Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Marcov on September 07, 2011, 08:31:48 am
-
Firstly, I'm not trying to prove anything here. I am not hitting at anyone, but am stating something that can be discussed about.
Well, we probably all know of phenomena that have not actually been proven, tested, or perfectly explained yet; "magic". When I mean "magic", it means...that. Magic, the one that simply can't be true, according to our own scientific standards.
The thing is, we could all easily just dismiss these as "nonsense" and fantasy. But the striking question is...how are we to make such a conclusion if we probably do not know how every single thing works?
Science, by nature, is open to change. Before, humans had formed all sorts of myths, legends, in the hope of attempting to explain natural phenomena. Over time though, the science community had formed a basis for studying nature; something that is provable, testable, etc. the usual stuff. It just so happens that science was able to explain most things, in an unbiased, systematic way. But again, Science 10,000 years from now is just certainly going to be different.
Before, for instance, humans have believed in spontaneous generation - dung beetles are born from feces, rats from garbage, etc. However this has gradually changed - the idea has been disproven.
So now, the notion of many an atheist would be based on the fact that our modern, present-day science, simply explains everything. Now at this point, I'm trying to be blunt; so please don't get offended by any of this. This comes straight from myself. Anyway, yes, one can easily dismiss the world as part of this. But why the hell should humans know everything? We are not a million times more intelligent than the second smartest animal alive. Take, for instance, a chimp. Do you think it can do calculus? No. It simply can't. Do you think it can analyze graphs? Certainly not - it would dismiss it as some sort of odd drawing; the way we dismiss weird or unusual things as fantasy. Why? Monkeys simply aren't smart. In the same manner, we shouldn't be able to know everything. That means, our knowledge now of the universe is probably WRONG. Incomplete. Simply imperfect.
There are things the science community has yet to cover - paranormal activity, UFOs, some guy who did not eat or drink for 70 years (http://www.news.com.au/weird-true-freaky/man-claims-no-food-or-drink-for-70-years/story-e6frflri-1225859946801), and the like.
Again, human scientific knowledge 10,000 years from now would be most likely different. That means yes, scientific knowledge nowadays is still incomplete. And I'm guessing humans alone may never be able to fully explain natural phenomena. When I mean "natural", I mean everything in the universe.
So, anyone willing to discuss this?
-
What's there to discuss? Whether today's scientific knowledge is incomplete or not? Yes, obviously it is incomplete, and equally obviously no one claims it isn't. So, really, what's there to discuss?
-
There is nothing that can't be explained. Going with the best explanation for things that have explanations and saying "i don't know" to the things that don't is, in my opinion, the best way to go about life.
-
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Corollary: Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
To be serious though, yes there are things not yet explained scientifically. Which is no wonder, no scientist worthy of the name would ever dare to proclaim that a field is completely known and understood.
Oh, and let me pick out the statement your "argument" is based on: So now, the notion of many an atheist would be based on the fact that our modern, present-day science, simply explains everything.
This is, to be blunt, wrong. Atheists like myself believe that Science (or to be more precise, the scientific method) is the best way to further our understanding of the world around us. One of the basic tenets of the scientific method is continual testing of "proven" theories, in order to either strengthen them, or to arrive at new, more complete theories.
You are arguing against a strawman, which is never a good start. Now I will grnat you that there are people who will repeat your claim word for word and be totally fine with it. That doesn't mean they are right. It just means that they haven't fully grokked the meaning of "Science", or fully understood how it works.
-
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Corollary: Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science.
-
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Corollary: Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science.
Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it.
-
Already mentioned in the first sentence quoted :P
-
In a way I suppose yes; there are phenomenon in the universe that we don't fully understand. Mostly however, there are things in our brains that we don't fully understand. People tend to worship some of those things like gods - much like people used to worship earthquakes or rivers. They are called spiritualists, or sometimes agnostics (though that word doesn't truly fit them.)
Just because something is currently unknowable does not make it supernatural. The very fact that it exists in the universe makes it very natural. Just because powerful forces that are currently not fully understood exists, does not make them deities. It was possible, when humanity was worshiping the products of plate tectonics, to be an atheist - one would only have had to say "I don't know what causes that" rather than "a god is causing that."
It is the same now as it was then.
-
So now, the notion of many an atheist would be based on the fact that our modern, present-day science, simply explains everything.
as a modern present day atheist, I call bull****, science WILL explain everything given enough time, it does not now, we are WELL aware of the fact that there are things it has yet to explain.
I find your insinuation of arrogance to be projective.
-
The size of the Earth was first calculated (to very good approximation) ~2200 years ago. (Eratosthenes, 2nd century BCE).
Less than 500 years ago people still argued between the heliocentric and geocentric model. Very compelling evidence for the heliocentric model was found by Galileo in the early 1600s, but a proper proof that the Earth orbits the sun did not arise until the aberration of starlight was measured in 1728.
The origin of the universe wasn't known until less than a century ago.
The first extrasolar planet was discovered only two decades ago.
We still don't know what dark matter is.
Those are only a handful of points from the history of only one field of science.
So no **** science hasn't figured everything out yet. If history has taught us anything, it may very well never. Every time we solve one riddle, it's as if ten more pop out of the ether. I can't even imagine what the future has in store for us. :)
Aside: Interesting to have this discussion now -- just this afternoon I was walking through my university library, checking out shelf after shelf packed full of publications and articles from every imaginable subject, from the physics of high density plasmas to the petrology of some obscure part of the world. It's quite humbling to see how much knowledge we've accumulated. Even a single field is so complex that no person could hope to understand all of it with even a lifetime of study.
-
Even a single field is so complex that no person could hope to understand all of it with even a lifetime of study.
Which is kind of depressing, if you stop and think about it. It almost makes me jealous of the scholars who lived a good 400 years ago, when one person could pretty much learn everything that was known about the world at that time.
-
that was only possible because so little was known, I prefer this time, as even if you can't know it all that just means there is no end to what you can learn.
-
as a modern present day atheist, I call bull****, science WILL explain everything given enough time, it does not now, we are WELL aware of the fact that there are things it has yet to explain.
I find your insinuation of arrogance to be projective.
"Insinuation of arrogance"?!
Look, here. You're missing the point. Simply because I say "the notion of an atheist would be to dismiss things as explained by science today" would not necessarily mean all atheists. To expect that I meant YOU would be just plain wrong. And yes, there ARE atheists nowadays, and MANY (but NOT ALL), who dismiss some unusual phenomena as just fake. For example, God isn't true (and, IMO God may not be fully provable, but God isn't fully disprovable either), ghosts are made up, parapsychologists are just plain insane.
On the other hand, a more reasonable "atheist" would rationalize their disbelief of these unusual phenomena as "not being proven yet". There are atheists that can be simply plain annoying, but there are also those who are smart enough to reason out why they do not believe in such things. There ARE atheists that can simply say "Jesus isn't real, he's a lie", etc. etc. etc. just as there are foolish Christians/Muslims/Satanists etc.
-
There ARE atheists that can simply say "Jesus isn't real, he's a lie", etc. etc. etc. just as there are foolish christians/Muslims/Satanists etc.
Not really. For example, I'm willing to say that there is no teapot orbiting the sun in the asteroid belt, and if you say I'm silly for asserting that, then it's you that's silly. It hasn't been proven and it hasn't been disproven, but in a world where very little is actually proven I'm willing to just assume that there is no such thing.
-
but God isn't fully disprovable either
Provide proof.
No, seriously.
Because in order to be able to make blanket statements like that, you need to be able to back it up with something substantial.
Oh, and one more thing. If you want to start a discussion, it is customary to provide a point of discussion, some statement that can be argued for or against. What you did in your first post, and your second one here, is to simply state a known and accepted fact (to wit, that we haven't found scientific explanations or confirmations for a number of phenomena reported to exist). There can be no serious discussions about this, as both sides of the debate agree on this.
-
There are things the science community has yet to cover - paranormal activity, UFOs
Have you considered that they might not have covered them because they simply do not exist? It is pretty arrogant to claim they must be true and that science simply hasn't covered them.
Keeping an open mind is good. Keeping your mind so open your brains fall out, not so much.
-
With regards to UFO's, two quotes come to mind:
There is no hard evidence that Earth has ever been visited from space.
This ones interesting because science deals first and foremost with hard evidence.
and:
After I give lectures—on almost any subject—I am often asked, "Do you believe in UFOs?". I'm always struck by how the question is phrased, the suggestion that this is a matter of belief and not evidence. I'm almost never asked, "How good is the evidence that UFOs are alien spaceships?"
In essence, there are more stars than grains of sand on Earth, most of those stars have a large collection of orbital bodies. I see nothing about the Earth that makes us of particular interest to even one, let alone several alien cultures. We all watch Hollywood movies of Aliens 'coming for our water' or 'coming for our gold' and it's so much rubbish, there's plenty of places in the Universe that are far richer in any material available on Earth. As has been covered before, there's no such thing as stealth in space, and any extra-terrestrial visitor would not only be picked up by official sources, but also by the network of university and privately run sky-watching equipment scattered all over the planet. Such a situation could not be covered up.
Edit: To summarise, I can fully accept that Aliens are 'out there', it's the idea that Aliens are regularly coming here that I have problem with.
-
Well, we probably all know of phenomena that have not actually been proven, tested, or perfectly explained yet...
We all watch Hollywood movies of Aliens 'coming for our water' or 'coming for our gold' and it's so much rubbish.
Yeah, nobody's been able to explain to me why Battlefield Earth was made either.
-
Not to mention 'Cowboys and Aliens', a film that could have been awesome if it had actually taken a step back and realised that taking itself seriously was really out of sync with the title of the movie...
With regards to the thread, I suppose my point is that we just aren't as interesting as we think we are ;) I'm not even going to touch on paranormal activity because it's such a horrendous myth-mash of cultures and beliefs.
-
you know, they could always come for our souls. space missionaries.
-
I for one fully believe Jesus was actually an ancient astronaut.
-
There are things the science community has yet to cover - paranormal activity, UFOs
Have you considered that they might not have covered them because they simply do not exist? It is pretty arrogant to claim they must be true and that science simply hasn't covered them.
Keeping an open mind is good. Keeping your mind so open your brains fall out, not so much.
Nice Randi quote. :)
I'm not even going to touch on paranormal activity because it's such a horrendous myth-mash of cultures and beliefs.
It's a garage sale of nonsense.
-
I'm not even going to touch on paranormal activity because it's such a horrendous myth-mash of cultures and beliefs.
It's a garage sale of nonsense.
And that's the problem. So much of it is garbage that whenever something interesting actually does happen, it falls to the stereotype and no one ever pays any attention to it.
-
You mean there are some things that are not nonsense? Do tell........
-
I'm not even going to touch on paranormal activity because it's such a horrendous myth-mash of cultures and beliefs.
It's a garage sale of nonsense.
And that's the problem. So much of it is garbage that whenever something interesting actually does happen, it falls to the stereotype and no one ever pays any attention to it.
Such as? No, I do believe that paranormal activities that have sufficient factual coverage to give them scientific attention aren't actually paranormal.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8&feature=related
-
So much of it is garbage that whenever something interesting actually does happen...no one ever pays any attention to it.
You mean there are some things that are not nonsense?
Um. Yeah, I think so. And your response is a great example of my point.
whenever something interesting actually does happen...
Such as?
There are a lot of particular incidents I could advocate as paranormal occurrences, and if I were to do so I'm sure a lot of good points would be made on both sides of the argument that would inevitably ensue. But the validation or refutation of an individual example isn't going to prove/disprove the central concept; that unexplainable paranormal activity actually does occur. And such is my opinion. Just to be clear, I'm not stating that the aforementioned thesis is factual. I've just observed a sufficient amount of evidence for me personally to adopt that viewpoint. Most of the aforementioned evidence could be considered "religious" in nature and I really don't want to unleash another one of those notorious discussions here on HLP. So, I'll try to avoid entering such territory during this discussion. I tend to shun most of the kooky alien-abducted preachers anyhow. But occasionally I'll find something like this (http://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/Guy%20Hottel%20Part%201%20of%201/view) that just really keeps me thinking. Maybe I've opened my mind a little too wide here, but I'm willing to have a little fun with my philosophy and see where it takes me. :)
-
thirty seconds of googling turned up this (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/132868/20110411/fbi-hottel-memo-reveals-ufo-hoax.htm) about your example of the so called paranormal. In short it's a hoax.
Got anything else?
-
as a modern present day atheist, I call bull****, science WILL might explain everything given enough time, it does not now, we are WELL aware of the fact that there are things it has yet to explain.
There's no actual certainty that it will, although there's nothing wrong with being optimistic about it. :)
Also, successful Marcov flamebait is successful.
-
There's no actual certainty that it will, although there's nothing wrong with being optimistic about it. :)
Actually, according to Turing, it won't.
-
"given enough time" was the qualification, it could very well take an infinite amount of time to gain infinite understanding, the point being that it continuously expands our knowledge getting us closer to an explanation of 'everything'.
-
"given enough time" was the qualification, it could very well take an infinite amount of time to gain infinite understanding, the point being that it continuously expands our knowledge getting us closer to an explanation of 'everything'.
You misunderstand me. Turing proved Godel's Incompleteness Theorem; there are mathematical problems that cannot be solved. Science will, and must, remain forever incomplete.
Exactly what that means is yet to be determined.
-
Not really. For example, I'm willing to say that there is no teapot orbiting the sun in the asteroid belt, and if you say I'm silly for asserting that, then it's you that's silly. It hasn't been proven and it hasn't been disproven, but in a world where very little is actually proven I'm willing to just assume that there is no such thing.
But there are actually many atheists who just like to be simply because they want to avoid all that bible-thumper crap and enhance their own aura of "being reasonable".
but God isn't fully disprovable either
Provide proof.
No, seriously.
Because in order to be able to make blanket statements like that, you need to be able to back it up with something substantial.
Provide proof? Should I?
How about ghosts? You ever seen one? I did. Proof; another person confirmed having seen the same ghost (with the same description) in the same venue. If you don't believe, either you've never experienced such things, or just plain blank dismiss that such things simply can't be true.
Now what does this have to do with God? You have a point. God today hasn't been fully proven. Jesus Christ asserted that people who put faith above evidence are better. On my interpretation, this means that God cannot be fully proven in a scientific context.
Now, how about not being fully disprovable. My interpretation is that the whole picture of God must be so wide that only a super-genius (not merely a genius, like Einstein) may be able to fully decipher it. As such, please don't expect me to convince you 100% about this statement. But I can, however, defend my point to an extent...
Well first of all, I believe that super-beings such as Jesus Christ, if not "fully divine", are extremely gifted human beings with special knowledge about things that the regular human mind can't understand. As such, they were able to perform "miracles", which must be the result of a brain that has knowledge of concepts we cannot decipher. Our scientific approach must be under this, and it must be a lower form of understanding how the universe really works. As such, maybe if you ask Christ what 5000X112490X1230909X5898912/9910294 squared equals to, he might be able to answer it in less than a second. If ever a monkey will know how to perform very basic mathematical operations (e.g. 1+1, 5-3, etc.), it must be a record-breaker for the rest of the world's monkeys. Now suppose this intelligent monkey asks you what 1+1 is, you, with knowledge far higher than any monkey, will be able to answer that in a split second.
This brings about the concept of magic, or something that our science today cannot fully explain. People have done magic. I have no direct personal experiences on actually seing someone do magic, but as I said earlier, I saw ghosts, which can be considered magic since science has not fully explained it. The Bible should have numerous references to ghosts, which, according to wikipedia, are products of witchcraft. The Christian Church believes that they are elementals who refuse to leave the material plane and transfer to the spiritual plane.
I don't have to list all the references to convice you that God isn't full disprovable. I'm certain that there are thousands of articles across the net disproving God, but also thousands proving God. God is part of an endless debate of humanity and I don't actually know when such a debate will end. As Bobbau said, it will take an infinite amount of time for science to explain the infinite. And as such, God is infinite; so this means humanity will never be able to FULLY explain God scientifically!
I am, and will be trying to satisfy your hunger for proof and evidence, but if really nothing satisfies you, then I am sorry, but...then there isn't anymore to debate on.
Oh, and one more thing. If you want to start a discussion, it is customary to provide a point of discussion, some statement that can be argued for or against. What you did in your first post, and your second one here, is to simply state a known and accepted fact (to wit, that we haven't found scientific explanations or confirmations for a number of phenomena reported to exist). There can be no serious discussions about this, as both sides of the debate agree on this.
You say that I haven't actually put in anything substantial enough to put up a "serious discussion". Well, to inform you, a "serious discussion" isn't actually what I'm after; I'm after trying to express my ideas in a forum full of people who will reply reasonably. The thing is, you're treating this like some sort of debate. Well, I'll be entertaining, as much as I can, a debate which you can put up against me, but to be blunt, a debate isn't really what I want.
There are things the science community has yet to cover - paranormal activity, UFOs
Have you considered that they might not have covered them because they simply do not exist? It is pretty arrogant to claim they must be true and that science simply hasn't covered them.
Again I'm pretty certain I saw a ghost.
Keeping an open mind is good. Keeping your mind so open your brains fall out, not so much.
My statement was straightforward. I think I said was has to be said.
And, to the statements of Flipside and Kosh, yeah, I've seen a ghost. So I don't think it's a "garage sale of nonsense".
-
Not really. For example, I'm willing to say that there is no teapot orbiting the sun in the asteroid belt, and if you say I'm silly for asserting that, then it's you that's silly. It hasn't been proven and it hasn't been disproven, but in a world where very little is actually proven I'm willing to just assume that there is no such thing.
But there are actually many atheists who just like to be simply because they want to avoid all that bible-thumper crap and enhance their own aura of "being reasonable".
Yep.
but God isn't fully disprovable either
Provide proof.
No, seriously.
Because in order to be able to make blanket statements like that, you need to be able to back it up with something substantial.
Provide proof? Should I?
How about ghosts? You ever seen one? I did. Proof; another person confirmed having seen the same ghost (with the same description) in the same venue. If you don't believe, either you've never experienced such things, or just plain blank dismiss that such things simply can't be true.
No, no you don't. Ghosts, if anything, have been more thoroughly debunked than god. Has anyone reliably measured a ghost?
I believe in Giant Squid, because they're well documented, but until very recently no one had seen one alive. It's the quality of evidence, not how impressive it is, that matters.
Now what does this have to do with God? You have a point. God today hasn't been fully proven.
Or at all. . .
Jesus Christ asserted that people who put faith above evidence are better. On my interpretation, this means that God cannot be fully proven in a scientific context.
Or it was a con. . . a con to get the faithful to take everything they had just read on faith, so as to not question any of it - for the fact that none of it would stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
Now, how about not being fully disprovable. My interpretation is that the whole picture of God must be so wide that only a super-genius (not merely a genius, like Einstein) may be able to fully decipher it. As such, please don't expect me to convince you 100% about this statement. But I can, however, defend my point to an extent...
Surprisingly little can fit in a human brain.
I'm curious how you go from "not fully disprovable" to describing aspects of this god.
Well first of all, I believe that super-beings such as Jesus Christ, if not "fully divine", are extremely gifted human beings with special knowledge about things that the regular human mind can't understand.
Alright. . . why do you believe this, really; where did this come from. I don't understand.
As such, they were able to perform "miracles", which must be the result of a brain that has knowledge of concepts we cannot decipher. Our scientific approach must be under this, and it must be a lower form of understanding how the universe really works. As such, maybe if you ask Christ what 5000X112490X1230909X5898912/9910294 squared equals to, he might be able to answer it in less than a second. If ever a monkey will know how to perform very basic mathematical operations (e.g. 1+1, 5-3, etc.), it must be a record-breaker for the rest of the world's monkeys. Now suppose this intelligent monkey asks you what 1+1 is, you, with knowledge far higher than any monkey, will be able to answer that in a split second.
Her majesty the Unicorn is pink, and is invisible.
I stop here. . . the rest of this. . . is conjecture based off of what you've already written, which was totally incomprehensible.
-
Actually, it is my theory (take note, it's a theory, not a fact) that sufficiently intelligent or advanced minds can actually have the capability to do magic.
-
/*raving gibberish*/
I've seen things that were not really there too, a couple of times, when I was a young child, it took me a few times before I realized that it was because I worked my self up into a powerful emotional frenzy and was so sure that something was there that I could actually see it. many people have done this, and many people can do it on purpose. it's a fun sort of euphoric feeling to have your emotions run that wild, or it is once you get used to it.
unfortunately it is quite well documented that people can see things that are not there, so just because you got spooked and could see what you really really wanted to see doesn't mean what you were perceiving was anything more than a figment of your imagination. it's called a hallucination and they are easier to get than most people realize. now if you managed to get some video of it that would be better, machines don't see **** because they really really want to and are really really sure they will so much so that at the drop of a hat they see it. now it would be silly to say that any given thing you see is a hallucination, they don't happen that often to people with normal brain chemistry, but if you ask me to believe a personal anecdote to which I was not party why the hell should I assume it is more likely that you bore witness to the apparition of an earthbound soul over the possibility that you and your friend got all excited about a omgspookyghost. oh you both could see the same thing, ok, so you were both in the same state of mind and got a similar experience, when you talked about it afterwards and exchanged details you filled in each other's gaps. there has been growing evidence from law enforcement related sources that eye witness testimony can be faulty, and it's been shown that people will remember things differently based on who they talk to and what questions they are asked, being in an emotionally heightened state makes it worse.
"Jesus Christ asserted that people who put faith above evidence are better." yeah and Gadaffi said the people rioting in the streets were drug addicted western al queda agents. people will say silly things if they think it will make their position stronger, for instance if you are trying to convince a bunch of people to believe a completely nonsensical explanation you might assert those who just believe anything you say without questioning it are great people that everyone should emulate, it doesn't make it a fact.
"God today hasn't been fully proven."
...neither has the proposition that you are, right now, in orbit around the moon dieing from exposure to the hard vacuum of space and that this discussion you are having right now is simply your brain's attempts to come to terms with your morality. actually there is another thing that these two possibilities have in common, they have not even begun to be proved, they have not a shred of evidence for them, to assert that there is any solidity in believing either of them is laughable.
"fully decipher"
how about show any hint of it's existence? we might not be able to measure God but we sure as hell could measure it's effects on the universe, so far that hasn't happened, same thing for ghosts.
I believe that super-beings such as Jesus Christ are basically like Santa Claus, a fictitious story, perhaps based on a real person, that gets embellished to the point that they seem "miraculous". the original people telling the story might know that they are exaggerating or just flat out making stuff up because it sounds cool, but if they neglect to inform people after the fact about the nature of these improvements to the story then how is someone getting told that story 200 years later supposed to be able to tell?
you know, I don't really require a comprehensive theological theory that describes god in such detail that we can predict it's actions, I just want a little bit of decent evidence that it exists at all. a being with such power that it is purported to have should be able to effect reality in profound ways, we should be able to see manifestations in the sky, or planets spontaneously changing their orbit for no reason, I could list a million things that would be, at the very least be a good starting point for god to prove it's existence to any rational person. but apparently it wants us not to believe.
"Again I'm pretty certain I saw a ghost."
this is a more accurate description of your reality I would wager.
BTW the answer to your question is approximately 1.6982064820920193789450138439460757522605825149090891*10^29 the exact result is 4169688193643877315493956600935040000000000/24553481791609, I asked a computer, it gave me the answer, in several different forms, in far less than a fraction of a second.
theory
I see you are using the slang meaning of the term here, not the technical one. good on you for specifying as it would be truly embarrassing to you if we were to have misunderstood and thought you were implying that you had a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules that express relationships between observations of such concepts that described magic.
-
/*raving gibberish*/
I've seen things that were not really there too, a couple of times, when I was a young child, it took me a few times before I realized that it was because I worked my self up into a powerful emotional frenzy and was so sure that something was there that I could actually see it. many people have done this, and many people can do it on purpose. it's a fun sort of euphoric feeling to have your emotions run that wild, or it is once you get used to it.
unfortunately it is quite well documented that people can see things that are not there, so just because you got spooked and could see what you really really wanted to see doesn't mean what you were perceiving was anything more than a figment of your imagination. it's called a hallucination and they are easier to get than most people realize. now if you managed to get some video of it that would be better, machines don't see **** because they really really want to and are really really sure they will so much so that at the drop of a hat they see it. now it would be silly to say that any given thing you see is a hallucination, they don't happen that often to people with normal brain chemistry, but if you ask me to believe a personal anecdote to which I was not party why the hell should I assume it is more likely that you bore witness to the apparition of an earthbound soul over the possibility that you and your friend got all excited about a omgspookyghost. oh you both could see the same thing, ok, so you were both in the same state of mind and got a similar experience, when you talked about it afterwards and exchanged details you filled in each other's gaps. there has been growing evidence from law enforcement related sources that eye witness testimony can be faulty, and it's been shown that people will remember things differently based on who they talk to and what questions they are asked, being in an emotionally heightened state makes it worse.
If it was a hallucination, then only I would have experienced it. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.
"Jesus Christ asserted that people who put faith above evidence are better." yeah and Gadaffi said the people rioting in the streets were drug addicted western al queda agents. people will say silly things if they think it will make their position stronger, for instance if you are trying to convince a bunch of people to believe a completely nonsensical explanation you might assert those who just believe anything you say without questioning it are great people that everyone should emulate, it doesn't make it a fact.
Do you think Jesus is that much of an idiot to seek popularity? Oh, well...
"God today hasn't been fully proven."
...neither has the proposition that you are, right now, in orbit around the moon dieing from exposure to the hard vacuum of space and that this discussion you are having right now is simply your brain's attempts to come to terms with your morality. actually there is another thing that these two possibilities have in common, they have not even begun to be proved, they have not a shred of evidence for them, to assert that there is any solidity in believing either of them is laughable.
Believe in what you believe, but I don't see any reasonable argument here. What I see is just an emotional rant against someone who believes in "ohhhh weird stuff".
"fully decipher"
how about show any hint of it's existence? we might not be able to measure God but we sure as hell could measure it's effects on the universe, so far that hasn't happened, same thing for ghosts.
I believe that super-beings such as Jesus Christ are basically like Santa Claus, a fictitious story, perhaps based on a real person, that gets embellished to the point that they seem "miraculous". the original people telling the story might know that they are exaggerating or just flat out making stuff up because it sounds cool, but if they neglect to inform people after the fact about the nature of these improvements to the story then how is someone getting told that story 200 years later supposed to be able to tell?
Yeah, some people who were thrown off a building, skinned alive, beheaded, hung on a cross for 2 days until death, burned alive, sawed in half lengthwise from the head were just insane retards ranting about someone who was a little smart being someone who knew everything.
you know, I don't really require a comprehensive theological theory that describes god in such detail that we can predict it's actions, I just want a little bit of decent evidence that it exists at all. a being with such power that it is purported to have should be able to effect reality in profound ways, we should be able to see manifestations in the sky, or planets spontaneously changing their orbit for no reason, I could list a million things that would be, at the very least be a good starting point for god to prove it's existence to any rational person. but apparently it wants us not to believe.
Find that evidence for yourself, then.
BTW the answer to your question is approximately 1.6982064820920193789450138439460757522605825149090891*10^29 the exact result is 4169688193643877315493956600935040000000000/24553481791609, I asked a computer, it gave me the answer, in several different forms, in far less than a fraction of a second.
Unfortunately, computers don't cry.
theory
I see you are using the slang meaning of the term here, not the technical one. good on you for specifying as it would be truly embarrassing to you if we were to have misunderstood and thought you were implying that you had a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules that express relationships between observations of such concepts that described magic.
Who cares if my definition was wrong? So what if I change it into an "idea" or a "thought", like what the thread says? Happy now?
Finally, I don't like your attitude. It kind of gets me pissed off.
-
cool, like I said, similar stimulus, similar reaction and when you talked about it with each other you filled in the details to each other perceptions (http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/05/false_memory.php)
all of that is well established phenomena that has been measured and reproduced.
it seems more likely to me that you both thought you saw something and after the fact your memories adapted to each other, than you both actually made contact with a spirit from beyond the grave.
(take note, it's a theory, not a fact)
and this pissed me off, so we are even.
-
Provide proof? Should I?
How about ghosts? You ever seen one? I did. Proof; another person confirmed having seen the same ghost (with the same description) in the same venue. If you don't believe, either you've never experienced such things, or just plain blank dismiss that such things simply can't be true.
Does not prove the existence of god. It only provides proof that two individuals, when confronted with the same or similar phenomena, can draw similar conclusions, which doesn't mean they are right. For millenia, humans believed that thunderstorms were an expression of gods' displeasure. Which we now know to be false.
Now what does this have to do with God? You have a point. God today hasn't been fully proven. Jesus Christ asserted that people who put faith above evidence are better. On my interpretation, this means that God cannot be fully proven in a scientific context.
So a somewhat fictionalized person (no matter if there really was a Jesus of Nazareth, his deeds, however important and groundbreaking they were, have become somewhat exaggerated over the years) says that blind faith was better than using reason? What is your argument, exactly?
Now, how about not being fully disprovable. My interpretation is that the whole picture of God must be so wide that only a super-genius (not merely a genius, like Einstein) may be able to fully decipher it. As such, please don't expect me to convince you 100% about this statement. But I can, however, defend my point to an extent...
No, you really can't. There are philosophical reasons why Science can never, ever provide positive proof about the existance or non-existance of a deity. It's pretty simple. In order to prove or disprove God, an experiment would have to be devised that would give different results according to God's presence. Given that god, as defined by christianity, is all-powerful and all-knowing, there is no way to remove him from the experiment, and as such no way to measure his influence.
Well first of all, I believe that super-beings such as Jesus Christ, if not "fully divine", are extremely gifted human beings with special knowledge about things that the regular human mind can't understand. As such, they were able to perform "miracles", which must be the result of a brain that has knowledge of concepts we cannot decipher. Our scientific approach must be under this, and it must be a lower form of understanding how the universe really works. As such, maybe if you ask Christ what 5000X112490X1230909X5898912/9910294 squared equals to, he might be able to answer it in less than a second.
Riiiight. You really have no idea about your own religion's scripture, do you? By all accounts, Jesus of Nazareth was an extraordinarily charismatic individual, able to inspire his followers into acting according to his vision of what people should act like. Jesus was never described as being supremely gifted in all areas of human endeavour.
This is nothing new, or really that extraordinary, as charismatic individuals can be found in every strata of human society at any time. What made him different was his followers' continuing devotion to his ideals after his death, and their willingness to spread the word. Compare: Martin Luther King, to take one example.
If ever a monkey will know how to perform very basic mathematical operations (e.g. 1+1, 5-3, etc.), it must be a record-breaker for the rest of the world's monkeys. Now suppose this intelligent monkey asks you what 1+1 is, you, with knowledge far higher than any monkey, will be able to answer that in a split second.
This brings about the concept of magic, or something that our science today cannot fully explain. People have done magic. I have no direct personal experiences on actually seing someone do magic, but as I said earlier, I saw ghosts, which can be considered magic since science has not fully explained it. The Bible should have numerous references to ghosts, which, according to wikipedia, are products of witchcraft. The Christian Church believes that they are elementals who refuse to leave the material plane and transfer to the spiritual plane.
No. Ghosts can be just as well considered a malfunction in the brains' pattern recognition. Which happens a lot more often than you think. Also, stop citing bull**** without providing reference points. I thought you should have learned this about debating on HLP by now, if you can't provide references other than your personal beliefs, your arguments are null and void.
I don't have to list all the references to convice you that God isn't full disprovable. I'm certain that there are thousands of articles across the net disproving God, but also thousands proving God. God is part of an endless debate of humanity and I don't actually know when such a debate will end. As Bobbau said, it will take an infinite amount of time for science to explain the infinite. And as such, God is infinite; so this means humanity will never be able to FULLY explain God scientifically!
See above. There are methodogical reasons why God can never be proven or disproven. That you haven't seen them doesn't give you credit.
I am, and will be trying to satisfy your hunger for proof and evidence, but if really nothing satisfies you, then I am sorry, but...then there isn't anymore to debate on.
This is Science. Get used to it.
You say that I haven't actually put in anything substantial enough to put up a "serious discussion". Well, to inform you, a "serious discussion" isn't actually what I'm after; I'm after trying to express my ideas in a forum full of people who will reply reasonably.
First post in this thread, last sentence. So, anyone willing to discuss this?
Define the difference between a discussion and a debate please.
The thing is, you're treating this like some sort of debate. Well, I'll be entertaining, as much as I can, a debate which you can put up against me, but to be blunt, a debate isn't really what I want.
Oh, really? So you just want to have a nice little chat without people who disagree with your ill-conceived notions and ramblings? Sorry, but no. Not going to happen.
-
why the hell would you edit a post to respond to someone...? :wtf:
-
So a somewhat fictionalized person (no matter if there really was a Jesus of Nazareth, his deeds, however important and groundbreaking they were, have become somewhat exaggerated over the years) says that blind faith was better than using reason? What is your argument, exactly?
My point? My point is simply that the central figure of Christianity asserted that there's really no point in trying to prove the existence of this deity.
Riiiight. You really have no idea about your own religion's scripture, do you? By all accounts, Jesus of Nazareth was an extraordinarily charismatic individual, able to inspire his followers into acting according to his vision of what people should act like. Jesus was never described as being supremely gifted in all areas of human endeavour.
This is nothing new, or really that extraordinary, as charismatic individuals can be found in every strata of human society at any time. What made him different was his followers' continuing devotion to his ideals after his death, and their willingness to spread the word. Compare: Martin Luther King, to take one example.
So Jesus was this mega-ranter who performed miracles and walked on water...hmm...
...so you really think that individuals NEVER STOPPED until they were tortured and killed just because some guy talked loud and emotional? You think that since there was this one guy who was extra-excited when he talked, an organization that was established worldwide and converted a large chunk of the known population was formed, countless wars on him were fought, for 2,000 years? One guy can do all this?
No. Ghosts can be just as well considered a malfunction in the brains' pattern recognition. Which happens a lot more often than you think. Also, stop citing bull**** without providing reference points. I thought you should have learned this about debating on HLP by now, if you can't provide references other than your personal beliefs, your arguments are null and void.
So you think that I am simply some insane guy trying to prove something like Santa Claus. Better yet, if you really want someone insane, search for the user judgefloro.
Oh, really? So you just want to have a nice little chat without people who disagree with your ill-conceived notions and ramblings? Sorry, but no. Not going to happen.
I know for a fact that certain individuals will be questioning this idea of mine, but that doesn't mean I have to destroy them all in some sort of philosophical debate. It's your choice if you want to endlessly confront me, just know that a "debate" isn't what I really want. And no, I do not want to have a "nice little chat who agree to your senseless ramblings".
-
and this pissed me off, so we are even.
You know, typing foul words against someone who never said them against you isn't always right.
-
My point? My point is simply that the central figure of Christianity asserted that there's really no point in trying to prove the existence of this deity.
So, according to you, the central figure of your religion says that there's no reason to believe in said religion? Interesting. I am pretty certain there is nothing towards that effect in the scripture.
There are reasons why reason can never ever prove the existance of god. I have mentioned them above.
So Jesus was this mega-ranter who performed miracles and walked on water...hmm...
...so you really think that individuals NEVER STOPPED until they were tortured and killed just because some guy talked loud and emotional? You think that since there was this one guy who was extra-excited when he talked, an organization that was established worldwide and converted a large chunk of the known population was formed, countless wars on him were fought, for 2,000 years? One guy can do all this?
Do you have any idea what "charismatic" means? It has nothing to do with talking loud and emotional, and all to do with your ability to convince people of your ideals and goals. And yes, I believe just that. After all, there are plenty of historical persons who inspired just that much loyalty from their followers. Alexander the Great. Richard Lionheart. Winston Churchill. And all of them managed to do it without being the son of god.
So you think that I am simply some insane guy trying to prove something like Santa Claus. Better yet, if you really want someone insane, search for the user judgefloro.
No, I think you lack knowledge of the various ways in which the human brain can mislead you. Bobboau mentioned it above, and even provided a nice little link for you to follow.
I know for a fact that certain individuals will be questioning this idea of mine, but that doesn't mean I have to destroy them all in some sort of philosophical debate. It's your choice if you want to endlessly confront me, just know that a "debate" isn't what I really want. And no, I do not want to have a "nice little chat who agree to your senseless ramblings".
Sorry, what? First, do not try and start putting words in my mouth. There's a difference between "ill-conceived" and "senseless", the first being a somewhat neutral judgement of your arguments based on their merits, the second being close to an ad-hominem.
Second, if you do not want your ideas to be criticised, do not post them. Criticism does not mean "destroying" arguments, it means poking your theories and utterings for defects and seeing if they can hold water outside of your head. That your theories are susceptible to sinking under such pokings isn't really your fault, after all, noone can be expected to be aware of all the various pitfalls human reasoning is susceptible to.
Oh wait.
Yes, you can. But that would mean keeping an open mind and not being satisfied with the first answer you can come up with.
-
and this pissed me off, so we are even.
You know, typing foul words against someone who never said them against you isn't always right.
Finally, I don't like your attitude. It kind of gets me pissed off.
Notice the timestamps.
-
ok, because we are basically playing edit war I suppose I need to mark at what point this post was in response to, I started writing immediately after my last post, I have not read the 4 replys that came after, nor any changes to any posts that have been made while typing.
Do you think Jesus is that much of an idiot to seek popularity? Oh, well...
idiot? no, if I was cynical I would actually call it genius, not in a good way though. I am of the opinion that line in that book was told/written by who ever spoke/wrote it with the express hope that it would win them some followers, if it was the word of a hypothetical historical Jesus or not I cannot say. I will assume that who provided that line did not do so with a malevolent understanding of it's destructive implications.
I don't see any reasonable argument here.
argument being that _any_ thing that you can think up, anything that is completely without any evidence or support, something that you intentionaly made up as a work of fiction, but that does not directly contradict reality, anything that is completely unproven is also not "fully proven". but your using that word insinuates is that it has been partially, even largely proven, which on the subject of god is fallacious.
Yeah, some people who were thrown off a building, skinned alive, beheaded, hung on a cross for 2 days until death, burned alive, sawed in half lengthwise from the head were just insane retards ranting about someone who was a little smart being someone who knew everything.
not quite sure I follow you, are you implying that because a group of people was persecuted that they are factually accurate?
Find that evidence for yourself, then.
I have looked, I have failed to find it, therefore I assert that the premiss is false. you are asserting the premiss is true, if you care for anyone here to accept your position, you will need to provide support for it. personally if I am wrong I would like to know.
Unfortunately, computers don't cry.
I don't consider that unfortunate, actually I consider that their great strength, they cannot be swayed by a feeling.
Who cares if my definition was wrong? So what if I change it into an "idea" or a "thought", like what the thread says? Happy now?
that is a common low blow by theists basically trying to misrepresent scientific understanding as being just a wild unsupported guess, it is an intentional and dishonest tactic, it is more than simply a 'wrong definition', it is tantamount to a lie and borderline ad hominem.
-
and this pissed me off, so we are even.
You know, typing foul words against someone who never said them against you isn't always right.
are you really this stupid?
why would you say that when the quote goes directly back to your post that I am paraphrasing?
seriously, what are you thinking?
are you?
and even if you hadn't said those "foul words" against me to begin with, how would that make anything else you've said correct?
-
...so you really think that individuals NEVER STOPPED until they were tortured and killed just because some guy talked loud and emotional? You think that since there was this one guy who was extra-excited when he talked, an organization that was established worldwide and converted a large chunk of the known population was formed, countless wars on him were fought, for 2,000 years? One guy can do all this?
it would not be the first nor last time such a thing had happened.
So you think that I am simply some insane guy trying to prove something like Santa Claus. Better yet, if you really want someone insane, search for the user judgefloro.
insane? no, just mistaken.
I know for a fact that certain individuals will be questioning this idea of mine, but that doesn't mean I have to destroy them all in some sort of philosophical debate. It's your choice if you want to endlessly confront me, just know that a "debate" isn't what I really want. And no, I do not want to have a "nice little chat who agree to your senseless ramblings".
so you want us to just accept what ever you say, even if it is the sky is green and the world is flat, just because you say it is? sorry, no one is ever going to be convinced by that.
-
If magic is all we've ever know
Then it's easy to miss what really goes on
But I've seen miracles in every way
And I see miracles everyday
Oceans spanning beyond my sight
And a million stars way above em at night
We don't have to be high to look in the sky
And know that's a miracle opened wide
Look at the mountains, trees, the seven seas
And everything chilling underwater, please
Hot lava, snow, rain and fog
Long neck giraffes, and pet cats and dogs
And I've seen eighty-five thousand people
All in one room, together as equals
Pure magic is the birth of my kids
I've seen **** that'll shock your eyelids
The sun and the moon, and even Mars
The Milky Way and ****ing shooting stars
UFOs, a river flows
Plant a little seed and nature grows
Niagara falls and the pyramids
Everything you believed in as kids
****ing rainbows after it rains
there's enough miracles here to blow your brains
I fed a fish to a pelican at Frisco bay
It tried to eat my cell phone, he ran away
And music is magic, pure and clean
You can feel it and hear it but it can't be seen
-
****ing magnets... :mad:
-
So, according to you, the central figure of your religion says that there's no reason to believe in said religion? Interesting. I am pretty certain there is nothing towards that effect in the scripture.
There are reasons why reason can never ever prove the existance of god. I have mentioned them above.
There is a difference between not believing, and not TRYING TO PROVE the existence of said God.
Do you have any idea what "charismatic" means? It has nothing to do with talking loud and emotional, and all to do with your ability to convince people of your ideals and goals. And yes, I believe just that. After all, there are plenty of historical persons who inspired just that much loyalty from their followers. Alexander the Great. Richard Lionheart. Winston Churchill. And all of them managed to do it without being the son of god.
None of those you mentioned actually have the influence even far to that of Jesus.
idiot? no, if I was cynical I would actually call it genius, not in a good way though. I am of the opinion that line in that book was told/written by who ever spoke/wrote it with the express hope that it would win them some followers, if it was the word of a hypothetical historical Jesus or not I cannot say. I will assume that who provided that line did not do so with a malevolent understanding of it's destructive implications.
But you said this;
people will say silly things if they think it will make their position stronger, for instance if you are trying to convince a bunch of people to believe a completely nonsensical explanation you might assert those who just believe anything you say without questioning it are great people that everyone should emulate, it doesn't make it a fact.
...which I take as describing Jesus as someone who would try to convince others of these nonsensical explanations to gain more followers. Why the heck would Jesus want to actually "gain" followers? And okay, so it was his peers who did it. They did not actually raise an army of Christians to force people in their belief system, did they?
argument being that _any_ thing that you can think up, anything that is completely without any evidence or support, something that you intentionaly made up as a work of fiction, but that does not directly contradict reality, anything that is completely unproven is also not "fully proven". but your using that word insinuates is that it has been partially, even largely proven, which on the subject of god is fallacious.
Well, you said that I didn't have solid evidence. Okay. Whatever. Feel free to think what you think is right.
not quite sure I follow you, are you implying that because a group of people was persecuted that they are factually accurate?
I am implying that, who would risk themselves of these disastrous consequences, in following some charismatic dude who isn't correct anyway, and they know it?
I have looked, I have failed to find it, therefore I assert that the premiss is false. you are asserting the premiss is true, if you care for anyone here to accept your position, you will need to provide support for it. personally if I am wrong I would like to know.
As much as I can think of, it's personal sensitivity that allows one to encounter ghosts. If you haven't, then okay, you don't have evidence.
Videos, articles, forums, are available on the net, or on TV, on radio, on books, or any other multimedia instrument you can name, that discusses this. But of course, nothing is better than a personal experience, and if you don't have one, feel free to disapprove of such things.
I don't consider that unfortunate, actually I consider that their great strength, they cannot be swayed by a feeling.
They don't cry simply because they are not as complex as we humans are.
that is a common low blow by theists basically trying to misrepresent scientific understanding as being just a wild unsupported guess, it is an intentional and dishonest tactic, it is more than simply a 'wrong definition', it is tantamount to a lie and borderline ad hominem.
I never said that scientific understanding was "just a wild unsupported guess".
are you really this stupid?
why would you say that when the quote link goes directly back to your post that I am paraphrasing?
seriously, what are you thinking?
are you?
and even if you hadn't said those "foul words" against me to begin with, how would that make anything else you've said correct?
Saying bad words when I haven't said any pisses me off. I'm sure many will also suffer the same fate. Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with proving myself.
it would not be the first nor last time such a thing had happened.
So...what happened? Who suffered the same way?
insane? no, just mistaken.
How's he mistaken?
so you want us to just accept what ever you say, even if it is the sky is green and the world is flat, just because you say it is? sorry, no one is ever going to be convinced by that.
Yeah, because I'm not trying to convince anyone? Seriously. It's your style. Of course I can try to reply to those who point out the discrepancies in my statement, like you do.
-
There is a difference between not believing, and not TRYING TO PROVE the existence of said God.
I am curious what you mean by this.
None of those you mentioned actually have the influence even far to that of Jesus.
how about Hitler?
how about Mohamed?
how about the Pharaohs of Egypt?
emperor of Japan?
...which I take as describing Jesus as someone who would try to convince others of these nonsensical explanations to gain more followers. Why the heck would Jesus want to actually "gain" followers?
cannot say for certain, but there are tones of reasons why a hypothetical Jesus may have been motivated to do this. maybe he was egotistical? maybe he thought that he was the son of God and that if he didn't convince everyone they were going to burn in hell for all eternity?
And okay, so it was his peers who did it. They did not actually raise an army of Christians to force people in their belief system, did they?
eh, actually... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)
I am implying that, who would risk themselves of these disastrous consequences, in following some charismatic dude who isn't correct anyway, and they know it?
who said they know it?
As much as I can think of, it's personal sensitivity that allows one to encounter ghosts. If you haven't, then okay, you don't have evidence.
oh, so only "special" people can get evidence, ad we are supposed to just believe them, on their word, that they are not misremembering, because they can remember.
Videos, articles, forums, are available on the net, or on TV, on radio, on books, or any other multimedia instrument you can name, that discusses this. But of course, nothing is better than a personal experience, and if you don't have one, feel free to disapprove of such things.
I have watched quite a bit of these materials, none of it I found especially convincing. personal experiences I have had that I could see others accepting, upon examination did not bear out.
They don't cry simply because they are not as complex as we humans are.
and yet they are vastly superior to us in many problem domains, for example the one you presented.
I never said that scientific understanding was "just a wild unsupported guess".
it is a well established (http://justatheory.org/) common talking point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_point) used by theists in these contexts to try and discredit science. if you did it out of habit, be aware that usage of that word in these circumstances will have that connotation. I highly doubt that you use the word theory in your day to day life however.
Saying bad words when I haven't said any pisses me off. I'm sure many will also suffer the same fate. Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with proving myself.
I haven't said any
pissed off.
you said it first.
YOU SAID IT FIRST!
I was paraphraseing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrase) YOU!
So...what happened? Who suffered the same way?
how about Hitler?
how about Mohamed?
how about the Pharaohs of Egypt?
emperor of Japan?
a million other examples of this sort of stuff.
How's he mistaken?
you not he.
Yeah
well... that isn't going to happen...
-
There is a difference between not believing, and not TRYING TO PROVE the existence of said God.
I am curious what you mean by this.
Haven't you said --
So, according to you, the central figure of your religion says that there's no reason to believe in said religion? Interesting. I am pretty certain there is nothing towards that effect in the scripture.
Saying there's "no reason to believe in my religion" is different from "you know, it isn't really going to benefit you anything trying to believe in God only if there's proof".
None of those you mentioned actually have the influence even far to that of Jesus.
how about Hitler?
how about Mohamed?
how about the Pharaohs of Egypt?
emperor of Japan?
Look at the pie, mate. (http://www.google.com.ph/imgres?q=religion+chart&um=1&hl=tl&sa=G&biw=1280&bih=638&tbm=isch&tbnid=6ujFaDHT0m_NPM:&imgrefurl=http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html&docid=PfQahlfWtybGgM&w=480&h=446&ei=skJrTtX9I66RiQe9vpHXBA&zoom=1) "Mohammed" is still forgivable, but do you see any "Nazi", "Ancient Egyptian Fanatic", "Japanese die-hard fanatic" there? See for yourself.
...which I take as describing Jesus as someone who would try to convince others of these nonsensical explanations to gain more followers. Why the heck would Jesus want to actually "gain" followers?
cannot say for certain, but there are tones of reasons why a hypothetical Jesus may have been motivated to do this. maybe he was egotistical? maybe he thought that he was the son of God and that if he didn't convince everyone they were going to burn in hell for all eternity?
The latter reason seems pretty intriguing. While Jesus may have blurted out these statements to gain more followers to save them from hell, wouldn't he be outright saying the false already? Wasn't his job to preach the good news, and not the "edited-to-save-more-dudes-from-hell" news?
Jesus doesn't edit the Word of God to gain more followers, of course he has to be true to it for his followers to be saved.
And okay, so it was his peers who did it. They did not actually raise an army of Christians to force people in their belief system, did they?
eh, actually... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)
So...it was St. Peter who did that? The Holy Roman Emperor isn't exactly Jesus's "peer", is he?
I am implying that, who would risk themselves of these disastrous consequences, in following some charismatic dude who isn't correct anyway, and they know it?
who said they know it?
Well, they SHOULD know that the man they were following was a fake.
As much as I can think of, it's personal sensitivity that allows one to encounter ghosts. If you haven't, then okay, you don't have evidence.
oh, so only "special" people can get evidence, ad we are supposed to just believe them, on their word, that they are not misremembering, because they can remember.
Maybe. It's really up to you.
Certain people claim to be able to talk to ghosts, while those like you can't. On my observation and personal life, certain people are such things, while others aren't, including you.
They don't cry simply because they are not as complex as we humans are.
and yet they are vastly superior to us in many problem domains, for example the one you presented.
That doesn't take into account if Jesus knows everything. Sure, we can make computers so smart they can tell us the secrets of magic, but still, that's still limited intelligence.
I never said that scientific understanding was "just a wild unsupported guess".
it is a well established (http://justatheory.org/) common talking point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_point) used by theists in these contexts to try and discredit science. if you did it out of habit, be aware that usage of that word in these circumstances will have that connotation. I highly doubt that you use the word theory in your day to day life however.
You know, the English language does not have boundaries. With literally tons of nations, there should be tons of slang English adaptations, with their meaning different from what is seen in the dictionaries. The English language, or any major language in general, is so widely used that there is no single definite source to be supposed to be followed. Many people will understand certain words in different ways. For instance, if one person accuses you of having used his computer without permission, you might not immediately call him "a devil";
The Devil (Greek: διάβολος or diábolos = 'slanderer' or 'accuser'[1])
You wouldn't immediately address anyone as a "devil" just like that. See how the Greek language is changed? See how language evolves?
Likewise, the word "theory" has evolved in some way to your typical "theist"'s vocabulary. Moreover, take note, a "theory" does not have to have "definitive proofs". How about the "Progressive Education" theory? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_education_theory) You think they are actually based on "evidence" and "proofs"? No. "Theories", in that sense, are actually an idea, of some author, with his regards to the matter he is formulating.
And as such, John Dewey didn't base his "Progressive Education Theory" to something that MAY HAVE HAPPENED. Just because I use the word THEORY does not mean it is the SCIENTIFIC term.
Saying bad words when I haven't said any pisses me off. I'm sure many will also suffer the same fate. Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with proving myself.
I haven't said any
pissed off.
you said it first.
YOU SAID IT FIRST!
I was paraphraseing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrase) YOU!
Sorry, but it appears you are misunderstanding what I said. By "bad words" I was referring to your occasional use of the word "bull****". That's a bit too offensive.
How's he mistaken?
you not he.
Oh. But yes, please do a reading on him. If you did, fine. If you haven't, take a look. I'm interested to know how someone like you would regard his posts.
-
Random thought:
(http://pics.kuvaton.com/b****/ice_giants.jpg)
-
...so you really think that individuals NEVER STOPPED until they were tortured and killed just because some guy talked loud and emotional? You think that since there was this one guy who was extra-excited when he talked, an organization that was established worldwide and converted a large chunk of the known population was formed, countless wars on him were fought, for 2,000 years? One guy can do all this?
Buddha did it too. Are you going to claim he's also telling the truth?
-
...so you really think that individuals NEVER STOPPED until they were tortured and killed just because some guy talked loud and emotional? You think that since there was this one guy who was extra-excited when he talked, an organization that was established worldwide and converted a large chunk of the known population was formed, countless wars on him were fought, for 2,000 years? One guy can do all this?
Buddha did it too. Are you going to claim he's also telling the truth?
You say that I haven't actually put in anything substantial enough to put up a "serious discussion". Well, to inform you, a "serious discussion" isn't actually what I'm after; I'm after trying to express my ideas in a forum full of people who will reply reasonably. The thing is, you're treating this like some sort of debate. Well, I'll be entertaining, as much as I can, a debate which you can put up against me, but to be blunt, a debate isn't really what I want.
Tough ****! If you want to post random stuff and only have people agree with you, post elsewhere on the internet. This is the General Discussion forum and if you post something obviously false you should be prepared to have people fill your argument so full of holes you could market it as a Swiss Cheese! :p
HLP is not a place for your stream of conciousness posts. If you start a thread, you'd better be ready for people to disagree with you.
-
You say that I haven't actually put in anything substantial enough to put up a "serious discussion". Well, to inform you, a "serious discussion" isn't actually what I'm after; I'm after trying to express my ideas in a forum full of people who will reply reasonably. The thing is, you're treating this like some sort of debate. Well, I'll be entertaining, as much as I can, a debate which you can put up against me, but to be blunt, a debate isn't really what I want.
Tough ****! If you want to post random stuff and only have people agree with you, post elsewhere on the internet. This is the General Discussion forum and if you post something obviously false you should be prepared to have people fill your argument so full of holes you could market it as a Swiss Cheese! :p
HLP is not a place for your stream of conciousness posts. If you start a thread, you'd better be ready for people to disagree with you.
I disagree. People shouldn't be allowed to disagree when other people post their ideas.
-
Tough ****! If you want to post random stuff and only have people agree with you, post elsewhere on the internet. This is the General Discussion forum and if you post something obviously false you should be prepared to have people fill your argument so full of holes you could market it as a Swiss Cheese! :p
HLP is not a place for your stream of conciousness posts. If you start a thread, you'd better be ready for people to disagree with you.
Is this kind of reminding anyone of High Max? I mean the delayed editing the lengthy rants that go nowhere......
-
Haven't you said --
no that was The E
Saying there's "no reason to believe in my religion" is different from "you know, it isn't really going to benefit you anything trying to believe in God only if there's proof".
Yeah, I suppose it is technically not the same. but I think it is a good idea for you to base your understanding of the world on the world, not just what someone says because you believe them.
Look at the pie, mate. (http://www.google.com.ph/imgres?q=religion+chart&um=1&hl=tl&sa=G&biw=1280&bih=638&tbm=isch&tbnid=6ujFaDHT0m_NPM:&imgrefurl=http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html&docid=PfQahlfWtybGgM&w=480&h=446&ei=skJrTtX9I66RiQe9vpHXBA&zoom=1) "Mohammed" is still forgivable, but do you see any "Nazi", "Ancient Egyptian Fanatic", "Japanese die-hard fanatic" there? See for yourself.
have they never been there? just because the cult of personality dissipated doesn't mean it never happened, the point was people will follow someone just because that person is good at getting people to follow them, or because there is a cultural indoctrination to follow them. it happens. the fact that Christianity is at the moment winning the popularity contest doesn't change the fact that people will follow a person/idea just because it is good at getting people to follow it.
The latter reason seems pretty intriguing. While Jesus may have blurted out these statements to gain more followers to save them from hell, wouldn't he be outright saying the false already?
doesn't mean he knew it was false, if there was a historical Jesus, he could have totally believed everything he was saying
Wasn't his job to preach the good news, and not the "edited-to-save-more-dudes-from-hell" news?
that would be sort of hard to do if everyone would have reacted the way we are.
Jesus doesn't edit the Word of God to gain more followers, of course he has to be true to it for his followers to be saved.
how do you know he doesn't, you know the mind of God?
and yes he has to be right in order for him to be right, that doesn't mean he is right, but he could truly believe it even if he is wrong.
So...it was St. Peter who did that? The Holy Roman Emperor isn't exactly Jesus's "peer", is he?
you said followers... ok, fine the immediate followers of Jesus didn't form an army, they couldn't, they were persecuted for a few hundred years before converting the leader of Rome.it didn't take too long for them to form an army after that.
Well, they SHOULD know that the man they were following was a fake.
yeah, they should, but how are you to determine if any position you hold is truth or fiction?
Maybe. It's really up to you.
Certain people claim to be able to talk to ghosts, while those like you can't. On my observation and personal life, certain people are such things, while others aren't, including you.
and how do you know that these people are seeing/hearing something that is actually there?
That doesn't take into account if Jesus knows everything. Sure, we can make computers so smart they can tell us the secrets of magic, but still, that's still limited intelligence.
at least that would tell us that there was magic. that's a huge step forward as far as I can tell.
You know, the English language does not have boundaries. With literally tons of nations, there should be tons of slang English adaptations, with their meaning different from what is seen in the dictionaries. The English language, or any major language in general, is so widely used that there is no single definite source to be supposed to be followed. Many people will understand certain words in different ways. For instance, if one person accuses you of having used his computer without permission, you might not immediately call him "a devil";
The Devil (Greek: διάβολος or diábolos = 'slanderer' or 'accuser'[1])
You wouldn't immediately address anyone as a "devil" just like that. See how the Greek language is changed? See how language evolves?
Likewise, the word "theory" has evolved in some way to your typical "theist"'s vocabulary. Moreover, take note, a "theory" does not have to have "definitive proofs". How about the "Progressive Education" theory? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_education_theory) You think they are actually based on "evidence" and "proofs"? No. "Theories", in that sense, are actually an idea, of some author, with his regards to the matter he is formulating.
And as such, John Dewey didn't base his "Progressive Education Theory" to something that MAY HAVE HAPPENED. Just because I use the word THEORY does not mean it is the SCIENTIFIC term.
this conversation is not happening in a vacuum.
Sorry, but it appears you are misunderstanding what I said. By "bad words" I was referring to your occasional use of the word "bull****". That's a bit too offensive.
I worked in a meat packing plant for about 10 years, it effected my vocabulary. sorry if it offends, but it is hardly pertinent to anything I am saying.
Oh. But yes, please do a reading on him. If you did, fine. If you haven't, take a look. I'm interested to know how someone like you would regard his posts.
I have, I regard them as funny. and yeah he is either crazy, trying to get attention, or has deluded himself to the point he is spewing nonsense.
or all of the above.
-
You say that I haven't actually put in anything substantial enough to put up a "serious discussion". Well, to inform you, a "serious discussion" isn't actually what I'm after; I'm after trying to express my ideas in a forum full of people who will reply reasonably. The thing is, you're treating this like some sort of debate. Well, I'll be entertaining, as much as I can, a debate which you can put up against me, but to be blunt, a debate isn't really what I want.
Tough ****! If you want to post random stuff and only have people agree with you, post elsewhere on the internet. This is the General Discussion forum and if you post something obviously false you should be prepared to have people fill your argument so full of holes you could market it as a Swiss Cheese! :p
HLP is not a place for your stream of conciousness posts. If you start a thread, you'd better be ready for people to disagree with you.
I disagree. People shouldn't be allowed to disagree when other people post their ideas.
You should have stuck a :p on the end of your sarcastic post. People might think you're being serious. :p
-
Haven't you said --
no that was The E
Yes, sorry.
Look at the pie, mate. (http://www.google.com.ph/imgres?q=religion+chart&um=1&hl=tl&sa=G&biw=1280&bih=638&tbm=isch&tbnid=6ujFaDHT0m_NPM:&imgrefurl=http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html&docid=PfQahlfWtybGgM&w=480&h=446&ei=skJrTtX9I66RiQe9vpHXBA&zoom=1) "Mohammed" is still forgivable, but do you see any "Nazi", "Ancient Egyptian Fanatic", "Japanese die-hard fanatic" there? See for yourself.
have they never been there? just because the cult of personality dissipated doesn't mean it never happened, the point was people will follow someone just because that person is good at getting people to follow them, or because there is a cultural indoctrination to follow them. it happens. the fact that Christianity is at the moment winning the popularity contest doesn't change the fact that people will follow a person/idea just because it is good at getting people to follow it.
[/quote]
This may be correct, but still, how about those who suffered for this religion? Why the hell did they risk their lives to preach it?
The latter reason seems pretty intriguing. While Jesus may have blurted out these statements to gain more followers to save them from hell, wouldn't he be outright saying the false already?
doesn't mean he knew it was false, if there was a historical Jesus, he could have totally believed everything he was saying
Jesus repeatedly claims himself as carrying the Word of God. He says that everything that comes from his mouth comes directly from God. Therefore, why should he edit it to suit his own needs?
Jesus doesn't edit the Word of God to gain more followers, of course he has to be true to it for his followers to be saved.
how do you know he doesn't, you know the mind of God?
and yes he has to be right in order for him to be right, that doesn't mean he is right, but he could truly believe it even if he is wrong.
Because Jesus is someone of supposedly higher intellect than any other human at least in his time, he may have seen and understood things the average person couldn't. This way, the average person might not understand "why" he has to do these things, so Jesus had to tell them to rely on faith rather than actual evidence. For instance, you teach a pet chimpanzee to write "1+1=2". The thing is, he doesn't understand what this actual equation means. He dismisses it as nonsensical. So, the best way you can probably make him do the equation CORRECTLY is to tell him to "just do it", to trust you, because you are the smarter guy. So if he indeed has faith on your direction, and writes "2" after 1+1, then the chimpanzee actually gets correct.
So...it was St. Peter who did that? The Holy Roman Emperor isn't exactly Jesus's "peer", is he?
you said followers... ok, fine the immediate followers of Jesus didn't form an army, they couldn't, they were persecuted for a few hundred years before converting the leader of Rome.it didn't take too long for them to form an army after that.
So...you're saying that if they had the power, they would turn their followers into warriors with swords and shields, and bully pagans into worshipping their God? I don't think so. If such would happen, the apostles should have directly THREATENED the people into believing them, whether they like it or not. But no, they did not actually force those pagans into Christianity. They let them decide.
Well, they SHOULD know that the man they were following was a fake.
yeah, they should, but how are you to determine if any position you hold is truth or fiction?
Well, they claim to have seen him alive 3 days after he was killed. They claim to have seen him literally walking on water. They saw him in the sky. If these didn't occur to them, why would they do all this? Of course it would be hard for them to risk being tortured and brutally murdered if they actually saw none of these magicky things.
Maybe. It's really up to you.
Certain people claim to be able to talk to ghosts, while those like you can't. On my observation and personal life, certain people are such things, while others aren't, including you.
and how do you know that these people are seeing/hearing something that is actually there?
Because they claim to have done it, because I know they don't lie, because they aren't generally wacky people. Also, what about poltergeist incidents? Books flying? Chairs flying? Lights opening and closing? How can those be mere tricks of the mind?
Seeing a flashy thing for 0.01 seconds can actually be explained away as some sort of mind trick, but...furniture being tossed around?
Oh. But yes, please do a reading on him. If you did, fine. If you haven't, take a look. I'm interested to know how someone like you would regard his posts.
I have, I regard them as funny. and yeah he is either crazy, trying to get attention, or has deluded himself to the point he is spewing nonsense.
or all of the above.
An intriguing reason.
Buddha did it too. Are you going to claim he's also telling the truth?
Possibly. That guy was supposedly "enlightened", so he was very eager to preach it out.
-
science WILL explain everything given enough time
What makes you think so? A "feeling" or a belief of sorts?
-
my point in that sentence was more that it is not now, but seems to be perpetually get closer to a full understanding.
-
This may be correct, but still, how about those who suffered for this religion? Why the hell did they risk their lives to preach it?
obviously because they thought it was correct. just because one thinks something is correct does not mean that it is.
Jesus repeatedly claims himself as carrying the Word of God. He says that everything that comes from his mouth comes directly from God. Therefore, why should he edit it to suit his own needs?
because if no one listens to the word of god because it is nonsensical then there is no point in spreading it? maybe Jesus thought god was the one trying to think up ways to convince people? maybe a follower in later centuries put either of those words in his mouth? need I go on?
Because Jesus is someone of supposedly higher intellect than any other human at least in his time, he may have seen and understood things the average person couldn't. This way, the average person might not understand "why" he has to do these things, so Jesus had to tell them to rely on faith rather than actual evidence. For instance, you teach a pet chimpanzee to write "1+1=2". The thing is, he doesn't understand what this actual equation means. He dismisses it as nonsensical. So, the best way you can probably make him do the equation CORRECTLY is to tell him to "just do it", to trust you, because you are the smarter guy. So if he indeed has faith on your direction, and writes "2" after 1+1, then the chimpanzee actually gets correct.
well, then you are not being truthful, the truth is that evidence, reason, logic could lead to an understanding, but the individual is just too mentally deficient to be able to figure it out. a more honest approach would be to try and give a step by step explanation, perhaps it would take thousands of years for one of them to understand, maybe none of them ever would, but at least this would be truthful, and not a lie.
So...you're saying that if they had the power, they would turn their followers into warriors with swords and shields, and bully pagans into worshipping their God? I don't think so. If such would happen, the apostles should have directly THREATENED the people into believing them, whether they like it or not. But no, they did not actually force those pagans into Christianity. They let them decide.
well, it's impossible to say for sure, but the fact that that is exactly what happened after they gained the power to do it later would lead me to think they would have done it much sooner if they could.
and "burn in a lake of fire while daemons **** in your mouth and rip apart your flesh for all eternity if you don't convert" is not an attempt at intimidation?
Well, they claim to have seen him alive 3 days after he was killed. They claim to have seen him literally walking on water. They saw him in the sky. If these didn't occur to them, why would they do all this? Of course it would be hard for them to risk being tortured and brutally murdered if they actually saw none of these magicky things.
I think the important word that you used here was "claim" it would have been better if rather than using the word 'them' you would have said 'the stories'. you see there are many tall tails in the world, you should read some of the stories written about Buddha or some Japanese mythology. you are assuming that what is written in the Bible is historically accurate, rather than exaggerations made after the fact by the followers as they tried to convince people to join their new religion, and told their children the tails of their lord n savior. people would have risked their lives because they had heard convincing stories, not because any of it was based on reality. think about modern cults, think of heavens gate, why would all of those people have killed themselves? simple answer is because they were convinced to.
Because they claim to have done it, because I know they don't lie, because they aren't generally wacky people. Also, what about poltergeist incidents? Books flying? Chairs flying? Lights opening and closing? How can those be mere tricks of the mind?
Seeing a flashy thing for 0.01 seconds can actually be explained away as some sort of mind trick, but...furniture being tossed around?
I have never experienced this, and it has never been recorded in a reproducible way in a controlled environment.
not once.
An intriguing reason.
or he is just pulling the Internet's collective leg for teh lulz.
Possibly. That guy was supposedly "enlightened", so he was very eager to preach it out.
and as mentioned he was not the only one. hell Rome was founded on a fairly elaborate foundation myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus)... actually... read that, it has a few interesting similarities with the stories of Jesus, like the whole virgin birth thing, and decent from ancient royalty.
-
science WILL explain everything given enough time
What makes you think so? A "feeling" or a belief of sorts?
I am happy to admit that I "believe" that science will answer everything, eventually, the problem with scientific research is that is it the long haul, no quick fixes like with religion and as for proof, well just look at the progress over the last 100 years, let alone the rest of human history, does this prove science will reveal all, no, but its a damn sight more proof than religion has ever given us.
-
Ok, I guess I should be envious of you. Personally, I cant even bring myself to be convinced that "explanation of everything" is plausible on conceptual level, let alone being sure that it is within our reach.
-
how about "explanation of as much as possible"
-
Well that's easy to accept. Is that what you meant? It sounds very different when inserted in your original assesment.
-
well, like I said, my original comment was meant to imply that I did not hold the opinion that science knew everything.
-
We know enough to know that the bible is folk lore and fairy stories.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
Science isn't perfect, nor is humanity, but science is at least based on the foundations of observable truths, meaning, reality.
A lot of religious people can't wrap their heads around Atheism, and Science, Atheism simply being the 'lack' of belief, not 'believing in nothing(read; nothing as something)', and Science is almost the antithesis of religion, it requires critical thinking, asking real questions about reality, things you think you've proven or someone else has proven, (good)Science continually attacks itself and it's own theories are constantly tested and updated or made defunct, it questions itself and improves itself - it adjusts and grows.
Could you imagine religion surviving if the bible were examined by it's own pedallers in the fashion that scientists do their own, and their peers work?
-
I've actually been looking for critical analysis of the Bible, verse by verse lately, mostly out of my own interest. Does anyone know of such a thing?
-
The problem is something like that will always have an agenda behind it, one way or another.
-
I've actually been looking for critical analysis of the Bible, verse by verse lately, mostly out of my own interest. Does anyone know of such a thing?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ isn't too bad.
-
This may be correct, but still, how about those who suffered for this religion? Why the hell did they risk their lives to preach it?
obviously because they thought it was correct. just because one thinks something is correct does not mean that it is.
Let's say the apostles just THOUGHT it was correct. How about Jesus? The founder of his own religion? Why would he risk his life in preaching something that isn't real?
Jesus repeatedly claims himself as carrying the Word of God. He says that everything that comes from his mouth comes directly from God. Therefore, why should he edit it to suit his own needs?
because if no one listens to the word of god because it is nonsensical then there is no point in spreading it? maybe Jesus thought god was the one trying to think up ways to convince people? maybe a follower in later centuries put either of those words in his mouth? need I go on?
OR because Jesus asked the trust of humanity, because it is too ignorant to decipher at the more spiritual level?
Because Jesus is someone of supposedly higher intellect than any other human at least in his time, he may have seen and understood things the average person couldn't. This way, the average person might not understand "why" he has to do these things, so Jesus had to tell them to rely on faith rather than actual evidence. For instance, you teach a pet chimpanzee to write "1+1=2". The thing is, he doesn't understand what this actual equation means. He dismisses it as nonsensical. So, the best way you can probably make him do the equation CORRECTLY is to tell him to "just do it", to trust you, because you are the smarter guy. So if he indeed has faith on your direction, and writes "2" after 1+1, then the chimpanzee actually gets correct.
well, then you are not being truthful, the truth is that evidence, reason, logic could lead to an understanding, but the individual is just too mentally deficient to be able to figure it out. a more honest approach would be to try and give a step by step explanation, perhaps it would take thousands of years for one of them to understand, maybe none of them ever would, but at least this would be truthful, and not a lie.
Why should this be a "lie"? As I said, Jesus probably did it in this way; "Hey, follow my teachings, based on faith and not evidence, because you do not yet know true spirituality". A learner doesn't have to understand everything that his teacher says at first. A Math teacher could tell students to memorize a certain formula, then tell the students how to understand it later on.
So...you're saying that if they had the power, they would turn their followers into warriors with swords and shields, and bully pagans into worshipping their God? I don't think so. If such would happen, the apostles should have directly THREATENED the people into believing them, whether they like it or not. But no, they did not actually force those pagans into Christianity. They let them decide.
well, it's impossible to say for sure, but the fact that that is exactly what happened after they gained the power to do it later would lead me to think they would have done it much sooner if they could.
and "burn in a lake of fire while daemons **** in your mouth and rip apart your flesh for all eternity if you don't convert" is not an attempt at intimidation?
The apostles were able to convert a fairly large amount of pagans into their religion pretty early. They could have formed an army of several thousand, then used this to threaten village after village to their religion, and then continue spreading this. But that is not their way.
Your latter explanation is more logical. Yes, threatening the people of eternal damnation can make many convert to your philosophy out of fear. But if Jesus himself said this, why would the apostles have to formulate another plan of forcing people into their religion?
Now, you might say that the Biblical writers edited the teachings of Jesus into something that will really SCARE the wits out of many a pagan. True, but as I said, Biblical writers, being believers of Christ's teachings, wouldn't EDIT his teachings to gain more followers. Because, as I said, doing so would give a false message, thus giving a message that will prohibit future Christians from receiving salvation. The Biblical writers, being strong Christians, should have known this fact ever since they met Christ.
Well, they claim to have seen him alive 3 days after he was killed. They claim to have seen him literally walking on water. They saw him in the sky. If these didn't occur to them, why would they do all this? Of course it would be hard for them to risk being tortured and brutally murdered if they actually saw none of these magicky things.
I think the important word that you used here was "claim" it would have been better if rather than using the word 'them' you would have said 'the stories'. you see there are many tall tails in the world, you should read some of the stories written about Buddha or some Japanese mythology. you are assuming that what is written in the Bible is historically accurate, rather than exaggerations made after the fact by the followers as they tried to convince people to join their new religion, and told their children the tails of their lord n savior. people would have risked their lives because they had heard convincing stories, not because any of it was based on reality. think about modern cults, think of heavens gate, why would all of those people have killed themselves? simple answer is because they were convinced to.
As you have already stated, many cults make use of exaggerations to gain more followers. But wow, it just so happened that Christianity did a REALLY BIG number of exaggerations that's why they have SO MANY followers. I don't think so.
Cults don't last long. Why did Christianity last so long? Surely there must be a very large load of motivation that made so many follow such a religion.
We know enough to know that the bible is folk lore and fairy stories.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
Such a one-sided opinion. Think in many ways, sir.
Could you imagine religion surviving if the bible were examined by it's own pedallers in the fashion that scientists do their own, and their peers work?
Because...Christianity is supposed to be based on "faith" and not "scientific evidence"?
-
oops, didn't notice you had responded till just now.
Let's say the apostles just THOUGHT it was correct. How about Jesus? The founder of his own religion? Why would he risk his life in preaching something that isn't real?
As I have said, he might have very well believed everything he was saying, there have been a number of people who have thought they were the offspring of deities. just because he THOUGHT he was the son of god and his followers right after his death THOUGHT they saw him, (or said they saw him, or one of the people writing about it later said they said his followers saw him) doesn't mean any of it is actually true.
OR because Jesus asked the trust of humanity, because it is too ignorant to decipher at the more spiritual level?
So in other words you have no evidence, you are just taking your parents word that you should take your priest's word, that you should take the 2000 year long line of priests word that you should take the counsel of Nicaea's word that you should take the word of the set of books they designated that says you should take Jesus's word that he was God and that you should believe that in spite of any evidence to the contrary. you are just going to base your understanding of the universe on the assumption that on no point along this line was there a single person who lied or was just simply wrong.
and you are going to base the laws you vote for upon the interpretations of what those priests tell you is the word of god.
Why should this be a "lie"? As I said, Jesus probably did it in this way; "Hey, follow my teachings, based on faith and not evidence, because you do not yet know true spirituality". A learner doesn't have to understand everything that his teacher says at first. A Math teacher could tell students to memorize a certain formula, then tell the students how to understand it later on.
and this has proven to be a horrendous way to try and teach people.
it is a lie because if there is evidence that supports what he says then when he says 'it is better to believe via faith than through logic' than that is a lie because he didn't say that, he says "just believe me", not "the truth is to complex for me to explain to your primitive monkey minds, I get back to it later" he basically says there is no evidence, but you should believe him any way. if what you are proposing is true then he was lieing.
The apostles were able to convert a fairly large amount of pagans into their religion pretty early. They could have formed an army of several thousand, then used this to threaten village after village to their religion, and then continue spreading this. But that is not their way.
I disagree with you on the feasibility of this approach, I say they would have been absolutely squashed by the Romans if they had tried this. the only way they managed to survive was by keeping low key.
Your latter explanation is more logical. Yes, threatening the people of eternal damnation can make many convert to your philosophy out of fear. But if Jesus himself said this, why would the apostles have to formulate another plan of forcing people into their religion?
Now, you might say that the Biblical writers edited the teachings of Jesus into something that will really SCARE the wits out of many a pagan. True, but as I said, Biblical writers, being believers of Christ's teachings, wouldn't EDIT his teachings to gain more followers. Because, as I said, doing so would give a false message, thus giving a message that will prohibit future Christians from receiving salvation. The Biblical writers, being strong Christians, should have known this fact ever since they met Christ.
you are ASSUMING the early followers did not embellish, I think this is a foolish assumption.
As you have already stated, many cults make use of exaggerations to gain more followers. But wow, it just so happened that Christianity did a REALLY BIG number of exaggerations that's why they have SO MANY followers. I don't think so.
Cults don't last long. Why did Christianity last so long? Surely there must be a very large load of motivation that made so many follow such a religion.
yeah, that 'motivation' is the political power of the Catholic church, if Chrisianity had not been used as a tool to justify keeping the masses underfoot for the better part of 2000 years, it probably would not have survived as long. I mean you are basically saying 'it has been around for a long time, therefore it must be true' and that is nonsense.
and the only reason why 'cults don't last very long' is because after they are around for a while people start calling them religion, it wasn't that long ago people were calling the Mormons a cult, and Scientology is trying very hard to convince people it's not a cult.
Such a one-sided opinion. Think in many ways, sir.
and your opinions are not one sided? is that not the definition of opinion?
Because...Christianity is supposed to be based on "faith" and not "scientific evidence"?
which is why it is wrong.
-
*sniper moving into position*
...so you really think that individuals NEVER STOPPED until they were tortured and killed just because some guy talked loud and emotional? You think that since there was this one guy who was extra-excited when he talked, an organization that was established worldwide and converted a large chunk of the known population was formed, countless wars on him were fought, for 2,000 years? One guy can do all this?
No. The Roman Catholic Church is not the work of Jesus Christ. It's the work of the Emperor Constantine, who set down along with a few christian groups to form the Great Christian religion which was to become the main religion of the Roman Empire. All scriptures that did not corrolate with the new view were promptly burned.
One man did not do that, and there's nothing supernatural about it either.
-
In essence, there are more stars than grains of sand on Earth, most of those stars have a large collection of orbital bodies. I see nothing about the Earth that makes us of particular interest to even one, let alone several alien cultures. We all watch Hollywood movies of Aliens 'coming for our water' or 'coming for our gold' and it's so much rubbish, there's plenty of places in the Universe that are far richer in any material available on Earth. As has been covered before, there's no such thing as stealth in space, and any extra-terrestrial visitor would not only be picked up by official sources, but also by the network of university and privately run sky-watching equipment scattered all over the planet. Such a situation could not be covered up.
Edit: To summarise, I can fully accept that Aliens are 'out there', it's the idea that Aliens are regularly coming here that I have problem with.
Common belief (also "confirmed" by abducted people) among the obsessed is that our DNA is special and aliens need it to do something. A rather anthropocentric view, perhaps the most arrogant ever, that I just cannot tolerate. :doubt:
-
Maybe it's best to let subjects such as crediting/discrediting religion behind, and consider the bible as a book of wisdom, rather than a book of religion. Learning from historical stories, examples and teachings, there's a lot of good morals to be taught. You can treat it as a fictional piece of work aside from that, but I think it could help people on a personal level.
Maybe that's my rosy opinion having learned a lot from reading it but, who knows? I don't know how it can have a negative effect on anyone if you treat it that way.
-
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-atrocities
:nervous:
-
Maybe it's best to let subjects such as crediting/discrediting religion behind, and consider the bible as a book of wisdom, rather than a book of religion. Learning from historical stories, examples and teachings, there's a lot of good morals to be taught. You can treat it as a fictional piece of work aside from that, but I think it could help people on a personal level.
No
It is not a book of wisdom, it is a book of ignorance. the morals it teaches are that people who disobey are to be murdered because they are arbitrarily different and that this is good because a unreachable authority says it is.