Is God real post your thoughts!

[mmmcannibalism]

Well it's hard for there to be any point in an internet debate, since usually both sides already aren't willing to give any ground for their minds.

 

 

 

I dont know, me and mage had a good abortion debate a good while ago.

 

 

 

on topic--I dont think I have ever heard someone describe themself as an atheistic scientist

 

 

 

 

 

Well if you're not religious, including agnostic, what else are you but an atheist? So if you're not a creationist, you're either evolutionist or anything else. But if Creationism is faith, aka theism, and you don't believe in it then you're A-theism or atheistic. Right?

 

 

 

agnostic=/=religious

 

Being theistic doesnt mean you have a bias in the creationism/evolution debate. Creationism is a specific faith, I could make an argument based on deism for evolution and just because most religions have a creationist flavor doesnt mean its a prerequisite for religion. Believing the universe was created by a god doesn't mean you can't believe evolution was the method of lifes creation.

[Saru Inc]

Oh ok, I see what you're saying.

[Shinjula]

I'm not going to degrade myself by giving you information you're already going to disregard.

Then you've already lost the debate

[Alg]

I'm not going to degrade myself by giving you information you're already going to disregard.

Then you've already lost the debate

 

There's a difference between disregarding and disproving

[warri0r45]

Because that was simply a summary I got from googling it. What it's saying, is that there are somethings you simply can't just break down to smaller parts. No matter how many scenarios it went through in nature, time alone simply couldn't.

 

 

 

Another example of how it's mindset over matter:

 

 

 

There aren't any fossils of of animals in a "transitional" state. Now Creationists take this as Evolution is a farce. But Evolutionists may just say, that it just means we haven't found any yet.

 

 

 

A good movie you may want to watch is "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" it's pretty good, semi boring though.

 

 

 

And just so you know, that argument that since they're called christian scientists means they're biased, is no different from someone saying Athiestic Scientist. No difference, Atheists ARE predisposed to Evolution. Which obviously shows bias, and questions the validity of a scientist. And don't act like Christians are out there to kill all knowledge, good grief. That's childish, it makes me wonder, what could possess a Christian Scholar to only pursue the career so they could kill intelligence? Need I remind all of the religious Scientists that have brought about so much of what we know today? Notice I didn't say Christian, but religious. As in Deist, Muslim etc. They're all still religions, and no different from Christianity.

 

 

 

And at least post an example of how it's disproved, instead of saying it; like a poster did above you.

 

 

 

Lateralus is right, there's no such thing as a "Christian scientist" and there's no such thing as an "Atheist scientist" either. You see, this is the real problem with people like you. You never see science for what it really is and try and break it down as a fight between Christians and atheists. This is absolutely crazy and couldn't be further from the truth. Science is a completely impartial endeavour which seeks to come up with explanations (theories) to fit the data we obtain from the natural world. Yes, the data needs interpretation, and yes, in some cases bias can creep in. This is precisely why we have peer review -- something which Creationists don't feel they should take part in -- to pick out bad science or incompetent methodology.

 

 

 

It's perfectly conceivable that one explanation can take precedence over another by virtue of the amount of data it explains and the amount of evidence it has to support it. This is the reality with evolution vs. creationism. Evolution is a well supported scientific theory while Creationism is a religious belief. And please, don't even try with the "it's all down to your perspective" argument with me, because I've done my research. God knows I've done far more that my fair share, and I did it before I really knew I was an atheist, as a matter of fact. I did it because I was curious and wanted to find out why scientists are so favourable of evolution in relation to Creationism. Suffice it to say that I found ample evidence supporting evolution, and I discovered that Creationism is not scientific at all. In fact, it is supported by religious zealots whose primary tools are ignorance or blatant misrepresentations of the truth. I can't even remember how many times I've had to go through this thread and debunk Creationist arguments which clearly have no scientific backing to them whatsoever (or that are complete misrepresentations of what scientists really think or what evolution really is).

 

 

 

It's a shame that you don't like science. You could learn a lot about evolution if you wanted to.

[Saru Inc]

Because that was simply a summary I got from googling it. What it's saying, is that there are somethings you simply can't just break down to smaller parts. No matter how many scenarios it went through in nature, time alone simply couldn't.

 

 

 

Another example of how it's mindset over matter:

 

 

 

There aren't any fossils of of animals in a "transitional" state. Now Creationists take this as Evolution is a farce. But Evolutionists may just say, that it just means we haven't found any yet.

 

 

 

A good movie you may want to watch is "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" it's pretty good, semi boring though.

 

 

 

And just so you know, that argument that since they're called christian scientists means they're biased, is no different from someone saying Athiestic Scientist. No difference, Atheists ARE predisposed to Evolution. Which obviously shows bias, and questions the validity of a scientist. And don't act like Christians are out there to kill all knowledge, good grief. That's childish, it makes me wonder, what could possess a Christian Scholar to only pursue the career so they could kill intelligence? Need I remind all of the religious Scientists that have brought about so much of what we know today? Notice I didn't say Christian, but religious. As in Deist, Muslim etc. They're all still religions, and no different from Christianity.

 

 

 

And at least post an example of how it's disproved, instead of saying it; like a poster did above you.

 

 

 

Lateralus is right, there's no such thing as a "Christian scientist" and there's no such thing as an "Atheist scientist" either. You see, this is the real problem with people like you. You never see science for what it really is and try and break it down as a fight between Christians and atheists. This is absolutely crazy and couldn't be further from the truth. Science is a completely impartial endeavour which seeks to come up with explanations (theories) to fit the data we obtain from the natural world. Yes, the data needs interpretation, and yes, in some cases bias can creep in. This is precisely why we have peer review -- something which Creationists don't feel they should take part in -- to pick out bad science or incompetent methodology.

 

 

 

It's perfectly conceivable that one explanation can take precedence over another by virtue of the amount of data it explains and the amount of evidence it has to support it. This is the reality with evolution vs. creationism. Evolution is a well supported scientific theory while Creationism is a religious belief. And please, don't even try with the "it's all down to your perspective" argument with me, because I've done my research. God knows I've done far more that my fair share, and I did it before I really knew I was an atheist, as a matter of fact. I did it because I was curious and wanted to find out why scientists are so favourable of evolution in relation to Creationism. Suffice it to say that I found ample evidence supporting evolution, and I discovered that Creationism is not scientific at all. In fact, it is supported by religious zealots whose primary tools are ignorance or blatant misrepresentations of the truth. I can't even remember how many times I've had to go through this thread and debunk Creationist arguments which clearly have no scientific backing to them whatsoever (or that are complete misrepresentations of what scientists really think or what evolution really is).

 

 

 

It's a shame that you don't like science. You could learn a lot about evolution if you wanted to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whoa whoa whoa.

 

 

 

Let me stop you right there, buddy.

 

 

 

Please, tell me everything you know about people like me. I'll take a guess you know nothing of people like me. the only common thread we share is religion, and even in that we differ, with the fundamentalists and liberalists. And you know as well as I do, that what Lateralus meant, was that if you were Christian, it meant you didn't believed in Science. Not that all Scientists are the same. And I really like how you lumped us all together as a ignorance spreading truth hating Mob. Very respectful. Let me tell YOU something, Warri0r45, may I call you Warri0r? Thanks. Well Warri0r, religion bashing is no more "morally" (sorry, forgot you guys don't have morals, as they are oppressive as you've made clear in the past) wrong, and vile as is gay bashing. And as I stated, the data is unbiased, as you have also stated, but the interpreation isn't. That was all I was debating. Stop putting words in my mouth. And guess what, ever noticed how Muslims are against Evolution also? And yet, for some reason, you don't hate them, but respect them... Interesting. But are you really saying, that if someone worked their butt offf trying to understand Organic Chemistry, that because they're Christian, then automatically, the only reason why they did that was to spread hatred? maybe you should go back to studying.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, a key fact you may want to know, is simply because someone is part of a religion, doesn't make them a zealot, or a fundamentalist. So, get that through your head, as for months you've continuously wanted to label all Christians who believed in Creationism a Zealot, because then you can disregard their evidence, because you don't need to heed a zealot's info. And I can't even remember how many times I've had too listen to you patronize everyone who doesn't believe what you do. That is the highest intolerance I've ever seen, and then to call Christians intolerant. Nice.

 

 

 

And I'm sorry if I'd rather hang with friends then listen to a teacher in a mid-life-crisis blab in a monotone voice about the importances of resonance in a drum with a hole in it.

 

 

 

It's a shame you don't have any humility. You could learn a lot from History if you weren't so close minded.

[mmmcannibalism]

And guess what, ever noticed how Muslims are against Evolution also? And yet, for some reason, you don't hate them, but respect them... Interesting.

 

 

 

Two things here

 

 

 

First off, speaking for myself I will say you seem to be much more intelligent about these matters then some fundamentalists we have gotten on here. Its not that we go after christianity, its going after creationism which inherently ends up being anti christian

 

 

 

Secondly, we dont exactly have muslims to argue with so all you see is the lack of muslims talking down on evolution

 

 

 

And I'm sorry if I'd rather hang with friends then listen to a teacher in a mid-life-crisis blab in a monotone voice about the importances of resonance in a drum with a hole in it.

 

 

 

There are plenty of more interesting parts of science you could look into. Try a youtube search of thermite, that should find something interesting.

[aspokaspofkjsopfkapo]

sorry, forgot you guys don't have morals

 

Whoa there, it's not that we don't have morals, it's that we don't have "objective" morals. We understand that morality is situational and adjust accordingly. Just because what we believe is right and wrong is different than two thousand years ago does not make us not have morals.

 

And guess what, ever noticed how Muslims are against Evolution also? And yet, for some reason, you don't hate them, but respect them...

 

I don't know were you get the idea that we respect muslims, because they're even more horrible than christians. If you get it from the iran threads then it's not that we respect them because they're muslims, it's that they're revolutionaries and could change the world for the better. Also two more things (a) we most certainly do not hate christians and (B) you can still respect someone and still agree with their ideas.

 

Now, a key fact you may want to know, is simply because someone is part of a religion, doesn't make them a zealot, or a fundamentalist.

 

It doesn't, but there's a good chance that they are a zealot/fundy or defend zealotry/fundyism. Most atheists major gripe with "moderates" is that they don't fight the fundamentalism.

 

s you've continuously wanted to label all Christians who believed in Creationism a Zealot

 

If you want creationism in schools, push it on others, etc. then you are a zealot. If you don't, then I have no gripe with you.

 

And I can't even remember how many times I've had too listen to you patronize everyone who doesn't believe what you do. That is the highest intolerance I've ever seen, and then to call Christians intolerant. Nice.

 

We are debating, not attacking your character, not throwing insults at you, not making baseless claims. Debating you is not being intolerant. Killing gays and doctors is being intolerant. Bombing abortion clinics is intolerance. Racism is intolerance. We are not intolerant.

 

It's a shame you don't have any humility. You could learn a lot from History if you weren't so close minded.

 

What's that? Mindless ad hominem attacks?

[warri0r45]

[hide=]

Because that was simply a summary I got from googling it. What it's saying, is that there are somethings you simply can't just break down to smaller parts. No matter how many scenarios it went through in nature, time alone simply couldn't.

 

 

 

Another example of how it's mindset over matter:

 

 

 

There aren't any fossils of of animals in a "transitional" state. Now Creationists take this as Evolution is a farce. But Evolutionists may just say, that it just means we haven't found any yet.

 

 

 

A good movie you may want to watch is "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" it's pretty good, semi boring though.

 

 

 

And just so you know, that argument that since they're called christian scientists means they're biased, is no different from someone saying Athiestic Scientist. No difference, Atheists ARE predisposed to Evolution. Which obviously shows bias, and questions the validity of a scientist. And don't act like Christians are out there to kill all knowledge, good grief. That's childish, it makes me wonder, what could possess a Christian Scholar to only pursue the career so they could kill intelligence? Need I remind all of the religious Scientists that have brought about so much of what we know today? Notice I didn't say Christian, but religious. As in Deist, Muslim etc. They're all still religions, and no different from Christianity.

 

 

 

And at least post an example of how it's disproved, instead of saying it; like a poster did above you.

 

 

 

Lateralus is right, there's no such thing as a "Christian scientist" and there's no such thing as an "Atheist scientist" either. You see, this is the real problem with people like you. You never see science for what it really is and try and break it down as a fight between Christians and atheists. This is absolutely crazy and couldn't be further from the truth. Science is a completely impartial endeavour which seeks to come up with explanations (theories) to fit the data we obtain from the natural world. Yes, the data needs interpretation, and yes, in some cases bias can creep in. This is precisely why we have peer review -- something which Creationists don't feel they should take part in -- to pick out bad science or incompetent methodology.

 

 

 

It's perfectly conceivable that one explanation can take precedence over another by virtue of the amount of data it explains and the amount of evidence it has to support it. This is the reality with evolution vs. creationism. Evolution is a well supported scientific theory while Creationism is a religious belief. And please, don't even try with the "it's all down to your perspective" argument with me, because I've done my research. God knows I've done far more that my fair share, and I did it before I really knew I was an atheist, as a matter of fact. I did it because I was curious and wanted to find out why scientists are so favourable of evolution in relation to Creationism. Suffice it to say that I found ample evidence supporting evolution, and I discovered that Creationism is not scientific at all. In fact, it is supported by religious zealots whose primary tools are ignorance or blatant misrepresentations of the truth. I can't even remember how many times I've had to go through this thread and debunk Creationist arguments which clearly have no scientific backing to them whatsoever (or that are complete misrepresentations of what scientists really think or what evolution really is).

 

 

 

It's a shame that you don't like science. You could learn a lot about evolution if you wanted to.

[/hide]Whoa whoa whoa.

 

 

 

Let me stop you right there, buddy.

 

 

 

Please, tell me everything you know about people like me. I'll take a guess you know nothing of people like me. the only common thread we share is religion, and even in that we differ, with the fundamentalists and liberalists. And you know as well as I do, that what Lateralus meant, was that if you were Christian, it meant you didn't believed in Science. Not that all Scientists are the same. And I really like how you lumped us all together as a ignorance spreading truth hating Mob. Very respectful. Let me tell YOU something, Warri0r45, may I call you Warri0r? Thanks. Well Warri0r, religion bashing is no more "morally" (sorry, forgot you guys don't have morals, as they are oppressive as you've made clear in the past) wrong, and vile as is gay bashing. And as I stated, the data is unbiased, as you have also stated, but the interpreation isn't. That was all I was debating. Stop putting words in my mouth. And guess what, ever noticed how Muslims are against Evolution also? And yet, for some reason, you don't hate them, but respect them... Interesting. But are you really saying, that if someone worked their butt offf trying to understand Organic Chemistry, that because they're Christian, then automatically, the only reason why they did that was to spread hatred? maybe you should go back to studying.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, a key fact you may want to know, is simply because someone is part of a religion, doesn't make them a zealot, or a fundamentalist. So, get that through your head, as for months you've continuously wanted to label all Christians who believed in Creationism a Zealot, because then you can disregard their evidence, because you don't need to heed a zealot's info. And I can't even remember how many times I've had too listen to you patronize everyone who doesn't believe what you do. That is the highest intolerance I've ever seen, and then to call Christians intolerant. Nice.

 

 

 

And I'm sorry if I'd rather hang with friends then listen to a teacher in a mid-life-crisis blab in a monotone voice about the importances of resonance in a drum with a hole in it.

 

 

 

It's a shame you don't have any humility. You could learn a lot from History if you weren't so close minded.

 

 

 

I'm willing to apologise for saying "people like you" because it's a rather snide thing to say, but what I was getting at with that comment was creationists in general. In my experience creationists continually call evolution atheistic and creationism Christian and build up this massive false dichotomy between the two when in reality evolution is just like any other scientific theory. Added, evolutionary theory is supported by atheist and religious scientists alike (hence why there are just scientists, not different brands of them based on religion) and you can be a Christian and still support it.

 

 

 

And I couldn't be bothered correcting things I clearly never said or don't believe. I think Lateralus said it best:

 

Taking offense to things I never said is a waste of time.

[i_love_burritos]

There aren't any fossils of of animals in a "transitional" state. Now Creationists take this as Evolution is a farce. But Evolutionists may just say, that it just means we haven't found any yet.

 

 

 

Ever heard of Richard Owen ? Thomas Huxley ? Archaeopteryx ?

 

 

 

I recently went to a regional "gathering" of sorts on Vertebrate Evolution and Systematics. Several prominent scientists talked about this very topic. You, warri0r45, would have loved it. :thumbup:

 

 

 

Anyway, I suggest that you at least google these people and if possible borrow a senior level biology textbook or even go to the library.

[Shinjula]

Just seen a really interesting you tube vid (courtesy of boingboing) about the idea of a "Baloney Detection Kit", 10 things to think about when deciding whether to be skeptical of a claim. Thought it might be worth posting here...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its from the Richard Dawkins institute, but regardless of what you think of the man (my own opinion is not very high) these are some good guidelines for a starting position on the question of gods existence and particularly on the position of creationism.

 

 

 

Here's the ten point scheme for the "Baloney Detection Kit"

 

 

 

1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

 

2: Does the source make other similar claims?

 

3: Have the claims been verified by anyone else?

 

4: Does this fit with the way the world works?

 

5: Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?

 

6: Where does the preponderance of evidence point?

 

7: Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?

 

8: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

 

9: Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?

 

10: Are personal beliefs driving the claims?

 

 

 

Let me know which ones you think Creationism succeed or fail on, similarly let me know which you think the existence of God fails or succeeds on?

[funnisam]

If you have a scientific mind (like me) then something is only true until it can be proved or disproved. In this case of "God", unless you have a photo (highly doubt it) of your God, then it is unlikely that this will be proved or disproved.

 

 

 

The problem is that religion causes arguments between people with strongly held beliefs. Just look at The Crusades of the early second millenia A.D. I do not understand how a belief in an omnipotent being can justify the massacre of innocent people. Clearly it can't because in christianity a well known quotation is; "Love thy neighbour", if that's true, then does genocide qualify as love?

[warri0r45]

1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

 

2: Does the source make other similar claims?

 

3: Have the claims been verified by anyone else?

 

4: Does this fit with the way the world works?

 

5: Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?

 

6: Where does the preponderance of evidence point?

 

7: Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?

 

8: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

 

9: Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?

 

10: Are personal beliefs driving the claims?

 

 

 

Let me know which ones you think Creationism succeed or fail on, similarly let me know which you think the existence of God fails or succeeds on?

 

 

 

I'll have a go at creationism.

 

 

 

1) A book written roughly 2000 years ago (The OT much earlier) isn't a reliable source of information for scientific claims. We've progressed far beyond this time period in terms of knowledge of how the world works. If we're talking creationists in general, then they aren't a reliable source of information. They will only accept information that is consistent with a preconceived dogma. When you want reliable information, it's a better idea to get it from an independent, ideology-free source.

 

 

 

2) I suppose the source would be creationists. They make similar claims about the creation and age of the universe (namely that the Bible is an accurate source of info on these topics). I'm not sure of the logic behind this point...

 

 

 

3) No. The claims are only given any weight in the creationist community and mainstream science rejects them completely.

 

 

 

4) No. Well, as far as we can tell. There is no apparent need for a deity to intervene and create parts of nature. Nature is completely autonomous.

 

 

 

5) This is an interesting one. Not really, because creationism has no credibility in the scientific community. This is because evolutionary theory accounts for more data and is well supported by scientific evidence. Also, there appears to be little incentive to disprove creationists if they are willing to be dishonest and dogmatic about the whole issue.

 

 

 

6) Evolution, most definitely. There's plenty of research out there which explains how evolution and common descent accounts for what we see in biology and paleontology in particular.

 

 

 

7) No. They refuse to publish any research in mainstream, peer reviewed journals and misrepresent evolution and how it works. They also appeal to a supernatural agent. This is a big no-no in science because it's not testable (and therefore unfalsifiable). Supernatural agents are beholden to nothing but your imagination and are not predictable. Natural agents (or events) are beholden to natural laws and are predictable.

 

 

 

8) No. Their preponderance is most certainly with ridiculing and "debunking" evolution. Notable arguments include the second law, the origin of biological information, transitional forms, etc. No such arguments hold any water.

 

 

 

9) No. Well, I suppose the massive cop-out here is that god can do anything, even rig the genomes of humans and chimpanzees to indicate unambiguously that we share common ancestry. As explained above, this breaks the rules of science, as it isn't a natural explanation and can't be tested. I may as well propose that invisible pixies tinker with our minds to give the illusion that gravity exists, but that claim is irrefutable as well (not that it's a supported claim, but that it's quite literally unable to be refuted, i.e. it's unfalsifiable).

 

 

 

10) Yes.

 

 

 

All in all, creationism scores very poorly here.

[Lateralus]

And you know as well as I do, that what Lateralus meant, was that if you were Christian, it meant you didn't believed in Science. Not that all Scientists are the same.

 

 

 

Stop distorting things so you can try to typify me and play the role of the opressed Christian.

 

 

 

The term "Christian Scientist" does not mean Christian and scientist. Christian Scientists are the type of people who spend their careers pushing Intelligent Design and other misinformation because they have an agenda - Something that is completely incompatible with the scientific method. I've said two or three times that there are plenty of theistic Scientists out there, and good ones at that. I really don't know what more you want from me.

[Shinjula]

The term "Christian Scientist" does not mean Christian and scientist

 

Even if it did, it's such a strange juxtaposition, the two clearly havent anything to do with each other. It's like saying "I'm a vegetarian Scientist" or "I'm a Buddhist Mathematician", the one doesn't qualify the other. The implication is therefore that it IS qualifying it, and the actual result is the very negative qualification.

 

 

 

What Christian scientist SHOULD mean is the "I'm a Christian but any parts of my doctrine which contradict science I will throw out as mistakes", when what it actually means is "I'm a scientists but anything which contradicts with my faith I will refuse to admit". And this I can't help but see as a negative thing. Facts and evidence really SHOULD take precedence over beliefs.

 

 

 

Although I would be interested if someone wanted to debate that facts should not take precedence over beliefs, I doubt anyone would actually do so.

[mmmcannibalism]

Although I would be interested if someone wanted to debate that facts should not take precedence over beliefs, I doubt anyone would actually do so.

 

 

 

The only place that could come into play is if we go into some interesting unfalsifiables. For instance, disprove the statement im making that "I and everything you see is just a figmant of your imagination". The only real way you can argue is saying you dont believe it, of course no facts are really available in this situation.

[Shinjula]

There's also the position someone could take of "I don't believe facts are as important as belief" which would be a self sustaining position - if they believed it to be true, no facts we could show them would persuade them to change their mind, I've never met someone with that philosophy, but that doesnt mean they don't exist and it might prove an interesting philosophy to hold.

[Zierro]

1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

 

2: Does the source make other similar claims?

 

3: Have the claims been verified by anyone else?

 

4: Does this fit with the way the world works?

 

5: Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?

 

6: Where does the preponderance of evidence point?

 

7: Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?

 

8: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

 

9: Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?

 

10: Are personal beliefs driving the claims?

 

 

 

He could have just asked, "Where does the evidence point?" and "Who is more credible?" instead of rewording the same things in order to stretch it into 10 questions.

 

 

 

The problem is that religion causes arguments between people with strongly held beliefs. Just look at The Crusades of the early second millenia A.D. I do not understand how a belief in an omnipotent being can justify the massacre of innocent people. Clearly it can't because in christianity a well known quotation is; "Love thy neighbour", if that's true, then does genocide qualify as love?

 

 

 

It's not really the religion as much as it is the people behind the religion. Many people have been killed for believing god too, meaning the killers didn't have a religion but they still killed for the same reasons as those from the crusades - they had differing beliefs.

[Alg]

 

The problem is that religion causes arguments between people with strongly held beliefs. Just look at The Crusades of the early second millenia A.D. I do not understand how a belief in an omnipotent being can justify the massacre of innocent people. Clearly it can't because in christianity a well known quotation is; "Love thy neighbour", if that's true, then does genocide qualify as love?

 

 

 

It's not really the religion as much as it is the people behind the religion. Many people have been killed for believing god too, meaning the killers didn't have a religion but they still killed for the same reasons as those from the crusades - they had differing beliefs.

 

That stretches far beyond religion too. Pretty much any conflict can be attributed to differences in general, or specifically if one party wants something the other has.

[Shinjula]

I've just had a thought crop up on the homosexuality is wrong thread whilst writing one of my replies. I think it might get more of a response here...

 

 

 

From the perspective of someone who believes in Bible inerrancy, who say Homosexuality is wrong. The Leviticus stuff can easily be argued as ignorable because when Jesus arrived on the scene that brought in a new compact between Man and God, Paul is usually a sticking point - hes the main bit in the new testament argueing against homosexuality.

 

 

 

My question is this, Paul is only a disciple of Jesus, Jesus has to teach him stuff, so how come he is counted as an authority on whether homosexuality is a sin.

 

 

 

I'm always confused by how a book could be inerrant. It sounds like "The bible is inerrant" simply means that every word in it is true, but its a bit more complicated than that because of hearsay. If Paul says in the Bible that Jesus says something does that mean it is true that Jesus said it, or just that its true that Paul thinks that Jesus said it?

 

Also what about the stuff that Paul says on his own? Is that stuff all true too (such as th homosexuality stuff)

 

 

 

Further, if the stuff that Paul say is true, because its in the bible, would that apply to everyone else in the bible?

 

 

 

Wouldn't that imply that everything Herod said was also true? And that it was right for him to kill all the first born?

 

 

 

Just some thoughts, let me know what you think, I'm always confused by any sort of absolutism because it always seems to me to end up somewhere silly.

[Shinjula]

1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

 

2: Does the source make other similar claims?

 

3: Have the claims been verified by anyone else?

 

4: Does this fit with the way the world works?

 

5: Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?

 

6: Where does the preponderance of evidence point?

 

7: Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?

 

8: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

 

9: Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?

 

10: Are personal beliefs driving the claims?

 

 

 

He could have just asked, "Where does the evidence point?" and "Who is more credible?" instead of rewording the same things in order to stretch it into 10 questions.

 

 

A few of those do blur a bit but most of then are very specific 10 is a very different question to 2

 

I'm surprised that you think there isnt anything to be gained by examining things from as many perspectives as possible.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

I've just had a thought crop up on the homosexuality is wrong thread whilst writing one of my replies. I think it might get more of a response here...

 

 

 

From the perspective of someone who believes in Bible inerrancy, who say Homosexuality is wrong. The Leviticus stuff can easily be argued as ignorable because when Jesus arrived on the scene that brought in a new compact between Man and God, Paul is usually a sticking point - hes the main bit in the new testament argueing against homosexuality.

 

 

 

My question is this, Paul is only a disciple of Jesus, Jesus has to teach him stuff, so how come he is counted as an authority on whether homosexuality is a sin.

 

 

 

I'm always confused by how a book could be inerrant. It sounds like "The bible is inerrant" simply means that every word in it is true, but its a bit more complicated than that because of hearsay. If Paul says in the Bible that Jesus says something does that mean it is true that Jesus said it, or just that its true that Paul thinks that Jesus said it?

 

Also what about the stuff that Paul says on his own? Is that stuff all true too (such as th homosexuality stuff)

 

 

 

Further, if the stuff that Paul say is true, because its in the bible, would that apply to everyone else in the bible?

 

 

 

Wouldn't that imply that everything Herod said was also true? And that it was right for him to kill all the first born?

 

 

 

Just some thoughts, let me know what you think, I'm always confused by any sort of absolutism because it always seems to me to end up somewhere silly.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Entropy in its philosophical form, everything falls apart in the end. No matter how well intentioned something is(Jesus's teachings) eventually it will get contorted into something much less good or possibly something bad.

 

 

 

Some other examples

 

 

 

Communism started out well intentioned...do I really need to finish this one?

 

 

 

gunpowder used to be a toy

[Zierro]

I'm surprised that you think there isnt anything to be gained by examining things from as many perspectives as possible.

 

 

 

I don't believe I said anything like that in my entire life. :lol: I think questioning is one of the most important things you can do, which is why I'm questioning his method of questioning.

 

 

 

I just think that stretching it into 10 questions seems like an attempt to make it look like you're examining things from many perspectives, but in reality they're the same couple of questions blurred together from only a few perspectives. Examining something in many different lights is a good thing, but just making it appear that way is a bit dishonest.

 

 

 

Don't worry, this has nothing to do with religion. I'd be saying the same thing if there was a Christian asking questions that lead to the same exact answers. It's just a brutally biased method of doing things. You have a question and there is an answer you like - so you just reword the same question to make it appear separate from the other questions, thus making it look like you have more evidence than you really do. I always thought lists of 10 were a bit fluffed up too by the way.

[Shinjula]

Entropy in its philosophical form, everything falls apart in the end. No matter how well intentioned something is(Jesus's teachings) eventually it will get contorted into something much less good or possibly something bad.

 

 

 

Some other examples

 

 

 

Communism started out well intentioned...do I really need to finish this one?

 

 

 

gunpowder used to be a toy

 

 

 

I dunno, living in caves seems to have worked out quite well

[Necrobean]

God is a word. Words are highly limiting vessels for expressing even the limited scope of our knowlege. Debates about beliefs in the aspects of existence higher then ours are pointless.