Support NeoGAF

[Drastic]

I really don't see what you'd have to aim this question at atheists specifically, I don't think they are that different from theists in that question.
Sure you might argue that if you already believe in one supernatural thing then it'd be easier to believe in others. But I would disagree that believing in one supernatural phenomena would extend to other things in the supernatural sphere.

I'm simply curious of those who believe in no supernatural supreme being, do they believe in anything supernatural at all.

I've read/heard self-proclaimed atheists lean on karma and be freaked out by witchcraft, and the like, which provoked my curiosity.

 

[JGS]

I'm out.

Finally:lol

EDIT: What's really funny is that I imagine that quote is how people read my comments which is why they didn't see the parts i agreed with. I'm going to try to answer in 3 words or less, but it probably won't work.

 

[operon]

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270742283&sr=8-4

Read it. Come back. Discuss.

What read a evangelical christian point of of view on the history of the church, I know all that already and makes about as much sense as a chocolate fire guard.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

More sophistry. Words lose their meanings when applied to God. "'When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'"

A statement like that betrays an unfamiliarity with philosophy of religion. Language about God has debated for centuries and if you think waltzing in here like a dilettante and making such a statement as though it were indisputable fact is getting you anywhere, you are mistaken.

Your inability to articulate your "argument" coherently is in the first instance is your issue, not mine.

And what did I not articulate coherently? Show me.

Now, of course, you are trying to have it both way, since earlier you relied on transmission errors to explain away the myriad errors in the Bible, and now you are claiming that those errors are minimal.

You're making a non sequitur. I said that if there are any supposed discrepancies in the Bible, they come from either (1) missing information of which we are unaware or (2) transmission errors. I then later posted that the manuscripts of which we are in possession today are reliable copies and that the transmission errors that are present in them are minimal. How does it follow, then, that I am "trying to have it both way [sic]"?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

What read a evangelical christian point of of view on the history of the church, I know all that already and makes about as much sense as a chocolate fire guard.

Then we have nothing to discuss. Refusal to read what is unquestionably one of the most thorough monographs on the development of the New Testament canon and dismissing it offhand as though (1) you know what it says and (2) what it says is false is not anywhere near argumentation on this issue.

 

[operon]

Then we have nothing to discuss. Refusal to read what is unquestionably one of the most thorough monographs on the development of the New Testament canon and dismissing it offhand as though (1) you know what it says and (2) what it says is false is not anywhere near argumentation on this issue.

Given that your reasoning for posting that book was an attempt to get me to accept that the church just affirmed the canon as an affirmation rather than an actual study and the use of quite strict criteria which preceded a vote on the matter than theres no point. The Church voted on what was canon having being inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dude Abides]

A statement like that betrays an unfamiliarity with philosophy of religion. Language about God has debated for centuries and if you think waltzing in here like a dilettante and making such a statement as though it were indisputable fact is getting you anywhere, you are mistaken.

Of course it's not getting anywhere with you, my first year divinity school friend. Your mind is clearly closed on these issues. I am familiar with the long history of sophistry developed by Christian apologists. That I do not find it very impressive does not mean I am unaware of it.

You're making a non sequitur. I said that if there are any "supposed" discrepancies in the Bible, they come from either (1) missing information of which we are unaware or (2) transmission errors. I then later posted that the manuscripts of which we are in possession today are reliable copies and that the transmission errors that are present in them are minimal. How does it follow, then, that I am "trying to have it both way [sic]"?

Quite correct. When people pointed out inconsistencies, you claimed they were due to transmission errors. But, since you're also committed to the proposition that modern translations are close-to-perfect, you have to minimize them at the same time.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Given that your reasoning for posting that book was an attempt to get me to accept that the church just affirmed the canon as an affirmation rather than an actual study and the use of quite strict criteria which preceded a vote on the matter than theres no point. The Church voted on what was canon having being inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Synod of Hippo affirmed exactly what the vast majority of churches at the time affirmed: the New Testament canon that we have today. Those churches had criteria by which they affirmed which books were divinely inspired. I was not implying that they did not. It was not done haphazardly; rather, much care and discussion were involved.

 

[soul creator]

I imagine the whole "holy spirit guided the writers" thing played out similarly to Isaac the painter in Heroes

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Of course it's not getting anywhere with you, my first year divinity school friend.

You clearly haven't been reading this thread for long.

Your mind is clearly closed on these issues. I am familiar with the long history of sophistry developed by Christian apologists. That I do not find it very impressive does not mean I am unaware of it.

Right. Whether or not you find impressive the centuries-long debate over language used for God is the criterion for determining whether such language is valid or not. Well, in that case, I find most arguments for atheism unimpressive. Therefore, they must be invalid!

Quite correct. When people pointed out inconsistencies, you claimed they were due to transmission errors. But, since you're also committed to the proposition that modern translations are close-to-perfect, you have to minimize them at the same time.

Quite correct that you committed a non sequitur? I concur. Quite correct that I am trying to have it both ways? No. Again, I said that inconsistencies are either due to reconciling information we do not possess or transmission errors. Again, at the same time, there are not many transmission errors.

 

[jdogmoney]

Why do you think the Bible is true?

[I don't recall whether this has been asked, if so, please forgive me...]

 

[Dude Abides]

You clearly haven't been reading this thread for long.

Second year then?

Right. Whether or not you find impressive the centuries-long debate over language used for God is the criterion for determining whether such language is valid or not. Well, in that case, I find most arguments for atheism unimpressive. Therefore, they must be invalid!

That's great. Do you also think that spontaneous generation has intellectual merit? People debated and discussed that for a long period of time. The point is that your repeated appeals to authority convince nobody not already convinced.

Quite correct that you committed a non sequitur? I concur. Quite correct that I am trying to have it both ways? No. Again, I said that inconsistencies are either due to reconciling information we do not possess or transmission errors. Again, at the same time, there are not many transmission errors.

I thought they taught latin at divinity school. You should know that's not what non sequitur means. If there are not many transmission errors the Bible should not have so many inconsistencies. In any event, the silly apologetic you linked didn't claim that there "are not many transmission errors." It argued, irrelevantly for purposes of this discussion, that there are fewer transmission errors than there are in other ancient texts. So it didn't even support the proposition you cited it for. Why don't you just say "I think the Bible infallible and nothing could convince me otherwise" and spare yourself all the special pleading and abuse of the English language?

 

[Mumei]

I'm simply curious of those who believe in no supernatural supreme being, do they believe in anything supernatural at all.

I've read/heard self-proclaimed atheists lean on karma and be freaked out by witchcraft, and the like, which provoked my curiosity.

According to the sociology and religion class I took last semester, there is a tendency for people who don't believe in any deities to, for some reason, be more likely to buy into other supernatural nonsense. I think that a lot of so-called internet atheists tend to be the sort that reject the supernatural as a whole, which is why atheists in this topic probably aren't going to go for that sort of thing.

 

[Dabookerman]

Why do you think the Bible is true?

[I don't recall whether this has been asked, if so, please forgive me...]

Because it is the Word of God. And that is enough.

Right?

 

[DragonGirl]

I'm simply curious of those who believe in no supernatural supreme being, do they believe in anything supernatural at all.

I've read/heard self-proclaimed atheists lean on karma and be freaked out by witchcraft, and the like, which provoked my curiosity.

Atheism isn't a philosophy. It's a lack of believe in gods. You can come to atheism from careful thought, thorough education, or total ignorance. There's no entrance exam. As such, sure you can have an atheist who totally believes in other spiritual woo. Atheist does not = skeptic, though skeptics are more likely to be atheists than not.

Remember, some people are default atheists simply because they were never indoctrinated with religious dogma and never thought much about religion at all. This says nothing about their actual critical thinking skills, which could be very poor.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Second year then?

I'll let you do the requisite digging into this thread if you're inclined to know my education level.

That's great. Do you also think that spontaneous generation has intellectual merit? People debated and discussed that for a long period of time. The point is that your repeated appeals to authority convince nobody not already convinced.

You mistake me for the one strolling in here, appealing to no authority at all, and declaring something that has been debated for centuries and is still debated today among philosophers (language about God) as categorically decided in favor of one side. That's you.

I thought they taught latin at divinity school. You should know that's not what non sequitur means. If there are not many transmission errors the Bible should not have so many inconsistencies. In any event, the silly apologetic you linked didn't claim that there "are not many transmission errors." It argued, irrelevantly for purposes of this discussion, that there are fewer transmission errors than there are in other ancient texts. So it didn't even support the proposition you cited it for. Why don't you just say "I think the Bible infallible and nothing could convince me otherwise" and spare yourself all the special pleading and abuse of the English language?

I'm well aware of what a non sequitur is. It means that your conclusion does not follow from the premises you provided. Your conclusion about me trying to have it both ways did not follow from what you were stating. What's difficult to understand about that?

You are incorrect about the website. It very clearly stated that the accuracy of the ancient copies of the New Testament was 99.5%, leaving .5% for potential transmission errors. Perhaps while I'm working on not abusing the English language, you can work on a basic understanding of statistics.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'll let you do the requisite digging into this thread if you're inclined to know my education level.

I'm not so inclined. You said something about the non-scholarly discipline of Systematic Theology.

You mistake me for the one strolling in here, appealing to no authority at all, and declaring something that has been debated for centuries and is still debated today among philosophers (language about God) as categorically decided in favor of one side. That's you.

Not philosophers. Theologians. Key difference. If I engage in some of your name-dropping will it convince you that I don't have to read every book you have read in order to have a view on the subject? Niebhur Tillich Schleiermacher!

follow from the premises you provided. Your conclusion about me trying to have it both ways did not follow from what you were stating. What's difficult to understand about that?

Because it did follow.

It very clearly stated that the accuracy of the ancient copies of the New Testament was 99.5%, leaving .5% for potential transmission errors.

No, it said "The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. " Who knows what "textually pure" is supposed to mean? And, of course, that is just a cross-comparison of known manuscripts. It says nothing about errors that may have entered into existing manuscripts from the original manuscripts. So it does not support the proposition you say it does. I hope your dissertation will be better-argued.

 

[JGS]

I'm simply curious of those who believe in no supernatural supreme being, do they believe in anything supernatural at all.

I've read/heard self-proclaimed atheists lean on karma and be freaked out by witchcraft, and the like, which provoked my curiosity.

Atheists are freaked out by Christianity (We are such a strange breed of human) so the others shouldn't be too surprising, but that's probably not the way you meant it.

 

[Peronthious]

Not philosophers. Theologians. Key difference. If I engage in some of your name-dropping will it convince you that I don't have to read every book you have read in order to have a view on the subject? Niebhur Tillich Schleiermacher!

I'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't think CS Lewis was a philosopher.

 

[Drastic]

Atheists are freaked out by Christianity (We are such a strange breed of human) so the others shouldn't be too surprising, but that's probably not the way you meant it.

Well I come from a background of Atheism/Agnosticism, but I've always had a sense of there being more than meets the eye at various different times.

Strong senses of good/bad unrelated to the physical atmosphere, to simple stuff like the feeling of being watched.

Do people genuinely never have these types of experiences or do they just write them off to extensive LSD usage or whatever?

 

[Mumei]

Well I come from a background of Atheism/Agnosticism, but I've always had a sense of there being more than meets the eye at various different times.

Strong senses of good/bad unrelated to the physical atmosphere, to simple stuff like the feeling of being watched.

Do people genuinely never have these types of experiences or do they just write them off to extensive LSD usage or whatever?

I've never felt like I was being watched. I'm not sure what you mean by "strong senses of good / bad unrelated to the physical atmosphere." I suspect I haven't, but could you explain what you mean?

 

[Dever]

stuff about science

You should watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos series. The pictures on whale evolution chart you dismissed as "nice drawings" are based on real fossils afaik. It's not like "If it happened this is what it might've looked like". All those creatures actually existed and the drawings are a rough presentation of what they might've looked like with some flesh and skin on.

Also, do you still have a problem with speciation? Because speciation is an observed fact. No, we've never observed anything evolving into something drastically different, but that's a ridiculous criteria as 1) that takes far too long 2) we have no reason to think it's impossible to occur even if we've never observed it.

 

[JGS]

Well I come from a background of Atheism/Agnosticism, but I've always had a sense of there being more than meets the eye at various different times.

Strong senses of good/bad unrelated to the physical atmosphere, to simple stuff like the feeling of being watched.

Do people genuinely never have these types of experiences or do they just write them off to extensive LSD usage or whatever?

I'm not really sure. I'm not superstitious so I don't really have those feelings. Since we all have done some good and bad things and we all have experienced good or bad situations, I tend to think of Karma as a case of the something inevitable happening that we are pondering too much.:lol

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

Why do you think the Bible is true?

[I don't recall whether this has been asked, if so, please forgive me...]

its not a thought, its a belief.

you dont need alot of evidence for a belief, just a little.

 

[JGS]

You should watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos series. The pictures on whale evolution chart you dismissed as "nice drawings" are based on real fossils afaik. It's not like "If it happened this is what it might've looked like". All those creatures actually existed and the drawings are a rough presentation of what they might've looked like with some flesh and skin on.

Also, do you still have a problem with speciation? Because speciation is an observed fact. No, we've never observed anything evolving into something drastically different, but that's a ridiculous criteria as 1) that takes far too long 2) we have no reason to think it's impossible to occur even if we've never observed it.

I watched Cosmos a long time ago and I've always liked Sagan so I may redelve into it. For the record, I am not questioning the existence of those animals in the drawing anymore than I'm questioning dinosaurs or sabretooth tigers.

You are reading other people saying I have a problem with speciation. I believe my view is I'm fine with it up to a point. It's going to stay that way for what I imagine will be my entire life.

Like you said, it's kind of like how people may be satisfied with the idea that we won't see something drastically evolving into something drastically different. I'm satisfied with that too.

 

[Dever]

its not a thought, its a belief.

you dont need alot of evidence for a belief, just a little.

What evidence compels you the most? And are you sure you have the same standard of evidence for other holy texts?

 

[Shanadeus]

I'll just retrace all the quoting made so far just so I can make sense of what you're saying:

He said understand, not appreciate. You thing think religious folks understand more of the natural word than scientists?

I know what he said.

Are you saying that ALL scientists have a better understanding of nature than others- religious or not? I would disagree with that sure.
What des it say about the scientist who understand nature better but still finds a way to mess it up?
Surely you're not thinking all scientist are with Greenpeace

I can see why people put so much blind faith in them now if ALL scientists have more understanding and knowledge of nature than us dimwitted blokes.

For your benefit, I'll fix my quote. Notice that I am staying humble by not putting "equal" in there":

I disagree with this. I think everyone should have an understanding of the natural world & it's insulting to think that religious folk do not, and I think that if people observed and appreciated the natural world more, there would not be as much destruction of it- from both common man and brilliant scientists. The world is not exactly a much better place now just because of a scientific discovery.

I know what he said.

Are you saying that ALL scientists have a better understanding of nature than others- religious or not? I would disagree with that sure.
What des it say about the scientist who understand nature better but still finds a way to mess it up?
Surely you're not thinking all scientist are with Greenpeace

I can see why people put so much blind faith in them now if ALL scientists have more understanding and knowledge of nature than us dimwitted blokes.

For your benefit, I'll fix my quote. Notice that I am staying humble by not putting "equal" in there":

I'm sorry, what? Firstly, the natural world != 'nature' in the sense of the word you seem to be using. Secondly, just because someone understands 'nature' better, does mean they are obligated to care for it. Thirdly, how are scientists 'messing up' nature? Fourthly:

The world is not exactly a much better place now just because of a scientific discovery.

What? The world is definitely a better place now because of scientific discovery. And lastly, you are entirely misunderstanding my original point, when it comes to better understanding how the world - and in fact the universe ticks, I will ask a scientist, not a religious scholar and not a regular Joe - simply because what Scientists do is essentially attempt to understand the world better, and the limited understanding we have now is almost entirely thanks to the work of scientists.

I'm sorry, what? Firstly, the natural world != 'nature' in the sense of the word you seem to be using. Secondly, just because someone understands 'nature' better, does mean they are obligated to care for it. Thirdly, how are scientists 'messing up' nature? Fourthly:

So you think that ALL scientists understand the natural world better, but don't have to care about what they know. Understanding does not measn caring. That would certainly explain a lot. They are mutually exclusive. Got it.

If concern for the natural world isn't that relevant then why would I concern myself with scientific thought if the curiosity isn't there? In other words, why worry about what a scientists thinks if it isn't linked to something I care about or something that benefits the natural world? I would be listening to the scientist only to here how it benefits him.

What? The world is definitely a better place now because of scientific discovery.

That is a matter of persective. I disagree. IMO, The world is at best no better than it was except in terms of scientific advancement (Whoopee), & quite frankly I think it's worse off.

And lastly, you are entirely misunderstanding my original point, when it comes to better understanding how the world - and in fact the universe ticks, I will ask a scientist, not a religious scholar and not a regular Joe - simply because what Scientists do is essentially attempt to understand the world better, and the limited understanding we have now is almost entirely thanks to the work of scientists.

If you're talking about the natural world, then I guess you are thinking I'm disagreeing with that? I'm not. I'm the one that says science and religion don't contradict so naturally I'm fine with science.

However, if you are saying scientist know the world better in a general sense, I say scientists have absolutely no understanding of the world. Think about all the godless scientists out there now who have a hard time understanding religious people. That's the world. They are clueless about what makes people tick even if the know when a meteor is going to fly by the earth.

To break it down:

1. I wouldn't pick any scientist (or non-religious person) to trust on religious matters. So why would I start taking the advice of a bunch of admitted non-religious folk on religious matters? Short answer is I wouldn't.

2. I would not rely on a scientist to tell me how best to care for this natural world they know so much about but often show little regard for it.

3. Further, since there is no scientist that can see/prove/provide evidence of some of the whackier "scientific" theories out there, I'll remain a skeptic on those matters as well.

4. I do not accept things solely on the basis of a guy wearing a lab coat. I'm not that blind of faith.

So far so good, and I reply to your second post in order to help you better understand Kinitari's points, as it feels like you've misunderstood him. I will now in bold explain my comments and responses, and what I was referring to:

So you think that ALL scientists understand the natural world better, but don't have to care about what they know. Understanding does not measn caring. That would certainly explain a lot. They are mutually exclusive. Got it.

It's almost as if you're not even trying to understand what he's saying, maybe he's just pushed your buttons or annoyed you by being insistent - I don't know.

By now you and Kinitari have had a very long conversation that didn't really go anywhere, with him repeating his points in an effort to (in his opinion) make you understand his points that he thought you were missing. Maybe you were getting his points and were just annoyed be his insistent behavior, thus your sarcastic tone.

But understanding doesn't mean caring at all, without meaning they're mutually exclusive.
Science is a effective and reliable way of understanding the natural world better, much better so than any other method. And I base that simply on that practically all understanding and knowledge of the surrounding world have come from scientific research and progress.

The caring is something we have to we exert when using the knowledge gained from scientific research and endeavors, it's nothing inherent in the process of understanding.

Here I am merely trying to clear up and reiterating the point Kinitari made:

"Secondly, just because someone understands 'nature' better, does mean they are obligated to care for it."

I suppose you think he said that if you were to ask a scientist over a ordinary person, the scientist would have a greater understanding of nature. Thus you repeating "all scientists" in both your posts, but as he didn't respond to that particular choice of words I'm gonna go ahead and assume that he mean scientists in general rather than every single scientist. Not that he would be too wrong if he were to claim that. Any chemist will most likely be more knowledgeable in chemistry than a regular joe or a clergyman.
But all in all, a scientist of a particular field of science will have greater understanding of that particular part of nature than a regular joe. And scientists as a whole will most likely have a greater understanding of nature than regular joes as a whole.

Kinitari had earlier responded to what you said in JGS Post 1:

"Are you saying that ALL scientists have a better understanding of nature than others- religious or not? I would disagree with that sure.
What des it say about the scientist who understand nature better but still finds a way to mess it up?"

And he could not see incompatibility between the act of understanding nature and "messing it up", which it almost sounded like you were implying by the. And I can't see one neither, without them having to be mutually exclusive. You can care and understand at the same time, just as you can understand a particular facet of nature without caring for it at all.

If concern for the natural world isn't that relevant then why would I concern myself with scientific thought if the curiosity isn't there? In other words, why worry about what a scientists thinks if it isn't linked to something I care about or something that benefits the natural world? I would be listening to the scientist only to here how it benefits him.

Not being curious about matters regarding the natural world in general is your prerogative, but you might wanna make an effort to learn it even if it's just to help your kids with their homework.

And here I'm just giving you a reason to why you should concern yourself for scientific thought if you have no curiosity. You not being curious about matters regarding the natural world in general is what I got from you saying:

"why worry about what a scientists thinks if it isn't linked to something I care about or something that benefits the natural world?"

To me, it sounds as if you're not curious for curiosities sake, aka that you lack a curiosity in the natural world in general.

That is a matter of persective. I disagree. IMO, The world is at best no better than it was except in terms of scientific advancement (Whoopee), & quite frankly I think it's worse off.

Enjoy your average lifespan of 40-50 years with children and mothers dying like flies in labour among other things. The scientific method has lead to tons of knowledge that has directly led to saving and improving lives, along with knowledge that can hurt and destroy lives and nature.
But I'd say that all in all, we've used it more for helping lives than destroying.
You yourself are almost guaranteed to have benefited from the scientific progress in one way or another.

Here I was annoyed by your choice of words, you believe the world is no "better" than it's been in the past. And while better is certainly a subjective term, if you are to compare the current world with the world before any scientific progress, you'd find that we are better off today in any objective, quantifiable you wanna compare.

I put the first use of the scientific method at around the year 1000 (with the experiments of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) on optics in his Book of Optics), and were you to compare the percentage of deaths in labour, in sickness and of old age from that time with today - I bet that we are better off today. Happiness cannot be measured yet and whether we on a whole were more happy back then is nothing that we will ever reach a conclusion on.

If you're talking about the natural world, then I guess you are thinking I'm disagreeing with that? I'm not. I'm the one that says science and religion don't contradict so naturally I'm fine with science.

Unless when science and religion do contradict? Like how man was evolved rather than created?

I am here referring to your personal religion, I am quite aware of that many Christians are capable of reconciling evolution of all life (including homo sapiens) with their beliefs, but you yourself seem to be incapable of accepting that man was evolved rather than created - no matter how much evidence is put before you. So in your case, religion and science do contradict.

However, if you are saying scientist know the world better in a general sense, I say scientists have absolutely no understanding of the world. Think about all the godless scientists out there now who have a hard time understanding religious people. That's the world. They are clueless about what makes people tick even if the know when a meteor is going to fly by the earth.

Psychology is a relatively new science, and rather undeveloped in my opinion, but to say that they are clueless about what makes people tick is a rather incorrect statement.

And get off your high pedestal, humanity is not the world.

You say scientists have absolutely no understanding of the world simply because "godless scientists have a hard time understanding religious people" and then say that that's the world. You then go on and say they are clueless about what makes people tick, completely disregarding any progresses made within the field of psychology.
What you think the world revolves around is your personal opinion, and mine equally as subjective one simply differs from yours; it just strikes me as a very arrogant thing to say.

Jesus christ this is a futile discussion.
nuff said

I'll try to respond to everything else you replied with but I'm not really understanding myself why I keep the discussion up.

 

[Drastic]

I've never felt like I was being watched. I'm not sure what you mean by "strong senses of good / bad unrelated to the physical atmosphere." I suspect I haven't, but could you explain what you mean?

It could be described as a "tension" in the air, or lack of it. It's like a feeling that is not an emotion or physical feeling. Another simple example, a rare feeling, out of nowhere, that something bad is about to (or could seriously) happen.

I've also know of having this type of feeling about people, but that could substantially be tainted by their appearance.

And FWIW I wouldn't consider myself superstitious.

 

[DragonGirl]

Well I come from a background of Atheism/Agnosticism, but I've always had a sense of there being more than meets the eye at various different times.

Strong senses of good/bad unrelated to the physical atmosphere, to simple stuff like the feeling of being watched.

Do people genuinely never have these types of experiences or do they just write them off to extensive LSD usage or whatever?

People have these experiences all the time. There's no reason to jump to a supernatural or "6th sense" explanation when all of these phenomenon can be accounted for by good old mundane reality. Even if you personally can't explain something, that does not mean the cause must be extraordinary. It just means you personally don't know.

One person's supernatural cold spot is another's "you're standing under the air vent".

 

[Dude Abides]

I'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't think CS Lewis was a philosopher.

One can be both, but the enterprises of philosophy and theology are not the same.

 

[Drastic]

People have these experiences all the time. There's no reason to jump to a supernatural or "6th sense" explanation when all of these phenomenon can be accounted for by good old mundane reality. Even if you personally can't explain something, that does not mean the cause must be extraordinary. It just means you personally don't know.

One person's supernatural cold spot is another's "you're standing under the air vent".

Fair enough, but I'm not saying anything about "jumping" to conclusions. Simply considering WTF that really was instead of quickly dismissing it since "spiritual stuff is all BS anyway" makes more sense to me.

 

[Dever]

I watched Cosmos a long time ago and I've always liked Sagan so I may redelve into it. For the record, I am not questioning the existence of those animals in the drawing anymore than I'm questioning dinosaurs or sabretooth tigers.

It surprises me that you know of Sagan and still talk about scientists not caring about nature and such. Of course there are scientists who don't give a shit, but I'd bet most are enamored with nature. Why do you think they chose to study it for a living? Yes, many inventions made by science are laying waste to our environment, but what exactly told us about our effect on nature? Science. Scientific study told us about global warming, acid rain, the evaporation of the ozone layer etc... I think it might've been Dawkins who said something like that the cure to bad science is more science. How else are we going to discover answers to these problems if not through science? You won't find a single holy book telling you how to produce a vaccine in case of an epidemic. Science, as simply the study of nature, has no positive or negative things about it. The discoveries of science are then used to make vaccines and nuclear bombs. Frankly I find it ridiculous to say people were better off before scientific advancement. That statement just blows my mind.

You are reading other people saying I have a problem with speciation. I believe my view is I'm fine with it up to a point. It's going to stay that way for what I imagine will be my entire life.

Like you said, it's kind of like how people may be satisfied with the idea that we won't see something drastically evolving into something drastically different. I'm satisfied with that too.

The thing is, there is no 'point' where evolution stops. Think of it like this: all life is coded to be the way it is by DNA. DNA is basically just a code comprising of four letters: G, C, T and A. Mutations can remove, add or change letters at random. Where is the point where the code can no longer change?

 

[DragonGirl]

Fair enough, but I'm not saying anything about "jumping" to conclusions. Simply considering WTF that really was instead of quickly dismissing it since "spiritual stuff is all BS anyway" makes more sense to me.

It's not about dismissing spiritual stuff automatically. It's really just about evidence. "Spiritual" doesn't define anything. It's just a filler for "I don't know" without admitting lack of knowledge. What are ghosts made of? Unknown. How does psychic phenomenon work? Unknown. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Unknown. If something can not be defined then it's not really useful as a definition for something else. It's just another way of saying "I don't really have an answer". I'd rather just go with that than make something up to fill the void of the unknown.

 

[JGS]

I'll just retrace all the quoting made so far just so I can make sense of what you're saying:







So far so good, and I reply to your second post in order to help you better understand Kinitari's points, as it feels like you've misunderstood him. I will now in bold explain my comments and responses, and what I was referring to:



I'll try to respond to everything else you replied with but I'm not really understanding myself why I keep the discussion up.

Wow, I'm not sure how to reply. At first I thought I missed a whole conversation

I'll look through it in deatil later but at this point, the conversation has devolved rom speciation I'm assuming. Regardless of what you got out of my conversations, this is what it boils down to.

On the science side

1. I like science:lol
2. I do benefit from science
3. However, I do not turn to science or put trust in science to solve mankind's problems which would include mine.
4. The reason is because they are primarily interested in the pursuit (aka the curiosity)
5. I am interested in the solution which is omitted by not including the real solution in the conversation or because there is not a concern for one unless it involves settling a curiosity.

On the religion side

1. I like MY religion (duh)
2. I do benefit from my religion. You (as in everyone who disagrees) don't have the qualifications to tell me (or others) there is no benefit. You are automatically wrong. I do not need to prove it.
3. I turn to God & put my trust in God to solve mankind's problems which would include mine. The Bible is the primary source for answer, Pi or not.
4. Although the primary emphais is on God's sovreignty, the side benefit is it helps mankind (aka solutions)
5. Since the concern involves solving mankind's problems I remain interested in my religion.

That's not exactly rocket science is it?

Here is what I understand at this point even if you don't understand me. I MUST believe the way you do. I get that. Now admit it.

If some would simply be honest and say that I MUST accept all or nothing, the conversations would start making a lot more sense or would cease altogether.

People pretending that I don't agree with anything they say in order to show they are open minded is the height of pointlessness and quite frankly is stupid.

 

[Drastic]

It's just another way of saying "I don't really have an answer". I'd rather just go with that than make something up to fill the void of the unknown.

What it seems is that most people (at least in this thread) would rather say nope, it's all BS I don't believe in it. Instead of being open to the possibility that things may exist they can't (nor can anyone else with 100% accuracy) explain.

I'm willing to admit it's possibly just me, (I sure did more than my fair share of LSD) but it sure doesn't seem like it.

 

[JGS]

It surprises me that you know of Sagan and still talk about scientists not caring about nature and such. Of course there are scientists who don't give a shit, but I'd bet most are enamored with nature. Why do you think they chose to study it for a living? Yes, many inventions made by science are laying waste to our environment, but what exactly told us about our effect on nature? Science. Scientific study told us about global warming, acid rain, the evaporation of the ozone layer etc... I think it might've been Dawkins who said something like that the cure to bad science is more science. How else are we going to discover answers to these problems if not through science? You won't find a single holy book telling you how to produce a vaccine in case of an epidemic. Science, as simply the study of nature, has no positive or negative things about it. The discoveries of science are then used to make vaccines and nuclear bombs. Frankly I find it ridiculous to say people were better off before scientific advancement. That statement just blows my mind.

I wasn't the one who said that. That was explained to me. :lol
EDIT: Actually, I need to clarify. I had my suspicions about scientists being uncaring, but it was verified that wasn't a goal.

I'm not at war with science for the millionth time, but thank God science told us about those things. To be fair, the Bible warned us a long time ago about not paying attention to the earth. Science verifying is a great benefit though.

I agree with Dawkins about the bad science. Now what does that have to do with religious thought exactly? Are we hindering it somehow. Dawkins would be better off focusing on good science rather than the hogwash he spews against religion.

If you feel that scientific advancement = betterment for all things related to humanity, then so be it. I disagree.

[The thing is, there is no 'point' where evolution stops. Think of it like this: all life is coded to be the way it is by DNA. DNA is basically just a code comprising of four letters: G, C, T and A. Mutations can remove, add or change letters at random. Where is the point where the code can no longer change?

I didn't say evolution had a point (no pun intended).I said I believe it to a point. There's a difference.

 

[DragonGirl]

3. I turn to God & put my trust in God to solve mankind's problems which would include mine. The Bible is the primary source for answer, Pi or not.
4. Although the primary emphais is on God's sovreignty, the side benefit is it helps mankind (aka solutions)
5. Since the concern involves solving mankind's problems I remain interested in my religion.

I just have to ask the obvious. Which of humanity's myriad problems has religion (as only religion could) solved or brought better understanding towards?

Frankly, I see religion as more of a source of problems than a solution. I also see it as a commercial endeavor. It has a product to sell, and the first task of a sales person is to convince the buyers that they need the product. Though, in religion's case, they also need to convince the buyers that the product actually exists.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I'm not so inclined. You said something about the non-scholarly discipline of Systematic Theology.

Yet another GAFer who thinks insults constitute argumentation.

http://www.swbts.edu/catalog/page.cfm?id=37&open=3_area

Hmmm...nope. Not scholarly at all.

Not philosophers. Theologians. Key difference. If I engage in some of your name-dropping will it convince you that I don't have to read every book you have read in order to have a view on the subject? Niebhur Tillich Schleiermacher!

Right. And that's why articles on "language about God" never appear in Philosophy of Religion readers. Here, I'll pull one out just to make sure. I just happen to have on hand my copy of Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, 3rd Edition, published by a little-known university, Oxford University.

Oh, my goodness! Under "Part Nine: Religious Language," there are six readings! And what's this? An excerpt from the introduction to part nine? (I'll help you out with some bold on my part)

Philosophers have always had an intense interest in language, particularly in problems of reference and meaning. Contemporary philosophers of language have focused attention on many important domains of human language--including language about mental phenomena, about ethics and character, and about theological entities. Of course, the theological entity at the heart of the controversy is God. One of the key issues for philosophers of religious language is, How can we speak meaningfully of God?

Wow, you're right! Language about God is not a philosophical issue at all!

Because it did follow.

No, it did not.

No, it said "The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. " Who knows what "textually pure" is supposed to mean? And, of course, that is just a cross-comparison of known manuscripts. It says nothing about errors that may have entered into existing manuscripts from the original manuscripts. So it does not support the proposition you say it does. I hope your dissertation will be better-argued.

"Textually pure" means "without transmission errors." Remember context clues from elementary school? You have to read the words around the words whose meaning you don't know to ascertain their meaning.

It supports exactly what I said it does: that there is only a .5% margin for transmission errors. If you want to believe that there were errors in the original manuscripts that were subsequently faithfully transmitted into later copies, that's your prerogative.

 

[JGS]

I just have to ask the obvious. Which of humanity's myriad problems has religion (as only religion could) solved or brought better understanding towards?

Frankly, I see religion as more of a source of problems than a solution. I also see it as a commercial endeavor. It has a product to sell, and the first task of a sales person is to convince the buyers that they need the product. Though, in religion's case, they also need to convince the buyers that the product actually exists.

Well there are immediate benefits but I didn't say all problems were solved did I.

Some problems are ones involving a higher morality, a better peace of mind regardless of circumstances, an education that emphasizes not just worship but concern for others.

Many problems involving health, depression, finances, & marriage ar minimized following Scriptural direction.

Do you want me to continue or might you be ready to insert snarky comments?

Of course religion is a marketing tool. The goal is always to get more followers. What's wrong with that? Are you thinking science isn't a commercial endeavor? OK.

 

[Dever]

I wasn't the one who said that. That was explained to me. :lol

Hmm. Ok.

I'm not at war with science for the millionth time, but thank God science told us about those things. To be fair, the Bible warned us a long time ago about not paying attention to the earth. Science verifying is a great benefit though.

Ok, except I would simply thank scientists for science. :lol

If you feel that scientific advancement = betterment for all things related to humanity, then so be it. I disagree.

I didn't say that. Religion can give us things to improve human condition like the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself(Though I feel religion also acts as a kind of moral ball and chain). Religion can tell us to help others. Science, on the other hand, can discover how we could achieve that goal. How do we get water and food to Africa for example? How do we develop new ways of growing crops? How do we cure illnesses?

I didn't say evolution had a point (no pun intended).I said I believe it to a point. There's a difference.

Hm I interpreted you saying you accept speciation up to a point to mean that you accept that species can branch off into other species, but you don't accept that they can evolve into something completely unlike the original form over millions of years. Why don't you believe it then?

 

[JGS]

Hmm. Ok.

Ok, except I would simply thank scientists for science. :lol

Who says I don't. I thank God for stuff too. It's not my fault the scientists can't hear me!:lol

EDIT: Also scientists didn't invent science.

I didn't say that. Religion can give us things to improve human condition like the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself(Though I feel religion also acts as a kind of moral ball and chain). Religion can tell us to help others. Science, on the other hand, can discover how we could achieve that goal. How do we get water and food to Africa for example? How do we develop new ways of growing crops? How do we cure illnesses?

You are echoing some things I said. We certainly have the ability to help, we don't do it enough.

Before any scientific advancement, people were helping and aiding others, all the while being more religious in general. Science can't take credit for that.

Hm I interpreted you saying you accept speciation up to a point to mean that you accept that species can branch off into other species, but you don't accept that they can evolve into something completely unlike the original form over millions of years. Why don't you believe it then?

Again, there is no reason to believe they needed to do this and no evidence they had unless you count drawings.

So are you saying I do need to accept it all?

 

[10dollas]

Ok guys, So i got into a religion argument with a guy I know. And well, here is a message from the guy himself. The goal is not to be an asshole, or to prove to him god doesn't exist, but rather to explain why his thinking is so incredibly flawed. With that in mind, how would you respond to this post GAF?

Entering God into science does not undermine the process Jeff. In fact modern science owes all of its presumptions to Christian philosophy. Hinduism's gods are fickle and who can know what they will do. Their universe is disorderly chaotic and the law of non-contradiction does not apply. There is no logic. Allah's world is too transcedent and can not be understood by humans. The atheists world is all chance and random fluctuations. The greek and roman gods are fickle and do all kinds of crazy things. Modern science relies on God:

the universe (world) is orderly;
this orderly universe can be known; and
there is a motive to discover the order.

These are 3 premises all of modern science rests on. And it rests on the back of early Christian thinkers:

Pascal, Newton, Faraday, even Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, Copernicus, and many more.

They all believed that the universe was rational because it was made by a rational God. If this is true we will expect some primary causes in the created cosmos. For example the cell, organisms, logic, morality, life, truth, et al. If we undermine God and try to find secondary causes for all of these we're stupid and end up cutting off our legs because they stand on the fact that the universe is orderly, which presupposes God. There are just some things secondary causes can not explain: the order of the cosmos, the complexity of life - any attempt to provide a natural explanation of this verges on the absurd and illogical. Believing the cell came together by random chances and then evolved into us would require probabilities way past statistical impossibility 1*10^50. Numbers that are even close to this we throw out as impossible in thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and in everyday life. It is absurd to base one's worldview on chances this improbable and not give credit where credit is due.

 

[Dude Abides]

Yet another GAFer who thinks insults constitute argumentation.

http://www.swbts.edu/catalog/page.cfm?id=37&open=3_area

Hmmm...nope. Not scholarly at all.

Yet another GAFFer who thinks that if he calls an orange an apple, the orange in fact is an apple.

Systematic theology is a political enterprise centered around justifying a particular set of religious beliefs. Not a scholarly effort. You attend gussied-up Bible study, not school. Sorry, all the five-dollar-words and name-dropping in the world won't turn you from a charlatan into a scholar.

Right. And that's why articles on "language about God" never appear in Philosophy of Religion readers. Here, I'll pull one out just to make sure. I just happen to have on hand my copy of Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, 3rd Edition, published by a little-known university, Oxford University.

Oh, my goodness! Under "Part Nine: Religious Language," there are six readings! And what's this? An excerpt from the introduction to part nine? (I'll help you out with some bold on my part)



Wow, you're right! Language about God is not a philosophical issue at all!

"How do humans talk about the divine" is, of course, a scholarly issue and has been explored deeply. "What does 'perfect' actually mean if we're talking about God" is not.

"Textually pure" means "without transmission errors." Remember context clues from elementary school? You have to read the words around the words whose meaning you don't know to ascertain their meaning.

This is probably the silliest thing you've said yet. The site says it means what I say it does. Direct quote: The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. Your interpretation, of course, makes no sense. How can you tell if something has "transmission errors" when you can't compare it to the thing from which it was transmitted?

It supports exactly what I said it does: that there is only a .5% margin for transmission errors. If you want to believe that there were errors in the original manuscripts that were subsequently faithfully transmitted into later copies, that's your prerogative.

Nope, it supports the notion that there is a .5% variation across the available texts. Direct quote again, in case you missed it above: The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. And, again, you can't evaluate whether the transmission from A to B was erroneous when you can only look at B.

Of course, the sources of the article aren't available, so we have to take even that empirical claim at face value, which is a mistake when dealing with agenda-pushing Christian apologists.

 

[Dever]

You are echoing some things I said. We certainly have the ability to help, we don't do it enough.

Before any scientific advancement, people were helping and aiding others, all the while being more religious in general. Science can't take credit for that.

Of course not. Science tells us things about how nature is. It won't tell you how humans ought to behave. You often hear things from the very stupid creationists about how because I believe in evolution I must also believe Hitler was right or that humans should act like animals, since we are animals! :lol Science can describe the brutal selection going on in nature, but only a madman thinks we should apply that to human society.

Again, there is no reason to believe they needed to do this and no evidence they had unless you count drawings.

Well, again, they're not just drawings. They're based off of real fossils found somewhere around Pakistan I think and then dated too. Many biologists like Dawkins would also argue that the fossil evidence is not the strongest evidence for evolution, and that even without a single fossils, we could prove evolution beyond reasonable doubt with genetic evidence. For human evolution, look up for example the GULO gene and endogenic retroviruses. Those are the two big ones I know of.

So are you saying I do need to accept it all?

Accept what makes sense to you and what you see compelling evidence for.

 

[DragonGirl]

Well there are immediate benefits but I didn't say all problems were solved did I.

I didn't ask about all problems. Just an example. Any example. Just one.

Some problems are ones involving a higher morality, a better peace of mind regardless of circumstances, an education that emphasizes not just worship but concern for others.

Many problems involving health, depression, finances, & marriage ar minimized following Scriptural direction.

Ahh, the ownership of morality. So here's my next question. What proof do you have that religion improves a person's sense of morality. Are the religious on average more moral than the non religious. Does advice based on scripture offer more help than secular advice? Is it more insightful? Any peer reviewed studies support that position? Looking at crime rates, teen birth rates, violence rates, divorce rates etc. Areas with higher religious populations do not present as being more moral than non religious populations.

Do you want me to continue or might you be ready to insert snarky comments?

Put your hackles down. I will treat you with the same level of civility as you treat me. I can be snarky. I can be downright mean. But I don't go into those modes until somebody really asks for it.

Of course religion is a marketing tool. The goal is always to get more followers. What's wrong with that? Are you thinking science isn't a commercial endeavor? OK.

Science isn't a commercial endeavor in and of itself. It can certainly be used for commercial purposes, however. As to your question of "what's wrong with that?" First you need a product. I've seen no evidence of one. That, really is the foundational problem right there (this of course is specifically aimed at religions claiming gods and supernatural interventions into the physical world.)

 

[ronito]

Funny C.S. Lewis is now in favor, but he wrote once that he hated theology because it was "guess work".

 

[Dever]

Ok guys, So i got into a religion argument with a guy I know. And well, here is a message from the guy himself. The goal is not to be an asshole, or to prove to him god doesn't exist, but rather to explain why his thinking is so incredibly flawed. With that in mind, how would you respond to this post GAF?

Standard creationist bs!

-I never got why we need to presuppose God in order to think that the universe is orderly. Can't we just discover that through observation? The apple falls from the tree the same every time. Also, why is God orderly? What made him orderly? He just happened to be rational? Pfft, what are the chances of that!

-There is nothing in the Bible that validates the law of non-contradiction for example. You won't find a passage like this: "And THUS sayeth the LORD: It shall be so that A can not be B at the same time!"

-And you could also ask him if he thinks God can break the law of non-contradiction. Can God make a square circle? If the laws of logic apply to God, he didn't make them.

-Please ask him where he got that 1/10^50 number from. Also, the odds that he was ever born are equally just as absurd, yet there he is anyway. I don't think there's much point in calculating how improbable an event was after it took place.

 

[Dude Abides]

For anyone interested in actual (but accessible) historical analysis of initial development of ideas about the Abrahamic god, I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0679743685/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[jaxword]

Does God still do that? Get angry and kill?

Everything that happens is God's will, this means life and death. So where a good thing is God's will (i.e. thanking God for things going your way) this also means that bad things, like a coincidental death, is also God's will.

Secondly, depending on who you talk to, when mass death happens, i.e. 9/11, this is evidence God is angry. Many, many people believe this. How do you prove them wrong?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Systematic theology is a political enterprise centered around justifying a particular set of religious beliefs. Not a scholarly effort. You attend gussied-up Bible study, not school. Sorry, all the five-dollar-words and name-dropping in the world won't turn you from a charlatan into a scholar.

Oh, my. The same accrediting association that is the standard for theological education in North America accredits both Harvard Divinity School (http://www.ats.edu/MemberSchools/Pages/SchoolDetail.aspx?ID=387) and my school (http://www.ats.edu/MemberSchools/Pages/SchoolDetail.aspx?ID=493). Guess you're out of luck on your contention, unless of course, you're willing to argue that Harvard Divinity School's ThD is not a scholarly effort.

And let's let the institution that hires me as a professor be the judge as to my ability as a scholar, rather than some GAF dilettante. I'll take the value of your educational judgment plus $1.40 and go buy myself a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

"How do humans talk about the divine" is, of course, a scholarly issue and has been explored deeply. "What does 'perfect' actually mean if we're talking about God" is not.

You are in serious need of a reader and/or course on Philosophy of Religion. I'll just quote again part of the text I mentioned: "One of the key issues for philosophers of religious language is, How can we speak meaningfully of God?" I suppose, then, that "What does 'perfect' actually mean if we're talking about God?" isn't in the same vein. After all, you provided ample evidence to show that not only is not really a philosophical issue, but that it doesn't belong in philosophy of religion.

This is probably the silliest thing you've said yet. The site says it means what I say it does. Direct quote: The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. Your interpretation, of course, makes no sense. How can you tell if something has "transmission errors" when you can't compare it to the thing from which it was transmitted?

The comparison, as I've told you repeatedly, is to other copies--the older the manuscript, the better. Of course you can't compare them to the originals because the originals no longer exist. Neither I nor the website argued for such a comparison.

Nope, it supports the notion that there is a .5% variation across the available texts. Direct quote again, in case you missed it above: The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. And, again, you can't evaluate whether the transmission from A to B was erroneous when you can only look at B.

Again, a .5% margin of error. If one manuscript containing passage A says one thing and another manuscript containing passage A says another, then one of those has to be an incorrect copy: a transmission error. "Internal consistency" and "textually pure" have everything to do with transmission errors. Would you like for me to recommend some books on New Testament textual criticism to you?

Of course, the sources of the article aren't available, so we have to take even that empirical claim at face value, which is a mistake when dealing with agenda-pushing Christian apologists.

*Sigh* The 99.5% consistency is attested by many New Testament scholars, most notably Bruce Metzger, one of the foremost 20th century experts on New Testament textual criticism. See: http://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Transmission-Restoration/dp/019516122X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270763558&sr=8-1