The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Come on, everyone knows it all went south when they slowed Human sacrifices to this point, still killing more than ever but it's not "sacrifice!"

If your religious your more than likely heathens. Unless you prey to the first gods (LIKE ONES BEFORE THE RECORDS OF MAN) then your just crazy and I'm guessing lazy!

I would not let my kids create the worlds we're living in, maybe you should prey to me?

Originally Posted by OregonJim Let me make an observation, and you tell me if there is any truth in it. You label me as a "fundamentalist zealot". I hold a strong set of beliefs that is in direct opposition to your strong set of beliefs. We have exchanged pages and pages of evidence, on both sides, yet you continually discount MY evidence as not credible. You are not only unwilling to acknowledge a single point, you've ignored at least half of the evidence I've posted. Now, WHO is the "fundamentalist zealot" again? Who is the one who "does not even consider an opposing view"? You don't even see the difference between reason and rationalization. Sad (honestly, not sarcasm).

The core of my entire conversation with you, Jim, is that since you believe the Bible is not only Divine but the only one that is, as I pointed out, from that POV NOTHING can compete. It is your one ultimate arbiter. You maintain despite what others have shown, that there are no contradictions in it... that most, if not all, prophecies have borne out. You even still deny that I try to not have beliefs, that below an overwhelming level of confidence and/or evidence it is speculation to which I'll wait for more data. I have not ignored more than a very few of your alleged evidence remarks and all of those entirely by either mistake on my part (I just missed it but not for any purpose) or because it or that person was already covered by me or someone else.

In fact I have demonstrated consistent researching of your "evidence" before I respond and have followed every link you posted, even several searches for data mentioned but not linked and admitted that at first I searched the overall subject and didn't go directly to the Volume and Page you listed (but didn't link) and then corrected that oversight, linked it and quoted from it. I have literally spent many hours researching for your and others evidence and stood corrected and stated so when I overstated the case for evidence, for example, for Jesus the man's existence.

I can prove I have been swayed and corrected right here in this thread and that I openly admitted them. I have yet to see you budge one micron from one single view you hold no matter who responds and no matter how strong the evidence. You do this because to you, if any evidence disagrees with how you interpret the bible, you dismiss it before even considering it.

I have no personal stake in any scientific theory and have no problem with updating as per the guidelines of objective evidence and falsification. The Christian Bible, or at least your interpretation of it, is Ultimate to you and cannot be altered by anything, thus my comment about "sacred cows" as well as my questioning your understanding of and commitment to the Rules of Evidence and Logic.

When you say "evidence" you are talking about something entirely different and far less rigorously tested than when I or any scientists uses those terms. You even refuse to trust in even that and continue to assert that your belief is based on scientific evidence when the only evidence you really trust is the Bible and those who interpret it just like you do. Sorry but that is not scientific nor logical since I and others have demonstrated that the conclusion is contained in the premise.

As if that weren't enough you have been caught misrepresenting data and even inserting your own as if it was part of quoted content. You seem to have no problem with equivocation. It's contained in numeous of your posts right here. It is obvious to anyone who cares to look that you will do anything to resist any change whatsoever since you are personally invested not in a process, but in a Living God who wrote your Bible. I find no shame in being wrong or mistaken, only in staying that way in the face of sufficient and necessary evidence. I even linked The Physics Forum to which I'm subscribed where I am corrected at least monthly and I am glad to be so treated because that, Sir, is learning and growth. By contrast you are static and wish to... no... ONLY will allow learning that adds to or supports your notions. That, in my book, is stagnation as well as smug and sanctimonious, but I'm beginning to wonder if you are so invested, so convinced, that you can't even see it, and only project it on others.

Once again you point your finger and ignore 3 more pointing right back at you.

Originally Posted by enorbet The core of my entire conversation with you, Jim, is that since you believe the Bible is not only Divine but the only one that is, as I pointed out, from that POV NOTHING can compete.

Did you ever consider that it might actually be TRUE? If that were the case, OF COURSE nothing can compete.

Originally Posted by enorbet In fact I have demonstrated consistent researching of your "evidence" before I respond and have followed every link you posted, even several searches for data mentioned but not linked and admitted that at first I searched the overall subject and didn't go directly to the Volume and Page you listed (but didn't link) and then corrected that oversight, linked it and quoted from it. I have literally spent many hours researching for your and others evidence and stood corrected and stated so when I overstated the case for evidence, for example, for Jesus the man's existence.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here but, judging by your collective responses, it seems evident that all this 'research' was done for the sole purpose of discrediting the sources, not objectively considering the data.

Originally Posted by enorbet I can prove I have been swayed and corrected right here in this thread and that I openly admitted them. I have yet to see you budge one micron from one single view you hold no matter who responds and no matter how strong the evidence. You do this because to you, if any evidence disagrees with how you interpret the bible, you dismiss it before even considering it.

Once again, we have the pot calling the kettle black. I just pointed that out above. Do you think there isn't an argument I haven't weighed already? I have done far more research in this area before even coming to this thread. Years of research. Some (in fact, most) of your arguments have been heard over and over again. I seem 'dismissive' to you because these arguments have already been addressed ad infinitum, and you think, because I respond quickly, I haven't thought them out or researched them. You don't see me 'budging' because, frankly, everything posted here so far has been 'kid stuff'. You've not even touched on the very few 'difficult' areas to which nobody has an answer. Then again, you can't, since you refuse to transcend materialism.

Originally Posted by enorbet When you say "evidence" you are talking about something entirely different and far less rigorously tested than when I or any scientists uses those terms. You even refuse to trust in even that and continue to assert that your belief is based on scientific evidence when the only evidence you really trust is the Bible and those who interpret it just like you do. Sorry but that is not scientific nor logical since I and others have demonstrated that the conclusion is contained in the premise.

There is far more to science than your precious naturalist/materialist subset. You cling to the scientific method as if it were your god. You neglect to even acknowledge other, EQUALLY VALID, sciences, such as those dealing with thought and linguistics, not to mention history and archaeology. You try to gain exclusive ownership of the term 'science' as though everything outside your materialist view is NOT science. There is an entire world out here that disagrees with you.

Originally Posted by enorbet As if that weren't enough you have been caught misrepresenting data and even inserting your own as if it was part of quoted content.

Misrepresenting data? Inserting my own? Please point out where this happened. That is a serious charge and, you'd better be prepared to back it up. If you're referring to Lucy, be prepared to put your evidence IN CONTEXT, as we already know from the PROPER CONTEXT that is was simply a minor technical distinction in the wording of a conclusion. Hardly misrepresentative. What IS misrepresentative is your strong inference that I 'monkeyed' with any data. That is a dishonest and deceitful claim to make on your part.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Did you ever consider that it might actually be TRUE? If that were the case, OF COURSE nothing can compete.

At this point, "the rules of engagement are effectively shut-down," and you probably should "graciously dis-engage." Your mind is made up – as is your right to do –*and your conclusion is, indeed, that: "it is true," and therefore, "nothing can compete." Case Closed.™

You're entitled to feel that way, and I fully respect you (as a brother) for feeling that way, but, your frame-of-reference, in "feeling that way," is disjoint with "science," or with any other competing frame of reference that you might wish to refute. If you're not participating in the same frame of reference that they are, you really can't declare them to be "wrong," and, neither can they declare the same of you. Your two paths become "two ships that pass in the night," and so they must remain.

Kindly notice that I am not saying, nor am I suggesting, that you are in any way wrong nor shortsighted. Rather, I am suggesting that "you are simply not choosing to play the same game." You aren't choosing to start with the same premises, nor the same rules of engagement, so that your statements are "apples" among "oranges." Both delicious fruits! But, not the same fruits.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs At this point, "the rules of engagement are effectively shut-down," and you probably should "graciously dis-engage." Your mind is made up – as is your right to do –*and your conclusion is, indeed, that: "it is true," and therefore, "nothing can compete." Case Closed.

I disagree. I am no less open to evidence than enorbet is. The problem is that I have yet to see anything new in this thread with regard to evidence. We can say that enorbet's mind is made up as he refuses to even consider any idea that is not fully constrained by the material realm. It is THAT conclusion that effectively shuts down any hope of reaching HIM - but the discussion may STILL be profitable to others who are following along - especially those who may not have considered (or have been ignorant of) many of the points addressed.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs You're entitled to feel that way, and I fully respect you (as a brother) for feeling that way, but, your frame-of-reference, in "feeling that way," is disjoint with "science," or with any other competing frame of reference that you might wish to refute.

Once again, I disagree. My frame-of-reference is not disjoint with science. Quite the OPPOSITE - my frame-of-reference allows me to see science from a different vantage point and to uncover assumptions that those from enorbet's viewpoint are blind to. What's more, I have been on BOTH sides of the fence and have a clear understanding of BOTH vantage points. Finally, theories of origin are (at best) pseudo-science, not science; they are filled with presuppositions that can never(!) be answered BY science alone. My viewpoint is in full harmony with real science. It is only at odds with pseudo-science.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Kindly notice that I am not saying, nor am I suggesting, that you are in any way wrong nor shortsighted. Rather, I am suggesting that "you are simply not choosing to play the same game." You aren't choosing to start with the same premises, nor the same rules of engagement, so that your statements are "apples" among "oranges." Both delicious fruits! But, not the same fruits.

Truth is absolute and objective, not relative and subjective (sorry postmodernists). Therefore, there is only ONE kind of fruit - truth. Figuring out how the world works is INDEED the "same game" no matter what door one chooses to enter the arena with.

Religions, traditions, politics, opinions all wrong; you've herd the expressions like butt holes... Put our faith in facts!

The difference, Jim, is what you choose to do with "evidence."

Now, I'll be the last(!) one to suggest that "science" is anything less than a(nother) human enterprise ... that it does not have its own "creation myths" in the form of "Big Bang" and the hyper-extension of "Evolution" far beyond the boundaries of species ... but scientific inquiry is supposed to treat "evidence" differently. It's not supposed to draw a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it. (koff, koff ...)

If you, for instance, take the Creation story of Genesis 1 as being literally true, then your thought processes begin with what you choose to consider "The Truth." Everything follows from, and supports, that "Truth," because, to you, "Truth" is "True" and any-and-all "evidence" must support and confirm that "Truth."

But, that's not the rules-of-engagement for "science." (At least, that's not supposed to be "what 'scientists' do.") So, if you use this "Truth" to, in your mind, "refute" 'geological time,' you're not using evidence the way that these other people choose to do. Your chain of reasoning faith is incompatible with what the others with whom you are 'debating' are starting with. The two can never be reconciled.

Also: "faith-truth" is always certain. Science is not. (Or, it's not supposed to be ...) For instance, when people say that the Grand Canyon took "millions of years" to form, I might retort, "not if you have enough water!" Would I be 'right' and the other 'wrong?' Nope. (And would I "therefore be referring to Noah's Flood?" Again, no.) Well, "faith" doesn't work that way. "Faith" is absolutely certain of what it believes, to begin with, and then simply looks for affirmation of what it "already knows."

There's certainly nothing wrong with that point-of-view ... but, it's not what "science" does is supposed to do. There is no, for example, "Creation Science." (Neither, in my view, is there "Big-Bang Science.") Big Kanuna Questions™ are really, IMHO, beyond the reach of "science."

Originally Posted by OregonJim Finally, theories of origin are (at best) pseudo-science, not science; they are filled with presuppositions that can never(!) be answered BY science alone.

Do you not consider Intelligent Design a theory of origin then? (since you've said it's "real science")

Why should some random other person be invested in what my beliefs are, or are not?

OregonJim, is part of your religion that you are supposed to try to save others?

Consider, if there were no signs, no evidence, nothing, but that you were just "there" one day, no explanation, no one there to tell you things. Would you think about how you came to be? Would you think other things?

Religious thinking even slightly more scientific would just Q: Poor people have it. Rich people need it. If you eat it you die. What is it? more holes in their bucket... A: nothing == riddle

Originally Posted by rtmistler Why should some random other person be invested in what my beliefs are, or are not? OregonJim, is part of your religion that you are supposed to try to save others? Consider, if there were no signs, no evidence, nothing, but that you were just "there" one day, no explanation, no one there to tell you things. Would you think about how you came to be? Would you think other things?

Parents and\or surroundings, "good" and\or "bad."


I was watching this "scary" movie: Trace (2015) last night, the girl agreed ghosts because she had "seen" stuff out of the corners of her eyes and in mirrors! ROTFFL Death is the beast time to trip, pun on!

Originally Posted by rtmistler OregonJim, is part of your religion that you are supposed to try to save others?

No, that's not my job. It is my job to tell the truth. That's what everyone is supposed to do (but we know that's not always the case, don't we?).

Originally Posted by ntubski Do you not consider Intelligent Design a theory of origin then? (since you've said it's "real science")

Where did I say it was science? Intelligent Design is in the same category as other origin theories. That was what enorbet violently disagreed with. I said there was scientific EVIDENCE to support the theory - the exact same evidence that is used for evolution. The only difference is in the presuppositions.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs But, that's not the rules-of-engagement for "science." (At least, that's not supposed to be "what 'scientists' do.") So, if you use this "Truth" to, in your mind, "refute" 'geological time,' you're not using evidence the way that these other people choose to do. Your chain of reasoning faith is incompatible with what the others with whom you are 'debating' are starting with. The two can never be reconciled.

I am using evidence for determining geological time in EXACTLY the same way that 'scientists' do. (once again, this is pseudo-science, not science). I have already shown at least a dozen ways that scientists make assumptions when calculating geological time. I am simply using different assumptions. It is STILL pseudo-science, not real science. Real science can't be used here, by definition.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs The difference, Jim, is what you choose to do with "evidence." Now, I'll be the last(!) one to suggest that "science" is anything less than a(nother) human enterprise ... that it does not have its own "creation myths" in the form of "Big Bang" and the hyper-extension of "Evolution" far beyond the boundaries of species ... but scientific inquiry is supposed to treat "evidence" differently. It's not supposed to draw a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it. (koff, koff ...) If you, for instance, take the Creation story of Genesis 1 as being literally true, then your thought processes begin with what you choose to consider "The Truth." Everything follows from, and supports, that "Truth," because, to you, "Truth" is "True" and any-and-all "evidence" must support and confirm that "Truth." But, that's not the rules-of-engagement for "science." (At least, that's not supposed to be "what 'scientists' do.") So, if you use this "Truth" to, in your mind, "refute" 'geological time,' you're not using evidence the way that these other people choose to do. Your chain of reasoning faith is incompatible with what the others with whom you are 'debating' are starting with. The two can never be reconciled. Also: "faith-truth" is always certain. Science is not. (Or, it's not supposed to be ...) For instance, when people say that the Grand Canyon took "millions of years" to form, I might retort, "not if you have enough water!" Would I be 'right' and the other 'wrong?' Nope. (And would I "therefore be referring to Noah's Flood?" Again, no.) Well, "faith" doesn't work that way. "Faith" is absolutely certain of what it believes, to begin with, and then simply looks for affirmation of what it "already knows." There's certainly nothing wrong with that point-of-view ... but, it's not what "science" does is supposed to do. There is no, for example, "Creation Science." (Neither, in my view, is there "Big-Bang Science.") Big Kanuna Questions™ are really, IMHO, beyond the reach of "science."

This is interesting, I think I'll pipe in.

A literal six day creation is true. How do I know? God said so. And everything God says is true. We have more evidence of Jesus than we have of Julius Caesar (and you do believe in Caesar, don't you?)

http://www.reasons.org/articles/arti...y-of-the-bible
Chance? I think not.

Now, if something is true, the converse must also be true, right? If God exists, then so must Satan. So:
How do you explain psychics being able to tell someone great detail about their past without supernatural help (i.e. demons)? If they exist, so must God.
Another converse: If Creation is true, the Big Bang and Evolution must be false. The Big Bang can't be true: nothing exploded for no reason and made everything. Evolution can't be true: life can't evolve from a rock and nothing can live in ammonia (test that one out if you like).

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxi...47nnqsJNrdOIQQ

Also, if God doesn't exist, why are Muslims coming to the faith with no prior exposure to Christianity, claiming that they saw visions and dreams of Jesus? Why?

Just throwing that out there, we'll see how it goes.