is outside of normal Science" or "God can just make himself because he is God" and other such nonsense. I have always maintained that ID/Creationism just makes no sense to me because it counters its own argument! If everything complex MUST have a creator, then is God not complex?
mattyrm wrote:
Exactly how would you explain the infinite regress? I have never heard a good answer and i figure if anyone can come up with one it will be you.
I dont know what 'infinite regress' is, or as likely don't know that concept under that name. I will try and provide an answer for you but at the moment I cannot. A belief in an absense or presence of God can be formulated without absorbing all the evidence, if the evidence concerned is Life and The Universe then it is likely we will all run into knowledge blindspots sooner or later.
Albatross wrote:
But since you mentioned that the prediction occurred AFTER the event, well you got me! I'm convinced! I mean, there is so much wrong with your argument here that I honestly don't know where to begin. Predicting an event that has already happened is not a miracle, nor is it the work of god. If you know the start date, the end date, and you have an agenda, you can manipulate the evidence to make it fit.
Unfair, becauise the events were not nudged a days or two but are a matter of public record.
What I'm saying is that if the man who deciphered the prophecy knew the dates involved beforehand, he could find apropriate passages to cross-reference to make them look like a prophecy. I think this is the strongest case against it, to be honest.
Albatross wrote:
Also, you didn't address the fact that I said the prediction could really have been set out by the original writers of the Torah, but could just be a coincidence. Is that really any less likely?
Much less likely. So much in science can also be coincidental, but when ther odd lengthen you start to accept that a pattern or a likelyhood emerges. Take weather prediction as an example, we cannot predict weather with any accuracy over more than a few days to give a prediction of rain or shine with the acuracy of a single day. To make a political prediction millenia in advance to come true to a single day is without parallel in predictions. also it was a process of prediction, the restoration of Israel is a sequence of timed events occuring on schedule some in history the last recently. So the prediction is cross referenced as part of a larger ongoing event with the first scheduled return occuring with the rebuilding of th Temple, the second with the rebuilding of Jerusalem..
Yes, it's unlikely. But as we now know, it also doesn't matter because it wasn't predicted before the fact.
Albatross wrote:
I'm not even going to touch the whole 'atheism is faith' nonsense. Again.
Nonsense, or you just dont like hearing it? So are you claiming your atheism is scientific? If this is the case theology would be a science too. In any event we would have to rewrite the definition of scientific thought to encompass faith choices one way or another for this to stick. Perhaps this would not be a bad thing as there is more pet belief within science than many in the scientific community would like to admit. We all follow our paradigms in this and other topics, too few people are actually truly open minded.
It's your comfort-blanket, Orlanth. You are obviously a very intelligent bloke with an enquiring mind. Such people encounter difficulty in maintaining their faith, especially because the same people tend to more readily accept the validity of the scientific process. With this in mind, you are acutely aware of the baselessness of some of the things you believe. Claiming that atheism is religion makes you feel better because you can tell yourself that there is parity between the levels of dogma adhered to by both 'sides' (I don't really consider myself part of some monolithic atheist block, I'm just a bloke who doesn't observe religion because I don't see the point...), but there actually isn't. There aren't any requirements save one: not being a theist.
Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Again, nationalism didn't exist when the Torah was written, so it's likely that any reference to Israel would be calling it the Kingdom of Israel, would it not? And it isn't, is it? You can say 'Jesus is the permanent king', but Israel is not a monarchy, politically speaking. If the wording of this 'prophecy' mentions the Kingdom of Israel then it is inaccurate. Any reference to the State of Israel would scream 'fraud' to me.
You are perpared to scream 'fraud' at evidence you havent seen yet? This is not how a reasoned scientific attitude ought to work. You would be better off with atheism by faith.
The prediction refers to the return of the Jews to self-governing statehood. This occured in stages and in different forms. Please remember that early Hebrew society was a form of judicial republic before it was a kingdom anyway, so no kingdom is implied in the related verses.
But think about it - there was no such thing as a nation-state then, meaning that someone would not only have to predict the creation of Israel, but also the concept of nationhood. Again, you haven't presented any evidence - I'm just going on what you have said so far. I know none of the specifics, all I have is your word that this 'prophecy' even exists.
Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
But the entireity of Israeli territory isn't under Jewish rule, meaning that it is not entirely a Jewish state.
It need not be before that date there had been no Jewish state since Titus Caesar. However your comment does lead to a supporting point though. When the Israelites first moved into the promised land under Joshua they officially entered on one day but the conquest of the land took generations, eventually stalled as indicated in Judges chapter 1. Philistia was destroyed by the Babylonians when Jerusalem fell. Wheras Philistia was to remain whenever there was a Jewish state because of Israels sin in accordinace with the prophesy in the book of Judges. When Israel was formed Philistia returned also. The Gaza strip is modern day Philistia.
Were the Philistines (Y/N?) muslim? What does the prophecy say about building settlements on their land?
Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Stay classy, creationists!
Seriously though, I stand by those 5. I don't think you've managed to refute them in any meaningful way.
If you are going to flat deny that you had to add extra words I never wrote to misinterpret what I did write then I doubt I will be able to convince you of anything.
What do you mean? I was jibing you about the ill-advised 'Jewish Bankers' thing.
Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
The problem I have is similar to what dogma outlined: even if the science is correct, it's still a bloody big leap to conclude that 'god did it'!
Same leap as required to say, God was nowhere to be found. In eaither case the leap is faith.
That's a very strange viewpoint. Very strange.
People don't say 'I ate a sandwich. God was nowhere to be found', they say 'I ate a sandwich. It was tasty.'
There is absolutely no reason to draw any religious conclusions from any scientific data you gather, unless you have a pre-existing agenda. Your assumption that most scientists are atheist is leading you to conclude that all experiments and theories have the ultimate objective of disproving god. Wrong. The information is an end in and of itself in many cases. The information should be followed down 'the rabbit-hole' - one should go where the facts lead. That's the only honest way to approach science.
Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
I can accept that they found inconsistencies in rates of decay in different substances, but how do you get from there to 'this means that the creator accelerated the decay rates, probably around the time of the Great Flood and in day two of the Creation Week'? Where's the evidence for ANY of that? The conclusions they draw are mind-blowing. And agenda-driven.
Many theists Christian or otherwise have yet to learn that science is not an enemy is faith, there is no need to protect against it. The battle is an illusion, atheism does not have any science on its side.
Perhaps. I happen to disagree. The science that atheism has on it's side is the science that directly contradicts the version of events that takes place in the Bible, Torah, Qu'raan and so on. That religionists have decided to start moving the goal-posts with increasing rapidity correlates quite nicely with increased human scientific understanding.
Orlanth wrote:I can understand what many Christians are thinking on this subject. The atheist hijacking of science is very frequent phenomena, fuelled by the propogation of fringe science to support Bible literalist dogmas. If there is any question of this look up evolution and creationism videoa on YouTube. They are numerous, hostile to opposing views, assumptive and cyclic. As indicated above the correct approach is to show that science is not a tool of atheism, the idea that it is is a human political arguement not a scientific one. Atheism is publically beleived to be connected to science only by repeated public exposure to the concept, as a weapon in evolution vs creation arguments.
Actually the creationists have it right, but possibly for the wrong motive.
The correct counterpoint should be:
- addendum to science class. Some people think that the teaching you have received (evolution science) is evidence of atheism. However evolution of itself makes no comment on the existence or non existence of any deity or eliminates the possibility that a deity or religious entity had an influence on the process of evolution.
This is as world of difference from
- There is an alternate theory to evolution which is creationism......
The latter belongs in religious studies classes. The emphasis should be on removing the religion from the science altogether, in this case atheism, by restoring neutrality with a suitable caveat.
I would be interested to know exactly what is taught in public class in the US, it may well be that this was what was proposed but it was interpreted by the press as introducing religion to science classes.
I'm confused by this. Are you advocating that some aspect of the "correct counterpoint" should be present in in science classes?
Many theists Christian or otherwise have yet to learn that science is not an enemy is faith, there is no need to protect against it. The battle is an illusion, atheism does not have any science on its side.
I'm also confused by this. While atheism has no science on its side in the fight against deism, such as the fight is, it has a decent amount on its side against the idea of an interventionist god.
Orlanth wrote:I agree in principle but disagree on application. Biblical literalists do hijack science but they are fringe theists hijacking fringe sceince that supports literalist theology. Mainstream atheists informed or otherwise hijack mainstream science. After all this position is pretty well established in the doctrines of YouTube atheist zealots and university intellectual flagships for atheism both. Informed theists may agree with the science without infering that it has no validity as an atheistic argument.
Hang on, what? Are you somehow claiming that the crazies on youtube and university atheist clubs have some kind of impact on mainstream science?
Look, there are strong and frequently successful campaigns to get creationists onto school boards in the US. That is a real thing, and a troubling one. A guy on youtube is just one of thousands upon thousands of annoying video bloggers.
As the 'vs' is a human application for partisan gain, it cannot be dealt with as a scientific arguement to be challenged, but as a rhetorical tool to be disarmed. The disarming can come from observation that an increase in knowledge of itself does not ensure a decrease in faith.
No, indeed I can't imagine a God who wouldn't want his children to explore his creation with their eyes wide open.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:If we are literally talking about atheists here, 1.6% of the whole, and frankly I would be very surprised if actual atheists (not agnostics) made up any type of majority within the sciences. The numbers on that issue are particularly fuzzy, but there seems to be a smaller part of the worlds population of scientists that are actively religious. Dunno anything specific, the statistics are all over the place, but something like 25% religious scientists, seems like a safe guess.
I'd be shocked if the number of atheists in science came anywhere near 10%, to be honest. The rest would be some mix of agnostic, mild and strongly religious, with the specific mix depending on the country and the field of science (there's a lot of very unique religious views among astronomers, for instance).
Point is, there is no cabal of athiests trying to suppress creationist science. There is no science to suppress.
Orlanth wrote:
Nice catch but I am refering to IIRC Isaiah and Jeremiah with the sevenfold increase in punishment in Deuteronomy being the key. Ezekiels ordeal covers a seperate but related issue, I think it might come in under some supporting evidence, but I will have to dig out th book to know dfor sure. I dont remember those details at top of head.
I don't remember the specific prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, I'll have to dig out my Bible study books.
Alright, I've gone back through my annotated Bibles (NKJV, NIV, ES, and OSB if anyone is interested), and gotten a little outside help, but I still haven't been able to find the passages you're referring to. Yes, there are prophecies regarding the return of the Jews to Israel, but there are no periods of time mentioned such that we can determine a specific date for their return (unless I missed them). I also understand the seven-fold increase mentioned in Deuteronomy, but that comment is meaningless without an initial number, and starting date, with which to establish punishment. It is these latter two items which find themselves highly susceptible to questioning due to variances in Biblical translation (as I pointed out earlier) and outright omission, as I will deal with now.
First, let us dispense with the idea that the punishment afforded to the houses of Judah and Israel can be considered open to summation. The captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel are two distinct, historical events involving two distinct, historical powers; namely Assyria (holding Israel) and Babylon (holding Judah). In general, the House of Israel would be considered to encompass the both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, but the fact that the two are explicitly separated calls directly into question the extent to which that can be considered a valid interpretation of prophecy. This is particularly given the presence of later considerations of total sin/punishment in Ezekiel's prophecies which explicitly omit the time ascribed to the House of Judah as an independent element; implying that Judah is to be either considered as a component of the House of Israel (and is therefore singled out for other reasons), or that its punishment is irrelevant to the House of Israel.
Second, because the houses of Judah and Israel are so freely exchanged as either separate, or conflated entities it becomes very difficult to determine a date at which the supposed punishment began. The date required of prophetic veracity is 536 B.C., the year in which Cyrus freed the House of Judah from the Babylonians. However, the House of Israel, as defined by Ezekiel's prophecy had already been free from Assyrian dominion for 132 years.
Which one of these dates are we to consider canonical for the freedom of the Jews? They both present serious problems for the prophecy. If we use the commonly accepted date, 536 B.C., then we are left to wonder why the house of Israel is suddenly being considered as a contiguous whole and so express concern with respect to the veracity of adding the independently assessed punishments of 40 and 390 years (assuming we accept that was indeed the duration of the punishment). If we regard them as independent entities, then per a literal reading the punishment of the House of Israel actually began in the year 434 B.C.; placing the 1948 founding of Israel far off the mark in terms of accuracy.
And that doesn't even get into the Levitical prophecies regarding the supposed peace that would be spread throughout the land of Israel upon the return of the Jews.
Albatross wrote:
What I'm saying is that if the man who deciphered the prophecy knew the dates involved beforehand, he could find apropriate passages to cross-reference to make them look like a prophecy. I think this is the strongest case against it, to be honest.
Sorry. You do not understand the nature of prophesy. There are two types. An open prior prediction or an pre-declared but veiled prediction. as I said the wording is plain text in the bible, if people did not see it they did not see it. This second type of prophesy is refered to a signiture prophesy. God is saying I did that, predictive prophesy is there so that people can act on it. Signiture prophesy is different in that regards.
The real question is why would someone not see the prediction in plain text beforehand, the answer is that they are not supposed to. God reveals his Word, so something in plain text could well vbe overlooked if God chooses it to be so.
In either case a book written over two millenia ago predicted a political event to the day May 14th 1948. There is no strong case against that, there is no case at all.
Albatross wrote:
Yes, it's unlikely. But as we now know, it also doesn't matter because it wasn't predicted before the fact.
Yes it was. Because it was written plain text into the book of Deuteronomy and Isaiah. it was predicted before the event long before the event, but we were blind to see the prediction. let me give you another example of signiture prophesy this time from within the bible. ther Sanhedrin bought a potters field with the money Judas returned to them, the money 30 silver pieces was a slaves ransom. In both cases the amount and the actual use of the funds was written in the bible as prophesy.
Zechariah 11:12-13 And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.
Notice the signiture prophesy. in this case fulfilled by the very priests who denied jesus as Mesach and ordered his execution. Had they been aware of the prophesy they would have paid judas 31 pieces of silver or another amount and when the money was returned would have bought anything other than a potters field. These people wsere not ignorant of biblie texts or messianic prophesy, but they wrre blinded because they were not supposed to see what God had ordained.
Your understandable error is that you dont calculate for the living God behind the words and are treating the words like ordinary mortal words in an ordinary mortal text. You might miss a secular prediction or ignore it until it occurs, but signiture prophesy is a holding back. We have had a long time to work out the dates, but never did until it occured.
Albatross wrote:
It's your comfort-blanket, Orlanth.
I accept your comment on face value. This is in a very real way true, a personal relationship with God is a powerful and intimate relationship, I will not deny that it can indeed should foster a degree of dependency.
But dependency on God has no taint to it. I accept your allegory with caution because it can be twisted. It is similar to the 'religion is a crutch' mentality. Yes religion is a strong support but there is a tendency to assume that those who lean on that support are cripples, or that those who discard religion walk straight and free.
A comfort blanket is something for babies or painfully timid people afraid to face the world, this implies that those who eshew one are stronger and more mature. Neither set of allegories are fair.
King David wrote (for example) Psalm 77:
1 I cried out to God for help;
I cried out to God to hear me.
2 When I was in distress, I sought the Lord;
at night I stretched out untiring hands
and my soul refused to be comforted.
3 I remembered you, O God, and I groaned;
I mused, and my spirit grew faint.
He was also known as a leader of men, a general and a fearsome warrior.
Albatross wrote:
You are obviously a very intelligent bloke with an enquiring mind. Such people encounter difficulty in maintaining their faith, especially because the same people tend to more readily accept the validity of the scientific process.
There are too few decent Bible apologists around, and none I know of whos work matches C.S. Lewis. He struggled with faith, in fact he didnt like Christianity because it provided a simple in fact simplistic solution, but as the deep wsidom behind the simplicity became apparent to him he was 'drawn kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God."
Frankly I had it easy, I was the guy at school to was always being punished for skipping chapel, because I didnt want the bs but I was a misfit anyway. I was a beleiver mind you, but wanted a real faith in a real God, not state church mumbo jumbo and dogma.
Albatross wrote:
With this in mind, you are acutely aware of the baselessness of some of the things you believe. Claiming that atheism is religion makes you feel better because you can tell yourself that there is parity between the levels of dogma adhered to by both 'sides' (I don't really consider myself part of some monolithic atheist block, I'm just a bloke who doesn't observe religion because I don't see the point...), but there actually isn't. There aren't any requirements save one: not being a theist.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. it is good that we are returning to this point ever gsooner in our discussions, it means the cirlce is closing and we are approaching the real issues head on, and with aded politeness and respect each time. I havent planned this, just pointed out my point of view honestly, it is an inevitavble conclusion when we both do the same.
To you (tell me if I have you wrong here) atheism is declaration of intention to abstain from any theistic thought process. Make religion a non issue and live without it.
To me religion is part of everything in that God is part of everything. You either beleive that or choose not to, in either case a faith choice is made. Ignoring relgion is only possible from a point of view of true ignorance, someone unaware that there may or may not be a universal deity may be free from all thoughts on religion. Otherwise a faith choice is mandatory.
Of note there are no societies that are 'free' from religion in this way and those who develop in seperation to humans often show a greater rather than lesser spirituality. From personal observation I do beleive that chidlren pick up on spiritual things far easier than adults. My own church (I rarely attend now) is a mixed age congregation and young children are often present
Albatross wrote:
Again, you haven't presented any evidence - I'm just going on what you have said so far. I know none of the specifics, all I have is your word that this 'prophecy' even exists.
This is good. I know I havent shown the predictions yet, you asked questions even tried to refute it blindly. I am replying to those posts. This is not a trap, though you would have been wiser tgo find out what I was going to post berfore jumping in wioth both feet. Nevertheless its actually useful and in a way healthy.
Presumption is part of human thinking part of where out emotive processes overwhelm our calculative processes. I beleive (this is a secular teaching) that we can improve our mental outlook with two simple mental exercises. The first I showed you in a previous thread. Declaration of Paradigm. By admitting that one is a person with a personal agenda and therefore biased one can minimise ones bias and see more clearly. The alternative is to simply 'attempt to be impartial', which can be difficult because men are not, it also makes it difficult to see ones lack of impartiality withoutv this mental exercise.
The second mental teaching has been inadvertently revealed here. Presumption Analysis. I beleive it is healthy to make immediate presumptions and put them on record somewhere. Again this is to do with a persons inherent bias, but also accounts for a human 'hunch'. By boxing off your presumption you are also preventing yourself from acting on it. So for example if you have a bad first impression of someone, it no longer soils your outlook becuse your negative first impression is 'boxed'. You then review your first impression or presumption with a more refined impression afterwards. Analyse the differences.
Follow these two mental disciplines and you will develop a stronger more keen analytical understanding of what is around you. The first limits your own paradigms bigotry, and we are all bigots one way or another. The second allows us to more keen ly analyse quicker and with a greater degree of accuracy.
Albatross wrote:
Were the Philistines (Y/N?) muslim? What does the prophecy say about building settlements on their land?
No Philistia was destroyed over a thousand years before Islam began.
The prediction I am talking about says nothing, but there is plenty written enselwhere and it doesnt make good reading at face value.
Bible literalism once again. Much of the Zionish hardcore attitude to Palestinians can be stemmed from bible literalism and some very brutal passages in the book of Deuteronomy.
Albatross wrote:
There is absolutely no reason to draw any religious conclusions from any scientific data you gather, unless you have a pre-existing agenda. Your assumption that most scientists are atheist is leading you to conclude that all experiments and theories have the ultimate objective of disproving god. Wrong. The information is an end in and of itself in many cases. The information should be followed down 'the rabbit-hole' - one should go where the facts lead. That's the only honest way to approach science.
This fits your paradigm, you want to divorce religion from science as part of your interpreation of atheism. However some points:
The pre-existing agenda will not stop, the principle problem are atheist hijackers of science. You might want to leave religion behind, let me accept that on face value. However others ideas of leaving religion behind is more proactive boot-in-face and walk off, in the name of Darwin.
Secondly, its too late! Sorry about that. For you the line has already been drawn and a leap for faith taken, not necessarily irreversibly or willingly but taken nonetheless. You are aware of the potential existance of an infinite God and have made some element of choice one way or another on that piece of knowledge, whether temporarily or permenantly and irrgardless of whether you are awaiting any further evidence.
I accept that you adhere to scintific method and prefer to await a scientific conclusion on the existance of God before making a definitive comment on record, but I suggest to you that one might never come, I also suggest to you that a provisional faith based answer is formulating in your mind, or has already formulated, whether you like it or not.
I think this last point explains why some intellectual atheists are angry because the hidden and unwelcomed faith choice is in there, their religion has infected their thoughts and they cannot be free of it and treat religious thought as a blemish on their paradigm preventing a completion of rational thought. The only way out is to eshew all relgious sources, if religion did not exist then a scientific mind can develop free from doubt or faith based assumption where no asumption is welcomed.
Beyond the immediate problem of religion not going quietly there is the problem that this level of purity of thought is rare even within science, too many people adhere to pet theories and scientific cliques. Persdonality has more to do with a theorem being accepted or not than most would prefer to admit.
Albatross wrote:
Perhaps. I happen to disagree. The science that atheism has on it's side is the science that directly contradicts the version of events that takes place in the Bible, Torah, Qu'raan and so on. That religionists have decided to start moving the goal-posts with increasing rapidity correlates quite nicely with increased human scientific understanding.
Some are moving goalposts, and very frequently too, however those are the people who want to pet fringe sceince that backs up fringe theology. I am not interested in that. Besides even if it werre they are only keeping track, theologically connected sceince is not the only science under review, as knowledge expands the questions list gets long and somer of the questions are altered or even removed unanswered.
Huzzah. I have found the book.
I am quoting from The Signiture of God, by Grant R Jeffrey.
I dont agree with all he has to say, some chapters are theological/scientific defences of Bible literalism as described above, but other parts are very interesting.
First after refreshing my memory of the work I must also refresh myself with some humble pie. Yes, dogma the principle passage used is the one mentioned in Ezekiel, but it is still cross references with the sevenfold curse. But that is in Leviticus not Deuteronomy. I will post this later this evening with all the Hebreic numbercrunching too. I might even just copy out the entire section, its short enough to legally count as an extract rather than copyright theft.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
The correct counterpoint should be:
- addendum to science class. Some people think that the teaching you have received (evolution science) is evidence of atheism. However evolution of itself makes no comment on the existence or non existence of any deity or eliminates the possibility that a deity or religious entity had an influence on the process of evolution.
I'm confused by this. Are you advocating that some aspect of the "correct counterpoint" should be present in in science classes?
Yes I am, if needed to combat the false ideology that evolution = atheism.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Many theists Christian or otherwise have yet to learn that science is not an enemy is faith, there is no need to protect against it. The battle is an illusion, atheism does not have any science on its side.
I'm also confused by this. While atheism has no science on its side in the fight against deism, such as the fight is, it has a decent amount on its side against the idea of an interventionist god.
Perhaps your confusion comes from the word fight as highlighted. There is no fight. Evolutionary science does not have any bearing on honest theology, the two are seperate, on can practice honest science and/or theology in isolation from each other, one need not do so as a personal choice but to espouse this choice should be understood as espousing both science and religion rather than hijacking one as a delivery system for ther other. Thus those who insist on mixing relgion and sceince in any combination will be seen as making both relgious and cientific comments with scrutiny permitted on both.
The principle danger here is to use the mask 'atheism is science' and thus refuse any attempts to critique ones own religious doctrines via theological thinking.
The 'decent amount on its side' is your faith choice speaking.
Orlanth wrote:In either case a book written over two millenia ago predicted a political event to the day May 14th 1948. There is no strong case against that, there is no case at all.
From a plain text reading of your posts, there isn't a case for it either, strong or not.
I just want to say that, although I do respect Orlanth greatly, I disagree with his conclusion that the basic problem is athiests vs Christians. The problem comes down whether or not you believe the Bible for what it says, or don't. If you think the Bible is some sort of myth and legends book similar to D&D deities and demigods and is an allegory, your naturally going to enter into disputations with people that actually believe the Bible, whether your a Christian or not. Notice I didn't invalidate someones faith statement, just that I believe they are in error.
And also disagree with the notion that Biblical literalism is somehow "dangerous". The Bible has to be interpreted through exegesis and alowing the Bible to interpret itself. If you follow proper exegetical procedure you should be able to gleen what is supposed to be taken literally and what isn't.
For example: using 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." to try and claim that this means that the creation account isn't to be taken literally is a clear example of how NOT to use exegesis, which leads to a reult of the Bible being taken out of context to support an erroneous position. 2Peter 3:8 has nothing to do with the creation but is a description of how the Lord operates out of time, because he is a spirit.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Anyway, I'm trying to dig up my RATE books but they seem to have been buried in a box somewhere. I will try to answer albatross' quetions better, once I find the material. They also go into the Hebrew used in genesis 1 to show that the Hebrew that is used is in a context of literalism/narrative not poetry. Sorry for taking so long to respond.
Orlanth wrote:I agree in principle but disagree on application. Biblical literalists do hijack science but they are fringe theists hijacking fringe sceince that supports literalist theology. Mainstream atheists informed or otherwise hijack mainstream science. After all this position is pretty well established in the doctrines of YouTube atheist zealots and university intellectual flagships for atheism both. Informed theists may agree with the science without infering that it has no validity as an atheistic argument.
Hang on, what? Are you somehow claiming that the crazies on youtube and university atheist clubs have some kind of impact on mainstream science?
Yes and no. It does but not through scientific method but though mass of popular opinion. Thus scientific method should be immune to this type of impact but sceince isnt always honest and is subject to pressures as wsith any other human thought process. Atheistic science was mandatory in the Soviet Blok within living memory, it is still prefered in some countries
sebster wrote:
Look, there are strong and frequently successful campaigns to get creationists onto school boards in the US. That is a real thing, and a troubling one. A guy on youtube is just one of thousands upon thousands of annoying video bloggers.
The traditonal 'beleive in the seven days or your a heretic' fanatic shouldn't have hands on acces to the eduction system. However I will not be too judgemental of them. Stern ultra-relgious types often make good school governors as much as they make bad teachers. I would be happy to see hardcore creationists as school governors. Hardcore creationists are also hardcore moralists but not necessarily fanatical in a dangerous sense. A bulldog attitiude may well be good at helping prevent moral decline - a major issue nowadays.
ther Sanhedrin bought a potters field with the money Judas returned to them, the money 30 silver pieces was a slaves ransom. In both cases the amount and the actual use of the funds was written in the bible as prophesy.
Zechariah 11:12-13 And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.
Notice the signiture prophesy. in this case fulfilled by the very priests who denied jesus as Mesach and ordered his execution. Had they been aware of the prophesy they would have paid judas 31 pieces of silver or another amount and when the money was returned would have bought anything other than a potters field.
..yes, but please bear in mind that many/most of the texts related to things such as the above were written long after the initial prediction and many Christian scholars are more than happy to admit that certain amounts or numbres refered to over and over again were -- perhaps-- massaged or quoted quite deliberately to invoke or refer to the previously written texts. Or so I was taught when doing my theology A levels and degree.
Now that's not to say that Character X didn't receive Y amount or go somewhere for 40 measurements of time, but it would also be very easy, and fitting with the accepted styles of writing at the times, for people to reference those figures.
But outside of an obviously biased author saying that X amount was given/Y amount of time was spent/whatever there's no possible or plausible collaboration of details being that specific.
Obviously though this doesn't automatically make this ( or any of the rest) false or untrue.
*MOD hat on*
This has been polite enough thus far, we'll see how it goes, standard reminder of forum rules to do with politeness, basic respect for others yadda yadda. If you're not sure if what you're going to say is suitable, it's perhaps best you don't say it..
Oh, and if you do want to join in, then please take the time to read through was has gone on before so we don't wind up going round and round in circles over the same points. If you're new here or to this debate most of this ground has been gobe over many, many, many times before by, frankly, better minds than ours and yet here we all are still. Astonishing.
*takes off MOD hat and puts on optimist one again*
extract from chapter eight of The Signiture of God by Grant R Jeffreys.
ISRAEL'S RETURN TO THE HOLY LAND
Israel's relationship to the Holy Land is a major focus of biblical prophesy both fulfilled and unfulfilled. God prophesied precisely when Israel would return to the Promised Land after her citizens went into exile in the first two captivities, the Egyptian and Babylonian. The Egyptian captivity was prophesied to last exactly 430 years and it is significant that it ended precisely to the day when the 430-year captivity ended. 'and it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years; even the self same day; it came to pass, that all the hosts of the lord went out from the land of Egypt' (Exodus 12:41). The prophet Jeremiah predicted the exaxct duration of the captivity of the Jewish exiles in Babylon would last 70 years. 'And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon for seventy years' (Jeremiah 25:11). The Babylonian army conquered Israel in the spring of 606BC. Both secular history and the Bible reveal that, as predicted, tyhe Babylonain Captivity ended exactly 70 years alter in the spring of 536BC, in the Jewish month of Nisan, when the Persian King Cyrus freed the Jews to return to their land (Ezra 1:3).
The three major Jewish prophets, Daniel, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, were all alive at this time. naturally, the prophet Ezekiel was aware of the prophet Jeremiah's prophecy that the Jews could return from Babylon after 70 years in 536 BC. However God gave him a new revelation that looked much further into the future revealing how long it would be until the Jewish people would finally re-establisdh their nation in the last days. The prediction began with God's declaration that 'this shall be a sign to the house of Israel' (Ezekiel 4:3). The full prediction is found in Ezekiel 4:3-6:
3 Then take an iron pan, place it as an iron wall between you and the city and turn your face toward it. It will be under siege, and you shall besiege it. This will be a sign to the house of Israel.
4 "Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon yourself. [a] You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. 5 I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of Israel.
6 "After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.
in this passagethe prophet Ezekiel clearly declares that this prophesy would be 'a sign to the house of Israel' and that each day represents one biblical year. The prediction revealed that Israel would be punished for a combined period of 430 years 9390 years plus another 40 years). The beginning point of the world wide captivity occurred in the spring of 536BC, at the end of the seventy years of predicted captivity in Babylon (Jeremiah 25:11). However in th month of Nisan, 536BC only a small remenant of the Jews from the nation of Judah chose to leave their homes in babylon and return to Jerusalem. the Jewish exiles who remebered their former homes in Israel were now over 70 years old. Their children who had been born in Babylon naturally haf little connection or attachment to the former home of their parents. The vast majority were quite happy to remain in ther pagan Persian empire as colonists rather than migrate six hundred miles to rebuild the devastated colony of Israel. God decreed to Ezekiel a period of punishment of 430 years for Israel's and judah;s sin. However when we deduct the 70 years of punishment the Jews had endured during the 70-year Babylonian captivity, which ended in 536BC, there still remained as total of 360 years of further punishment beyond the year 536BC. When we examione the history of that period we note that the Jews did not return to establish an independent country at the end of either 360 or of 430 years of additional punishment. In light of the precision of Ezekilens prophecy, it was difficult to understand why nothing occurred at that time to fulfil the detailed prediction.
Both the Bible and history reveal that Israel did not repent of its sins at the end of the seventy-year captivity in babylon. in fact, the Scripturesrecord in ther books of Ezra and Nehemiah that the minority of fifty thousand who chose to retugn with Ezra to the Promised Land did so with little faith. the vast majority of the Jews remained in pagan babylon. they failed to repent of their disobedience, which was the reason god sent them into captivity in the first place....
i discovered the solution to the mystery of the duration of Israel's worldwide dispersion and return in a divine principle that God revealed to Moses in Leviticus 26. in this chapter the Lord established promses and punishments for Israel based on her obedience and her disobedience to His commands. God declared to Israel four times in this passage that if, after being punished for her sins, she still did not repent, the punishemnts previously specified would be multiplied by seven (the number of completion).....Since the majority of Israel refused to repent of her sin after the Babylonian Captivity ended, the period of 360 years of further punishment declared by Ezekiel 4:3-6 was multiplied seven times. This meant the Jews would remain without an indendent nation for another 2,520 biblical years from 536BC, the beginning point of the prediction.
THE BIBLICAL YEAR OF 360 DAYS
The period of punishment was to last 2,520 biblical years rather than 2,520 calender years. The reaon was that the Bible always used the ancient Jewish caldender composed of 360 days, making up a biblical year in both the historical and prophetic passages. the true length of the Jewish biblical prophetic year was only 360 days because it was a lunar-solar year composed of twelve months of 30 days each. The modern solar year of 365.25 days was unknown to the ancient nations of the Old Testament.... Moses delares in Genesis that the period of 150 days when the flood waters were at their height lasted precisely five months from the seventeenth day odf the second month to the seventeenth dats of the seventh month, proving that each month consisted of thirty days. Sir Isaac Newton relates that:
all nations before the just length of the solar years was known, reckoned months by the course of the moon, and years by the return of winter and summer, spring and autumn, and in making calenders for their festivals, they reckoned thirty days to a lunar month, and twelve lunat months to a year, taking the nearest round numbers, when came the division of the ecliptic into 360 degrees. G.C. lewsis astonomy of the Ancients Ch1, Sect 7.
Therefore if we wish to understand the precise times involved in the fulfillment of prophecy, we need to calculate using the same biblical lunar-solar year of 360 days which the prophets used. Both the prophet Daniel and John, in the Book of Revelations clearly used a biblical year as 360 days. the failure to understand the true length of the bivblical year as 360 days has prevented some prophesy students from clearly understanding many prophecies which contain a precise time element. This 360-day prophetic year is also borne out in the Book of Revelations where John's vision refers to the future Great Tribulation period.
Therefore Ezekiels prophecy of the 430 years declared that the end of Israels punishment and her final restoration to the land would be accimplished in 2,520 biblical years of 260 days each which totals precisely 907,200 days. To convert this period into our calender year of 365.25 days we simply divide... to reach a total of 2,438.8 of our modern calender years.... In these calculations we must keep in mind that there was one year between 1BC and 1AD. There was no year Zero.
TO CALCULATE WHEN EZEKIEL PROPHESIED THE JEWS WOULD BECOME A NATION AGAIN
1. The Babylonaian captivity ended in the spring of 536BC.
Beginning 14th Nisan 536BC (536.4BC)
2. The duration of Israels captivity from Ezekiel 4:3-6 x7 907,200 days
3. Total to 1947 15th May.
4. Adjust for there being no year Zero. +365 days
5. The Rebirth of Israel 15th May 1948.
On the afternoon of 14th May 1948 the Jews proclaimed the Independence of the reborn state of Israel.... At midnight, as the 15th May began the British Mandate offically ended and Israel became an indendent nation.
Note to readers. Now complete. My own notes below.
1. The book doesnt go into the full detail of when in the spring on 536BC the captivity bagan which was rather sloppy of the author IMHO. I added 14th Nisan in italics which IIRC is the date.
2. While the Jews declared their independence on the 14th May and list it as their foundation day the British Mandate was valid until midnight of the 15th. This also follows at while the mandate expired on the 15th the 15th alao began at dusk of the 14th as the Hebrew religious day begins at dusk and not at midnight.
Orlanth wrote:
The correct counterpoint should be:
- addendum to science class. Some people think that the teaching you have received (evolution science) is evidence of atheism. However evolution of itself makes no comment on the existence or non existence of any deity or eliminates the possibility that a deity or religious entity had an influence on the process of evolution.
I'm confused by this. Are you advocating that some aspect of the "correct counterpoint" should be present in in science classes?
Yes I am, if needed to combat the false ideology that evolution = atheism.
...What.
No science teacher in the history of western public schooling, in the process of teaching students about evolution, has ever taught that evolution is proof of atheism. At least, so far as I know. If this holds true, why would this be any less biased towards religion than what you're trying to remove? (disregarding that atheism is not a religion)
Orlanth wrote:Perhaps your confusion comes from the word fight as highlighted...
Let me argue against this in three seperate portions.
Perhaps your confusion comes from the word fight as highlighted. There is no fight. Evolutionary science does not have any bearing on honest theology, the two are seperate, on can practice honest science and/or theology in isolation from each other, one need not do so as a personal choice but to espouse this choice should be understood as espousing both science and religion rather than hijacking one as a delivery system for ther other. Thus those who insist on mixing relgion and sceince in any combination will be seen as making both relgious and cientific comments with scrutiny permitted on both.
If we aren't talking about an interventionist god; rather, a god that has its role restricted to, say, universe creation, then yes, you're correct: science and theology are entirely separate, and never the two shall meet.
However, as you may have seen, I wasn't talking about a non-interventionist god. I was, explicitly, referring to an interventionist god, or one that interferes in the affairs of the universe. If there exists an interventionist god, then there will be evidence of that interference. On the other hand, if there is no evidence of interference where interference is expected...
Briefly, it makes no sense to rule out science and the products of science in a dialogue on the subject of an interventionist god because the effects of such a god on the universe would be best scrutinised by science, for lack of a more coherent phrase.
The principle danger here is to use the mask 'atheism is science' and thus refuse any attempts to critique ones own religious doctrines via theological thinking.
Atheism is simply the position of possessing non-belief in deity/ies. It is not a religion. It is not a religious doctrine. It requires no more faith than a position of non-belief in the ancient gods of Greece.* So... I'm not really seeing your point. There is no logical proof of god. There is also no logical proof of not-god.** Theological thinking is therefore, at best, mildly irrelevent to the fundamental question of: Is there a god.***
*Agnosticism, incidentally, is not such a position of belief/non-belief on the subject of god/s. Agnosticism is a statement of belief in the limits of knowledge. Either you believe in god/s, or you don't. Whether you think it's possible to know definitively is irrelevant to whether or not you do or do not believe.
** Except in modal logic, and possibly in other forms of logic as well maybe? The one in modal logic specifically is unconvincing for reasons that I won't go into here.
***Though it may be more relevent when it comes to deciding what kind of god may or may not exist having decided that god may exist; I don't know, I am not a practicing theologian.
The 'decent amount on its side' is your faith choice speaking.
Way to assume that I didn't research with an open mind before making a choice about what I believe, Orlanth. I don't believe in an interventionist god because there is little or no reliable, verifiable evidence of anything that, so far as I can see, points to the existence of one being more likely than not, whilst there is a comparatively large amount of reliable and verifiable evidence against that same idea.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
No science teacher in the history of western public schooling, in the process of teaching students about evolution, has ever taught that evolution is proof of atheism. At least, so far as I know. If this holds true, why would this be any less biased towards religion than what you're trying to remove? (disregarding that atheism is not a religion)
The assumption that evolution = atheism comes largely from elsewhere. The point is this fallacy needs addressing one way or another. However you may be supriseed what gets taught in aschools nowadays, though I speak from a Uk perspective where there is a lot of dogma as legacy of thirteen years of New Labour dogmas.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
If we aren't talking about an interventionist god; rather, a god that has its role restricted to, say, universe creation, then yes, you're correct: science and theology are entirely separate, and never the two shall meet.
The two do meet according to theists but the subjects remain seperate.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
However, as you may have seen, I wasn't talking about a non-interventionist god. I was, explicitly, referring to an interventionist god, or one that interferes in the affairs of the universe. If there exists an interventionist god, then there will be evidence of that interference. On the other hand, if there is no evidence of interference where interference is expected...
God only leaves the evidence behind he wants to. Some will chose to find it, others will chose not to.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Atheism is simply the position of possessing non-belief in deity/ies. It is not a religion. It is not a religious doctrine.
Covered elsewhere but essentially as the existance or non existence of God is not a given emperical fact and decision on this subject requires a faith choice, willingly taken or not.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Way to assume that I didn't research with an open mind before making a choice about what I believe, Orlanth. I don't believe in an interventionist god because there is little or no reliable, verifiable evidence of anything that, so far as I can see, points to the existence of one being more likely than not, whilst there is a comparatively large amount of reliable and verifiable evidence against that same idea.
That is your choice to believe Tzoo. Some follow a diametrically opposite view and can see the hand of God 'everywhere'. Neither premise is sceintific and neither premise precludes the adherent from practicing honest science.
Let me give you an example here. Observe the Sun and the Moon. From the persepctive of an animal upon the surface of the Terra, Sol and Luna both appear the same size, so much so that a total eclipse of the local star from Terra will leave the coronoa visble but mask the star entirely. We do not know how many earthlike planets there are in the galaxy, or how many have similar sized satellites, but astonomers do think tyhat the Terra-Luna relationship is likely to be unusual even omiting the special place of Terra as a cradle of life. In any even if the distances were different or either Sol or Luna biggers or smaller the size similarity would not exist as seen from the surface of Terra. I suspect stallar eclipses from a planets surface as seen from the surface of Terra are relatively rare, and possibly expectionally rare. Thus two bodies in space utterly unralted in size of detail but the most significant objects in the sky from the perspective of the surface of the earth have aquired a close poetic balance.
You have every opportunity to consider this an astonomical quirk, a pure coincidence, or just not consider it at all because we are used to the phenomena.
But there is room for someone else, such as myself, to suggest that it was intended to be that way.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:However, as you may have seen, I wasn't talking about a non-interventionist god. I was, explicitly, referring to an interventionist god, or one that interferes in the affairs of the universe. If there exists an interventionist god, then there will be evidence of that interference. On the other hand, if there is no evidence of interference where interference is expected...
God only leaves the evidence behind he wants to. Some will chose to find it, others will chose not to.
The only way to come to this conclusion reasonably is to presuppose the existence of god. It is not convincing to those who do not agree with that presupposition.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Atheism is simply the position of possessing non-belief in deity/ies. It is not a religion. It is not a religious doctrine.
Covered elsewhere but essentially as the existance or non existence of God is not a given emperical fact and decision on this subject requires a faith choice, willingly taken or not.
So you agree then that not believing in ancient greek gods is a religion, yes?
Let me give you an example here. Observe the Sun and the Moon. From the persepctive of an animal upon the surface of the Terra, Sol and Luna both appear the same size, so much so that a total eclipse of the local star from Terra will leave the coronoa visble but mask the star entirely. We do not know how many earthlike planets there are in the galaxy, or how many have similar sized satellites, but astonomers do think tyhat the Terra-Luna relationship is likely to be unusual even omiting the special place of Terra as a cradle of life. In any even if the distances were different or either Sol or Luna biggers or smaller the size similarity would not exist as seen from the surface of Terra. I suspect stallar eclipses from a planets surface as seen from the surface of Terra are relatively rare, and possibly expectionally rare. Thus two bodies in space utterly unralted in size of detail but the most significant objects in the sky from the perspective of the surface of the earth have aquired a close poetic balance.
You have every opportunity to consider this an astonomical quirk, a pure coincidence, or just not consider it at all because we are used to the phenomena.
But there is room for someone else, such as myself, to suggest that it was intended to be that way.
This is basically the kind of thing that I meant when I... apparently didn't explicitly say that god never acts in any way that isn't indistinguishable from natural causes from an objective viewpoint.
I've been reading thread and decided to throw in my two cents: irreducible complexity and C-14 dating.
The idea of irreducible complexity is supported and, I think, best conceptualized by the arch. Take any one stone away and it ceases to be an arch. Irreducibly complex right? Any engineer will explain that the sides were built up with scaffolds and when the keystone was placed the scaffolds were removed. Things like the wing and eye can likewise be 'built' and any intermediate steps later removed.
And Carbon 14 is an example of science correcting its tools. Measuring the radioactive half-life is mathematically correct. We can measure what radioisotope we have, count the half life back and we have the number of years it's been decaying. ANY radioisotope. Like the radioactive molten iron/nickel core of the earth, or the fusion of the sun. Hydrogen into helium, and helium into carbon and ever higher. The radiation produces stable and measurable wavelengths of energy that gives half-life and again age.
Further, it would be rather damning evidence of a higher power if the universe's background radiation weren't constant but variable. Showing some constant had changed would be a massive footprint of 'Goddidit'.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote: So you agree then that not believing in ancient greek gods is a religion, yes?
Of course it is.
And my hobbies are not collecting stamps, not birdwatching, not trainspotting, not coin collecting, not playing hockey, not learning Spanish, not cooking, not knitting, not , not not not not not not........
You are defined by all of the thousands of things that you are not, not what you are!
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
*Agnosticism, incidentally, is not such a position of belief/non-belief on the subject of god/s. Agnosticism is a statement of belief in the limits of knowledge. Either you believe in god/s, or you don't. Whether you think it's possible to know definitively is irrelevant to whether or not you do or do not believe.
There are various ways to interrelate the two such that a position of perpetual uncertainty with respect to belief becomes tenable (ie. I don't believe in God now, but I believed in God yesterday, and I may believe in God tomorrow), but that mostly involves ternary logic (and to a lesser extent, K-logic) which is probably outside the range of this format.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
***Though it may be more relevent when it comes to deciding what kind of god may or may not exist having decided that god may exist; I don't know, I am not a practicing theologian.
That's generally how it all plays out. Philosophy decides what is, or is not, while theology discusses the divine (or emotional) significance of what is, or is not.
Orlanth wrote:
3 Then take an iron pan, place it as an iron wall between you and the city and turn your face toward it. It will be under siege, and you shall besiege it. This will be a sign to the house of Israel.
4 "Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon yourself. [a] You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. 5 I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of Israel. 6 "After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.
in this passage the prophet Ezekiel clearly declares that this prophesy would be 'a sign to the house of Israel' and that each day represents one biblical year. The prediction revealed that Israel would be punished for a combined period of 430 years (390 years plus another 40 years).
I apologize in advance, but that's a ridiculous interpretation (not that its yours, but you seem to believe that its sound). The passage clearly indicates (see bold) that the punishment is recorded in days, as representative of years of sin. I have seen translations which support the position presented here, but this particular version does not at all point to the offered conclusion. In fact, based on this particular version of the selection, I would conclude that the total punishment of the Jews was to amount to 70 years, and only 70 years, as prophesied by Isaiah.
Albatross wrote:
What I'm saying is that if the man who deciphered the prophecy knew the dates involved beforehand, he could find apropriate passages to cross-reference to make them look like a prophecy. I think this is the strongest case against it, to be honest.
Sorry. You do not understand the nature of prophesy. There are two types. An open prior prediction or an pre-declared but veiled prediction. as I said the wording is plain text in the bible, if people did not see it they did not see it. This second type of prophesy is refered to a signiture prophesy. God is saying I did that, predictive prophesy is there so that people can act on it. Signiture prophesy is different in that regards.
The real question is why would someone not see the prediction in plain text beforehand, the answer is that they are not supposed to. God reveals his Word, so something in plain text could well vbe overlooked if God chooses it to be so.
In either case a book written over two millenia ago predicted a political event to the day May 14th 1948. There is no strong case against that, there is no case at all.
..and you feel comfortable presenting this as fact because you accept the rationale that the prediction was 'veiled', which is an eloquent way of saying that one could only decipher it by working backwards when in possesion of the dates in question. I'm sorry, have I gone mad? Has the world turned upside-down or something? Since when does a prediction after the fact have any credibility whatsoever? From the excerpt you posted, it is clear that the all the author had to do once he'd had determined the length of a biblical year was find a reference to the number 7 in the Torah, preferably one that suited his purpose.
Also, his calculations seem to hinge on the the BC countdown to 1BC, year interval (no year zero), then counting up from 1AD. I could be wrong here (and anyone can feel free to correct me), but Jesus couldn't have been born before after 4BC because that was the year that King Herod died, wasn't it? If 1AD is taken as the year Jesus was born (or even the year after), meaning that 1AD directly should directly follow 4BC (for the sake of argument, some people place it earlier, apparently...), wouldn't that throw the prediction out by a few years? I'm just thinking aloud at this point.
Orlanth wrote:
Your understandable error is that you dont calculate for the living God behind the words and are treating the words like ordinary mortal words in an ordinary mortal text. You might miss a secular prediction or ignore it until it occurs, but signiture prophesy is a holding back. We have had a long time to work out the dates, but never did until it occured.
Orlanth, you ask too much of me. Ridicule comes naturally to me, and my sense of humour is often cruel, but I am really trying to fight my natural impulses because I am enjoying the discussion. But you ask too much. What I WILL say, is that this sounds like apologism for predictions made in reverse, and I will leave it at that.
Albatross wrote:
It's your comfort-blanket, Orlanth.
I accept your comment on face value. This is in a very real way true, a personal relationship with God is a powerful and intimate relationship, I will not deny that it can indeed should foster a degree of dependency.
I want to make clear that I wasn't referring to your religious beliefs being a crutch, rather the belief that all atheists are 'religious' non-believers.
Albatross wrote:
With this in mind, you are acutely aware of the baselessness of some of the things you believe. Claiming that atheism is religion makes you feel better because you can tell yourself that there is parity between the levels of dogma adhered to by both 'sides' (I don't really consider myself part of some monolithic atheist block, I'm just a bloke who doesn't observe religion because I don't see the point...), but there actually isn't. There aren't any requirements save one: not being a theist.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. it is good that we are returning to this point ever gsooner in our discussions, it means the cirlce is closing and we are approaching the real issues head on, and with aded politeness and respect each time. I havent planned this, just pointed out my point of view honestly, it is an inevitavble conclusion when we both do the same.
Again, I'm enjoying the discussion this time around, and am glad that it's been both polite and respectful on a personal level.
To you (tell me if I have you wrong here) atheism is declaration of intention to abstain from any theistic thought process. Make religion a non issue and live without it.
It hasn't been a conscious decision - I've been functionally atheist pretty much all my life, without ever really calling it anything. It's only relatively recently that I've come to accept that my world-view makes me a de facto atheist. Religion just hasn't factored into my life in any meaningful way. That's not to say I haven't been interested in the philosophies of belief systems such as Wicca, Taoism - and of course Christianity. I've just never subscribed to them. To me it has always been clear that religion is so obviously man-made, just another facet of human culture, evolving much in the same way as (and of course, connected to) art, music and language. The concept of gods is a human concept - it doesn't exist seperately from human imagination and belief, or rather, it can't be demonstrated to do so. So when another human tells me that god exists, I ask that person how they know, and the answer is never satisfying. That has nothing to do with faith, save for perhaps a lack thereof.
Albatross wrote:
Again, you haven't presented any evidence - I'm just going on what you have said so far. I know none of the specifics, all I have is your word that this 'prophecy' even exists.
This is good. I know I havent shown the predictions yet, you asked questions even tried to refute it blindly. I am replying to those posts. This is not a trap, though you would have been wiser tgo find out what I was going to post berfore jumping in wioth both feet. Nevertheless its actually useful and in a way healthy.
Presumption is part of human thinking part of where out emotive processes overwhelm our calculative processes. I beleive (this is a secular teaching) that we can improve our mental outlook with two simple mental exercises. The first I showed you in a previous thread. Declaration of Paradigm. By admitting that one is a person with a personal agenda and therefore biased one can minimise ones bias and see more clearly. The alternative is to simply 'attempt to be impartial', which can be difficult because men are not, it also makes it difficult to see ones lack of impartiality withoutv this mental exercise.
The second mental teaching has been inadvertently revealed here. Presumption Analysis. I beleive it is healthy to make immediate presumptions and put them on record somewhere. Again this is to do with a persons inherent bias, but also accounts for a human 'hunch'. By boxing off your presumption you are also preventing yourself from acting on it. So for example if you have a bad first impression of someone, it no longer soils your outlook becuse your negative first impression is 'boxed'. You then review your first impression or presumption with a more refined impression afterwards. Analyse the differences.
Follow these two mental disciplines and you will develop a stronger more keen analytical understanding of what is around you. The first limits your own paradigms bigotry, and we are all bigots one way or another. The second allows us to more keen ly analyse quicker and with a greater degree of accuracy.
Yeah, thanks for the advice, Dad.
I've asked for the evidence all along, and all you did was provide vague bits of unsourced info. That's all I had to work with, so I posited several areas which might be problematic based on what you said. What's wrong with that? That's hardly jumping in with both feet - especially when you consider that you offered the 'prophecy' as irrefutable proof of god's handiwork. I think I showed quite a lot of restraint, considering you didn't initially back it up.
It's also worth pointing out that more than one of my assumptions still appear to be valid.
Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Were the Philistines (Y/N?) muslim? What does the prophecy say about building settlements on their land?
No Philistia was destroyed over a thousand years before Islam began.
Yes, I know! I was being facetious! Did you honestly think that was a serious question? That Islam pre-dates Christianity?
Orlanth wrote:Yes and no. It does but not through scientific method but though mass of popular opinion. Thus scientific method should be immune to this type of impact but sceince isnt always honest and is subject to pressures as wsith any other human thought process. Atheistic science was mandatory in the Soviet Blok within living memory, it is still prefered in some countries
What exactly would atheist science be?
And even if such a thing were to exist, your argument is basically a claim that a small number of atheists are using the media to advance their cause and figuring this might indirectly lead to more atheism in science, it is a really long bow.
It is simply not the same thing as the organised religious groups who have gotten their members onto school curriculum boards in order to have creationist ideas taught in science classes. This is a real thing that simply can’t be considered equal to anything attempted by atheists. The equivalent would be atheist groups placing members onto school boards into order to have atheism presented in science class as the natural conclusion of all our scientific discoveries.
The traditonal 'beleive in the seven days or your a heretic' fanatic shouldn't have hands on acces to the eduction system. However I will not be too judgemental of them. Stern ultra-relgious types often make good school governors as much as they make bad teachers. I would be happy to see hardcore creationists as school governors. Hardcore creationists are also hardcore moralists but not necessarily fanatical in a dangerous sense. A bulldog attitiude may well be good at helping prevent moral decline - a major issue nowadays.
Sure, people of all types should be free to teach in the education system. It would be abhorrent to stop someone teaching because they believed in young earth creation or because they believed in a Godless universe.
The issue is not who is and who isn’t allowed to teach, but what they might teach and in what classes they might do so. The issue is in trying to get a religious belief with no scientific backing put into science class. It doesn’t matter who teaches it, young earth creationism should not be presented as science.
Albatross wrote:
..and you feel comfortable presenting this as fact because you accept the rationale that the prediction was 'veiled', which is an eloquent way of saying that one could only decipher it by working backwards when in possesion of the dates in question. I'm sorry, have I gone mad? Has the world turned upside-down or something? Since when does a prediction after the fact have any credibility whatsoever?
There is no difference in application between a veiled and an open prophesy. It has credibility because it was predictive. Let me simplify this for you. imagine you had ther seers gift and you forsaw two events you wrote each down on a piece of paper. one piece of paper you datsstamped and sealed in a vault, he other you puiblished. both came true. Which of the two are genuine predictions, the one you are aware of beforehand or the other one neither or both. The answer should be both.
Albatross wrote:
From the excerpt you posted, it is clear that the all the author had to do once he'd had determined the length of a biblical year was find a reference to the number 7 in the Torah, preferably one that suited his purpose.
How is that clear, you must assume there are myriad verses giveing different numbers of multipliers and different return preduictions to wide cast this. Not only was there no wide casting but let us assume you truied to find some. to get a prediction in scripture linking an event to the day
Albatross wrote:
Also, his calculations seem to hinge on the the BC countdown to 1BC, year interval (no year zero), then counting up from 1AD. I could be wrong here (and anyone can feel free to correct me), but Jesus couldn't have been born before after 4BC because that was the year that King Herod died, wasn't it? If 1AD is taken as the year Jesus was born (or even the year after), meaning that 1AD directly should directly follow 4BC (for the sake of argument, some people place it earlier, apparently...), wouldn't that throw the prediction out by a few years? I'm just thinking aloud at this point.
What has that got to do with anything? Sorry you are getting confused. We dont know the exact birthdate of Attila the Hun, that was an event between 536BC and 1948AD, so how does that fit in? It doesnt, should we be concerned, no because its not relevent.
For your information there are several candidate dates for the nativity and the crucifixion both, but with the unearthing of records in Damascus dating from the tgimes we are finally geting to narrow down the dates. A lot of the confusion stemmed from the known dates of when Quirinius was governor of Syria with the tax census degreed by Augustus Caesar. The unearthed records showed that Quirinius was in fact governor of Syria twice.
Albatross wrote:
Orlanth, you ask too much of me. Ridicule comes naturally to me, and my sense of humour is often cruel, but I am really trying to fight my natural impulses because I am enjoying the discussion. But you ask too much. What I WILL say, is that this sounds like apologism for predictions made in reverse, and I will leave it at that.
The prediction was not made in reverse, it was made in the bible when the Old Testament was written. This was before 1948AD, the prediction was never in reverse, the discovery of the prediction was in reverse, big difference.
Albatross wrote:
It hasn't been a conscious decision - I've been functionally atheist pretty much all my life, without ever really calling it anything. It's only relatively recently that I've come to accept that my world-view makes me a de facto atheist.
Nevertheless I will point out the consequences of that in a logic chain:
1. Since you started getting involved in the type of debate you have been thinking about the possibility of the existence of God to some extent, unless you never read any posts here and never wrote your own.
2. You are yet to scientifically prove the existence or non existence of God as scientific fact, thus removing any obligation to draw a conclusion of your own however temporary.
3. You seem to have drawn some form of conclusion nevertheless because you profess to have an identity based on one of the opposed premises, in your case 'atheist'.
4. Thus you have to some extent made a personal choice on this point.
5. A personal choice taken on this issue is defined as a faith choice.
6. Therefore you have made a faith choice.
Albatross wrote:
Yes, I know! I was being facetious! Did you honestly think that was a serious question? That Islam pre-dates Christianity? What do you take me for?
Well I have heard worse.
Were you being facetious when you said your prior assumptions were still valid, or that Nativity dates might throw the prediction askew? Its hard to tell sometimes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
What exactly would atheist science be?
And even if such a thing were to exist, your argument is basically a claim that a small number of atheists are using the media to advance their cause and figuring this might indirectly lead to more atheism in science, it is a really long bow.
you are fixaating on the wrong part of the comment. there is no atheist sceince because sceince is neutral, atheists and theists can apply sceince and theology together, but they remain in seperation.
This is the point of focus. Some persons, like to foster an assumption that atheism and science are connected. It is a political statement not s scientific one, but often veiled under the aegis of 'science' and sometimes proposed by scientists who also happen to be atheists. Dawkins being a good example here.
Its about propoganda technique not scientific method.
Orlanth wrote:you are fixaating on the wrong part of the comment. there is no atheist sceince because sceince is neutral, atheists and theists can apply sceince and theology together, but they remain in seperation.
This is the point of focus. Some persons, like to foster an assumption that atheism and science are connected. It is a political statement not s scientific one, but often veiled under the aegis of 'science' and sometimes proposed by scientists who also happen to be atheists. Dawkins being a good example here.
Its about propoganda technique not scientific method.
Yes, I agree that there are people that attempt to relate atheism and science, and I agree that they are wrong.
But you are missing my point here, in that you are focussing on the atheists and not only equivocating them with creationists, but even claiming their influence is greater. It isn’t. Creationists continually attempt to have creationism taught as a legitimate scientific theory, and they’ve even been successful in specific instances. In contrast you have Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and a handful of others making the speaking tour.
People like Dawkins annoy the religious and exacerbate the misunderstanding that science and faith are opposed, but they don’t actually impact the practice or teaching of science in any way.
Orlanth wrote:
There is no difference in application between a veiled and an open prophesy. It has credibility because it was predictive. Let me simplify this for you. imagine you had ther seers gift and you forsaw two events you wrote each down on a piece of paper. one piece of paper you datsstamped and sealed in a vault, he other you puiblished. both came true. Which of the two are genuine predictions, the one you are aware of beforehand or the other one neither or both. The answer should be both.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with self-fulfilling prophecies. If a certain religious group is prophesied to to return to a sort of Holy Land, and everyone in that religious group knows this, then it stands to reason that certain factions within that religious group will focus on the fulfillment of that prophecy; eventually they may even succeed. Its not a matter of foresight, its a matter of cultural onus creating the circumstances in which something which was said thousands of years ago can be made prophetic.
Contrast this with a prophecy which no one is aware of, at least not until after the fact, and which cannot be considered to be self-fulfilling.
That doesn't even enter into the sense in which general 'prophecies' are subject to fulfillment by chance.
Orlanth wrote:
The prediction was not made in reverse, it was made in the bible when the Old Testament was written. This was before 1948AD, the prediction was never in reverse, the discovery of the prediction was in reverse, big difference.
I'm interested to know how you reconcile the fact that 430 years cannot be self-evidently drawn from Ezekiel with your assumption that the prediction is obvious. I've made this point 3 times now, twice in detail, and you have continued to ignore it.
Orlanth wrote:
5. A personal choice taken on this issue is defined as a faith choice.
Only in those instances in which there is overt statement being made; eg. I believe there is no God vs. I do not believe that there is a God. We've gone down this weak/strong atheism road before, and we both concluded that no faith choice is made in lacking a belief in God.
@Orlanth - I would add to what dogma said by stating that it isn't a simple case of believing or not believing that god exists, and more a case of disbelieving the humans who say that he does. I don't know for absolutely certain that there isn't a god, but the point is, neither do you. Neither does anyone. Religious people have moved the goalposts so far and so often that they have purposefully ensured that the answer to the question is unknowable. As we have seen, there is a very good reason for this - it's useful in a debate to say 'you can't PROVE that god doesn't exist!'. It's a favoured tactic. But you can't debate god into existence.
What we DO know is that religion is a product of human culture, and scripture obviously a result of human agency in the form of authorship. It's made up.
You, and people like you, say that god is real. I don't believe you.
p.s. - I don't know where I was going with the whole nativity thing - it was late, and I was high.
dogma wrote:
Apparently you are unfamiliar with self-fulfilling prophecies.
How does one have a self fulfilling veiled prophesy. This is pasrt of the reason they are veiled anyway as sighniture prophesies, its plauin text and a very simple calculation, but only seen afterwards.
dogma wrote:
That doesn't even enter into the sense in which general 'prophecies' are subject to fulfillment by chance.
Of course, thats a 1:907,200 chance though of getting the prrediction right to the day by pure chance. actually its a lot higher than that because the May15th 1948 is not the last possible end date to be chosen as a 'wild guess'.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
The prediction was not made in reverse, it was made in the bible when the Old Testament was written. This was before 1948AD, the prediction was never in reverse, the discovery of the prediction was in reverse, big difference.
I'm interested to know how you reconcile the fact that 430 years cannot be self-evidently drawn from Ezekiel with your assumption that the prediction is obvious. I've made this point 3 times now, twice in detail, and you have continued to ignore it.
What is there to comment on? I have to adress your comment only because you reiterate it: 390 for Israel + 40 for Judah = 430 days total. A day taken to represent a year means 430 years total. What is so hard to understand. Perhaps you are ignoring the figures because you are assuming here that Israel and Judah are one and the same. They were split into different nation states after Solomon.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
5. A personal choice taken on this issue is defined as a faith choice.
Only in those instances in which there is overt statement being made; eg. I believe there is no God vs. I do not believe that there is a God. We've gone down this weak/strong atheism road before, and we both concluded that no faith choice is made in lacking a belief in God.
Incorrect, no faith choice is made ionly f you has no thought process on God at all. With true ignorance of any form of religion one can be atheistic without a faith choice, the thought never occurs. Once the question of a God is raised and not answered by empirical science to a conclusive uncontrovertible fact then a personal belief choice rises to fill that void, either one believes or one does not. The choice is a faith choice either way. There can be no other explantion because there is none.
Take your own testimoniess (dogma and Albatross) and the point you cannot refute and repeatedly ignore.
Have you ever questioned the existence of God? Hint: posting in this thread would definately count.
Can you draw a conclusion that proves of disproves the existence of God entirely through a scientific process?
Do you draw any interim conclusions anyway? i.e. Do you label yourself either a member of a specific religion or and agnostic or an atheist perhaps?
Somewhere along the line a choice is made. Like it or not that is a faith choice.
You can try and dress it up, but the single essential question is being asked and answered.
Albatross wrote:
You, and people like you, say that god is real. I don't believe you.
There finally. "I do not believe", a human preferential choice. If you could refute our own faith choice that God is real by empirical fact you would have done so. You have option to chose to beleive or not to beleive, you cannot provide proof, so a faith choice is made.
Orlanth wrote:
There finally. "I do not beleive", a human preferential choicechoice. You have option to chose to beleive or not to beleive, you cannot provide proof, so a faith choice is made.
No Orlanth.
We are defined by what we do do, and what we do believe, not what we dont do and dont believe. If someone asks you what your job is, you tell them. You dont say im a "non postman non soldier non bricklayer non taxi driver non nurse non fireman non plumber etc etc etc"
If you think there is no ANYTHING, it doesnt define you to the point of even mentioning it to anybody. There are millions of things i dont believe in, so do i have a few million "religions"?
You dont make a faith choice that Scobby doo isnt real, that the toothfairy isnt real, that the sky is pink or the grass is blue. You make a choice because it doesnt SEEM to be that way. How on earth is it a faith choice, when i say that the sky is NOT pink? Its not faith at all, it just seems thats the way that it is!
There doesnt SEEM to be a God, i mean, there might be, it just doesnt seem to be that way, so whats faith got to do with anything?
You and i have had this out about a dozen times mate, and you are so adamant and will never admit otherwise because it lends your position credence to say that we are all making faith or "religious" choices when clearly we are not.
A lack of belief doesnt require you to DO anything so what has it got to do with faith of religion?
Atheism is not a faith choice but a rejection of faith. A choice is between similar actions. Cake or pie for dessert is an example of a choice. Deciding that there is no dessert (or room for one) is not a choice; it's a flat-out denial. A faith choice would be agnostic in the possibility of a dessert but not choosing cake or pie.
Orlanth wrote:Have you ever questioned the existence of God? Hint: posting in this thread would definately count.
Can you draw a conclusion that proves of disproves the existence of God entirely through a scientific process?
Do you draw any interim conclusions anyway? i.e. Do you label yourself either a member of a specific religion or and agnostic or an atheist perhaps?
Somewhere along the line a choice is made. Like it or not that is a faith choice.
And as I've already said, you keep asserting this belief because it comforts you to think that we are all in 'the same boat'. It's a validation to you.
Let's look at the questions you asked:
Have you ever questioned the existence of God? Yes I have.
Can you draw a conclusion that proves of disproves the existence of God entirely through a scientific process? No, but then I don't need to, and it's not possible at the moment anyway. The only case to be made for the existence of a christian god (for the sake of argument) is a scriptural one, that is to say that scripture forms the basis of all christian belief, however remotely. This throws up controversy - the books have human authors. So I'm basically taking someone's word for it. Not good enough for me. Humans create fiction, embellish and flat out lie. Whilst I'm not going to say for certain whether or not any of these things are the case, there's enough doubt about it that following a theistic religion simply wouldn't be prudent for me without some form of scientific evidence - and the greater the claim, the greater the eveidence needed, as we all know. As no evidence is forthcoming (and probably never will be) for me, a sensible default position is to be a-theistic, or 'without the theistic belief'.
Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
You, and people like you, say that god is real. I don't believe you.
There finally. "I do not believe", a human preferential choice. If you could refute our own faith choice that God is real by empirical fact you would have done so. You have option to chose to beleive or not to beleive, you cannot provide proof, so a faith choice is made.
I wouldn't be so quick to adopt such a triumphant tone. My non-belief stems from a lack of faith in human agency, a lack of trust in human sources. That not remotely connected to religious faith. Is it a question of religious faith that I don't believe in the dark lord Sauron from Lord of the Rings? Whether or not I believe you have wings is not a question of religious faith either, it's a question of trust. I don't trust the sources, therefore I don't believe.
So don't break out the party-hats just yet.
Also, the onus is not on me to prove that god doesn't exist, the onus is on the person claiming that he does - religious faith is not a default position, otherwise we would all be born with knowledge of god, and there would be no need for scripture, priests... any form of inter-human dissemination of religious teaching.
Orlanth wrote:
There finally. "I do not beleive", a human preferential choicechoice. You have option to chose to beleive or not to beleive, you cannot provide proof, so a faith choice is made.
No Orlanth.
We are defined by what we do do, and what we do believe, not what we dont do and dont believe. If someone asks you what your job is, you tell them. You dont say im a "non postman non soldier non bricklayer non taxi driver non nurse non fireman non plumber etc etc etc"
Actually some ommissions carry their own definition. 'Innocent' being one, it is defined by the lack.
You can choose not to be a fireman. This does not define you. however some processes are a boolean switch, you choose yeah or nay in one form or that other, guilt and innocense being good examples. There is no word for a not-fireman, but there are words to decribe a non-believer in God, some were considered derogatory or a dangeous label depending on the place and time.
You are labouring on the false assertion that a choice to not belief is ignoring religion just as a choice not to be a firman is ignoring the opportunity to be a fireman. Ther idea of becoming a frieman or not might not occur to you. A faith choice as determined by a belief in the existence of non existence of God is unavoidable due to ther nature of man. One way of loking at it: God calls out I AM, you choose to beleive or not. Another way: What is to become of me? The concept of divinity and spirituality is so central to human psyche that it demands answer, not from without but from within. These answers define you in a way that a career choice, however unlike the idea that you choose your career and only that career defines you, your spirituality is defined both ways.
You choice not to beleive leads you here posting on your side of the debate, there is no forum for not-firemen, because in this you are correct man is not defined that way. But some questions some concepts some choices are bigger and they define you either way. Surely from your time as a soldier you must have seen this. It is an essential element of human nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
And as I've already said, you keep asserting this belief because it comforts you to think that we are all in 'the same boat'. It's a validation to you.
Let's look at the questions you asked:.....
The third question was pivotal, the other two part of the logic chain leading to the third more pertinent question.
Do you draw any interim conclusions anyway?
Albatross wrote:
I wouldn't be so quick to adopt such a triumphant tone. My non-belief stems from a lack of faith in human agency, a lack of trust in human sources. That not remotely connected to religious faith. Is it a question of religious faith that I don't believe in the dark lord Sauron from Lord of the Rings? Whether or not I believe you have wings is not a question of religious faith either, it's a question of trust. I don't trust the sources, therefore I don't believe.
You could allocate your non-belief to anything. You could say it stemmed from my posts and its all my fault. A choice is still made, it always was, you just had chosen words that avoiding vocalising it that clearly before.
Albatross wrote:
So don't break out the party-hats just yet.
No hats. Spoilsport.
Albatross wrote:
Also, the onus is not on me to prove that god doesn't exist, the onus is on the person claiming that he does - religious faith is not a default position, otherwise we would all be born with knowledge of god, and there would be no need for scripture, priests... any form of inter-human dissemination of religious teaching.
This would be true if you held no relgious though processes of your own. i.e you were able to bask in a true ignorance of religion. However you do not. It is not on anyones onus to prove or disprove anything regarding God, its futile anyway. Either it doesnt exist and cannot be found, or too clever and powerful and can mask Himself perfectly.
Religious faith, inlcuding the option of a choice-belief in non existence of God is a default position as it inevitably occurs in any exposed to the concept because the faith choice, even if only intended as an interim standpoint while a proof is sought.
As for whether we are born with knowledge of Gosd, interesting point. Many believe we do and that children are closer to God than adults. On a Christian theological level this is one of ther things beleived that all life has some form of relationship with the creator. Free Will can and will to one extent or another dull that relationship.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Orlanth, is not believing in the ancient greek gods a religion or a personal faith choice?
Your question not honest and is baed on a flaweec premesis that a general set of beliefs are synonymous with a specific set of beliefs. One does not assume other other.
For example. I do not beleive in the Greek Gods. This would not make me an atheist because he non belief in the Greek Gods is a subset of larger belief system. The issue is whether one beleives in any deity of relgious system. If one beleives in one then depending on the form of belief it can disavow belief in others.
Thus belief in (spwecific God) does not confrim or reflect a faith choice between atheism ior theism.
but belief in God(s) in general does.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, this is kind of wierd. How do you choose to believe something? Is it like choosing to be gay?
You have a false allegory error here.
How do you choose to beleive in something? Quite easy, you just do.
For example:
Do you beleive in Santa Claus Y/N? The choice yes or no can be taken arbitrarily.
How you define the question can shape your answers but not the essential human choice of free will. So for example you might define Santa Calus as the figure who gives present to good vhidlren worldwide during ther night of 24th dec. or you could define Santa Calus as an identity and thus believe that he exists whenever someone puts on the gear. This is of course inconsequent because either way a choice are made.
Is it like choosing to be gay? Is it? some people might well chose to become gay in one way or anther but ultimately its more likely part of their make up. Someone who wants to try out a homoesexual experiment may well at one level be choosing to be gay, but that is possibly different from a discovery that one is 'wired that way'.
in any event we are talking about as biological urge rathar than a purely intellectuual thought process. differences will occur.
Perhaps you should try a more fair analogy. Such as: 'Is it like choosing a specific poltical preference?' I seriuously doubt people are genetically predermined towards say socialism or conservatism as they may well be towards sexual preference.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Orlanth, is not believing in the ancient greek gods a religion or a personal faith choice?
Your question not honest and is baed on a flaweec premesis that a general set of beliefs are synonymous with a specific set of beliefs. One does not assume other other.
For example. I do not beleive in the Greek Gods. This would not make me an atheist because he non belief in the Greek Gods is a subset of larger belief system. The issue is whether one beleives in any deity of relgious system. If one beleives in one then depending on the form of belief it can disavow belief in others.
Thus belief in (spwecific God) does not confrim or reflect a faith choice between atheism ior theism.
but belief in God(s) in general does.
You're going to have to elaborate. How is it a faith choice to believe/not believe in one set of god/s and not a faith choice to believe/not believe in a different, incompatible with the first, set of god/s?
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, this is kind of wierd. How do you choose to believe something? Is it like choosing to be gay?
You have a false allegory error here.
How do you choose to beleive in something? Quite easy, you just do.
...What.
For example:
Do you beleive in Santa Claus Y/N? The choice yes or no can be taken arbitrarily.
How you define the question can shape your answers but not the essential human choice of free will. So for example you might define Santa Calus as the figure who gives present to good vhidlren worldwide during ther night of 24th dec. or you could define Santa Calus as an identity and thus believe that he exists whenever someone puts on the gear. This is of course inconsequent because either way a choice are made.
Okay, I fully believe that God exists. God is a concept that religious and spiritual people have which is essentially undefined except insofar as it is "Way huge, maaaaaan."
God as a whole actual thing? Not so much.
Again, though, you need to elaborate. How does one just 'believe' that something is? Belief clearly isn't what you do; I could in one breath shout out "Praise Jesus!" and in the next "feth Jesus!". While these might be indicative of what I believe, they are not in and of themselves 'belief'.
So what is belief? How do I believe something spontaneously rather than just choose to do so?
Is it like choosing to be gay? Is it? some people might well chose to become gay in one way or anther but ultimately its more likely part of their make up. Someone who wants to try out a homoesexual experiment may well at one level be choosing to be gay, but that is possibly different from a discovery that one is 'wired that way'.
No, see, I was being mildly sardonic there. Choosing to have a homosexual experiment isn't choosing to be gay. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic or environmental, you don't choose what you get aroused over.
in any event we are talking about as biological urge rathar than a purely intellectuual thought process. differences will occur.
Is religion a purely intellectual thought process? There's no "feeling God" involved at all ever and no other religious "experiences" ever occur?
Perhaps you should try a more fair analogy. Such as: 'Is it like choosing a specific poltical preference?' I seriuously doubt people are genetically predermined towards say socialism or conservatism as they may well be towards sexual preference.
That seems off the mark as well. My political preferences are based off the idea that people should have the least amount of interference in their lives as can be while still trying to balance the needs of the group as whole with those of the individual. This value is very important to me. I could not spontaneously choose to disregard it.
But maybe it's less off the mark than it seems. Could you spontaneously choose to not believe in god? Would that be an empty choice; would you still believe in god despite your resolve not to?
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Orlanth, is not believing in the ancient greek gods a religion or a personal faith choice?
Your question not honest and is baed on a flaweec premesis that a general set of beliefs are synonymous with a specific set of beliefs. One does not assume other other.
For example. I do not beleive in the Greek Gods. This would not make me an atheist because he non belief in the Greek Gods is a subset of larger belief system. The issue is whether one beleives in any deity of relgious system. If one beleives in one then depending on the form of belief it can disavow belief in others.
Thus belief in (specific God) does not confrim or reflect a faith choice between atheism ior theism.
but belief in God(s) in general does.
You're going to have to elaborate. How is it a faith choice to believe/not believe in one set of god/s and not a faith choice to believe/not believe in a different, incompatible with the first, set of god/s?
I didnt say incompatible, ther topics are not exclusive,tnstead one is a subset of the other. The choice to not beleive in specific Gods cannot occur outside tghev general choice to beleive in gods in general. Not an incompatibility but a subset within the larger question.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Okay, I fully believe that God exists. God is a concept that religious and spiritual people have which is essentially undefined except insofar as it is "Way huge, maaaaaan."
God as a whole actual thing? Not so much.
You are confusing belief in the existance of religion with belief in God.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Is religion a purely intellectual thought process? There's no "feeling God" involved at all ever and no other religious "experiences" ever occur?
The choice is. One can have experinces or witness the experiences of others and reject the testimony of them. The Gospels accounts how Jesus healed 11 blind people in one miracle, yet only one of those eleven had any subsequent faith in him.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Perhaps you should try a more fair analogy. Such as: 'Is it like choosing a specific poltical preference?'
That seems off the mark as well. My political preferences are based off the idea that people should have the least amount of interference in their lives as can be while still trying to balance the needs of the group as whole with those of the individual. This value is very important to me. I could not spontaneously choose to disregard it.
Hardly off the mark at all. You were not genetically wired to think this way, or at least we havent found any gene for political persuasion yet. You have just explained how you choose to see politics. If you had developed an opposed viewpoint and were of a mind to back form of politics that proposes the concept of a centralised state wirth communal resources, would it be any less of a choice? Omitting here the eventual outcome on the democratic process within such a system for the moment.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Could you spontaneously choose to not believe in god?
Yes, if that was your choice.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Would that be an empty choice; would you still believe in god despite your resolve not to?
Our choices are not always honest. Take the blind men in the scriptural example. They could now see, but if they followed Jesus they could get into trouble thus it was easy to choose to not beleive.
Normally even our honest paradigm choices also mold what we can see and think in the future.
So some can see the majesty of creation as described by St Paul in the book of Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse Others look at the same universe and see no sign of God whatsoever.
niether value is necessarily intellectually dishonest, ultimately our personal choice affects our paradigms.
Da Boss wrote:Why does it matter so much if not believing "counts" as a faith choice?
Surely the debate is simply about the science, and not misrepresenting it?
It matters Boss because attempting to call belief in modern Science "the dumbest religion ever" as i have heard said many times, gives Creationists ammunition when they are telling lies to kids.
The largest denominations of Christians are Catholic's and Orthodoxy and both groups accept evolution, as does the Church of England.
Pope Benedict described evolution as "an enriching reality" and called Creationism "absurd" and told followers to consider evolution to be "more than a hypothesis" and urged Christians that belief in it should in no way affect their faith in almighty God.
Most Christians are not creationists. Most Muslims arent either. A fraction of religious believers reject modern Science and take the bible literally, and those are the people i can not tolerate. I really didnt care about Religion until a few years ago and i actually started looking into what goes on over there in the USA, here is a link to a good video i watched from 1998.
Sit through that, and then tell me you dont feel strongly about this nonsense.
I live in England as a result i dont worry about it too much, but if i had a kid in school being mislead by some bible literalist demanding we "teach the controversy" i would be utterly disgusted. I find evolution denial almost as offensive as holocaust denial, and this is what causes the arguments here. I have no huge issues with Religious people, and a healthy respect for the pleasant nuanced religion they seem to peddle in the COE, but People want the right to lie to children, and i am stunned that more people are not appalled by it.
Now on here, we have pleasant chaps like Orlanth and GG who are Creationists, sure, they arent charlatans like many are who peddle their brand of religion to make money or fleece credulous people, they are sincere and polite, so i almost feel bad arguing with them, but it has to be done. If you allow them to speak this stuff without a rebuttal then you are walking a slipperly slope. If Science denying Creationists start flooding out of our universities and (as educated people are want to do) take up positions of authority, will end up the same way as the middle east, once a centre of learning and Science, who fell into a black hole they never recovered from because they allowed Religious Zealots to rise to power.
And on that note, thank feth Bush is gone.
Im no fan of Barrack, but at least the man respects Science.
What about if Huckerby and Palin take over? Will you get angry about Creationism when they scrap the "silly" fruit fly research and ban stem cell reseach and start preying for the troops instead of giving them body armour?
Orlanth wrote:I didnt say incompatible, ther topics are not exclusive,tnstead one is a subset of the other. The choice to not beleive in specific Gods cannot occur outside tghev general choice to beleive in gods in general. Not an incompatibility but a subset within the larger question.
This would be true if people believed in two different kinds of god simultaneously (leaving aside the whole concept of the trinity and the various hindu gods and so forth). They don't. They believe in God. They don't believe in God, in general, and God, in the specific; they just believe in one or the other, and for them it is exactly as specific as it is.
But leaving the semantics: If it is a faith choice to look at the Christian god from the perspective of an atheist and say "No thanks", then it is just as much a faith choice to look at the Greek gods from the perspective of a Christian and say "No thanks". You are saying that you do not believe in a worldview that is utterly distinct from the one to which you subscribe; this is true of either perspective. If one is a faith choice, then both are.
So. Is it a faith choice for a christian to deny the greek gods?
(And yes, it can. You can make a list of all the gods which you're aware of and work your way down the list deciding whether or not to believe in each, completely independantly of the other.)
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Okay, I fully believe that God exists. God is a concept that religious and spiritual people have which is essentially undefined except insofar as it is "Way huge, maaaaaan."
God as a whole actual thing? Not so much.
You are confusing belief in the existance of religion with belief in God.
No, I'm not. I'm using your santa example. I understand the difference between a religion and a deity. I do, in fact, believe that God exists. God is a concept, an idea. This definately exists.
Is there something beyond the idea? I don't believe that there is. I'm not ruling out it out, but I do not believe in the existence of god as creator.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Is religion a purely intellectual thought process? There's no "feeling God" involved at all ever and no other religious "experiences" ever occur?
The choice is. One can have experinces or witness the experiences of others and reject the testimony of them. The Gospels accounts how Jesus healed 11 blind people in one miracle, yet only one of those eleven had any subsequent faith in him.
Right. I choose to fly! I'm flapping my arms real hard!
Bollocks, why aren't I flying?
Could it be that simply choosing to do something isn't enough to do it? How do I go about believing something?
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Perhaps you should try a more fair analogy. Such as: 'Is it like choosing a specific poltical preference?'
That seems off the mark as well. My political preferences are based off the idea that people should have the least amount of interference in their lives as can be while still trying to balance the needs of the group as whole with those of the individual. This value is very important to me. I could not spontaneously choose to disregard it.
Hardly off the mark at all. You were not genetically wired to think this way, or at least we havent found any gene for political persuasion yet. You have just explained how you choose to see politics.
I don't choose to see it this way. I literally just told you that I don't. I can choose my actions, but I cannot choose my beliefs. Apparently you can. Share with me, if you will, how you go about it?
If you had developed an opposed viewpoint and were of a mind to back form of politics that proposes the concept of a centralised state wirth communal resources, would it be any less of a choice?
How can you have less of a choice than no choice at all? I could certainly choose to back such a form of government. I can choose my actions.
I couldn't make myself think that it was in principle a good idea.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Could you spontaneously choose to not believe in god?
Yes, if that was your choice.
I wasn't asking some indefinate article. I was asking you, specifically. Could you, Orlanth, spontaneously choose to not believe in god? Obviously you could stop praying, and so on. But actions aren't belief. Could you stop believing in God, by choice?
mattyrm wrote:
It matters Boss because attempting to call belief in modern Science "the dumbest religion ever" as i have heard said many times, gives Creationists ammunition when they are telling lies to kids.
That no different than those fanatics who wish to persecute relgious perople in the name of 'free-thinking'. met a few of those.
mattyrm wrote:
Pope Benedict described evolution as "an enriching reality" and called Creationism "absurd" and told followers to consider evolution to be "more than a hypothesis" and urged Christians that belief in it should in no way affect their faith in almighty God.
Pope Benedict has goofed in that he doesnt understand what Creationism is. All it is is the belief that God has something to do with the order of the Universe. What he ought to do is remove ther bible literalism from Creationism rather than just say no Creationism, then practice the same sort of Creationist thinking that I do by the back door anyway, by default and without any clear doctrine to bak it up. By believing in almighty God, but there is no such thing as Creation. He is just setting up a dogma of hypocrasy with big logic holes in it, but I suppose that is busines as usual from the Vatican.
We were not there, all God asks his faithful is to beleive that He was in command of the process. Exactly how that is is not known and has never been clear.
mattyrm wrote:
Most Christians are not creationists. Most Muslims arent either.
In both cases the majority dont know what Creationism is. The public perception of the Biblical literalist account of Breation is all they know. A
mattyrm wrote:
Sit through that, and then tell me you dont feel strongly about this nonsense.
I feel stronger about bible literalists than you ever could, because they claim to speak for all the faithful, and outsiders listen enough to beleive that this is what we all believe or are taught to beleive. They arent speaking for you.
mattyrm wrote:
Now on here, we have pleasant chaps like Orlanth and GG who are Creationists, sure, they arent charlatans like many are who peddle their brand of religion to make money or fleece credulous people, they are sincere and polite, so i almost feel bad arguing with them, but it has to be done. If you allow them to speak this stuff without a rebuttal then you are walking a slipperly slope. If Science denying Creationists start flooding out of our universities and (as educated people are want to do) take up positions of authority, will end up the same way as the middle east, once a centre of learning and Science, who fell into a black hole they never recovered from because they allowed Religious Zealots to rise to power.
What type of 'bigot' do you prefer Matty? The New Labour kind that beats secular dogmas. you see true freedom of thought doesnt try and bash relgion, in fact it accepts that one can be relgious or not and still be worthy of position. Perhaps because of that rather than in spite of that our system has been largely fee of relgious fanatics. Fanaticism comes when you try to lock down the other argument rather than just acceopt that not all of us think the same. Who fears the science denying Creationist? I tell you who, the atheist fanatic. New Labour was awash with these clowns. Lots of religion bashing and new Labour dogma, PC bollocks in the scool and school assembly. Furthermore because they were secular they could claim to be fonts of reason. You wonder why faith schools do so much better than non faith schools in the UK. It is because of the curb on this dogmatised BS that was forced into the curriculum and this was in spite of greatly incrwaed scrutiny of anything faith schools do and extra grant after grant for the dogmatised flagship schools prefered by the New Labour government.
Now not all to do with religion was considered an evil all the time, because as we all ought to know ethnic = good. I found out that in some schools in Birmingham children are taught that brown is the natural colour of man and that Caucasians are a genetic abberation. I tried to double source this but the local system close up very fast on enquiry. I have heard stuff that is just as bad anyway.
But its all hearsay and these are proper New dogma speakers of truth so who are we to question them and their ways. Matty just go home polish your bayonet and eat babies for tea like we 'all know' you do. Sooner or later you might miss a good bit of faith schooling if actually get to look at the alternative.
You dont have any kids Matty, admitedly I dont either, but if you knew soldeirs that did you might understand just what the dogmatists teach, the nephews of a good friend cannot choose their uncle as a subject matter for what their family do for a living as soldiery is an unsuitable punlic role model.
You might ask what this has to do with atheism? Technically it doesnt, but if you want to bring in intolerance, you have to watch for what you get. why dont we go back to how it weas when your relgion was your choice, it oidnt take away from your value in any occupation except as a priest of that religion. You want to be relgious and a man of science go ahead, you will find yourself in good company. If you actually do want to embrace free thinking, let freedom be.
Aye Orlanth, i agree with mmuch of what you say, but most people that arent religious dont want to persecute religious people (although i admit a rather unhealthy dislike of Muslims, but certainly not Christians, as according to the census i am one, and i dont feel strongly enough to be concerned enough to get it changed, and it said "CofE" on my dog tags as well!)
Most people that arent interested in religion dont want to persecute people mate, but Creationists really do want to force their views onto people, and thats why we have had Roe vs Wade etc etc
Orlanth wrote:
How does one have a self fulfilling veiled prophesy. This is pasrt of the reason they are veiled anyway as sighniture prophesies, its plauin text and a very simple calculation, but only seen afterwards.
One doesn't. You claimed that there was no difference between a veiled prophecy (which I took to reference a prophecy of which few people are aware) and an open prophecy (which I talk to mean a prophecy of which many people are aware). Because open prophecies can be self-fulfilling there is an obvious distinction between the application of the two types, which you claimed did not exist.
Moreover, I dispute this notion of veiled prophecies, that you seem to be defending, as things which can only be understood after the fact points towards a very dubious sense of accuracy given what may or may not have been claimed in the past.
Orlanth wrote:
Of course, thats a 1:907,200 chance though of getting the prrediction right to the day by pure chance. actually its a lot higher than that because the May15th 1948 is not the last possible end date to be chosen as a 'wild guess'.
When I reference the concept of general prophecies, I mean such things as "The Jews will reclaim Israel." not such things as "The Jews will reclaim Israel in X years."
Orlanth wrote:
What is there to comment on? I have to adress your comment only because you reiterate it: 390 for Israel + 40 for Judah = 430 days total. A day taken to represent a year means 430 years total.
A year of sin, not a year of punishment. Nowhere in the passage you quoted does it note that the number of years were ever given as punishment. There are translations that equate sin with punishment, but the fact that there is more than one interpretation is certainly sufficient to question the extent to which the 'prophecy' is as accurate as many claim.
Orlanth wrote:
What is so hard to understand. Perhaps you are ignoring the figures because you are assuming here that Israel and Judah are one and the same. They were split into different nation states after Solomon.
I'm ignoring the figures because they have nothing to do with punishment per the translation provided. I am also questioning the figures given that Ezekiel later references the sum of the punishment as 390 days.
Orlanth wrote:
Incorrect, no faith choice is made ionly f you has no thought process on God at all. With true ignorance of any form of religion one can be atheistic without a faith choice, the thought never occurs. Once the question of a God is raised and not answered by empirical science to a conclusive uncontrovertible fact then a personal belief choice rises to fill that void, either one believes or one does not. The choice is a faith choice either way. There can be no other explantion because there is none.
First, one can be religious and an atheist. Religion is not necessarily connected to God.
Second, you've forgotten the possibility of indifference. In classical logic a lack of anything is not a thing, it is nothing; the mathematical analogue is 0. Atheism, as the negation Theism (which is always a positive quality), embodies a set which can be represented mathematically as X</=0. Any position which equates to 0 is analogous to total indifference, but would still be called atheism due to the definition of the term.
To lack a belief in God is, in its most fundamental form, to simply be indifferent to the question regarding God's existence. To believe that there is no God is to make an active claim that God does not exist.
Orlanth wrote:
Have you ever questioned the existence of God? Hint: posting in this thread would definately count.
Not necessarily, you're making an assumption regarding our motives for engaging in this dialogue. I'm not at all interested in whether or not God exists. I'm interested in the manner in which people will consider his possible existence, nonexistence, or indifference; and how that consideration might impacts human activity.
But yes, I have questioned the existence of God. I came to the conclusion that the question is irrelevant given our current knowledge base. The Universe is what it is regardless of whether or not it includes a God.
Orlanth wrote:
Can you draw a conclusion that proves of disproves the existence of God entirely through a scientific process?
No.
Orlanth wrote:
Do you draw any interim conclusions anyway? i.e. Do you label yourself either a member of a specific religion or and agnostic or an atheist perhaps?
No.
Orlanth wrote:
Somewhere along the line a choice is made. Like it or not that is a faith choice.
You can try and dress it up, but the single essential question is being asked and answered.
The question is asked, but no answer is given. You're presuming that a question asked must be responded to, and this is entirely false. You yourself have posited that Albatross and I are ignoring a point; indicating that it is possible to simply proceed without bother. Answers are active responses, if I do not take an active stance on the matter, then I am not answering the question.
I will also take this time echo Warboss Tzoo in wondering how one chooses faith.
dogma wrote: Because open prophecies can be self-fulfilling there is an obvious distinction between the application of the two types, which you claimed did not exist.
Indeed, which is why the prophesy is veiled. Though it is interesting to read that what is hidden is hidden in plain sight. We are not talking about bible Code, just adding two scriptures together in a logical way, stuff Bible students have been doing for centuries,. Why was this not done before the event?
Possibly because God did not intend it to happen. This is a recurring theme in scripture.
2 Corinthians 3:14 However, their minds were hardened, for to this day the same veil is still there when they read the old covenant. Only in union with the Messiah is that veil removed.
dogma wrote:
Moreover, I dispute this notion of veiled prophecies, that you seem to be defending, as things which can only be understood after the fact points towards a very dubious sense of accuracy given what may or may not have been claimed in the past.
How is it any way dubious. The prediction was ancient, very accurate and fulfilled in modern times. You have to give a better reason than a handwave dismissal. You make no atempt to give any logic as to why an obviously acurate prophesy is of no value.
dogma wrote:
When I reference the concept of general prophecies, I mean such things as "The Jews will reclaim Israel." not such things as "The Jews will reclaim Israel in X years."
That is not what we are discussing. There is no wow factor of itself in a prediction that the Jewish people would one day seek to return to the Holy Land.
dogma wrote:
A year of sin, not a year of punishment. Nowhere in the passage you quoted does it note that the number of years were ever given as punishment. There are translations that equate sin with punishment, but the fact that there is more than one interpretation is certainly sufficient to question the extent to which the 'prophecy' is as accurate as many claim.
One and the same. God punishes sin, as God doesnt like sin a year of sinis a year of consequence of sin not a year in which to sin.
dogma wrote:
I'm ignoring the figures because they have nothing to do with punishment per the translation provided. I am also questioning the figures given that Ezekiel later references the sum of the punishment as 390 days.
For Israel meaning the ten tribes alone. The unified Israel consirts of twelve tribes that means Israel plus Judah which consists of the remaining two tribes. As the return is not restricted to specific tribes the IJews are taken as a whole.
dogma wrote:
First, one can be religious and an atheist. Religion is not necessarily connected to God.
Indeed so. I dont miss this point, I just dont word it that way anymore. I prefer to say 'atheism is a faith choice' to 'atheism is a relgion' the former is similar, more precise and doesnt offend those who disagree.
dogma wrote:
Second, you've forgotten the possibility of indifference.
I have not forgotten that either. In fact I made note of it in just about all the post replies to you. Indifference can occur, but only in terms of true ignorance. To be truly indifferent to the matter of the existence of God and for that matter braoder questions of our own existentialism one must have no contact with the debate. in practical terms such a person does not exist unless severely slowed in some way. It is in our nature to question and every culture and tribe no matter how remote has some context of God and afterlife. The question is inevitable.
dogma wrote:
In classical logic a lack of anything is not a thing, it is nothing; the mathematical analogue is 0. Atheism, as the negation Theism (which is always a positive quality), embodies a set which can be represented mathematically as X</=0. Any position which equates to 0 is analogous to total indifference, but would still be called atheism due to the definition of the term.
Silly boy. We are discussing affairs of the human heart, we are not robots running programs. But let us assume we were attempting to live lives of logic and had the discipline maturity and knowledge to address the questions of the universe in this way. What happens when we are not processing the Great Equation? The rest of our lives outside the lab or the debating chamber. Our own thoughts creep in, our human emotive thoughts that are not based on purest logic but on choice, as both you and I have demonstrated. Noone is deminated entirely by reason alone, we all make choices human choices, to think otherwise is to be deluded not only in terms of ones own doctrine, but in terms of what it is to be human.
dogma wrote:
Not necessarily, you're making an assumption regarding our motives for engaging in this dialogue. I'm not at all interested in whether or not God exists. I'm interested in the manner in which people will consider his possible existence, nonexistence, or indifference; and how that consideration might impacts human activity.
But yes, I have questioned the existence of God. I came to the conclusion that the question is irrelevant given our current knowledge base. The Universe is what it is regardless of whether or not it includes a God.
So you dismiss God as irrelevant. A choice nevertheless, you have to think about something to dismiss it, to dismiss as irrelevant also involves some form of evaluation. With more evaluation not less being required for the decision to be considered rational. One accepts or rejects we all have our excuses why, and they can differ enormously and they can also change. We all rationalise the choices we make, somtimnes so well we do not see the choice just the rationalisation. I am no different to you in this, noone is.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Do you draw any interim conclusions anyway? i.e. Do you label yourself either a member of a specific religion or and agnostic or an atheist perhaps?
No.
That is not true by your own testimony. Your interim conclusion is 'I came to the conclusion that [existence of God] is irrelevant given our current knowledge base.'
dogma wrote:
The question is asked, but no answer is given. You're presuming that a question asked must be responded to, and this is entirely false.
Know yourself. An answer was given, but then an answer was inevitable (you might not have disclosed what the answer was).
dogma wrote:
I will also take this time echo Warboss Tzoo in wondering how one chooses faith.
One simply does. You just did. In fact you may have done so so casually you deceived yourself into not noticing that you had.
Orlanth wrote:One simply does. You just did. In fact you may have done so so casually you deceived yourself into not noticing that you had.
One does not simply walk into Mordor. One cannot casually disregard one's experiences and knowledge that have led one to one's mental position on just about anything.
One can choose to do so, but this does not mean that one can actually do so.
If you, in fact, can choose to believe anything you like, as an act of will, please expand on how this is done for the rest of us mere mortals.
Orlanth wrote:One simply does. You just did. In fact you may have done so so casually you deceived yourself into not noticing that you had.
One does not simply walk into Mordor. One cannot casually disregard one's experiences and knowledge that have led one to one's mental position on just about anything.
One can choose to do so, but this does not mean that one can actually do so.
If you, in fact, can choose to believe anything you like, as an act of will, please expand on how this is done for the rest of us mere mortals.
Orlanth wrote:One simply does. You just did. In fact you may have done so so casually you deceived yourself into not noticing that you had.
One does not simply walk into Mordor. One cannot casually disregard one's experiences and knowledge that have led one to one's mental position on just about anything.
One can choose to do so, but this does not mean that one can actually do so.
If you, in fact, can choose to believe anything you like, as an act of will, please expand on how this is done for the rest of us mere mortals.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
One does not simply walk into Mordor.
Thanks for the troll magnet.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote: One cannot casually disregard one's experiences and knowledge that have led one to one's mental position on just about anything.
One accounts for them, but the process is a 'walking' one. You go about your life and your expereince and knowledge lead you along your path.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
If you, in fact, can choose to believe anything you like, as an act of will, please expand on how this is done for the rest of us mere mortals.
You misunderstand perhaps deliberately, perhaps not. Your beliefs are your own choice, noone else chooses the for you, neither do they risde unbiddent to your head. depending on individual choices two people can read the same information in two different ways. This is an esseential truth of human nature, one you should understand. It is evident everywhere.
Take from example two persons in similar circumstances both living in the same country. One votes for one party, one votes for another. their choices could be makde out of pure self interest, but we are trying to discussd peope of similar circumstances. such people exist, you probably know a few. they both live under the same stystem they both see more or less the same things, however one chooses different from the other.
Spiritual issues are no different. Why is this of any importance? Because for people to assume they take their belief systems out of pure logic is in fact dangerous. Those who claim to speak for absolute truth are those most likely to challenge opposed viewpoints with violence. This is the path trod by bigots of all denominations, such bigots thus eventually try to remove the alternate point of view by removing its proponents.
The closer one walks to the idea that ones own point of view is inviolate reason the further from reason you walk. Understand there is human choice in all we think, and human choice in all we know with exception of absolute Law.*
By accepting the frailty of human nature and the fact that ones decisions are your choice then you can walk with an element of truth, you own truth in your own paradigm and one casn respect the decisions of others.
By rejecting human nature and frailty and assuming ones thoughts are pure and ones reasoning absolute, one fails to understand the frailty of human choice and deludes onself. In order to keep with the comfort of ones own thinking one can be led to ever greater measures to secure that position, unaware of how one is sinking morally because one is divorced from the truth that ones opinons are the result of ones own personal choices. As a result any challenge to ones prefered thinking is a danger to be countered, as the challenge persists the need to remove the thread increases and the mothods one chooses to accomplish that becaome broader as the goal becomes a higher priority.
This essential condition in human nature is the root cause of fanaticism. We are creatures of human choice, those who accpet this can live in peace, those who cannot cannot. Fanatics of all walks of life, theist, atheist, alternating reglions or fasctions within a relgion, politics etc can live liversd of hatreed over the simplest divison in doctrine. Now admittedly many of the above dogmas are in fact exploited by polticians and the horrors unleashed are not the fault of the proponents of the differeng ideologies, but they are fuel for the fire and the sources of mental division that allows subsequent conflict to occur on a large scale.
This is as truth of the Spanish Inquisition or the Taliban. Those who speak to walk in science and reason are not immune as Soviet atheism has shown. Some of the sadest events come from schisms amongst supposed allies over sub-doctrines. Such a Calvinism. While Calvinism is by no means a trivial concept of itself it is minor in that those who are proponents or opponents of Calvinism should by their nature all have grasped the concept of Christian salvation which is the topic of Calvinism. Why would followers of Jesus who understand the teahings of jesus be at weach others throats in this manner? Because of the nature of man to make choice of belief but to be arrogant enough to mask choice as something more certain. I could give other examples, but I gave a Christian one because honest example should look inward first. Hopefully you will have ther maturity to see this is not just a problem amongst theists. One would be worryingly deluded to brush this off an 'that is them, we are us'.
* Where absolute Law is available we can understand truth because no further discourse is needed. I mention this here in relation to scienctific Law, spiritual issues do not normally fall within that remit. I say usually because some myself included beieve that a point of absolute Law is possible by a divine event of revelation. But that is not relevant to the discussion. It will be proven correct if the Second Coming occurs, or equivalent events in alternate religions, and otherwise remain inconclusive.
Orlanth wrote:
Indeed, which is why the prophesy is veiled. Though it is interesting to read that what is hidden is hidden in plain sight. We are not talking about bible Code, just adding two scriptures together in a logical way, stuff Bible students have been doing for centuries,. Why was this not done before the event?
Possibly because God did not intend it to happen. This is a recurring theme in scripture.
Perhaps because the ‘prophecy’ requires a significant degree of revisionism to be considered prophetic.
Orlanth wrote:
How is it any way dubious. The prediction was ancient, very accurate and fulfilled in modern times. You have to give a better reason than a handwave dismissal. You make no atempt to give any logic as to why an obviously acurate prophesy is of no value.
I’ve indicated several times, using several arguments, that the prophecy is not ‘obviously accurate’ and that any given reading is just as likely to conclude that the actual punishment was not 430 years, but a series of other possible numbers.
Orlanth wrote:
One and the same. God punishes sin, as God doesnt like sin a year of sinis a year of consequence of sin not a year in which to sin.
A year of sin is a year in which someone has sinned, and the punishment that follows from that is almost never immediate. There is a general theme of retroactive justification for hardship in the Old Testament, which is consistent with mentality that follows from being God's chosen people.
Either the Jews sinned for a certain amount of time, or are being called to atone for their sins for a certain amount of time. You cannot have both if the concept behind sin and punishment in the Old Testament is to be considered sound.
Orlanth wrote:
For Israel meaning the ten tribes alone. The unified Israel consirts of twelve tribes that means Israel plus Judah which consists of the remaining two tribes. As the return is not restricted to specific tribes the IJews are taken as a whole.
The prophecies of Isaiah do not, and could not, have referenced a unified Israel (Judah was not yet in captivity). So why are we using that standard when considering Ezekiel, who clearly regarded both as separate entities?
Orlanth wrote:
I have not forgotten that either. In fact I made note of it in just about all the post replies to you. Indifference can occur, but only in terms of true ignorance. To be truly indifferent to the matter of the existence of God and for that matter braoder questions of our own existentialism one must have no contact with the debate.
That's untrue. It is possible to consider each element of the debate as being present on equal footing, where those elements do not contradict observation, even while engaging with them. Simply because you have an innate, emotional response to certain ideas does not indicate that others are the same.
Orlanth wrote:
in practical terms such a person does not exist unless severely slowed in some way. It is in our nature to question and every culture and tribe no matter how remote has some context of God and afterlife. The question is inevitable
But the answer is not. You're presupposing that a question that is asked must be answered.
Orlanth wrote:
Silly boy. We are discussing affairs of the human heart, we are not robots running programs.
It is possible to not have an emotional response to the specific subject of a question, and yet have such a response to an ancillary matter which compels the consideration of said question. But this impulse will not necessarily force an answer.
Orlanth wrote:
But let us assume we were attempting to live lives of logic and had the discipline maturity and knowledge to address the questions of the universe in this way. What happens when we are not processing the Great Equation? The rest of our lives outside the lab or the debating chamber. Our own thoughts creep in, our human emotive thoughts that are not based on purest logic but on choice, as both you and I have demonstrated. Noone is deminated entirely by reason alone, we all make choices human choices, to think otherwise is to be deluded not only in terms of ones own doctrine, but in terms of what it is to be human.
Yes, we do, but that does not indicate that we must make an emotive choice with respect to the existence of God. You're attempting to induce a conclusion from a set of specific instances by arguing that, because some choices are based on emotion, all choices will inevitable be based on emotion, or be decided by an emotive response. This is a fallacious argument.
No one is governed by reason alone, but they may be governed by reasons in all ways directly pertinent to the question being asked.
Orlanth wrote:
So you dismiss God as irrelevant.
No, I dismiss the question of his existence as irrelevant.
Orlanth wrote:
A choice nevertheless, you have to think about something to dismiss it, to dismiss as irrelevant also involves some form of evaluation. With more evaluation not less being required for the decision to be considered rational.
Evaluation does not imply an answer, or an emotive response. I decided long ago that God either exists, or does not exist, and that his existence would have no bearing on the nature of the Universe. This is not to say that he is irrelevant, only that the Universe is as we observe it regardless of God’s presence. If he’s there he’s there and everything we sense is still everything that we sense; knowing that he’s there changes nothing, because he was there all along.
Orlanth wrote:
That is not true by your own testimony. Your interim conclusion is 'I came to the conclusion that [existence of God] is irrelevant given our current knowledge base.'
No, as I said, I came to the conclusion that the question is irrelevant because either the answering yes or no produces no observable distinction with respect to the universe.
Orlanth wrote:
Know yourself. An answer was given, but then an answer was inevitable (you might not have disclosed what the answer was).
No answer was given. A statement regarding the irrelevance of a question is not an answer to the question. You're moving the goalposts.
Orlanth wrote:
One simply does. You just did. In fact you may have done so so casually you deceived yourself into not noticing that you had.
What you’re describing is not a choice in the philosophical sense.
with the Darth Vader of the Weiner World.
) that science has some level of dogmatism that restricts the scientific method (and in specific instances in more or less I would agree to a limited extent) but you can't claim that the two processes are the same. They just aren't.
