God is Only a Theory

Go ahead,Hrm....put your faith in science. Just remember that SOMETHING had to exist FOREVER for there to be anything now. We believe that Something is God Almighty,just as told us in the Bible. You believe some fairy tale made up by godless men.
don-ohio :)^)
 
Well, I think I am done here. I do not see any effort by anyone to have a real conversation. I'm right, your wrong and stupid to boot seems to be the standard position here. I was kind of looking forward to an interesting and civil debate on a substantive issue. My goal here was to further my education on how my peers think and interact with each other. Goal achieved with much disappointment. I would have been very happy to have seen everyone put there best foot forward presenting their views and responding thoughtfully with differing opinions courteously and respectfully. Alas it was not to be.
 
Starting from 'Gnostic' as 'one-who-claims-to-know', I am, actually, an agnostic---'One-who-does-not-know'---at least in part. The Bible says that one who has faith as 'a grain of mustard seed' has at least a beginning, and I can always get at least that far.

The problem I have with those who profess to not have any faith is that they always seem to want to somewhat raucously deride and sneer at those who are willing to struggle to believe. And I give equally short shrift to those who have a blind adherence to some of the things to be found in early translations of the Bible---when our language has now evolved to such an extent that meanings have changed.

I'll never attempt to force my beliefs on anyone else---and I'll always be willing to explore with anyone who's civil.

A polite exchange of ideas is always worthwhile.

KS
 
Amen.


That was not meant to be derogatory, just a flit little pun I found humorous and fitting given the subject.
 
See, this can be fun. Even if you are as wrong as cammerfe! Agnostic doesn't mean "One who does not know." It means one who does not claim to know. Get your facts right jerk! If you don't know what you are talking about then try shutting the F up! If I was the leader of my agnostic community I would declare war on you and those that think like you! You scum don't deserve to live on my planet! Idiot!
 
Actually, and with all due respect, 'Gnostic', from the Greek, means a 'know-er'. Regardless of the latest use of 'Agnostic' which seems to be, in modern parlance, 'one who can not know', (see Merriam-Webster), I use the label with its archaic meaning; a prefix 'a-' suggesting 'not'.

I often label myself as a 'seeker', having academic training as a scientist and family inculcation as a believer. I don't regard Science and Religion as at all inimical. It's simply that the language is somewhat different.

KS
 
Not knowing what the heck I am talking about is irrelevant. I said it louder than you with more attitude so I am not only right but a better person than you too. (Did you not see all my exclamation points?) Obviously I am just having a little fun with the one person I would not expect to receive my inimical rant literally. That being said. My dog is better than your dog.:p
 
I got as far as "Holy..." in the phrase "Holy Cow" before I realized where you were going. But what I said was not aimed directly at you so I said it anyway.

I don't have a dog. :rolleyes:

KS
 
"I don't have a dog."

See, told ya.


The funny thing is KS, a lot of people read something like this and take sides immediately. It is too much work to re evaluate your position every time you engage in a tough subject. We all know however, hard work produces good results. One does not have to change their mind to benefit from the work. Just understanding yourself a little better after some reflection makes the effort worth while. I would guess at least half of the people who read post 80 were just skimming it and assumed I was being serious.
 
I can, in the greater scheme of things, only be responsible for myself.

Please be assured that I DO value our back-'n'-forthing.

KS
 
The problem I have with those who profess to not have any faith is that they always seem to want to somewhat raucously deride and sneer at those who are willing to struggle to believe.
Click to expand...
sorry to sound "snarky" again, but religion and faith are not the same thing. as i have said many times, i have faith. and unlike dono says, it is not in science.
and as i said, i don't have a problem with religion. i have a problem with religion deciding what i will or will not be able to do and infringe on my RIGHTS as a private citizen.

hrmwrm, like it or not we do live in a country based on religious law.
Click to expand...
no i don't. and less religious law is what's needed. just like the pro debate there. choice or life. choice is humanistic, and life is religious dogma.
choice is freedom, and choice. you CAN choose not to, but because they choose not to, they think nobody should have the choice. that's reminiscent of the dark ages.

i have no problem getting along with many, but this is not a kiss and make up section, this is a section set up to handle opposing view points and make arguements. it may be sunshine and roses, and it may not be.
i'm waiting for an opposing viewpoint that isn't "the bible says". anything tangible.
this is the problem. we have society making value judgements on something they are told to believe with just a book.
i wouldn't buy into anything without some evidence of it. you don't buy a house or a car or bridges without first seeing some form of proof of existence.

shag was good at philosophical arguements for it, but still, no substance. a philosophical arguement without evidence is what theology is about. creating convincing arguements without proof.
if a god force were real, it shouldn't be hard to find it. i'm not trying to be harsh, just pointing out facts.

to truly create a good arguement for god, you must get outside of your belief and look at all of it before you can make an arguement for yours in particular.
but people like dono will never give something a true look into it. you need to look at origins as they pertain to history. abrahamic ideals don't show up early enough in history to be the first choice. egypts history is older than noah's story. how can that be?

now, the answer to all. was there a creator? possibility. there's a point of time we know nothing yet of. is it a biblical god? as i said before. evidence?
we know nothing of the spark of it's beginning. that's fact too.
but without any indication of supernatural occurence, it comes down to natural occurence. i see nothing day to day that would lead me to beieve in anything mystical.
maybe it's nice to think there's something after. but out of billions before us, no-one has come back to say why.
there are many humanistic ideals also that don't require religion either. they don't hold the high ground on morality. it's amazing how many "believers" i come across with morals way below mine.

as the saying goes, extrodinary claims need extrodinary evidence. if you want to make a case for something, well? break out the evidence.
science has a compelling arguement and evidence for most.
religion? as i said above. first, which one?

i would doubt anybody argueing here has looked into more than the first one that was offered to them. maybe a different flavour, but not a different religion.(there are many christian ideals)
how can one effectively argue if you haven't looked at all religions? :confused:

i'm not trying to be harsh in most of these arguements, just getting tired of the book proves it arguement. :Bang
god is not self evident.
if he were, we'd all believe the same thing. :lol:
 
don-ohio said:
Just remember that SOMETHING had to exist FOREVER for there to be anything now. We believe that Something is God Almighty,just as told us in the Bible. You believe some fairy tale made up by godless men.
don-ohio :)^)
Click to expand...

and you believe the godless men who made one up.
i don't know that something had to exist forever. i don't pretend to know what it's all about dono, unlike your fairy tale.
science isn't afraid to change when necessary.
put your faith in science.
Click to expand...
who said my faith was in science? i didn't.
 
No, science will change whenever it fails,which is very often. God's word,on the other hand,never fails. Everything asserted in the Bible is true, because the knowledge came from God. The knowledge that the earth is a sphere,that weather patterns are circles, that star differs from star in glory, that a little wine is good for stomach ailments, that bodily training is only beneficial for a LITTLE,but Godly devotion is beneficial for the things now,and those which are to come.
That a calm heart is the life of a person. That children obeying their parents will lead to their long life and happiness. That children are to be trained in righteousness from infancy.
That riches do NOT mean happiness, but rather cause a burden of worry. That JEALOUSY is a rottenness to the bones.
The Bible never fails to instruct us correctly if we listen and pray for guidance. don-ohio :)^)
 
that's nice dono. keep it to yourself, and i don't give a ****.
have a nice day. :)
and don't forget your meds.
 
Well,if you don't care, there's no use wasting Bible truths on you. If some day you re-examine the so-called truths (evolution being the main) of science and find what they really are, Satan's subtle scheme to mislead, there'll be Bible truth in the world UNTIL God's judgment time. Then it will be too late. don-ohio :)^I
 
as i said dono. prove yours the true one.
a muslim would tell me the koran is the truth. an orthodox jew the torah.
and that's just the abrahamic religions.
biblical truth is an oxymoron.
 
ALREADY showed you several so-called scientific discoveries that were already known and written in the Bible WAY before science squawked about them . You can choose the never-erring truth of God's word or the many errors and revisions science is always asserting. don-ohio :)^)
 
you haven't SHOWN me anything dono.

Scientia Humanitatis

Reason, empiricism and skepticism are not virtues of science alone


In the late 20th century the humanities took a turn toward postmodern deconstruction and the belief that there is no objective reality to be discovered. To believe in such quaint notions as scientific progress was to be guilty of “scientism,” properly said with a snarl. In 1996 New York University physicist Alan Sokal punctured these pretensions with his now famous article “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” chockablock full of postmodern phrases and deconstructionist tropes interspersed with scientific jargon, which he subsequently admitted were nonsensical gibberish.

I subsequently gave up on the humanities but am now reconsidering my position after an encounter this past March with University of Amsterdam humanities professor Rens Bod during a European book tour for The Moral Arc. In our dialogue, Bod pointed out that my definition of science—a set of methods that describes and interprets observed or inferred phenomena, past or present, aimed at testing hypotheses and building theories—applies to such humanities fields as philology, art history, musicology, linguistics, archaeology, historiography and literary studies.

Indeed, I had forgotten the story he recounted of Italian philologist Lorenzo Valla, who in 1440 exposed the Latin document Donatio Constantini—the Donation of Constantine, which was used by the Catholic Church to legitimize its land grab of the Western Roman Empire—as a fake. “Valla used historical, linguistic and philological evidence, including counterfactual reasoning, to rebut the document,” Bod explained. “One of the strongest pieces of evidence he came up with was lexical and grammatical: Valla found words and constructions in the document that could not possibly have been used by anyone from the time of Emperor Constantine I, at the beginning of the fourth century a.d. The late Latin word Feudum, for example, referred to the feudal system. But this was a medieval invention, which did not exist before the seventh century a.d.” Valla’s methods were those of science, Bod emphasized: “He was skeptical, he was empirical, he drew a hypothesis, he was rational, he used very abstract reasoning (even counterfactual reasoning), he used textual phenomena as evidence, and he laid the foundations for one of the most successful theories: stemmatic philology, which can derive the original archetype text from extant copies (in fact, the much later DNA analysis was based on stemmatic philology).”

Inspired by Valla’s philological analysis of the Bible, Dutch humanist Erasmus employed these same empirical techniques to demonstrate that, for example, the concept of the Trinity did not appear in bibles before the 11th century. In 1606 Leiden University professor Joseph Justus Scaliger published a philological reconstruction of the ancient Egyptian dynasties, finding that the earliest one, dating to 5285 b.c., predated the Bible’s chronology for the creation of the world by nearly 1,300 years. This led later scholars such as Baruch Spinoza to reject the Bible as a reliable historical document. “Thus, abstract reasoning, rationality, empiricism and skepticism are not just virtues of science,” Bod concluded. “They had all been invented by the humanities.”

Why does this distinction matter? Because at a time when students and funding are fleeing humanities departments, the argument that they are at least good for “self-cultivation” misses their real value, which Bod has forcefully articulated in his recent book A New History of the Humanities (Oxford University Press, 2014). The transdisciplinary connection between the sciences and humanities is well captured in the German word Geisteswissenschaften, which means “human sciences.” This concept embraces everything humans do, including the scientific theories we generate about the natural world. “Too often humanities scholars believe that they are moving toward science when they use empirical methods,” Bod reflected. “They are wrong: humanities scholars using empirical methods are returning to their own historical roots in the studia humanitatis of the 15th century, when the empirical approach was first invented.”

Regardless of which university building scholars inhabit, we are all working toward the same goal of improving our understanding of the true nature of things, and that is the way of both the sciences and the humanities, a scientia humanitatis.
Click to expand...
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2015/06/scientia-humanitatis/#more-4660

history isn't in the bibles favour for truth dono. egyption written in stone chronology doesn't agree with later made biblical stories.
you should educate yourself dono. the truth will set you free.
 
Ohh, we are getting into hrmwrm's trademark wall 'o' text posts. Can't actually discuss things honestly and in good faith. Just spam and belittle everyone of faith.

Hrmwrm is a troll. He has been so for years on this forum. He is not worth wasting time on.
 
can't beat him, attack him.
still just as lame as you've always been shag.
A misled one.LOL! don-ohio :)^)
Click to expand...
says the man who believes in imaginary things.:lol:

i put up a topic for discussion and the haters show up. i ask for proof and evidence for others arguements, yet nothing is forthcoming and i'm the troll shag?
or maybe your piping up because you have some evidence?
there. i've edited my post to make the pertinent parts easier to discern. less of a "wall'o'text" for shag.
what a whiner.
 
Well,at least some people got to see how the Bible had the correct scientific facts recorded hundreds even more than a thousand or two years BEFORE scientists ever figured it out(if they read the posts).
Even though that was lost on Hrm, it was not lost on any clear-thinking, truth seeking individuals. So it was worth the time. don-ohio :)^)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 89 (members: 0, guests: 89)
Back
Top