Dawinists standing on the panic button.

#301
#301
JZVOL said:
Isn't the Bible/Christianity pretty clear upfront that it is about faith? Walk by faith, not by sight etc.


Wouldn't the main reason for the belief is wanting to be in Heaven/not wanting to be in Hell?

IMO, these things just aren't as complicated as you make them to be.

I'm all for searching and questioning, but it's still about faith no matter what side you fall on.
Click to expand...

The Bible calls him a Fool, I'm going with that.
 
#304
#304
OrangeEmpire said:

Just reasonable???????

Seriously?????????????
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly think he did, but other than a single line written by Flavius Josephus there is no written record outside of the Bible of him ever existing.

However, given the times and accuracy of places and historical events in the Bible, I'm sure a man named Jesus did walk the earth and was crucified by the Roman authority. There is certainly no evidence it didn't happen. Like I said, it is reasonable.
 
#307
#307
OrangeEmpire said:
Either way you are putting your faith into something.

You either put it in something man made or believe in a creator. This is nothing more than basic human nature.

One can't prove with science or faith how the world started.
Click to expand...

And one cant possibly prove that a creator exists, no matter the reasoning. What we can do, however, is look at how we are formulating our opinions. In that sense, not every way is on equal ground.
 
#308
#308
JZVOL said:
Maybe you are crazy. Maybe Darwin was. Maybe the people's writings you believe and trust are crazy. I don't know.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I am not going to give near as much credence to bronze age people that were living in superstitious times as I am Darwin and others. The authors of the Bible didn't know a fraction of what we know now in terms of the cosmos and physical world.
 
#309
#309
rjd970 said:
And what I have been saying is the way one come to the conclusion matters. Everything, including religion, is never about the specific belief with me. It is about the reasons why one has the belief. I fully admit I could be dead wrong here. But picking and choosing reasons between empirical evidence and supernatural unfalsifiable claims is the weaker approach. Just about anything can be "proven" when the reasonsing and rules for justifications changes during the investigation.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the rules are changing during the investigation. You want someone to present a specific view of a creator so you can present evidence that runs counter to that view. I cannot provide that specific view to you since I don't know what it is. It is much more abstract. This doesn't mean we "can't know"; it just means we don't know. Claiming it is a "man-like creature" or an "alien experiment" is not something I can do since those would be too much speculation. The fact that I or others cannot provide that specific view for you to refute is not evidence against a creator. As I say, the abstract may not fit your rules of verification and falsification but that is not akin to changing the rules throughout the investigation.

We or at least I am trying to point out to you that your baseline view that something must be verifiable and subject to falsification to merit belief is in itself a belief system.
 
#310
#310
rjd970 said:
And one cant possibly prove that a creator exists, no matter the reasoning.

Perhaps one can eventually. One cannot currently given the rules you place on "proving". Interestingly enough the Popper view of falsification is that you can never prove anything.

What we can do, however, is look at how we are formulating our opinions. In that sense, not every way is on equal ground.
Click to expand...

While all ways may not be equally meritorious; you are stuck with opinion until you can definitively show your view is superior.
 
#311
#311
rjd970 said:
Maybe, but I am not going to give near as much credence to bronze age people that were living in superstitious times as I am Darwin and others. The authors of the Bible didn't know a fraction of what we know now in terms of the cosmos and physical world.
Click to expand...

Man, sweeping generalizations from a liberal. Ouch.
 
#312
#312
rjd970 said:
Well, I certainly think he did, but other than a single line written by Flavius Josephus there is no written record outside of the Bible of him ever existing.

However, given the times and accuracy of places and historical events in the Bible, I'm sure a man named Jesus did walk the earth and was crucified by the Roman authority. There is certainly no evidence it didn't happen. Like I said, it is reasonable.
Click to expand...

Wow........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Didn't bother to look in to it?

:blink:
 
#315
#315
volinbham said:
I wouldn't say the rules are changing during the investigation. You want someone to present a specific view of a creator so you can present evidence that runs counter to that view. I cannot provide that specific view to you since I don't know what it is. It is much more abstract. This doesn't mean we "can't know"; it just means we don't know. Claiming it is a "man-like creature" or an "alien experiment" is not something I can do since those would be too much speculation. The fact that I or others cannot provide that specific view for you to refute is not evidence against a creator. As I say, the abstract may not fit your rules of verification and falsification but that is not akin to changing the rules throughout the investigation.

We or at least I am trying to point out to you that your baseline view that something must be verifiable and subject to falsification to merit belief is in itself a belief system.
Click to expand...

It is a system for forming beliefs, sure, the same way yours is. I'm not debating that, I am debating the merits of each method.

And if it is your position that all your saying is there is a creator...it could be anything at all and anything beyond that is pure speculation...then why even say there is a creator in first place? It's a concept so abstract that it is devoid of any meaning at all. It's saying the "creator" of everything could be a "Big Bang" type event, it could be an alien supercomputer, it could be God, it could be a theoretical closed manifold with which the universe exists...making the notion of the beginning and end useless, etc... I mean, why even try to formulate an opinion on the matter first place if this is the conclusion you are getting at? Saying there is a creator implies a single entity behind it all.
 
#316
#316
rjd970 said:
It is a system for forming beliefs, sure, the same way yours is. I'm not debating that, I am debating the merits of each method.

And if it is your position that all your saying is there is a creator...it could be anything at all and anything beyond that is pure speculation...then why even say there is a creator in first place? It's a concept so abstract that it is devoid of any meaning at all. It's saying the "creator" of everything could be a "Big Bang" type event, it could be an alien supercomputer, it could be God, it could be a theoretical closed manifold with which the universe exists...making the notion of the beginning and end useless, etc... I mean, why even try to formulate an opinion on the matter first place if this is the conclusion you are getting at? Saying there is a creator implies a single entity behind it all.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between that and the big bang?
 
#317
#317
rjd970 said:
Maybe, but I am not going to give near as much credence to bronze age people that were living in superstitious times as I am Darwin and others. The authors of the Bible didn't know a fraction of what we know now in terms of the cosmos and physical world.
Click to expand...

So we can assume you find all the Greek philosophers equally worthless given the time period they lived in?
 
#321
#321
I wonder if he puts a time cap on..... say after 1611 he listens to history....

Better yet, 1688 when the Enlightenment started!
 
#322
#322
rjd970 said:
It is a system for forming beliefs, sure, the same way yours is. I'm not debating that, I am debating the merits of each method.


And if it is your position that all your saying is there is a creator...it could be anything at all and anything beyond that is pure speculation...then why even say there is a creator in first place? It's a concept so abstract that it is devoid of any meaning at all. It's saying the "creator" of everything could be a "Big Bang" type event, it could be an alien supercomputer, it could be God, it could be a theoretical closed manifold with which the universe exists...making the notion of the beginning and end useless, etc... I mean, why even try to formulate an opinion on the matter first place if this is the conclusion you are getting at? Saying there is a creator implies a single entity behind it all.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be more concrete? At the core, the distinction between a creator and natural occurrence is a monumental difference. I would argue that it opens the notion of beginning and end up much more than the Big Bang/evolution view.

You keep trying to judge my belief with your belief system. It may seem futile to you but so what? That is largely irrelevant in your argument that your method is a superior way of explaining what really happened.
 
#323
#323
I'm going to give you all this little bit one more time for those who are staunchly behind evolution. Riddle me this:

I find it really hard to concieve the fact we are here talking upon a computer.....some of us 1000s of miles apart....connected virtually through mid air....my wife is watching a tv show narrated, directed, recorded & produced by a human (about animals), and the next smartest animal is a dolphin. We ALL have the option to click on SeaWorld Home and Delta Air Lines - Airline Tickets and Airfare to Worldwide Destinations and book ourselves a flight (through the edges of space no less), rent a car (with thousands of moving and interacting parts made by robots, made by man) and drive over to Sea World to see the NEXT SMARTEST ANIMAL on our planet......beg for a fu&^%g fish. If you don't effin' get that......I can't really help ya.
 
#324
#324
rjd970 said:
And what I have been saying is the way one come to the conclusion matters. Everything, including religion, is never about the specific belief with me. It is about the reasons why one has the belief. I fully admit I could be dead wrong here. But picking and choosing reasons between empirical evidence and supernatural unfalsifiable claims is the weaker approach. Just about anything can be "proven" when the reasonsing and rules for justifications changes during the investigation.
Click to expand...
empirical evidence is an enormous problem for both parties. Relative strengths here is akin to virtue among whores, but who's counting? I don't think you'll find many who disagree with you that your empirical evidence holds any water over their own, but what difference does that make?
 
Last edited:
#325
#325
rockytophigh said:
I'm going to give you all this little bit one more time for those who are staunchly behind evolution. Riddle me this:

I find it really hard to concieve the fact we are here talking upon a computer.....some of us 1000s of miles apart....connected virtually through mid air....my wife is watching a tv show narrated, directed, recorded & produced by a human (about animals), and the next smartest animal is a dolphin. We ALL have the option to click on SeaWorld Home and Delta Air Lines - Airline Tickets and Airfare to Worldwide Destinations and book ourselves a flight (through the edges of space no less), rent a car (with thousands of moving and interacting parts made by robots, made by man) and drive over to Sea World to see the NEXT SMARTEST ANIMAL on our planet......beg for a fu&^%g fish. If you don't effin' get that......I can't really help ya.
Click to expand...

How is that any less likely than some magician in the sky cranking out a whole universe in 6 days? Don't act like you are smarter than me just because you buy the idea that I am doomed to eternal hell by a god that supposedly loves me.

And the next smartest animals are apes.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top