First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Religion vs. Science is a Myth
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/29/08
yeah2, and I don't see anyone who do not selectively omit the bible. Who said the scripture of 2 Ti 3:16 is more "right" than 2 Peter 3:8 ? Why did you say Genesis is more "right" than the other? you did the same thing.

I am not a literalist, so I won't buy anything from what you said :D. I know that the only people that will have problems are literalists. Well, yes, it's either one or other. Literalists or not. I am not.
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 7/29/08
Christians are actually followers of Jesus (assumed existed) teachings. It is a misnomer, as not all christians believe in Jesus as christ (king), and it is also debatable. It should really be something like Jesunines. The authority in theory in the catholic church goes: 1. the scriptures 2. church meetings decision 3. dogma from the pope. However, one can argue about the authority between 1 & 2 as chrurch meetings has decided on which scriptures to accept and laid down interpretations of them that is very debatable and also very important (holy trinity most famous). Although number 3 has no relevance in protestant churches, the decision of earlier church meetings, like Nicea, has mostly been kept. I see by the way, that everyone is only discussing christianity and not other religions.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/29/08
Essentially not all that is found socially acceptable is correct. Therefore saying 'every one does it' does not in anyway offer adequate justification if is wrong (selective accepting and omitting) which it is.

My apologies for being unnecessarily judgmental.

The bible does not contain passages that are more accurate than others (unless stated so in the bible itself) its that fact all scriptures are 'God-breathed' and necessary for instruction. The problem is that Zenny here, is misinterpreting the essential meaning of the passages as he uses them out of context.

Zen it appears as if you are aware that you what is erroneous and so now you offer perfunctory attempt as a means of justification.



I however will try not to judge. "To each, His own"
710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M
Offline
Posted 7/29/08
An explanation for why these gaps in evolution exists or the fossil evidence has to show a proportionate distribution of transitory species. That is not the case. This was the secular academic consensus before Creationist/ID came onto the scene and in absence of new data, you can't distort pre-existing data to fit your particular idealogical bias one way or the other. I would be interested in what population genetics has to say about this but thus far there is no new consensus.

btw when I said "none exists" i was referring to The Missing Link which refers to transitory species leading up to homo sapiens. I think Lucy was the last candidate found.

Also to say that microevolution doesn't explain macroevolution isn't a lamackist view. As I explained before the micro/macro evolutionary distinction was widely accepted by Darwinians. This denial of micro/macroevolution distinction is idealogical manipulation by anti-theist scientists and has little to do with actual science.


tweety_cool wrote:

yes it doesn't have anything to do with any debate... hardy ............t is completely true if it is lamarck's theory. Darwin have different explanation of evolution than lamarck.

OH BTW... it is really out of topic.... sorry leviathan.. couldn't keep my balls


710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M
Offline
Posted 7/29/08 , edited 7/29/08
No knowledge becomes the useless word which is why the entire field of epistemology exists in the first place. LOL. Anyone watch a movie called Matrix?


leviathan343 wrote:

Extend that argument to every facet of knowledge, and faith pretty much becomes an useless word.


710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M
Offline
Posted 7/29/08
Subjectivity and objectivity are not mutually exclusive. They exist in shades not black and white. There's no reason why we can't experience objectivity.


leviathan343 wrote:

Well, how can we justify that anything we experience through a subjective medium is true or real?

Modern evolutionary theory is not pure Darwinism. I honestly can't believe I have to state this.


710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M
Offline
Posted 7/29/08 , edited 7/29/08
Yeah it's hogwash. Your friend has a strawman understanding of religion. Theism and specifically Christianity isn't a reasonless, illogical exercise in blind faith. According to your OP, everything not based on empiricism and experimentation is the same as belief in nonsense including philosophy, music, art, etc..

Atheism is the true exercise in blind, dogmatic faith. Atheism can't account for the existence of non-material things like morality, human rights, love or even logic for that matter.


leviathan343 wrote:

Did anyone actually read the OP? Just checking.


2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/29/08

melonbarmonster wrote:

No knowledge becomes the useless word which is why the entire field of epistemology exists in the first place. LOL. Anyone watch a movie called Matrix?


leviathan343 wrote:

Extend that argument to every facet of knowledge, and faith pretty much becomes an useless word.




One can have knowledge; it can never be absolutely proven to correspond to an objective world. Please don't base your so-called knowledge of epistemology off a movie.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/29/08 , edited 7/29/08

zendude wrote:


melonbarmonster wrote:

Yeah it's hogwash. Your friend has a strawman understanding of religion. Theism and specifically Christianity isn't a reasonless, illogical exercise in blind faith. According to your OP, everything not based on empiricism and experimentation is the same as belief in nonsense including philosophy, music, art, etc..


leviathan343 wrote:

Did anyone actually read the OP? Just checking.




I like that.


He didn't read the OP, obviously. I won't answer until he pulls his head out of his ass. Reading comprehension FTW. Referring to strawmen, irony FTL.

Religion is not based on reason at all. Reason and philosophy are only used in defense of Christianity after it was established. The Bible is not based on Augustine's writings nor Anselm's ontological proofs.

I'm officially starting to hate this forum and the idiocy in it.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/29/08

melonbarmonster wrote:

Yeah it's hogwash. Your friend has a strawman understanding of religion. Theism and specifically Christianity isn't a reasonless, illogical exercise in blind faith. According to your OP, everything not based on empiricism and experimentation is the same as belief in nonsense including philosophy, music, art, etc..

Atheism is the true exercise in blind, dogmatic faith. Atheism can't account for the existence of non-material things like morality, human rights, love or even logic for that matter.


leviathan343 wrote:

Did anyone actually read the OP? Just checking.




See my point?
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/29/08

zendude wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:

The bible does not contain passages that are more accurate than others (unless stated so in the bible itself) its that fact all scriptures are 'God-breathed' and necessary for instruction. The problem is that Zenny here, is misinterpreting the essential meaning of the passages as he uses them out of context.


Zen it appears as if you are aware that you what is erroneous and so now you offer perfunctory attempt as a means of justification.



Jesus only commanded several things to us before he left this earth.
- Matthew 22:35-40 (New International Version)
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
- This I will take as Dogmatic above a lot of things. And I don't think that you could take that out of context too much.
- Don't tell me that you haven't done some sort of exogenous and endogenous interpretation of the Bible before. This is what Bible scholars do.

And the same for you.

I could totally take an secular view in this argument, but I don't think that these ideas would make the situation any better.

P.S. And I don't think putting a bunny bashing its head would make your argument any better.


My apologies about the bunny, I thought it would be funny.

Those may be the greatest commands but does not mean ONE SHOULD EXCLUDE THE OTHERS. Listen.
"All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Does not mean that the 'lesser' commandments should be discard as all but forgotten remnants, but what it does mean is that it is to no avail to practice they others and ignore these. That's called HYPOCRISY.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/29/08

zendude wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:


zendude wrote:


Narc_7 wrote:

The bible does not contain passages that are more accurate than others (unless stated so in the bible itself) its that fact all scriptures are 'God-breathed' and necessary for instruction. The problem is that Zenny here, is misinterpreting the essential meaning of the passages as he uses them out of context.


Zen it appears as if you are aware that you what is erroneous and so now you offer perfunctory attempt as a means of justification.



Jesus only commanded several things to us before he left this earth.
- Matthew 22:35-40 (New International Version)
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
- This I will take as Dogmatic above a lot of things. And I don't think that you could take that out of context too much.
- Don't tell me that you haven't done some sort of exogenous and endogenous interpretation of the Bible before. This is what Bible scholars do.

And the same for you.

I could totally take an secular view in this argument, but I don't think that these ideas would make the situation any better.

P.S. And I don't think putting a bunny bashing its head would make your argument any better.


My apologies about the bunny, I thought it would be funny.

Those may be the greatest commands but does not mean ONE SHOULD EXCLUDE THE OTHERS. Listen.
"All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Does not mean that the 'lesser' commandments should be discard as all but forgotten remnants, but what it does mean is that it is to no avail to practice they others and ignore these. That's called HYPOCRISY.


I am out, as there will be no end to this. You win, if that is what you want, but whatever.


Dude relax. It all boils down to an individual basis. Its your opinion against mine about, perhaps the most nebulous entity in history. No one really knows. Its not about winning, simply exchanging views. Try not to take it too serious. What we are arguing about may turn out to be but a triviality in the more significant scheme of things. I do not want to indoctrinate you or discourage you from your beliefs. "To each, his own"
But you are right. The only one who can settle this is the Creator.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your imaginati...
Offline
Posted 7/29/08

leviathan343 wrote:


melonbarmonster wrote:

Yeah it's hogwash. Your friend has a strawman understanding of religion. Theism and specifically Christianity isn't a reasonless, illogical exercise in blind faith. According to your OP, everything not based on empiricism and experimentation is the same as belief in nonsense including philosophy, music, art, etc..

Atheism is the true exercise in blind, dogmatic faith. Atheism can't account for the existence of non-material things like morality, human rights, love or even logic for that matter.


leviathan343 wrote:

Did anyone actually read the OP? Just checking.




See my point?


Dude, are you i'ght?
710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M
Offline
Posted 7/29/08
Not at all. I've gotten from you poor anti-theist articles that misreference scientific sources and muddled statements about subjectivity.

Why don't you just state your point?


leviathan343 wroteSee my point?


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.