My motivation for writing this post is not to change your minds but to give you something to think about and to test my beliefs in an open forum. Steel sharpens steel as it is written so thanks to you who care and are willing to make the effort to fight for what you think is right.
I am still very much convinced that Evolution is simply an idea in some people’s minds and not the reality of the natural world. It is no coincidence that it parallels Christianity so closely - this was where Darwin stole most of “his” ideas.
Both Evolution and Christianity are about the transformation of one species into another. For Christianity it is the creation of the new man. Darwin’s scenario begins with one member being different at birth. This follows Christianity as Jesus was different – being conceived by the Holy Spirit. In Evolution this “mutation” gives the individual an advantage in survival. Having been raised from the dead proves that Jesus was a survivor. Finally in evolution the member of a species are not like this new individual becomes “extinct”. This too follows the Christianity in that those who do not accept Jesus are lost. Please note that none of these ideas are self evident in the natural world. They are read into it by our preconceived ideas.
Even if I am completely wrong - evolution itself points to Jesus as mankind’s savior. We can easily see this by asking the question “from an evolutionary point of view who will transform and “save” mankind?”
If everyone became like Jesus there would be no hunger because he was able to feed people. Neither would be there be sickness, war or death. The same can not be said for Buddha, Mohamed, or Moses or anyone else one can think of. So even from an evolutionary point of view Jesus is the one.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 11 2008, 06:08 PM)
Both Evolution and Christianity are about the transformation of one species into another.
"Evolution" in Christianity is a spiritual evolution. Darwin's theories are centered in the observable, the objective, the physical. Surely you understand there is a difference between the spiritual and the physical world?
I was also unaware that spirits could be classified into "species".
I'm not even going to *touch* the rest of this post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Edit: By the way... math? Where??
"Evolution" in Christianity is a spiritual evolution. Darwin's theories are centered in the observable, the objective, the physical. Surely you understand there is a difference between the spiritual and the physical world?
I was also unaware that spirits could be classified into "species".
I'm not even going to *touch* the rest of this post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Edit: By the way... math? Where??
Wow... just wow. 
Passing question... How many people do you know who have become like Jesus and can produce food from thin air?
Passing question... How many people do you know who have become like Jesus and can produce food from thin air?
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 11 2008, 07:08 PM)
So even from an evolutionary point of view Jesus is the one.
Stop stealing ideas from 'The Matrix'. Get your own.
Stop stealing ideas from 'The Matrix'. Get your own.
Jesus is the most repeated orator in history. The words he spoke and the life he lead are tossed around millions of times a day.
There is however, a greater reading of Paul in churches . Paul was a pharisee who persecuted Christians until encountering "the vision"
Here is where I cannot reconcile Christianity at all . An American, born and raised in America could not in an instant become a Chinese with Chinese thoughts. Despite the environment at the time....This is just not possible....
Paul remained a pharisee because he taught like a pharisee...Most of what he writes is new laws "given him by the word of God". This despite the time Jesus spent teaching twelve men the correct rules of life as a changed man.
It is this area which you might save your greatest criticism , for Paul made the christian laws even though he received no teaching from him.
Jesus was IMO one of the greatest scientist of his day. If only a few stories about him are true, he did something pretty incredible. Though he spake to many persons NOT to repeat what he had done. But this was ignored......
Just to add a further search for you , try and find examples in the old testament of demons.
Jesus fulfilled the laws of his people. Went beyond this and vilified the transgressions in law which were hurting common folk....you want a villain....blame Paul......Jesus was a cool dude. I like him . Don't like crap being said about him because he was his own man and harmed no one.
Cheers
Iseason
There is however, a greater reading of Paul in churches . Paul was a pharisee who persecuted Christians until encountering "the vision"
Here is where I cannot reconcile Christianity at all . An American, born and raised in America could not in an instant become a Chinese with Chinese thoughts. Despite the environment at the time....This is just not possible....
Paul remained a pharisee because he taught like a pharisee...Most of what he writes is new laws "given him by the word of God". This despite the time Jesus spent teaching twelve men the correct rules of life as a changed man.
It is this area which you might save your greatest criticism , for Paul made the christian laws even though he received no teaching from him.
Jesus was IMO one of the greatest scientist of his day. If only a few stories about him are true, he did something pretty incredible. Though he spake to many persons NOT to repeat what he had done. But this was ignored......
Just to add a further search for you , try and find examples in the old testament of demons.
Jesus fulfilled the laws of his people. Went beyond this and vilified the transgressions in law which were hurting common folk....you want a villain....blame Paul......Jesus was a cool dude. I like him . Don't like crap being said about him because he was his own man and harmed no one.
Cheers
Iseason
Don’t you think that before you start talking about a religious figure such a Jesus that you present something to prove that he actually existed first?
I mean would you not make the same demands if it came to someone making claims about Hercules or Cu Cuchulain as a real person rather than a mythical figure?
I mean would you not make the same demands if it came to someone making claims about Hercules or Cu Cuchulain as a real person rather than a mythical figure?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 12 2008, 09:25 AM)
Don’t you think that before you start talking about a religious figure such a Jesus that you present something to prove that he actually existed first?
I'm tempted to believe that a figure like Jesus did exist. I do not, however, believe that he had supernatural abilities or powers or anything 'godlike'. I believe that his story was taken up and mired in so much symbolism and mysticism that it ended up the way we see it today.
I'm tempted to believe that a figure like Jesus did exist. I do not, however, believe that he had supernatural abilities or powers or anything 'godlike'. I believe that his story was taken up and mired in so much symbolism and mysticism that it ended up the way we see it today.
Considering the large gap of time between the claimed time Jesus lived and when his deeds were turned into gospel, I can see you point, but how would one support the claim he was a real person?
A majority if not all details surrounding his origins comes from legends and legendary figures that predate Jesus.
A majority if not all details surrounding his origins comes from legends and legendary figures that predate Jesus.
As I see even mathetical logic disproved evolution.
Math is the most rigorous science right?
Consider evolution disproved.
Math is the most rigorous science right?
Consider evolution disproved.
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 08:41 PM)
As I see even mathetical logic disproved evolution.
Math is the most rigorous science right?
Consider evolution disproved.
Math is the most rigorous science right?
Consider evolution disproved.
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 08:41 PM)
As I see even mathetical logic disproved evolution.
Math is the most rigorous science right?
Consider evolution disproved.
Hystero-meter is going through the roof!
Math is the most rigorous science right?
Consider evolution disproved.
Hystero-meter is going through the roof!
Oh how very smart. Your posting laughing smiley faces is so intelligent. But what else shld one excpect from atheist right?
When there are no arguments you have to post smiley faces like littel kids
When there are no arguments you have to post smiley faces like littel kids
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 09:06 PM)
Oh how very smart. Your posting laughing smiley faces is so intelligent. But what else shld one excpect from atheist right?
When there are no arguments you have to post smiley faces like littel kids
Mybe if yu strtd usng teh spll checkr yu'd look a littel mre intllgent.
When there are no arguments you have to post smiley faces like littel kids
Mybe if yu strtd usng teh spll checkr yu'd look a littel mre intllgent.
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 09:06 PM)
Oh how very smart. Your posting laughing smiley faces is so intelligent. But what else shld one excpect from atheist right?
When there are no arguments you have to post smiley faces like littel kids
Oh how very smart. Your posting Religiously biased crap is so intelligent. But what else shld one excpect from an idiot right?
When there are no arguments you have to post rubbish like littel kids
When there are no arguments you have to post smiley faces like littel kids
Oh how very smart. Your posting Religiously biased crap is so intelligent. But what else shld one excpect from an idiot right?
When there are no arguments you have to post rubbish like littel kids
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 12 2008, 09:11 PM)
Oh how very smart. Your posting Religiously biased crap is so intelligent. But what else shld one excpect from an idiot right?
When there are no arguments you have to post rubbish like littel kids
Why do you call the truth "religiously biased crap"?
When there are no arguments you have to post rubbish like littel kids
Why do you call the truth "religiously biased crap"?
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 12 2008, 09:17 PM)
Why do you call the truth "religiously biased crap"?
Because that is the truth
Because that is the truth
I can no more prove Jesus existed than you can disprove it. But Please be wary. I am not In favor of religion, especially Christian based religions. So your barbs in this direction may be blunted by the fact that I'm not interested in defending Whether he was or was not a real person.
I am satisfied , by the impact that the world has endured , that he should be seen as having "lived. That's enough on proving him.
The words Written on his behalf in the epistles are quite different from the letters of Paul. Indeed all were written after the deed was quite distant and memories may not be as exact as a recent account would be .
Luke For instance, most Christians would be surprised to learn , never even met Jesus , but was a Pharisees son , Doctor and close confidant of the ruling classes in Rome. Yet his account is the most exacting and enduring picture of Jesus that we have.
Legend , to be fair, Legend is rife in all ancient writing , no matter who put pen to paper. However, Because the pen was put there much closer than the investigations we can do today, we need to make some allowance for fancy. My point was The attributed acts of Jesus can be suspect, but much of the wisdom endures today. Much of this wisdom is simply good behavior,while much requires a lot of commitment to keep up with.
You can question whether God exists till the cows come home. but legend or not, The impact on the world remains. Those against prefer everything to be false, while those for say everything is true. I can see exagerations in claims made in every walk of life here and now.......Bought a vaccuum lately.
I don't believe in Miracles any more than most. Much is made of these events to the detriment or the reader
I say read the book,like you read a book , absorb what works and reject what doesn't.
You can't lose any more than reading other books.
Cheers
Iseason
I am satisfied , by the impact that the world has endured , that he should be seen as having "lived. That's enough on proving him.
The words Written on his behalf in the epistles are quite different from the letters of Paul. Indeed all were written after the deed was quite distant and memories may not be as exact as a recent account would be .
Luke For instance, most Christians would be surprised to learn , never even met Jesus , but was a Pharisees son , Doctor and close confidant of the ruling classes in Rome. Yet his account is the most exacting and enduring picture of Jesus that we have.
Legend , to be fair, Legend is rife in all ancient writing , no matter who put pen to paper. However, Because the pen was put there much closer than the investigations we can do today, we need to make some allowance for fancy. My point was The attributed acts of Jesus can be suspect, but much of the wisdom endures today. Much of this wisdom is simply good behavior,while much requires a lot of commitment to keep up with.
You can question whether God exists till the cows come home. but legend or not, The impact on the world remains. Those against prefer everything to be false, while those for say everything is true. I can see exagerations in claims made in every walk of life here and now.......Bought a vaccuum lately.
I don't believe in Miracles any more than most. Much is made of these events to the detriment or the reader
I say read the book,like you read a book , absorb what works and reject what doesn't.
You can't lose any more than reading other books.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 13 2008, 07:11 AM)
I can no more prove Jesus existed than you can disprove it. But Please be wary. I am not In favor of religion, especially Christian based religions. So your barbs in this direction may be blunted by the fact that I'm not interested in defending Whether he was or was not a real person.
I am satisfied , by the impact that the world has endured , that he should be seen as having "lived. That's enough on proving him.
The words Written on his behalf in the epistles are quite different from the letters of Paul. Indeed all were written after the deed was quite distant and memories may not be as exact as a recent account would be .
Luke For instance, most Christians would be surprised to learn , never even met Jesus , but was a Pharisees son , Doctor and close confidant of the ruling classes in Rome. Yet his account is the most exacting and enduring picture of Jesus that we have.
Legend , to be fair, Legend is rife in all ancient writing , no matter who put pen to paper. However, Because the pen was put there much closer than the investigations we can do today, we need to make some allowance for fancy. My point was The attributed acts of Jesus can be suspect, but much of the wisdom endures today. Much of this wisdom is simply good behavior,while much requires a lot of commitment to keep up with.
You can question whether God exists till the cows come home. but legend or not, The impact on the world remains. Those against prefer everything to be false, while those for say everything is true. I can see exagerations in claims made in every walk of life here and now.......Bought a vaccuum lately.
I don't believe in Miracles any more than most. Much is made of these events to the detriment or the reader
I say read the book,like you read a book , absorb what works and reject what doesn't.
You can't lose any more than reading other books.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi iseason
I agree with your premise.
This is my belief in regards to the Bible. I think the bible has many valuable philosophical passages and poses many a moral question.
There are those who IMO are attracted to the positive aspects of these texts because they are searching for positivity, they are equally attracted to the 'Good' aspects of the texts because they are searching for 'Goodness' in their lives, other people etc, etc.
Jesus was the Superman of the time. We know Superman is fictional but his attitude towards helping are a culmination of acts of kindness Humans wish they were capable of. It is not surprising that characters like Superman, Jesus, The good Samaritan etc flourish in the meme-tic arena and have stood the test of time.
In Superman we see the actions of countless Humans all rolled into one character and then embellished with Supernatural abilities necessary for this singular character to perform the feats.
I see a similar phenomena in Jesus. It doesn't matter whether Jesus was real (though I maintain that he was almost certainly not real as described)
The authors created a Superman character to perform all of the duties they considered to be necessary. Duties no doubt taken from other known acts of 'kindness' etc and rolled up into one person.
Jesus in this sense was the highest moral authority the authors could imagine.
In our more evolved awareness of the World over time, we can still make some use of this philosophy, however times have changed but the bible has changed less. There are other valuable philosophies. There will be more in the future. It would be foolish to dismiss the potential value in other philosophies.
Or Superman is the way therefore Spiderman is not, seems to be what I see others aspire to in the 3 major Religions.
I guess we are saying the same thing in different ways, and that I think is my point.
Kind regards
I am satisfied , by the impact that the world has endured , that he should be seen as having "lived. That's enough on proving him.
The words Written on his behalf in the epistles are quite different from the letters of Paul. Indeed all were written after the deed was quite distant and memories may not be as exact as a recent account would be .
Luke For instance, most Christians would be surprised to learn , never even met Jesus , but was a Pharisees son , Doctor and close confidant of the ruling classes in Rome. Yet his account is the most exacting and enduring picture of Jesus that we have.
Legend , to be fair, Legend is rife in all ancient writing , no matter who put pen to paper. However, Because the pen was put there much closer than the investigations we can do today, we need to make some allowance for fancy. My point was The attributed acts of Jesus can be suspect, but much of the wisdom endures today. Much of this wisdom is simply good behavior,while much requires a lot of commitment to keep up with.
You can question whether God exists till the cows come home. but legend or not, The impact on the world remains. Those against prefer everything to be false, while those for say everything is true. I can see exagerations in claims made in every walk of life here and now.......Bought a vaccuum lately.
I don't believe in Miracles any more than most. Much is made of these events to the detriment or the reader
I say read the book,like you read a book , absorb what works and reject what doesn't.
You can't lose any more than reading other books.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi iseason
I agree with your premise.
This is my belief in regards to the Bible. I think the bible has many valuable philosophical passages and poses many a moral question.
There are those who IMO are attracted to the positive aspects of these texts because they are searching for positivity, they are equally attracted to the 'Good' aspects of the texts because they are searching for 'Goodness' in their lives, other people etc, etc.
Jesus was the Superman of the time. We know Superman is fictional but his attitude towards helping are a culmination of acts of kindness Humans wish they were capable of. It is not surprising that characters like Superman, Jesus, The good Samaritan etc flourish in the meme-tic arena and have stood the test of time.
In Superman we see the actions of countless Humans all rolled into one character and then embellished with Supernatural abilities necessary for this singular character to perform the feats.
I see a similar phenomena in Jesus. It doesn't matter whether Jesus was real (though I maintain that he was almost certainly not real as described)
The authors created a Superman character to perform all of the duties they considered to be necessary. Duties no doubt taken from other known acts of 'kindness' etc and rolled up into one person.
Jesus in this sense was the highest moral authority the authors could imagine.
In our more evolved awareness of the World over time, we can still make some use of this philosophy, however times have changed but the bible has changed less. There are other valuable philosophies. There will be more in the future. It would be foolish to dismiss the potential value in other philosophies.
Or Superman is the way therefore Spiderman is not, seems to be what I see others aspire to in the 3 major Religions.
I guess we are saying the same thing in different ways, and that I think is my point.
Kind regards
QUOTE (Iseason+)
I can no more prove Jesus existed than you can disprove it.
Are you talking to me? If so, then I would bring your attention back to a post where you jumped on people for not properly using the quote function. Please try not to be a hypocrite.
And it is not up to me to disprove that a figure of religious myth was real or not. You claim he existed therefore it is up to you to provide proof. Faith is fine for yourself, but not if you seek to make claim of fact.
But you go to the length of posting a supportive post including the notion that I have to disprove a claim based upon religion and/or myth.
But you go to the length of posting a supportive post including the notion that I have to disprove a claim based upon religion and/or myth.
I am satisfied , by the impact that the world has endured , that he should be seen as having "lived. That's enough on proving him.
So, using that same reasoning, Santa is real as is the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the Boogie man. Again, great for yourself, but not rational, reasonable or logical.
So back to your not defending the myth of Jesus, again, there is nothing to support the idea he ever existed to begin with. Then there is the fact that much claimed about him come form legends and myths that predicate Jesus and are form other cultures and/or religions.
So back to your not defending the myth of Jesus, again, there is nothing to support the idea he ever existed to begin with. Then there is the fact that much claimed about him come form legends and myths that predicate Jesus and are form other cultures and/or religions.
Luke For instance, most Christians would be surprised to learn , never even met Jesus , but was a Pharisees son , Doctor and close confidant of the ruling classes in Rome. Yet his account is the most exacting and enduring picture of Jesus that we have.
So, more defending of a topic you claimed not to seek to defend.
And again, these claims predate Jesus and comes from “saviors” that predate him. Still, nothing but legend about a legend.
And again, these claims predate Jesus and comes from “saviors” that predate him. Still, nothing but legend about a legend.
You can question whether God exists till the cows come home. but legend or not, The impact on the world remains.
Again, as does Santa (or would that be Satan), the Easter Bunny, etc.
So you are trying to claim I am against god? I simply call into question claims made regarding legend and myth. If by doing so I am classified as being against god, then I guess you will also claim I am against Santa and all. The is a rather simplistic dismissal on your part.
So you are trying to claim I am against god? I simply call into question claims made regarding legend and myth. If by doing so I am classified as being against god, then I guess you will also claim I am against Santa and all. The is a rather simplistic dismissal on your part.
I can see exagerations in claims made in every walk of life here and now.......Bought a vaccuum lately.
I don't believe in Miracles any more than most. Much is made of these events to the detriment or the reader
Just as you are not seeking to defend the legend of Jesus?
And I have and do and that is why I see Jesus as being a legend or myth. But you prefer to think of him as real due to any positive effect that myth has had.
And I have and do and that is why I see Jesus as being a legend or myth. But you prefer to think of him as real due to any positive effect that myth has had.
You can't lose any more than reading other books.
Oh yes you can. If you believe the myths and the commands given by any religious tome, you can loose your freedom and your life.
The theory presents itself as complete but I don't believe that this can be true of any human theory. And this itself is an indicator that it is something that exists in our minds and not out there.
Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
Quote:
In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.
The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete theory of everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.
Are you talking to me? If so, then I would bring your attention back to a post where you jumped on people for not properly using the quote function. Please try not to be a hypocrite.
And it is not up to me to disprove that a figure of religious myth was real or not. You claim he existed therefore it is up to you to provide proof. Faith is fine for yourself, but not if you seek to make claim of fact.
QUOTE
But Please be wary. I am not In favor of religion, especially Christian based religions. So your barbs in this direction may be blunted by the fact that I'm not interested in defending Whether he was or was not a real person.
But you go to the length of posting a supportive post including the notion that I have to disprove a claim based upon religion and/or myth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But Please be wary. I am not In favor of religion, especially Christian based religions. So your barbs in this direction may be blunted by the fact that I'm not interested in defending Whether he was or was not a real person. |
But you go to the length of posting a supportive post including the notion that I have to disprove a claim based upon religion and/or myth.
I am satisfied , by the impact that the world has endured , that he should be seen as having "lived. That's enough on proving him.
So, using that same reasoning, Santa is real as is the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the Boogie man. Again, great for yourself, but not rational, reasonable or logical.
QUOTE
The words Written on his behalf in the epistles are quite different from the letters of Paul. Indeed all were written after the deed was quite distant and memories may not be as exact as a recent account would be .
So back to your not defending the myth of Jesus, again, there is nothing to support the idea he ever existed to begin with. Then there is the fact that much claimed about him come form legends and myths that predicate Jesus and are form other cultures and/or religions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The words Written on his behalf in the epistles are quite different from the letters of Paul. Indeed all were written after the deed was quite distant and memories may not be as exact as a recent account would be . |
So back to your not defending the myth of Jesus, again, there is nothing to support the idea he ever existed to begin with. Then there is the fact that much claimed about him come form legends and myths that predicate Jesus and are form other cultures and/or religions.
Luke For instance, most Christians would be surprised to learn , never even met Jesus , but was a Pharisees son , Doctor and close confidant of the ruling classes in Rome. Yet his account is the most exacting and enduring picture of Jesus that we have.
So, more defending of a topic you claimed not to seek to defend.
QUOTE
Legend , to be fair, Legend is rife in all ancient writing , no matter who put pen to paper. However, Because the pen was put there much closer than the investigations we can do today, we need to make some allowance for fancy. My point was The attributed acts of Jesus can be suspect, but much of the wisdom endures today. Much of this wisdom is simply good behavior,while much requires a lot of commitment to keep up with.
And again, these claims predate Jesus and comes from “saviors” that predate him. Still, nothing but legend about a legend.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Legend , to be fair, Legend is rife in all ancient writing , no matter who put pen to paper. However, Because the pen was put there much closer than the investigations we can do today, we need to make some allowance for fancy. My point was The attributed acts of Jesus can be suspect, but much of the wisdom endures today. Much of this wisdom is simply good behavior,while much requires a lot of commitment to keep up with. |
And again, these claims predate Jesus and comes from “saviors” that predate him. Still, nothing but legend about a legend.
You can question whether God exists till the cows come home. but legend or not, The impact on the world remains.
Again, as does Santa (or would that be Satan), the Easter Bunny, etc.
QUOTE
Those against prefer everything to be false, while those for say everything is true.
So you are trying to claim I am against god? I simply call into question claims made regarding legend and myth. If by doing so I am classified as being against god, then I guess you will also claim I am against Santa and all. The is a rather simplistic dismissal on your part.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Those against prefer everything to be false, while those for say everything is true. |
So you are trying to claim I am against god? I simply call into question claims made regarding legend and myth. If by doing so I am classified as being against god, then I guess you will also claim I am against Santa and all. The is a rather simplistic dismissal on your part.
I can see exagerations in claims made in every walk of life here and now.......Bought a vaccuum lately.
I don't believe in Miracles any more than most. Much is made of these events to the detriment or the reader
Just as you are not seeking to defend the legend of Jesus?
QUOTE
I say read the book,like you read a book , absorb what works and reject what doesn't.
And I have and do and that is why I see Jesus as being a legend or myth. But you prefer to think of him as real due to any positive effect that myth has had.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I say read the book,like you read a book , absorb what works and reject what doesn't. |
And I have and do and that is why I see Jesus as being a legend or myth. But you prefer to think of him as real due to any positive effect that myth has had.
You can't lose any more than reading other books.
Oh yes you can. If you believe the myths and the commands given by any religious tome, you can loose your freedom and your life.
Evans,
repeatedly stating something as the truth will not make it so. I know that you are not trying to convince us as much as you are trying to convince yourself. There is no shame in your situation, many of us have been there ourselves. You simply have to let go of the fear. You can make the step. Just remember that the truth is neither weakened by disagreement nor strengthened by recital, it simply is.
repeatedly stating something as the truth will not make it so. I know that you are not trying to convince us as much as you are trying to convince yourself. There is no shame in your situation, many of us have been there ourselves. You simply have to let go of the fear. You can make the step. Just remember that the truth is neither weakened by disagreement nor strengthened by recital, it simply is.
QUOTE (DuzmA+Jun 13 2008, 02:54 PM)
Evans,
repeatedly stating something as the truth will not make it so. I know that you are not trying to convince us as much as you are trying to convince yourself. There is no shame in your situation, many of us have been there ourselves. You simply have to let go of the fear. You can make the step. Just remember that the truth is neither weakened by disagreement nor strengthened by recital, it simply is.
What can i say?
Poor misguided soul........
repeatedly stating something as the truth will not make it so. I know that you are not trying to convince us as much as you are trying to convince yourself. There is no shame in your situation, many of us have been there ourselves. You simply have to let go of the fear. You can make the step. Just remember that the truth is neither weakened by disagreement nor strengthened by recital, it simply is.
What can i say?
Poor misguided soul........
QUOTE (DuzmA+Jun 13 2008, 02:54 PM)
Evans,
repeatedly stating something as the truth will not make it so. I know that you are not trying to convince us as much as you are trying to convince yourself. There is no shame in your situation, many of us have been there ourselves. You simply have to let go of the fear. You can make the step. Just remember that the truth is neither weakened by disagreement nor strengthened by recital, it simply is.
stupid boy the truth is the bible and the bible is truth now you know the truth beat it stupid boy!
lisen to dad1 and lern something poor unblessed idiot.
repeatedly stating something as the truth will not make it so. I know that you are not trying to convince us as much as you are trying to convince yourself. There is no shame in your situation, many of us have been there ourselves. You simply have to let go of the fear. You can make the step. Just remember that the truth is neither weakened by disagreement nor strengthened by recital, it simply is.
stupid boy the truth is the bible and the bible is truth now you know the truth beat it stupid boy!
lisen to dad1 and lern something poor unblessed idiot.
i want to ask starter of this thread: can you give me the detail on how mathetical logic disproves evolution. i know one guy in a church whose good at math so i can explain it to him. i only know that einstein already proved existence of god with his Em=c2 equations (i saw it somwhere on the net).
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 13 2008, 06:16 PM)
i only know that einstein already proved existence of god with his Em=c2 equations (i saw it somwhere on the net).
Yeah, lemme guess the url:
www.sick-german-fetish-videos-and-other-shite.com
Yeah, lemme guess the url:
www.sick-german-fetish-videos-and-other-shite.com
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 13 2008, 07:16 PM)
i only know that einstein already proved existence of god with his Em=c2 equations (i saw it somwhere on the net).
No, he didn't. I'm a theoretical physicist and I can tell you now he didn't. If he did, why isn't the entire relativity community religious, since we should all know the 'proof'.
It's pathetic you lie like that about a topic you know nothing about.
No, he didn't. I'm a theoretical physicist and I can tell you now he didn't. If he did, why isn't the entire relativity community religious, since we should all know the 'proof'.
It's pathetic you lie like that about a topic you know nothing about.
To the real people on this thread / in this section of the forum:
There is no way Evans and Jeremy Fisher are real people.
So don't worry about it
There is no way Evans and Jeremy Fisher are real people.
So don't worry about it
Its funny how upset they get when you hit a nerve. look how quickly they jumped into insulting me. I shall not stoop to the level of ridiculous personal attacks, I'm pretty sure that someone created the account Jeremy Fisher as a joke anyway. It is pretty funny.
for Gene splicer..
Please find the post where I jumped on someone for not quoting??.....as opposed to Misquoting?
Please find the post where I jumped on someone for not quoting??.....as opposed to Misquoting?
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 13 2008, 10:50 PM)
Hi iseason
I agree with your premise.
This is my belief in regards to the Bible. I think the bible has many valuable philosophical passages and poses many a moral question.
There are those who IMO are attracted to the positive aspects of these texts because they are searching for positivity, they are equally attracted to the 'Good' aspects of the texts because they are searching for 'Goodness' in their lives, other people etc, etc.
Jesus was the Superman of the time. We know Superman is fictional but his attitude towards helping are a culmination of acts of kindness Humans wish they were capable of. It is not surprising that characters like Superman, Jesus, The good Samaritan etc flourish in the meme-tic arena and have stood the test of time.
In Superman we see the actions of countless Humans all rolled into one character and then embellished with Supernatural abilities necessary for this singular character to perform the feats.
I see a similar phenomena in Jesus. It doesn't matter whether Jesus was real (though I maintain that he was almost certainly not real as described)
The authors created a Superman character to perform all of the duties they considered to be necessary. Duties no doubt taken from other known acts of 'kindness' etc and rolled up into one person.
Jesus in this sense was the highest moral authority the authors could imagine.
In our more evolved awareness of the World over time, we can still make some use of this philosophy, however times have changed but the bible has changed less. There are other valuable philosophies. There will be more in the future. It would be foolish to dismiss the potential value in other philosophies.
Or Superman is the way therefore Spiderman is not, seems to be what I see others aspire to in the 3 major Religions.
I guess we are saying the same thing in different ways, and that I think is my point.
Kind regards
Hi Si
It's sad really , that no amount of talking will change the positions of some people. To be fair to people like Gene splicer , I was into Christianity many years ago, And that's where my opposition to it comes from. Though there is a lot to be said from the reading of any old scriptures. It is amazing how often we throw good knowledge out along with the bad and reviewing it can only be done by studying those who went before us.
All learning is based in this fashion and Although I can understand peoples opposition to actual practices that are based on religions, I have trouble with not wanting to gain what wisdom there is in all books. including "Santa goes to summer camp".
Something I realized was that most religions take a polarized view of a doctrine and build themselves around it. That is where most of my criticism lays. IF, You are going to use the bible to show an "actual view" then every event needs to be relevant. This is where Christians fall down. Because the actual events are mixed up in legend, the real events get the same treatment. it takes a bit more of a read to sort that out and much more patients than most can be bothered with . A concordance helps with keywords. That is how I discovered the teachings on demons , angels, devil, and spirit were not instep with Paul's attention given in his account. And unfortunately, most teachings each Sunday are based around this super spirituality.
Cheers
Iseason
I agree with your premise.
This is my belief in regards to the Bible. I think the bible has many valuable philosophical passages and poses many a moral question.
There are those who IMO are attracted to the positive aspects of these texts because they are searching for positivity, they are equally attracted to the 'Good' aspects of the texts because they are searching for 'Goodness' in their lives, other people etc, etc.
Jesus was the Superman of the time. We know Superman is fictional but his attitude towards helping are a culmination of acts of kindness Humans wish they were capable of. It is not surprising that characters like Superman, Jesus, The good Samaritan etc flourish in the meme-tic arena and have stood the test of time.
In Superman we see the actions of countless Humans all rolled into one character and then embellished with Supernatural abilities necessary for this singular character to perform the feats.
I see a similar phenomena in Jesus. It doesn't matter whether Jesus was real (though I maintain that he was almost certainly not real as described)
The authors created a Superman character to perform all of the duties they considered to be necessary. Duties no doubt taken from other known acts of 'kindness' etc and rolled up into one person.
Jesus in this sense was the highest moral authority the authors could imagine.
In our more evolved awareness of the World over time, we can still make some use of this philosophy, however times have changed but the bible has changed less. There are other valuable philosophies. There will be more in the future. It would be foolish to dismiss the potential value in other philosophies.
Or Superman is the way therefore Spiderman is not, seems to be what I see others aspire to in the 3 major Religions.
I guess we are saying the same thing in different ways, and that I think is my point.
Kind regards
Hi Si
It's sad really , that no amount of talking will change the positions of some people. To be fair to people like Gene splicer , I was into Christianity many years ago, And that's where my opposition to it comes from. Though there is a lot to be said from the reading of any old scriptures. It is amazing how often we throw good knowledge out along with the bad and reviewing it can only be done by studying those who went before us.
All learning is based in this fashion and Although I can understand peoples opposition to actual practices that are based on religions, I have trouble with not wanting to gain what wisdom there is in all books. including "Santa goes to summer camp".
Something I realized was that most religions take a polarized view of a doctrine and build themselves around it. That is where most of my criticism lays. IF, You are going to use the bible to show an "actual view" then every event needs to be relevant. This is where Christians fall down. Because the actual events are mixed up in legend, the real events get the same treatment. it takes a bit more of a read to sort that out and much more patients than most can be bothered with . A concordance helps with keywords. That is how I discovered the teachings on demons , angels, devil, and spirit were not instep with Paul's attention given in his account. And unfortunately, most teachings each Sunday are based around this super spirituality.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 14 2008, 05:30 AM)
Hi Si
It's sad really , that no amount of talking will change the positions of some people. To be fair to people like Gene splicer , I was into Christianity many years ago, And that's where my opposition to it comes from. Though there is a lot to be said from the reading of any old scriptures. It is amazing how often we throw good knowledge out along with the bad and reviewing it can only be done by studying those who went before us.
All learning is based in this fashion and Although I can understand peoples opposition to actual practices that are based on religions, I have trouble with not wanting to gain what wisdom there is in all books. including "Santa goes to summer camp".
Something I realized was that most religions take a polarized view of a doctrine and build themselves around it. That is where most of my criticism lays. IF, You are going to use the bible to show an "actual view" then every event needs to be relevant. This is where Christians fall down. Because the actual events are mixed up in legend, the real events get the same treatment. it takes a bit more of a read to sort that out and much more patients than most can be bothered with . A concordance helps with keywords. That is how I discovered the teachings on demons , angels, devil, and spirit were not instep with Paul's attention given in his account. And unfortunately, most teachings each Sunday are based around this super spirituality.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi iseason and all,
I am not opposed to Christianity or the right for anyone to believe what they want.
I am opposed to Christianity being forced upon me and I equally get riled up when I see it forced upon others. I have many friends and colleagues of faith. My grandmother is a famous evangelist in the Caribbean. It has been a struggle to step back and view this Religion with objectivity. I take some comfort from others who have faced the same struggle.
When I debate with the Deadbeats and Dad1's of this World, I am reminded of the person I used to be, full of fear and dismissive of any arguments that did not support my faith.
Ironically I saw through at least the biological discrepancies of the Bible at a very young age. I was un-ceremoniously asked to leave Sunday school for asking too many questions and not just taking what they said as fact.
The 'mistake' my parents made was that due to my early hunger and interest in Nature documentaries and encyclopedia's etc (which became a humorous tag in my family) I always received encyclopedia's etc for birthdays and so on.
Oddly though I remained faithful to the Religion despite the glaring discrepancies which subconsciously were always at battle. Watchtower, Panda's & People vs Every other book on Nature that I read.
I remember one occasion whilst watching David Attenborough's 'Wildlife on One' where he mentioned Evolution, and my Mother piped up, 'What a load of rubbish!'
She was very agitated about this and I became confused.
I mean how come my Mom knows more about Biology than David Attenborough!!!
This was the necessary confirmation in my young mind that there was a serious issue here. But I remained faithful. I now embrace doubt as I realize that the doubts that were causing me so much trouble was in fact my 'common sense'. I realized that it was the Religious aspects to my reasoning that caused the most conflict. So I began the process of stepping back and noticing other faiths etc. There is so much more to life and to learn about than through the eyes of one faith.
I feel free of obligation and no longer afford respect to Religion by fiat.
They must also run the gauntlet of logical reasoning and face facts when they are known, but they are sadly resistant in my experience.
Sorry about the long winded, off-topic-ness but I do feel strongly about the way Religions taint understanding, particularly in the young or weak of mind.
It's sad really , that no amount of talking will change the positions of some people. To be fair to people like Gene splicer , I was into Christianity many years ago, And that's where my opposition to it comes from. Though there is a lot to be said from the reading of any old scriptures. It is amazing how often we throw good knowledge out along with the bad and reviewing it can only be done by studying those who went before us.
All learning is based in this fashion and Although I can understand peoples opposition to actual practices that are based on religions, I have trouble with not wanting to gain what wisdom there is in all books. including "Santa goes to summer camp".
Something I realized was that most religions take a polarized view of a doctrine and build themselves around it. That is where most of my criticism lays. IF, You are going to use the bible to show an "actual view" then every event needs to be relevant. This is where Christians fall down. Because the actual events are mixed up in legend, the real events get the same treatment. it takes a bit more of a read to sort that out and much more patients than most can be bothered with . A concordance helps with keywords. That is how I discovered the teachings on demons , angels, devil, and spirit were not instep with Paul's attention given in his account. And unfortunately, most teachings each Sunday are based around this super spirituality.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi iseason and all,
I am not opposed to Christianity or the right for anyone to believe what they want.
I am opposed to Christianity being forced upon me and I equally get riled up when I see it forced upon others. I have many friends and colleagues of faith. My grandmother is a famous evangelist in the Caribbean. It has been a struggle to step back and view this Religion with objectivity. I take some comfort from others who have faced the same struggle.
When I debate with the Deadbeats and Dad1's of this World, I am reminded of the person I used to be, full of fear and dismissive of any arguments that did not support my faith.
Ironically I saw through at least the biological discrepancies of the Bible at a very young age. I was un-ceremoniously asked to leave Sunday school for asking too many questions and not just taking what they said as fact.
The 'mistake' my parents made was that due to my early hunger and interest in Nature documentaries and encyclopedia's etc (which became a humorous tag in my family) I always received encyclopedia's etc for birthdays and so on.
Oddly though I remained faithful to the Religion despite the glaring discrepancies which subconsciously were always at battle. Watchtower, Panda's & People vs Every other book on Nature that I read.
I remember one occasion whilst watching David Attenborough's 'Wildlife on One' where he mentioned Evolution, and my Mother piped up, 'What a load of rubbish!'
She was very agitated about this and I became confused.
I mean how come my Mom knows more about Biology than David Attenborough!!!
This was the necessary confirmation in my young mind that there was a serious issue here. But I remained faithful. I now embrace doubt as I realize that the doubts that were causing me so much trouble was in fact my 'common sense'. I realized that it was the Religious aspects to my reasoning that caused the most conflict. So I began the process of stepping back and noticing other faiths etc. There is so much more to life and to learn about than through the eyes of one faith.
I feel free of obligation and no longer afford respect to Religion by fiat.
They must also run the gauntlet of logical reasoning and face facts when they are known, but they are sadly resistant in my experience.
Sorry about the long winded, off-topic-ness but I do feel strongly about the way Religions taint understanding, particularly in the young or weak of mind.
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 13 2008, 05:04 PM)
What can i say?
Poor misguided soul........
How about... I've see the light! god is an illusion used to control the masses by those in power and comfort those scared by the vastness of the universe and unwilling to open their mind to the most likely scenario that god and religion are all a lie.
If God DNE... just think about it for a minute, give it a try... Honestly imagine for one minute that god DNE. Lots of things start to make sense...
FGG
Poor misguided soul........
How about... I've see the light! god is an illusion used to control the masses by those in power and comfort those scared by the vastness of the universe and unwilling to open their mind to the most likely scenario that god and religion are all a lie.
If God DNE... just think about it for a minute, give it a try... Honestly imagine for one minute that god DNE. Lots of things start to make sense...
FGG
3 pages into it an I still ain't seen none o this 'math logic..."
Well pants you should have known that they expect us to take them at their word and to accept what they say as truth no matter how off the wall it may be. After all, isn't that basically what (most) religions ask of their adherants?
QUOTE (DuzmA+Jun 14 2008, 02:51 PM)
Well pants you should have known that they expect us to take them at their word and to accept what they say as truth no matter how off the wall it may be. After all, isn't that basically what (most) religions ask of their adherants?
Yep.
Well.... That an money...
Yep.
Well.... That an money...
QUOTE
3 pages into it an I still ain't seen none o this 'math logic..."
The theory presents itself as complete but I don't believe that this can be true of any human theory. And this itself is an indicator that it is something that exists in our minds and not out there.
Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
Quote:
In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.
The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete theory of everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.
Ah, the calling sign of the crank, pulling out Godel's theorem.
no1nose, do you actually know anything about the theorem? It doesn't mean "Any result can be called into question", it means "Given a non-trivial system there will always exist some statements which are true but cannot be proven so and must be defined axiomatically".
For instance, consider the properties of the Reals (ie 'all the numbers on the number line'). Things like 1+1=2 are unquestionable, it's a true statement. Godel's theorem doesn't have a problem with this. Godel's theorem is demonstrated when you consider the cardinality of the Reals and particular subjects. The 'number of whole numbers' is called Aleph Null. 'The number of numbers' is Aleph One. It's undecidable (ie the technical term for a statement which could be true but cannot be proven from the axioms) from the axioms of the Reals wether there's an infinite set strictly larger than Aleph Null and strictly less than Aleph One. It's called the continuum hypothesis. Look it up.
So Godel's theorem only applies to a very small subset of results in a particular mathematical area and there's no guarentee that these 'undeciable' statements are in physics in general. For instance, we use vector calculus to describe electromagnetism. It's provable that the maths used in vector calculus is decidable, it's entirely consistent. There are areas of linear algebra and vector calculus which are not decidable but they don't play a role in electromagnetism.
Godel's theorem is trotted out by those people who don't understand it but want to try to legitamise their "Don't trust science!" claims. I have yet to see someone who that and use the implications of the theorem properly. You included.
no1nose, do you actually know anything about the theorem? It doesn't mean "Any result can be called into question", it means "Given a non-trivial system there will always exist some statements which are true but cannot be proven so and must be defined axiomatically".
For instance, consider the properties of the Reals (ie 'all the numbers on the number line'). Things like 1+1=2 are unquestionable, it's a true statement. Godel's theorem doesn't have a problem with this. Godel's theorem is demonstrated when you consider the cardinality of the Reals and particular subjects. The 'number of whole numbers' is called Aleph Null. 'The number of numbers' is Aleph One. It's undecidable (ie the technical term for a statement which could be true but cannot be proven from the axioms) from the axioms of the Reals wether there's an infinite set strictly larger than Aleph Null and strictly less than Aleph One. It's called the continuum hypothesis. Look it up.
So Godel's theorem only applies to a very small subset of results in a particular mathematical area and there's no guarentee that these 'undeciable' statements are in physics in general. For instance, we use vector calculus to describe electromagnetism. It's provable that the maths used in vector calculus is decidable, it's entirely consistent. There are areas of linear algebra and vector calculus which are not decidable but they don't play a role in electromagnetism.
Godel's theorem is trotted out by those people who don't understand it but want to try to legitamise their "Don't trust science!" claims. I have yet to see someone who that and use the implications of the theorem properly. You included.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.