Peace Be Unto All 22 Nations Of Humanity In 2012 I Bring Blessing From The King Of Kings A Must See The Only Real Revelation Bible In History.. This Is the Year Of Change For All... To The Powers To Be Fee All 22 Nations Of Humanity Now Before Its Too Late For You You Have Bin Warned By St John The Divine Yahya Watchman And Embassador Of Peace To The King Of Kings High Council Of The Unseen Ones.. A Must See For All At My Site Tku And May God Bless Us All In 2012.. World Peace For All In 2012.
Intelligent design might be different from creationism, but it's still based in religion rather than science. Also doesn't help that the proponents of intelligent design are often Christian creationists.
I support the Supreme Court decision to make the teaching of intelligent design illegal in public schools. You might as well also teach alchemy, phrenology, witchcraft, eugenics, etc.
@CrazyCheeseMagee I support the same ruling but i have to add, it actually isn't based on religion; it's actually based on LESS. It's based on the proposition that statistical improbability necessitates an intelligent cause.
@standinstann About the statistically impossible idea, Thunderf00t makes a good video that explains the fallacy of "statistical improbability" better than I can. watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc
Lol, doesn't Stein lose the argument, because he mentioned Nazis? Because according to some retarded idea, mentioning Nazis in any argument means you've lost the argument. I find that crap funny, but the holocaust? No. That was a terrible time that should be remembered as a warning as much as an atrocity (a warning of what kinds of mistakes and intentionally cruel things to avoid).
The separate magesteria argument isn't sensible. A universe created by a god is necessarily different from a universe that created itself, through the scientific principles expounded by Einstein, Hawkins etc. Therefore a discussion about God creating the universe or not IS scientific and there's no evidence for it.
@FerretBob If the agent responsible for exnhilating the cosmos is necessarily a non-material one, then it can't be a scientific question. If we're talking about a really powerful "organism" (which the ID people are; then yes, that theory is subject to scientific inquiry. The mistake here is thinking that if it doesn't fall into the domain of science then it automatically falls into the domain of "religion". It doesn't.
According to you logic Einstein should have been expelled from scientific circles for going beyond the confines of physics at that time (and he actually was and he was relentlessly attacked)... But i don't think he should have been.
I appreciate your analysis, and think the point that religion and evolution are not inherently at odds is an important one. There is so much needless strife over this issue. Most people seem not to make the kinds of distinctions you're making.
Of course, religion doesn't really encourage those kinds of distinctions. Too often, it is presented as the ultimate truth/authority, something that can explain everything. When science offers a different view, it's seen as an attack on that authority.
The atheists and religionists really deserve each other. The latter so often demonstrably lack the virtues they espouse so much, and the former so often lack the reasoning skills they esteem so highly.
Just like science, which has been with us since the beginning, humans have been aware of the divinity of nature and the presence of spirits and the fact of an afterlife and the power of magic for as far back as I can postulate. It is arrogance on the part of both religion and science to claim that these people have all been deluded. Again, notice how quick religionists and atheists are to call EVERYBODY ELSE deluded (or evil).
Again, any serious philosopher or seeker of truth would be interested in these studys and findings I'm sure. Many people have experienced them first-hand without being able to explain them or then being called deluded or demonic. I mean come on, people, how do you think prayer works? Prayer is something that can be studied, and has been. Religious teachers often like to point to those studies. The same religious teachers don't like to consider studies on spirit communication, though.
Science is just experimentation and exploration and experience. It's doing what works. Humans have been involved in science from the beginning of time. The scientific method can be applied to studying paranormal phenomena such as spirit communication, materialisation, telepathy, spontaneous healing and other socalled miraculous or psychic occurrences. In fact, this has been done many times. And it has been scientifically verified that these phenomena are indeed real.
'Science' is a word. True science is free enquiry. What we know as science is actually based in philosophy and is a particular kind of philosophy. It used to be called Natural Philosophy. But what is 'natural philosophy'? The study of the natural world, as you stated. But what is the "natural world"? This is a philosophical question. So again we are back to philosophy.
I wouldn't refer to the creator (in this sense) as a "designer" as I would refer to the architect of a building as a designer; the two examples are different, but, If what we need to posit in order to explain being is a cause, then the cause (by definition) can not have been caused its self.
You don't move out of science the moment you say "god." If a god had an effect on the real world, it could be scientifically tested and proven or disproven. If a god was found, we could use science to figure things out about him/her/it.
Of course, there's no evidence at all that any gods exist.
However, there are other ways. For example, if we had some sick people and and people of various religions praying for one sick person each, with each of the theists making a request for healing from a different god, you could in theory support a particular deity's existence if his patient made a miraculous recovery but other's did not.
Of course prayer has been shown to be completely ineffective, but that is one quick example.
to that example I have to point out that there is just no way to account for some of the variables, the most important being God's will. That is the very thing that we need to place a control on, and the one thing that we can't.
If we're supposing that a being with will and purpose might intervene in the destiny of a person, we can't be certain to nearly the degree that we'd need to what that will is and if/how it might be changed or coaxed.
Secondly, that has to do with pure theology, where as i was talking about philosophical theology. In either case, we're talking about that which can not be falsified; it would be easier on both sides if it could be.
If you repeated the experiment time after time and (just to pick a random one) the patients who were prayed for through Athena consistently did far better than other gods, that would be a start at testing the divine.
Thing is, even if we can't strictly speaking tell for sure it was a god, it doesn't mean that a god isn't part of the natural order somehow. I don't believe that is the case, but if a god exist then he/she/it is just another part existence.
to the first point, we would be left scratching our heads nomatter what the results were; if the results tended to favor those who were prayed for, we would still have no idea what factors led to it, regardless of weather they were coincidental or the intervention of God, we wouldn't know why; what the criteria is, or even weather it only "appeared" as though it was having some effect.
To your second; if god exists, I would say that it is a part of existence to be sure (that is something of a tautology); but not of *material* existence.
If praying in the name of Apollo (but no other gods) consistently produced a 50% increased recovery rate time after time, that alone wouldn't prove his existence but it would be supporting evidence for it. It would be a start, and the jumping off point for further tests to start building a hypothesis or theory from, which is my point -- you don't automatically go to philosophy-only when dealing with alleged gods. The scientific method can still be used.
There have been studies that showed that prayer does increase the recovery rate, and those that showed the opposite; since (above) we're talking about a hypothetical scenario, and a God that was an anthopromorphized deification of nature, rather than an intellectual construct, I can't speak to that point, other than to say that a person of faith in Apollo would surely be thrilled by those results, but a person of science, philosophy and reason could not be moved by it (con't)
It might be fair to say that the scientific method might be used in order to attribute certain data to a particular religion, or a particular God, but that whole enterprise is disingenuous and vague, Again, we can't know or control for any of the necessary variables.
Loved your reviews on Religulous and Expelled. Have to correct you on one point though. Bill Maher is not an athiest. He often says and I quote ' I'm not an athiest because athiesim mirrors the certainty of religion.' Also another important point about the holocaust is that many of Hitler's soldiers who executed Jews were christians. I don't know how scientists were supposedly involved.
It's hard to give an enlightened exchange on subject such as Modern understanding of living processes and and traditions of litany. What a scientist does compared to a cleric. And people are sometimes so passionate with these types of dialogues that voices and chairs start coming at you. But I find my associates who discuss science issues more interested in the topic; people who are more interested in 'winning' the argument have their mind all ready close to conjectures.
God is purely based on faith. There is no scientific proof there isn't a god however. Believing in god is kind of like believing in life in outer space. Right now people who believe in life in outer space only really have things like Alien Abductions, UFO's and Crop Circles. Where that may not be enough to say that theres life in outer space the thing is...there's no evidence to say there isnt life outside our planet either. Until its proven its all about faith.
This is a very good video, but I feel your definitions of Creationism and Intelligent Design are misleadingly black-and-white. It is well-known that ID has been used as a cover for young-earth creationists in government for decades because, until recently, it had much less legal baggage associated with it. Since the Dover trial, ID has fallen almost completely out of use. Watch "Ken Miller on Intelligent Design" here on YouTube.
i was raised in a christian home and was always taught in church that the bible was the written truth and i have been a member of several. the cat analogy is a bit extreme and not really a logical comparison. humans and cats don't comminicate through conversation b/c cats cannot speak. the god of the bible spoke to people frequently. not to mention the fact that the cat would be able to see me and i have never seen god.even if i could, god's consolation has a big "IF" at the end.
2.why would he want to relay his teachings in a way that "we cant understand very well"? it would actually conserve time if people understood immediately. if it was obvious then there wouldn't be a waiting period due to the necessity of trying to decide what god actually meant. do you understand what i am saying?
The limitation is ours. When you are trying to explain to your cat that the vet isn't going to hurt it, that's a lrge jump in communication. You are in fact telling the cat (by peting it and trying to consol it) something that it can't understand very well.
The limitation in this case is on the part f the cat, not us. It simply doesn't have the capacity to comprehend fully, only to trust us.
when i say "come into question", i don't mean that statements are actually questions.i understand that they are conclusions.but when a conclusion is wrong, then it is possible that others are as well.for example: when solving the equation 4+4-5+6+9-2=a, you must break it into segments.4+4=8...8-5=2...2+6=8...8+9=17...17-2=15 (a=15).but look closely and you will realize that one of the conclusions is wrong(8-5 does not equal 2). this one mistake also causes the solution to change(a=16)
If the evidence in support of Gods existence were: "Everything ing the bible is true" then you would have a point; that is not, nor has that ever been the case.
i agree w/ sssmith777. you do seem to be an intelligent person. i also am glad to see that you are very calm when responding so i would love to ask a few questions myself. i understand the difference between social and dogmatic teachings, which you said "the answer comes down to". although you did state the differences, i did not see the actual explanation as to why some teachings are allowed to change while others are not. obviously exodus 21:21-22 is a social teaching but...
wouldn't it mean that although it is not exceptable now, it was at that time? also, does it not mean that certain dogmatic teachings could potentially become social teachings in the future? (w/ you're permission, i would love to eventually discuss some other religous topics as well. i ask for your permission b/c i'm sure you already know these conversations can somtimes seem exhausting to certain people.)
Yes, it does mean that. Slavery was, in fact, acceptable then, and not now. The culture that condoned slavery, and all of the cultures that would contitnie to condone it; weren't thinking about social justice; they were thinking about rules and economic statutes.
those two things, in fact, make up the bulk of the olt testiment; not justice.
(btw, you're more than welcome to adress any topic you like, I try to respond to everything I can.)
i know that it was culturally accepted and that it was not against any sort of law but it certainly was not required to own a slave or cause them physical harm. even so, just because it was condoned by society does not negate the fact that it was also condoned by god. why would god accept something just b/c it was accepted by men? the people might not have understood that it was cruel but a loving god would and he would also let his follwers know this w/out any relevence to a period of time.
I don't think that God had anything to do with it, i think that the people of isreal were trying as best they could to determine Gods will, and the laws and statutes were what they came up with.
but if he did not have anything to do w/ it, why is the bible recognized as the word of god? a book which is proclaimed to be the ultimate reference for worshipers has sections that you state were misinterpretations of god's actual intentions b/c the authors were "trying as best they could" by reviewing laws created by other men and their opinions of what they considered tolerable conduct....
if it has been determined that a single mistake was made, it would be logical to realize that all of it's contents would need to come into question and inherently the existence of a god.this, of course, does not prove the absense of a higher being but it certainly provides reasonable doubt.
When people (other than fundamentalists) refer to the Bible as the word of God they do not mean that the authors of the books were Gods stenographers writing down everything that God ever wanted us to know.
To the second part; the bible its is not evidence for Gods existence, the Bible (and whats more, Christianity) are conclusions, not questions.
A good way of looking at this is to ask, would God have revealed to us anything that we could normally think by our selves? No, itd be a waste of time wouldnt it? And so what he revealed to us is something that we cant understand very well.
you stated that it would have been a waste of time if god had revealed to us "anything we could normally think by ourselves". there are two problems that i find w/ that statement.1.there are parts in the bible where god does reveal something that we should be able to figure out ourselves (the ten comandments).
This may be irrelevant to the video but you seem like a very intelligent guy and since you are christian i wanted to know your opinion on this.
Don't extremists such as Islamic terrorists or radical Christians truly represent the religions they claim? although most people who claim the same religion do not take such irrational actions that doesn't mean its not in the bible they claim to follow. for example by NOT stoning gays, aren't Christians disobeying the bible? (I'm not claiming a side)
The answer comes down to the difference between the social teaching of a religion and the spiritual teaching.
In Christianity (for example) the spiritual teachings are things like the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ, etc. Things that do not change. Dogmatic teachings that are dogmatic because, if they were not true, the religion would be nullified.
The social teachings are things, our understanding of which changes all the time; things like homosexuality, sexuality in general, culpability, human biology, human psychology, etc.
The problem is on the part of religous people who think that social teachings (that which changes) is equivelent to spiritual teaching (that which does not change)
Thanks a lot for for answering, i love hearing how different people interpret the bible. I'm curious as to hear what you think about hell? as in the eternal damnation of those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior. do you think this is just a tool used in the bible to persuade people or do you think it falls under a spiritual truth?
PS I'd love to see a video about how the christian church began, i noticed you mentioned having knowledge in this area in another video.
I think that the words "nobody comes to the father but through me" was directed at people who knew what he was talking about; not to all people in general
I think that the divinity of christ and the importance of belief in him are spiritual truths, I wouldn't say that a need for every human being regardles of circumstance needing to believe in him in order to avoid hell is.
the god theory doesn't work. when people created the idea of god we didn't even know where the sun went at night or what germs were. back then it was common to make up stories for where things come from. they had the mentality that when numbers of people got sick it was a curse. but when you get a cold now, do you call an exorcist or take some tylenol pm? we know better now and quantum physics is proving that we are all one consciousness & thus, there could not be a separate entity known as god.
yes Stan, I agree, but don't you think that creationists are possibly using intelligent design as a way to claim science as theirs and argue creationism from simply another tack. Also, this makes it easier to get God into our text books disguised as science.
I think that the intelligent design people are using intelligent design as a means of injecting religous education into the science class, and if any creationists have jumpen onto the ID bandwagon, they are doing the same.
It has been proven that the creationists needed a word that sounded more scientific and to distance the legality of what they are doing from the word creationism. This is when they came up with the term Intelligent Design. All the same people.
I'm sure that's true; but that isn't the same as saying that Id is the same argument as creationism. ID is in fact wrong for very different reasons than creationinsm is wrong.
And I agree with you, but the people that are pushing ID are the creationists. They want us to think that they are making a different argument. Their goal is to push creationism in the schools. The sad thing is that they don't realize that it is our secular state that guarantees their freedom of religion. They want just one religion pushed on the public. Anyway, nice chattin' wit ya. Hope I don't offend.
I dont really agree with you saying ID isnt creationism, but I was happily suprised with the rest of the video. But you should really look more into Expelled, because Ben stein was more dishonest then you think. He qoute mined, edited to make people look bad, and lied to the scientists he interviewed. He approached them saying he was doing a movie called Crossroads, when religion and science intersect. Also, those people who were "expelled" were fired for different reasons then the ones given.
Not true, intelligent is a study of science for it ask how god created the world. Everywhere I see is the work of a scientist which how I see god as a scientist. Believe this, thoelogy is not philosophy rather a study of science as well.
You know, you were too judgmentel on religion because Religulous is setirism while Expelled is documentary on what evolutionist are hiding.
That science is employed in ID does not make ID a science.
as I said in the video, a study of the theistic implications of science is not science, it's philosophy.
Because ID is not science does not automatically invalidate it or make it wrong. It is wrong (in my estimation) on philosophical grounds, but that doesn't mean that it has to be science in order to carry any weght, and I wish people would stop thinking that everyhting does.
You shouldnt talk about science when you clearly dont understand what it is. Religion is faith, and not based on evidence, something that science cares deeply about. So go read a book and come back when you really have something valid to say.
and you shouldn't undermine christian understanding of science even though theistic isn't a study of science which christian has care for. So do yourself a favor and get some cousling on mannerism. When you come back, themn we'll talk.
To the first part; If I were to say the words "Math exists" I would imediatly add: "but not as you and I exist, not as organisms exists, not as coffee cups exist" etc. To use another example, I would have no reservations about saying that my memory of going to the store yesterday exists. (con't)
But again, not as the keybord I'm typing on exists.
To the second part: my example about math/Plato, was an analogy. I was pointing out that Plato (right or wrong) was not doing math, and that in the same way ID people (right or wrong) arent doing science.
Though I didn't talk about religion in the video, It is true that religous beliefs often hold that God interferes with the physical world. (con't)
That I think would be a seperate inquiry. That is, we would ultimately end up investigating two things: The claims of religous believers, and weather or not there is a God to speak of.
Those people are using the word 'know' in a different sense than you and I would use it if we were to say that we know that we typed these messages to eachother.
I personally find it a little dissengenuous to say that your faith is so strong that it's become knowledge, so we probably agree on that one.
What you're rightly pointing out is that if human beings ceased to exist there wouldn't be a single being on earth thinking about numbers; as man is the only intellectual animal, but your observation that numbers arent tangable things was one addressed by Plato him self. Numbers are immaterial, and yes they are conceptual. (con't)
It's a little beside the point since mine was analogy, not a comparison, but non-material does not mean non existant; though you are right to point out that Math as such exists in the mind alone.
If human beings were to dissapear tomarrow, it would continue to be true that three can not be an even number. Plato's mistake was ascribing MORE reality to concepts, or what he called 'forms' than to the physical world. But that's a whole philosophy class, my only point was that: right or wrong, Plato wasn't doing math. (con't)
It's true that Creationists adopted the name "intelligent design" as it sounds more scientific, but that doesn't change the fact that ID is an argument from inference not dogma, and that alone makes it a lot better than creatonism, though still wrong.
The phrase: "The world is more that 6000 years old" Is a scientific one,
if you add: "therefor God did not create it 6000 years ago", you're either implying that God exists and acted at an earlier time , or affirming that he doesn't exist at all, which is the domain of philosophy.
Well would't you agree that you can while in the realm of philosophy call on scientific knowledge to justify your position. Maybe to explain why you hold that position over another or for some other purpose.
Of course this all depends on what the subject is and what your positins are.
But I just can't agree that you can't use scientific knowledge in philosophical discussions, even in ontological ones.
For instance, if we are discussing God's existance and I say, well apparently he wrote the bible. But the bible is full of falsehood and I can prove it in a scientific manor.
I'm still doing philosophy, but I called upon scientific knowledge.
If your philosophical quest is fitting your understanding of the universe in reality, then you just can't do philosophy without science.
no, it isn't a race, it is a way of thought, and some one who is born with jewish parents, useually become jewish by going to there rallies or what ever the hell it is...
so what stann is saying is that he is a jew, who has jewish parents/relitives
I understand that is what he is trying to say. The word 'descent' however implies race. It is the same problem when someone says they were 'born Jewish.' The way it should be said is 'born to Jewish parents.'
They both arrive at the same conclusion; that life was made, and not the result of natural evolution.
The difference between the two is that creationism starts with the conclusion and works backward, ID arrives at the conclusion through inference (albeit, badly).
That they both end up with the same conclusion is true, but the difference between the two and how they arrive there is no small thing. ID is a lot better in that sense than creationism, but still wrong.
I agree absolutely with that assessment. I also agree with your view concerning Ben Stein's statement that academics are acting like Hitler by dismissing ID. I thought Scientology's hijacking of the Holocaust was bad, but this takes it to a whole new level.
All theories must be debatable. You must be able to experiment with them and those experiments must be replicable by other scientists. You cannot experiment on Intelligent Design or Creationism and thus neither qualify as a valid theory.
They arrive at ID in the same way that we arrive at the conclusion that black holes exist; that is, through inference. The problem is, we have every reason to infer the existance of black holes, we have no reason to infer design from nature; they're positing something that doesn't need to be posited in order to explain the phenominon.
The proponents of ID are not asking a legitimate, objective question and they know it. They clearly have an ulterior motive and that motive is to push their religious, (creationist), agenda by other means.
The ID approach is a sanitized way of backdoor creationism. Proponents can deny a religious connection - and call it science. The main objective is to have it taught in public schools as a science subject. The actual "real science" part is mostly a red herring.
0:48 - 1:12 I other words, both Creationism and Intelligent Design say the same thing, just in different ways. Both theories deny any possibility that the World, or anything else in the Universe, could exist without a supreme being; what your religion would call God.
They are both unprovable. They both cannot be debated or experimented. Thus, neither can be accepted through rational thought or scientific process.
use his assumption that any assertion in a book is inherently true and use that assumption to "prove" religions true.
Or, you could use that to point out the fallacy of his assumption and then ask him for evidence. Then, point out, by definition, extremism is something that cannot be apart of the majority, as the middle 38% of people are by definition average 1 standard deviation and religion is too large a block to fall outside the category of average or normal and thus be extreme.
What i don't like about films like this is that when people hear an intelligent person like Ben Stein state their opinions they take it as absolute fact, Much like the scientists following Adolf point you made.
Which is basically the reason why i don't like a lot of these films, every time i make a point about something someone always has to say "No your wrong, i heard Ben Stein (or pretty much any intelligent or ultimately over opinionated person) say otherwise, that makes you wrong"
agreed, the existence of a quote does in no way imply the quote is true or should be taken as true. Words spoken in the past need not have been completely true.
Presicley the point i tried making to a very....well stubborn individual the other day.
He said that one time he read in a book that all religious people were essentially extremists, to which i stated that the book was written by a person, and average every day person like you or me.
I then continued in saying that if i had an extremly popular blog and everyone agreed with me in saying that spaghetti is what Jesus was then would that make me right?
I'm a devout Christian, who believe the whole Bible. I also believe that evolution is true. When you study the original texts of the Genesis account, you can see that it is a very nice description of evolution.
Now, that doesn't make it scientific for me to say that. Science is just... science. However, I am welcome to infer how all that science began, and I do.
one of the most important things in my life i learned is to never question or make fun of a persons religion because people can believe in anything the want. and its good for people to believe in something.
So the religion in which people believed that their bones were borrowed from the gods, had to be given back, and therefore death games and human sacrifice is necessary shouldn't be questioned? What about the one in which grown adults are afraid to walk around by themselves due to ghosts of their ancestors, friends, and relatives may strike them down because they have not gotten enough vengence on their neighbouring tribe and therefore killing a 10 year old boy is acceptable?
science alone cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. philosophy and wisdom are subjective. Hystory is said to be contaminated when it comes to Jesus. If atheism is true then all of the above is irrelevent but if theism is true one day all have to give account to this supreme being. the implications are of eternal significance. Futhermore if theism is true how can God punish a moral person who happens to be atheist. if Jesus is who the christians says he is then we all in serious trouble
if your test for reason is wheter a person is a believer or a nonbeliever then you are ignorant. 40% of american scientists and 2/3 of the world scientist believe in that powerfull entity you claim reason disprove. Judging by your comment you are the one reason disprove.
I'm glad the conversation is over with groupthinker, so I'm just going to add some more without pressing reply.
"Wah! Wah! You're twisting my words! And by twisting, I mean showing the implications of them!"
"Wah! I had to do research to find my bullshit explanation which I copied and pasted! Wah! Why do you have to be angry at me because I support forcing rape victims to marry their rapists! It isn't fair! You're being mean!"
Your problem is your materialistic definition of science. God created this world so excluding Him a'priori from the causation of natural events is an unwarranted limitation of science. In contrast to famous Dawkins' fairies, goblins - God of the Bible is real and historically attested.You will never get out of your maze unless you revise your definition of science. Your def.of science is not valid just because "majority" of scientists agree.Greetings from Poland-land of the TRUE freedom!Stachu
Second: Science has no mechanism by which to study immaterial things. That falls under the domain of philosophy.
When studying Math, we don't look at: 2+2 = 4 and say "okay, but where is God in all that. Likewise I will never understand why people look at evolutionary biology and gasp at the fact that it doesn't include the words "oh and by the way God did it", what possible use could that have? what possible benifit can we derive from that? (con't)
Saying "whatever we see in nature, God did it" tells us nothing aobut nature and it tells us nothing about God.
Biology tells us tons about nature, and pius religion and spirituality tell us aobut God.
Evolutionary biology is no more anti-theistic than a cookbook. A cookbook does not read: 1 cup sugar, 2 table spoons salt, God, 1 cup vinigar, and nor should it.
As for my "Definition" of science, you're right that it isn't the correct definition because of a majority, it's the correct definition because it's the correct definition (unless you're contending that the science is the stufy of the natureal AND supernatural, which I don't think anyone would.)
The bible is historicly accurate in many places, yes, it also contains fable, parable, poetry, monologue, etc, etc. (con't)
The bible is meant to be read either spiritualy, or according to the narative style and intend of the many authors and periods. It is not a science book, nor a history book, nor a music book, nor a cookbook, nor a comic book, it is an anthology of THEOLOGICAL wrighting.
My point is: Theology and Spirituality do not have to be "Science" in order for them to be true, good, or understood, and I don't understand why you think otherwise.
this exactly the reason you, your brother, my mom, and my friend zac is on my
"not a chance in hell, heaven, or the entire fucking universe, can i possibly win an argument agenct"
please excuse my spelling i have i very hard time writing in a language that is so full of bull shit. like having laws that contradict other laws or the sounding out thing
One last point. You blast Stein, yet you leave untouched the scientists he interviewed. They made many comments and claims that are contrary to your point of view presented in this video. According to them there are major religious ramifications. At some parts they make the claim to welcome the religious but then go on to say that evolution logically leads to atheism and religous people are just ignorant. Maybe that's in part 2, I don't know.
I don't think that anything need be said about the scientists other than andswering the question "are they doing science of philosophy"? And I think they're doing the latter.
As for evolution leading to atheism, they arent the only ones who said so, and both are equily false.
Another point I would like to make is concerning the holocaust portion of the show. Of course, we should all be wary of those using such history in a cheap or missrepresentative manner.
But I think you missed the point being made. He wasn't saying scientists were Nazis. There is good evidence though to show that scientific theories such as Eugenics which was a program created to increase the pace of man's evolution did heavily influence Hitler and the Nazis.
I would have to agree that this documentary could have been less opinionated. But I would also have to say I disagree with many of your statements about it.
First is your claim that ID isn't scientific. You say that it is something of phylisofical debate as it implies God, yet Stephen Hawking himself said that one of the possible theories of how man got here was by being planted by some advanced alien race.
The point is, evolution by random mutation isn't the only explenation.
I'm not religious, but I disagree with what you said about science being unable to prove God. If you and I saw an angel fly down from the clouds and explain to us God is real, and then started performing miracles, we'd be hard pressed to explain that away, at least in an honest, rational way.
Science can tell us a lot about the character a creator would have had to have, if there is one.
If we saw an angel fly down and preform miracles, we could observe the being and understand what it's saying, but we're still talking about an immeterial being. we could observe the phenominon, and make determinations about what kind of being it is, but we couldn't test in empericaly.
Take the miracle of the sun. If it was indeed a miracle, the only thing that science can tell us is that there is no material explaination.
I don't know what miracle part of the Sun you're talking about. Scientists understand a lot about the natural forces at work in the Sun.
And we could definitely put the angel into empircal tests. We could make it lift incredibly heavy weights. We could observe empiracally supernatural forces at work.
If Zeus trotted down and introduced himself, then started chucking lightning bolts, I'd be pretty hard pressed to say he's not real.
1. I should have worded that better. I'm talking about the incident at Fatima.
2. All we could end up doing is observing that it is incorporial.
3. That's true. I'm not saying we couldn't determine weather or not an angel is real, I'm saying we can't determine it through anyting but observation and inference.
If an angel failed to lift incredibly heavy weights, would he therefore be disproved as an angel? An angel wrestled with Jacob for quite some time. It has never been suggested to my knowledge that they all have superior strength.
Say an angel were to have wings or fly. Would that prove it. Science can only say that there is a man with wings and he is capable of flight, it might observe that the motions of the wings account for his flight or that they do not and if they do not account (cont)
for his flight, science is not capable of concluding that the event is supernatural. It can only say that the man's flight is not adequately explained by our observations of the event coupled with our present understanding of how the world works. The scientific conclusion is that we failed to observe the mechanism.
If an angel were to wave a hand over a wound and make it disappear, the conclusions that we might be able to draw are that we have either been tricked or the man (cont)
possesses a means of making wounds go away that we are not familiar. We might be able to perform tests on the wound, the man, or the event, but we can never conclude that he has supernatural power, only that our tests fail to suggest an explanation for the occurrence. We certainly couldn't conclude that the man healed the wound with God's divine power.
Science is accustomed to having things unexplained and being incomplete in its understanding, an angel would hardly stand that on its head.
We would never be in that hypothetical situation since so much evidence and basic logic tells us how obviously false the Bible is. But if we to set aside all that, and if an angel did indeed fly down and perform some outstanding miracle, and said: "Jesus is God.", the most logical conclusion is that Jesus is God. It would take a lot of dishonest mental gymnastics like we've never seen to avoid that.
The same is true for Zeus. We see him start chucking thunder, he would be real.
It's like my uncle who is both a paleontologist and a Christian told me. He has colleagues who look at the world and see the work of God and others who look at the world and see only natural processes. We each see what is already in us.
In my heart, I believe in God, so when I learn about the origins of the universe, of the earth, and of life, I learn something about how God made the world. I see that not because I see empirical evidence of design but because I believe in Him.
I don't say this to convince you of anything, only to say that I know (because I'm not new to this arena of debate) that the evidence presented by the New Atheist movement is not conclusive, it can't be. It ultimately boils to arguments which in turn ultimately boil down to a difference in premises.
Science is not anti-miracle. If someone saw an angel fly down, a man with wings, no scientist is going to say: "I guess a man evolved some wings." Evolution is evident in seeing homologies, and seeing something this complex and random without explanation would blow our minds.
We wouldn't say: "I must be hallucinating." or "God is trying to trick me." No one is that in denial to their own detriment, not the devil, not anyone.
The reason people don't believe is simply because of evidence.
I agree that people witnessing an angel fly down and perform miracles will generally believe they have witnessed an angel. The point is, no scientific analysis can conclude that the event is supernatural. The analysis will either find a natural explanation (in which case its not a miracle) or it won't find one (in which case the results are simply inconclusive.)
Once the angel leaves, only witnesses and people predisposed to believe in such things will believe what they saw. (cont)
Skeptics not present to witness the angel are likely to think the event is some kind of hoax or hallucination. Think about it.
People claim they've seen Bigfoot or aliens or the Virgin Mary and there are numerous stories of angel sightings. They aren't generally believed and an alternate explanation is usually sought (was the witness drinking? do they have a history of psychotic episodes?) There are even people who think the moon landings were faked in spite of the camera footage and press.
There's nothing wrong with thinking Bigfoot exists. There's simply insufficient evidence. If we got Bigfoot in a cage, and found his relatives, no doubt about it, then Bigfoot would exist.
If a person who was abducted by aliens said: "Oh, by the way, I brought back this fully functional ray gun.", then guess what? He was abducted by aliens.
If the Virgin Mary manifested herself, had a press conference where she predicted next week's lottery numbers, it's her.
If the Virgin Mary showed up one day, how would you know her from a crazy woman? Why would predicting next weeks lottery numbers prove anything? Mary wasn't said to be a psychic or a prophet.
While a ray gun would probably help with an alien story, its certainly not proof. Some of the UFO sightings over the years have turned out to be experimental government technology (if they weren't hoaxes or simply unexplained) what if the ray gun was man made?
If Mary shows up and says: "Hey, my son Jesus is God, and through his power I time travelled here from the past. Look, I can levitate.", ignoring all the evidence contradicting the Bible and its internal contradictions, she would be real.
In the same way, if you were placed in a space shuttle which orbitted the Earth and you saw its flat edge from the side, that would prove the Earth is flat, that is, if all the evidence against a flat Earth didn't exist.
You'd buy that? I'd actually be skeptical. Its not consistent with the behavior of God as he is depicted in the Bible or really any religious text nor with the stated qualities of the Virgin Mary, plus levitation is something magicians like David Copperfield do. It wouldn't prove anything.
The flat earth example is a bad one because the condition is easily tested. We can see the Earth from the sky and from space, but we can perform a similar test on God. Not seeing God doesn't prove anything.
If a person claiming a UFO abduction had with him a piece of technology that was millenia ahead of our time, then to say: "He made it." is stupid. The rational thing to conclude in that instance is not that he made it, but he got it off of some really advances beings, the aliens he claims to have been abducted from.
How do we know which technologies are "millenia ahead of our time." These things don't happen on anything even remotely considered impossible and we can do things today that were thought by many to be impossible even 50 years ago. For example we actually do have powerful lasers today, they're just big and bulky.
People don't disbelieve in the Virgin Mary because of some radical state of denial where people would make up absurd explanation to counter conclusive evidence in her favor, if it were to exist.
People disbelieve in the Virgin Mary for the same reason they disbelieve in Buddha, Vishnu, Lord Xenu, and leprechauns - there is no evidence for any of them. And just because you happen to take a liking to any one of them doesn't make them real.
I agree with this statement but I think you're missing my point.
If a woman came forth today claiming to be Mary and performing some kind of "miracle" I wouldn't blame anybody for thinking it was some kind of trick. It would be reasonable.
As for comparing Mary to leprechauns, whats so hard to believe about her? She was said to be a human being who gave birth to Jesus while still a virgin. We can do virgin births in the modern era, is it so hard to believe that some other being can do that?
I got your point, but it wouldn't be reasonable for someone to believe that if Mary could perform such astounding feats that she's lying. The most reasonable explanation would be she's got Holy Spirit powers, as she would claim.
Of Vishnu cartwheeled onto the scene with all six arms, there's no: "Hey, that's a trick." The debate would be over. That's Vishnu. There he is.
People would accept it if they saw it, and no fruitcake would be in so much denial to their own detriment. None.
The only place the "Virgin" Mary exists is in the Bible. And in the Bible, she's visited by angels to a god who ordered the slaughter of babies, condoned slavery, and ordered rape victims to marry their rapists.
That puts her squarely on the same level of respect as a leprechaun. Actually, the leprechaun is less ridiculous. He/it would be more likely to exist.
We're about done here, but, while I think I probably know what you're referring to in each instance, could you show me your examples of God condoning slavery and ordering rape victims to marry their rapists?
As for the Virgin Mary example. Lets say that you read a story stating that a man in China reported being visited by a unicorn. Obviously, you don't believe in unicorns, but would you conclude on that basis that the man didn't exist? (cont)
Point is, by your statements, you are rejecting the existence of a woman who claimed a virgin birth and angelic visitation and the existence of a priest who claimed to be the son of God rather than simply rejecting the claims that these two people make. I think that says a lot about your personal biases.
If some dude claims to be visited by unicorns and has no evidence for it, I'm not going to believe him. If I believed every supernatural claim made by everyone... that would make no sense. There would be tons of contradictions between them, not to mention issues of ridiculousness.
It's not silly to reject that angels visited Mary any more than it is to reject angels visited Mohammed or Joseph Smith. They have pitifully little to show for it. It's not bias that stops me.
A unicorn is an arbitrary being, and isn't a posit to explain anything. God is a necisary being (if he exists), and one that we can posit beyond a reasonable doubt, or reject on the grounds of materialism.
The mistake you're making is to put arbitrary things in the same catagory as an intellectual construct. (con't)
An arbitrary object of thought: unicorns, celestial teapots, faries. etc, are not like intellectual constructs and posits: Black Holes, Quarks, God, etc.
While that is actually a good point, that something is more improbable to be true the more details you add to it, especially arbitrary ones - the god of the Bible is not without a myriad of such arbitrary details.
You're departing from generic deism to a god that has a son, a mom, feelings of regret, who sinned by persecuting a man (Job) for no reason, who supervises pedophile Moses, who wrestles with people, who is a man with a penis, etc.
And the Bible even says unicorns are real as well.
I'm not a big fan of deism because I don't understand how a person can come to the conclusion that there is a necissary being, but go no farther in trying to define it. Defining it is difficult, but I don't think we can stop short of doing that if we reached the first conclusion.
The bible is a bad place to start, and its a bad place to go if you (not you personaly, but people in general) don't know anything about the narrative styles and contexts. (con't)
It's like picking up shakespere and reading it strait away; you arent going to understand much about it, because you need to familiarize your self with the context and literary style it was written in (and that has been abandoned for centuries).
The bible is even more difficult because it's an anthology of theological writing written in MANY styles and structures, all of which the reader really needs to know, at least the basics of. (con't).
that having been said, there is at least SOME historical evidence that a person named Jesus lived, taught what he taught, and was killed for it, and there is even a little bit of circumstantial evidence that points to the ressurection, or at least to the fact that belief in the ressurection is reasonable. I can't say the same for very many other religions, which, to me, makes christianity the most reasonable if we're trying to better define that necissary being. (con't)
But this is a far cry from what most people would say about belief in God. People talk about belief or non belief in God is an easy conclusion to reach. It isn't, both are very difficult.
I understand the point of proper interpretation. I was a Christian for three years. Not a Catholic, but even still, I can understand the light in which a believer sees the stories and finds the morals in them. These morals become the evidence to what would otherwise simply be myth and folklore.
However, your emotional motivation, the appeal the religion has to you, no more adds truth to obvious myths than it does for the Quran, Buddhism, or Hinduism.
No, it doesn't, but in order to find out what is and isn't true in a book like this, you need to at least know what you're saying is true about it, and that usualy boils down to the nicene creed.
As for claiming there is historical evidence for a person named Jesus, you know better than to parrot the catch phrases and lines passed down from a church intent on having your money and services.
While I was 50/50 certain about Christianity and wanted evidence, I went through those so called historical evidences by Josh McDowell, and after seeing them, I realized Jesus never existed at all and that the best evidence for Christianity are ones that stood against it.
I don't know anything about McDowell, and I don't know of very many historians who say that Jesus never existed at all. I'm not even sure how you can arrive there considering that people who had every reason to say that he didn't exist at the time didn't.
Peace Be Unto All 22 Nations Of Humanity In 2012 I Bring Blessing From The King Of Kings A Must See The Only Real Revelation Bible In History.. This Is the Year Of Change For All... To The Powers To Be Fee All 22 Nations Of Humanity Now Before Its Too Late For You You Have Bin Warned By St John The Divine Yahya Watchman And Embassador Of Peace To The King Of Kings High Council Of The Unseen Ones.. A Must See For All At My Site Tku And May God Bless Us All In 2012.. World Peace For All In 2012.
Embassadorkingofpeac 2 weeks ago
@Embassadorkingofpeac Get back to me on that when the world actually ends
RobKarmic 1 week ago in playlist More videos from standinstann
Intelligent design might be different from creationism, but it's still based in religion rather than science. Also doesn't help that the proponents of intelligent design are often Christian creationists.
I support the Supreme Court decision to make the teaching of intelligent design illegal in public schools. You might as well also teach alchemy, phrenology, witchcraft, eugenics, etc.
CrazyCheeseMagee 4 months ago
@CrazyCheeseMagee I support the same ruling but i have to add, it actually isn't based on religion; it's actually based on LESS. It's based on the proposition that statistical improbability necessitates an intelligent cause.
standinstann 4 months ago
@standinstann About the statistically impossible idea, Thunderf00t makes a good video that explains the fallacy of "statistical improbability" better than I can. watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc
CrazyCheeseMagee 4 months ago
Lol, doesn't Stein lose the argument, because he mentioned Nazis? Because according to some retarded idea, mentioning Nazis in any argument means you've lost the argument. I find that crap funny, but the holocaust? No. That was a terrible time that should be remembered as a warning as much as an atrocity (a warning of what kinds of mistakes and intentionally cruel things to avoid).
Bassbait 6 months ago
The separate magesteria argument isn't sensible. A universe created by a god is necessarily different from a universe that created itself, through the scientific principles expounded by Einstein, Hawkins etc. Therefore a discussion about God creating the universe or not IS scientific and there's no evidence for it.
FerretBob 11 months ago
@FerretBob If the agent responsible for exnhilating the cosmos is necessarily a non-material one, then it can't be a scientific question. If we're talking about a really powerful "organism" (which the ID people are; then yes, that theory is subject to scientific inquiry. The mistake here is thinking that if it doesn't fall into the domain of science then it automatically falls into the domain of "religion". It doesn't.
standinstann 11 months ago
According to you logic Einstein should have been expelled from scientific circles for going beyond the confines of physics at that time (and he actually was and he was relentlessly attacked)... But i don't think he should have been.
Supenmanu 1 year ago
Comment removed
rajlogik 1 year ago
I appreciate your analysis, and think the point that religion and evolution are not inherently at odds is an important one. There is so much needless strife over this issue. Most people seem not to make the kinds of distinctions you're making.
Of course, religion doesn't really encourage those kinds of distinctions. Too often, it is presented as the ultimate truth/authority, something that can explain everything. When science offers a different view, it's seen as an attack on that authority.
jontv 1 year ago
The atheists and religionists really deserve each other. The latter so often demonstrably lack the virtues they espouse so much, and the former so often lack the reasoning skills they esteem so highly.
endofscene 1 year ago
Just like science, which has been with us since the beginning, humans have been aware of the divinity of nature and the presence of spirits and the fact of an afterlife and the power of magic for as far back as I can postulate. It is arrogance on the part of both religion and science to claim that these people have all been deluded. Again, notice how quick religionists and atheists are to call EVERYBODY ELSE deluded (or evil).
endofscene 1 year ago
Again, any serious philosopher or seeker of truth would be interested in these studys and findings I'm sure. Many people have experienced them first-hand without being able to explain them or then being called deluded or demonic. I mean come on, people, how do you think prayer works? Prayer is something that can be studied, and has been. Religious teachers often like to point to those studies. The same religious teachers don't like to consider studies on spirit communication, though.
endofscene 1 year ago
Science is just experimentation and exploration and experience. It's doing what works. Humans have been involved in science from the beginning of time. The scientific method can be applied to studying paranormal phenomena such as spirit communication, materialisation, telepathy, spontaneous healing and other socalled miraculous or psychic occurrences. In fact, this has been done many times. And it has been scientifically verified that these phenomena are indeed real.
endofscene 1 year ago
'Science' is a word. True science is free enquiry. What we know as science is actually based in philosophy and is a particular kind of philosophy. It used to be called Natural Philosophy. But what is 'natural philosophy'? The study of the natural world, as you stated. But what is the "natural world"? This is a philosophical question. So again we are back to philosophy.
endofscene 1 year ago
@HoLyFaTtY
I wouldn't refer to the creator (in this sense) as a "designer" as I would refer to the architect of a building as a designer; the two examples are different, but, If what we need to posit in order to explain being is a cause, then the cause (by definition) can not have been caused its self.
standinstann 1 year ago
You don't move out of science the moment you say "god." If a god had an effect on the real world, it could be scientifically tested and proven or disproven. If a god was found, we could use science to figure things out about him/her/it.
Of course, there's no evidence at all that any gods exist.
Evangelos12 1 year ago
@Evangelos12
If God exists, and has an effect on the natural world; how do we tell the difference between his intervention and an otherwise natural event?
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann
In that particular case, we don't.
However, there are other ways. For example, if we had some sick people and and people of various religions praying for one sick person each, with each of the theists making a request for healing from a different god, you could in theory support a particular deity's existence if his patient made a miraculous recovery but other's did not.
Of course prayer has been shown to be completely ineffective, but that is one quick example.
Evangelos12 1 year ago
@Evangelos12
to that example I have to point out that there is just no way to account for some of the variables, the most important being God's will. That is the very thing that we need to place a control on, and the one thing that we can't.
If we're supposing that a being with will and purpose might intervene in the destiny of a person, we can't be certain to nearly the degree that we'd need to what that will is and if/how it might be changed or coaxed.
standinstann 1 year ago
Secondly, that has to do with pure theology, where as i was talking about philosophical theology. In either case, we're talking about that which can not be falsified; it would be easier on both sides if it could be.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann
If you repeated the experiment time after time and (just to pick a random one) the patients who were prayed for through Athena consistently did far better than other gods, that would be a start at testing the divine.
Thing is, even if we can't strictly speaking tell for sure it was a god, it doesn't mean that a god isn't part of the natural order somehow. I don't believe that is the case, but if a god exist then he/she/it is just another part existence.
Evangelos12 1 year ago
to the first point, we would be left scratching our heads nomatter what the results were; if the results tended to favor those who were prayed for, we would still have no idea what factors led to it, regardless of weather they were coincidental or the intervention of God, we wouldn't know why; what the criteria is, or even weather it only "appeared" as though it was having some effect.
(con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
To your second; if god exists, I would say that it is a part of existence to be sure (that is something of a tautology); but not of *material* existence.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann
If praying in the name of Apollo (but no other gods) consistently produced a 50% increased recovery rate time after time, that alone wouldn't prove his existence but it would be supporting evidence for it. It would be a start, and the jumping off point for further tests to start building a hypothesis or theory from, which is my point -- you don't automatically go to philosophy-only when dealing with alleged gods. The scientific method can still be used.
Evangelos12 1 year ago
There have been studies that showed that prayer does increase the recovery rate, and those that showed the opposite; since (above) we're talking about a hypothetical scenario, and a God that was an anthopromorphized deification of nature, rather than an intellectual construct, I can't speak to that point, other than to say that a person of faith in Apollo would surely be thrilled by those results, but a person of science, philosophy and reason could not be moved by it (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
It might be fair to say that the scientific method might be used in order to attribute certain data to a particular religion, or a particular God, but that whole enterprise is disingenuous and vague, Again, we can't know or control for any of the necessary variables.
standinstann 1 year ago
thanks man, good stuff.
KingMinosxxvi 1 year ago
Loved your reviews on Religulous and Expelled. Have to correct you on one point though. Bill Maher is not an athiest. He often says and I quote ' I'm not an athiest because athiesim mirrors the certainty of religion.' Also another important point about the holocaust is that many of Hitler's soldiers who executed Jews were christians. I don't know how scientists were supposedly involved.
MegaBeamish 1 year ago
It's hard to give an enlightened exchange on subject such as Modern understanding of living processes and and traditions of litany. What a scientist does compared to a cleric. And people are sometimes so passionate with these types of dialogues that voices and chairs start coming at you. But I find my associates who discuss science issues more interested in the topic; people who are more interested in 'winning' the argument have their mind all ready close to conjectures.
TheLostHibiki 1 year ago
fucking boring
tibherius 1 year ago
God is purely based on faith. There is no scientific proof there isn't a god however. Believing in god is kind of like believing in life in outer space. Right now people who believe in life in outer space only really have things like Alien Abductions, UFO's and Crop Circles. Where that may not be enough to say that theres life in outer space the thing is...there's no evidence to say there isnt life outside our planet either. Until its proven its all about faith.
EricLynchSucks 1 year ago
Science is not wrong; the implications thereof can be. I'm glad you pointed that out. Thanks, stan.
okayillgonow 1 year ago
This is a very good video, but I feel your definitions of Creationism and Intelligent Design are misleadingly black-and-white. It is well-known that ID has been used as a cover for young-earth creationists in government for decades because, until recently, it had much less legal baggage associated with it. Since the Dover trial, ID has fallen almost completely out of use. Watch "Ken Miller on Intelligent Design" here on YouTube.
VTMMalkavian 1 year ago
Comment removed
tntitan1115 1 year ago
did i say something offensive?
tntitan1115 1 year ago
i was raised in a christian home and was always taught in church that the bible was the written truth and i have been a member of several. the cat analogy is a bit extreme and not really a logical comparison. humans and cats don't comminicate through conversation b/c cats cannot speak. the god of the bible spoke to people frequently. not to mention the fact that the cat would be able to see me and i have never seen god.even if i could, god's consolation has a big "IF" at the end.
tntitan1115 1 year ago
2.why would he want to relay his teachings in a way that "we cant understand very well"? it would actually conserve time if people understood immediately. if it was obvious then there wouldn't be a waiting period due to the necessity of trying to decide what god actually meant. do you understand what i am saying?
tntitan1115 1 year ago
The limitation is ours. When you are trying to explain to your cat that the vet isn't going to hurt it, that's a lrge jump in communication. You are in fact telling the cat (by peting it and trying to consol it) something that it can't understand very well.
The limitation in this case is on the part f the cat, not us. It simply doesn't have the capacity to comprehend fully, only to trust us.
standinstann 1 year ago
when i say "come into question", i don't mean that statements are actually questions.i understand that they are conclusions.but when a conclusion is wrong, then it is possible that others are as well.for example: when solving the equation 4+4-5+6+9-2=a, you must break it into segments.4+4=8...8-5=2...2+6=8...8+9=17...17-2=15 (a=15).but look closely and you will realize that one of the conclusions is wrong(8-5 does not equal 2). this one mistake also causes the solution to change(a=16)
tntitan1115 1 year ago
If the evidence in support of Gods existence were: "Everything ing the bible is true" then you would have a point; that is not, nor has that ever been the case.
standinstann 1 year ago
Comment removed
tntitan1115 1 year ago
i agree w/ sssmith777. you do seem to be an intelligent person. i also am glad to see that you are very calm when responding so i would love to ask a few questions myself. i understand the difference between social and dogmatic teachings, which you said "the answer comes down to". although you did state the differences, i did not see the actual explanation as to why some teachings are allowed to change while others are not. obviously exodus 21:21-22 is a social teaching but...
tntitan1115 1 year ago
wouldn't it mean that although it is not exceptable now, it was at that time? also, does it not mean that certain dogmatic teachings could potentially become social teachings in the future? (w/ you're permission, i would love to eventually discuss some other religous topics as well. i ask for your permission b/c i'm sure you already know these conversations can somtimes seem exhausting to certain people.)
tntitan1115 1 year ago
Yes, it does mean that. Slavery was, in fact, acceptable then, and not now. The culture that condoned slavery, and all of the cultures that would contitnie to condone it; weren't thinking about social justice; they were thinking about rules and economic statutes.
those two things, in fact, make up the bulk of the olt testiment; not justice.
(btw, you're more than welcome to adress any topic you like, I try to respond to everything I can.)
standinstann 1 year ago
i know that it was culturally accepted and that it was not against any sort of law but it certainly was not required to own a slave or cause them physical harm. even so, just because it was condoned by society does not negate the fact that it was also condoned by god. why would god accept something just b/c it was accepted by men? the people might not have understood that it was cruel but a loving god would and he would also let his follwers know this w/out any relevence to a period of time.
tntitan1115 1 year ago
I don't think that God had anything to do with it, i think that the people of isreal were trying as best they could to determine Gods will, and the laws and statutes were what they came up with.
standinstann 1 year ago
but if he did not have anything to do w/ it, why is the bible recognized as the word of god? a book which is proclaimed to be the ultimate reference for worshipers has sections that you state were misinterpretations of god's actual intentions b/c the authors were "trying as best they could" by reviewing laws created by other men and their opinions of what they considered tolerable conduct....
tntitan1115 1 year ago
if it has been determined that a single mistake was made, it would be logical to realize that all of it's contents would need to come into question and inherently the existence of a god.this, of course, does not prove the absense of a higher being but it certainly provides reasonable doubt.
tntitan1115 1 year ago
When people (other than fundamentalists) refer to the Bible as the word of God they do not mean that the authors of the books were Gods stenographers writing down everything that God ever wanted us to know.
To the second part; the bible its is not evidence for Gods existence, the Bible (and whats more, Christianity) are conclusions, not questions.
standinstann 1 year ago
A good way of looking at this is to ask, would God have revealed to us anything that we could normally think by our selves? No, itd be a waste of time wouldnt it? And so what he revealed to us is something that we cant understand very well.
standinstann 1 year ago
you stated that it would have been a waste of time if god had revealed to us "anything we could normally think by ourselves". there are two problems that i find w/ that statement.1.there are parts in the bible where god does reveal something that we should be able to figure out ourselves (the ten comandments).
tntitan1115 1 year ago
This may be irrelevant to the video but you seem like a very intelligent guy and since you are christian i wanted to know your opinion on this.
Don't extremists such as Islamic terrorists or radical Christians truly represent the religions they claim? although most people who claim the same religion do not take such irrational actions that doesn't mean its not in the bible they claim to follow. for example by NOT stoning gays, aren't Christians disobeying the bible? (I'm not claiming a side)
sssmith777 1 year ago
Thats a fair question.
The answer comes down to the difference between the social teaching of a religion and the spiritual teaching.
In Christianity (for example) the spiritual teachings are things like the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ, etc. Things that do not change. Dogmatic teachings that are dogmatic because, if they were not true, the religion would be nullified.
(con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
The social teachings are things, our understanding of which changes all the time; things like homosexuality, sexuality in general, culpability, human biology, human psychology, etc.
The problem is on the part of religous people who think that social teachings (that which changes) is equivelent to spiritual teaching (that which does not change)
standinstann 1 year ago
This was not at all irrelevant to the video btw.
standinstann 1 year ago
Thanks a lot for for answering, i love hearing how different people interpret the bible. I'm curious as to hear what you think about hell? as in the eternal damnation of those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior. do you think this is just a tool used in the bible to persuade people or do you think it falls under a spiritual truth?
PS I'd love to see a video about how the christian church began, i noticed you mentioned having knowledge in this area in another video.
sssmith777 1 year ago
I think that the words "nobody comes to the father but through me" was directed at people who knew what he was talking about; not to all people in general
I think that the divinity of christ and the importance of belief in him are spiritual truths, I wouldn't say that a need for every human being regardles of circumstance needing to believe in him in order to avoid hell is.
standinstann 1 year ago
the god theory doesn't work. when people created the idea of god we didn't even know where the sun went at night or what germs were. back then it was common to make up stories for where things come from. they had the mentality that when numbers of people got sick it was a curse. but when you get a cold now, do you call an exorcist or take some tylenol pm? we know better now and quantum physics is proving that we are all one consciousness & thus, there could not be a separate entity known as god.
Freakntheworld 1 year ago
yes Stan, I agree, but don't you think that creationists are possibly using intelligent design as a way to claim science as theirs and argue creationism from simply another tack. Also, this makes it easier to get God into our text books disguised as science.
tombeardman 2 years ago
I think that the intelligent design people are using intelligent design as a means of injecting religous education into the science class, and if any creationists have jumpen onto the ID bandwagon, they are doing the same.
standinstann 1 year ago
It has been proven that the creationists needed a word that sounded more scientific and to distance the legality of what they are doing from the word creationism. This is when they came up with the term Intelligent Design. All the same people.
tombeardman 1 year ago
I'm sure that's true; but that isn't the same as saying that Id is the same argument as creationism. ID is in fact wrong for very different reasons than creationinsm is wrong.
standinstann 1 year ago
And I agree with you, but the people that are pushing ID are the creationists. They want us to think that they are making a different argument. Their goal is to push creationism in the schools. The sad thing is that they don't realize that it is our secular state that guarantees their freedom of religion. They want just one religion pushed on the public. Anyway, nice chattin' wit ya. Hope I don't offend.
tombeardman 1 year ago
havn't said a single ofensive thing so far :)
I agree with you, and for the record, I don't want it in schools either, I want science taught in science class; not philosophy.
standinstann 1 year ago
I dont really agree with you saying ID isnt creationism, but I was happily suprised with the rest of the video. But you should really look more into Expelled, because Ben stein was more dishonest then you think. He qoute mined, edited to make people look bad, and lied to the scientists he interviewed. He approached them saying he was doing a movie called Crossroads, when religion and science intersect. Also, those people who were "expelled" were fired for different reasons then the ones given.
Zombie1990 2 years ago
Ben Stein doesn't know the first thing about science. Apparently he thinks that the study of crystals is science fiction.
booste30 2 years ago 2
Not true, intelligent is a study of science for it ask how god created the world. Everywhere I see is the work of a scientist which how I see god as a scientist. Believe this, thoelogy is not philosophy rather a study of science as well.
You know, you were too judgmentel on religion because Religulous is setirism while Expelled is documentary on what evolutionist are hiding.
beeber2 2 years ago
That science is employed in ID does not make ID a science.
as I said in the video, a study of the theistic implications of science is not science, it's philosophy.
Because ID is not science does not automatically invalidate it or make it wrong. It is wrong (in my estimation) on philosophical grounds, but that doesn't mean that it has to be science in order to carry any weght, and I wish people would stop thinking that everyhting does.
standinstann 2 years ago
This may seem an odd request. Do you still have a copy of the image of the river at 1:02? I would LOVE to have a copy.
aeroldoth 2 years ago
You shouldnt talk about science when you clearly dont understand what it is. Religion is faith, and not based on evidence, something that science cares deeply about. So go read a book and come back when you really have something valid to say.
jorge9705 2 years ago
and you shouldn't undermine christian understanding of science even though theistic isn't a study of science which christian has care for. So do yourself a favor and get some cousling on mannerism. When you come back, themn we'll talk.
beeber2 2 years ago
To the first part; If I were to say the words "Math exists" I would imediatly add: "but not as you and I exist, not as organisms exists, not as coffee cups exist" etc. To use another example, I would have no reservations about saying that my memory of going to the store yesterday exists. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
But again, not as the keybord I'm typing on exists.
To the second part: my example about math/Plato, was an analogy. I was pointing out that Plato (right or wrong) was not doing math, and that in the same way ID people (right or wrong) arent doing science.
Though I didn't talk about religion in the video, It is true that religous beliefs often hold that God interferes with the physical world. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
That I think would be a seperate inquiry. That is, we would ultimately end up investigating two things: The claims of religous believers, and weather or not there is a God to speak of.
standinstann 2 years ago
One last thing. you mentioned the definition of existance. I think that the only satisfactory definition of existance is: 'that which has being'.
standinstann 2 years ago
Those people are using the word 'know' in a different sense than you and I would use it if we were to say that we know that we typed these messages to eachother.
I personally find it a little dissengenuous to say that your faith is so strong that it's become knowledge, so we probably agree on that one.
standinstann 2 years ago
What you're rightly pointing out is that if human beings ceased to exist there wouldn't be a single being on earth thinking about numbers; as man is the only intellectual animal, but your observation that numbers arent tangable things was one addressed by Plato him self. Numbers are immaterial, and yes they are conceptual. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
It's a little beside the point since mine was analogy, not a comparison, but non-material does not mean non existant; though you are right to point out that Math as such exists in the mind alone.
standinstann 2 years ago
If human beings were to dissapear tomarrow, it would continue to be true that three can not be an even number. Plato's mistake was ascribing MORE reality to concepts, or what he called 'forms' than to the physical world. But that's a whole philosophy class, my only point was that: right or wrong, Plato wasn't doing math. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
Lastly, I don't understand why you would say that a God who exists outside of the cosmos could not manifest him self in it.
standinstann 2 years ago
It's true that Creationists adopted the name "intelligent design" as it sounds more scientific, but that doesn't change the fact that ID is an argument from inference not dogma, and that alone makes it a lot better than creatonism, though still wrong.
standinstann 2 years ago
so if I say something like : " God did not create the world 6000 years ago. ", I'm doing philosophy.
Bulloxe4 2 years ago
Yes.
The phrase: "The world is more that 6000 years old" Is a scientific one,
if you add: "therefor God did not create it 6000 years ago", you're either implying that God exists and acted at an earlier time , or affirming that he doesn't exist at all, which is the domain of philosophy.
standinstann 2 years ago
@standinstann
Well would't you agree that you can while in the realm of philosophy call on scientific knowledge to justify your position. Maybe to explain why you hold that position over another or for some other purpose.
Of course this all depends on what the subject is and what your positins are.
But I just can't agree that you can't use scientific knowledge in philosophical discussions, even in ontological ones.
Bulloxe4 1 year ago
@Bulloxe4 Of course you can use scientific knowledge/data/evidence in philosophical discussions.
endofscene 1 year ago
@standinstann
For instance, if we are discussing God's existance and I say, well apparently he wrote the bible. But the bible is full of falsehood and I can prove it in a scientific manor.
I'm still doing philosophy, but I called upon scientific knowledge.
If your philosophical quest is fitting your understanding of the universe in reality, then you just can't do philosophy without science.
Bulloxe4 1 year ago
@Bulloxe4
Anyway, my point is, there is no good reason why you wold keep science and philosophy strictly apart.
Bulloxe4 1 year ago
5:25 Stan, there is no such thing as 'Jewish Descent.' Judaism is a religion, not a race.
Otaku155 2 years ago
no, it isn't a race, it is a way of thought, and some one who is born with jewish parents, useually become jewish by going to there rallies or what ever the hell it is...
so what stann is saying is that he is a jew, who has jewish parents/relitives
FranklyImaPerson 2 years ago
I understand that is what he is trying to say. The word 'descent' however implies race. It is the same problem when someone says they were 'born Jewish.' The way it should be said is 'born to Jewish parents.'
Otaku155 2 years ago
They both arrive at the same conclusion; that life was made, and not the result of natural evolution.
The difference between the two is that creationism starts with the conclusion and works backward, ID arrives at the conclusion through inference (albeit, badly).
That they both end up with the same conclusion is true, but the difference between the two and how they arrive there is no small thing. ID is a lot better in that sense than creationism, but still wrong.
standinstann 2 years ago
I agree absolutely with that assessment. I also agree with your view concerning Ben Stein's statement that academics are acting like Hitler by dismissing ID. I thought Scientology's hijacking of the Holocaust was bad, but this takes it to a whole new level.
All theories must be debatable. You must be able to experiment with them and those experiments must be replicable by other scientists. You cannot experiment on Intelligent Design or Creationism and thus neither qualify as a valid theory.
Otaku155 2 years ago 2
They arrive at ID in the same way that we arrive at the conclusion that black holes exist; that is, through inference. The problem is, we have every reason to infer the existance of black holes, we have no reason to infer design from nature; they're positing something that doesn't need to be posited in order to explain the phenominon.
What does Scientology say about the hohocaust?
standinstann 2 years ago
The proponents of ID are not asking a legitimate, objective question and they know it. They clearly have an ulterior motive and that motive is to push their religious, (creationist), agenda by other means.
The ID approach is a sanitized way of backdoor creationism. Proponents can deny a religious connection - and call it science. The main objective is to have it taught in public schools as a science subject. The actual "real science" part is mostly a red herring.
4312ton 2 years ago
0:48 - 1:12 I other words, both Creationism and Intelligent Design say the same thing, just in different ways. Both theories deny any possibility that the World, or anything else in the Universe, could exist without a supreme being; what your religion would call God.
They are both unprovable. They both cannot be debated or experimented. Thus, neither can be accepted through rational thought or scientific process.
Otaku155 2 years ago
Comment removed
Otaku155 2 years ago
use his assumption that any assertion in a book is inherently true and use that assumption to "prove" religions true.
Or, you could use that to point out the fallacy of his assumption and then ask him for evidence. Then, point out, by definition, extremism is something that cannot be apart of the majority, as the middle 38% of people are by definition average 1 standard deviation and religion is too large a block to fall outside the category of average or normal and thus be extreme.
fistsofthor 2 years ago
What i don't like about films like this is that when people hear an intelligent person like Ben Stein state their opinions they take it as absolute fact, Much like the scientists following Adolf point you made.
Which is basically the reason why i don't like a lot of these films, every time i make a point about something someone always has to say "No your wrong, i heard Ben Stein (or pretty much any intelligent or ultimately over opinionated person) say otherwise, that makes you wrong"
MurphandHodgie 2 years ago
agreed, the existence of a quote does in no way imply the quote is true or should be taken as true. Words spoken in the past need not have been completely true.
fistsofthor 2 years ago
Presicley the point i tried making to a very....well stubborn individual the other day.
He said that one time he read in a book that all religious people were essentially extremists, to which i stated that the book was written by a person, and average every day person like you or me.
I then continued in saying that if i had an extremly popular blog and everyone agreed with me in saying that spaghetti is what Jesus was then would that make me right?
Of course he persisted but thanks anyways.
MurphandHodgie 2 years ago
Man Stein made himself look like a moron to a lot of people who knew a lot of biology or other sciences.
newguy33X 2 years ago
I think I have to agree with you.
I'm a devout Christian, who believe the whole Bible. I also believe that evolution is true. When you study the original texts of the Genesis account, you can see that it is a very nice description of evolution.
Now, that doesn't make it scientific for me to say that. Science is just... science. However, I am welcome to infer how all that science began, and I do.
Very good video.
triggergnu 2 years ago
one of the most important things in my life i learned is to never question or make fun of a persons religion because people can believe in anything the want. and its good for people to believe in something.
nick005agent 2 years ago
So the religion in which people believed that their bones were borrowed from the gods, had to be given back, and therefore death games and human sacrifice is necessary shouldn't be questioned? What about the one in which grown adults are afraid to walk around by themselves due to ghosts of their ancestors, friends, and relatives may strike them down because they have not gotten enough vengence on their neighbouring tribe and therefore killing a 10 year old boy is acceptable?
newguy33X 2 years ago
science alone cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. philosophy and wisdom are subjective. Hystory is said to be contaminated when it comes to Jesus. If atheism is true then all of the above is irrelevent but if theism is true one day all have to give account to this supreme being. the implications are of eternal significance. Futhermore if theism is true how can God punish a moral person who happens to be atheist. if Jesus is who the christians says he is then we all in serious trouble
lyonellelion 2 years ago
REASON disprove that there is an all powerfull entity
petrino 2 years ago
if your test for reason is wheter a person is a believer or a nonbeliever then you are ignorant. 40% of american scientists and 2/3 of the world scientist believe in that powerfull entity you claim reason disprove. Judging by your comment you are the one reason disprove.
lyonellelion 2 years ago
I'm glad the conversation is over with groupthinker, so I'm just going to add some more without pressing reply.
"Wah! Wah! You're twisting my words! And by twisting, I mean showing the implications of them!"
"Wah! I had to do research to find my bullshit explanation which I copied and pasted! Wah! Why do you have to be angry at me because I support forcing rape victims to marry their rapists! It isn't fair! You're being mean!"
I know phonies like him. He deserved every word.
highwind8124 2 years ago
Your problem is your materialistic definition of science. God created this world so excluding Him a'priori from the causation of natural events is an unwarranted limitation of science. In contrast to famous Dawkins' fairies, goblins - God of the Bible is real and historically attested.You will never get out of your maze unless you revise your definition of science. Your def.of science is not valid just because "majority" of scientists agree.Greetings from Poland-land of the TRUE freedom!Stachu
stachu1962 2 years ago
I will never understand this line of reasoning.
You said: "God created this world" and from that statement demand that science deal with God.
To play devils advocate, I'll say:
"God didn't create this world" there... I've just made a statement with just as much weight as yours, IE: None.(con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
Second: Science has no mechanism by which to study immaterial things. That falls under the domain of philosophy.
When studying Math, we don't look at: 2+2 = 4 and say "okay, but where is God in all that. Likewise I will never understand why people look at evolutionary biology and gasp at the fact that it doesn't include the words "oh and by the way God did it", what possible use could that have? what possible benifit can we derive from that? (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
Saying "whatever we see in nature, God did it" tells us nothing aobut nature and it tells us nothing about God.
Biology tells us tons about nature, and pius religion and spirituality tell us aobut God.
Evolutionary biology is no more anti-theistic than a cookbook. A cookbook does not read: 1 cup sugar, 2 table spoons salt, God, 1 cup vinigar, and nor should it.
standinstann 2 years ago
As for my "Definition" of science, you're right that it isn't the correct definition because of a majority, it's the correct definition because it's the correct definition (unless you're contending that the science is the stufy of the natureal AND supernatural, which I don't think anyone would.)
The bible is historicly accurate in many places, yes, it also contains fable, parable, poetry, monologue, etc, etc. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
The bible is meant to be read either spiritualy, or according to the narative style and intend of the many authors and periods. It is not a science book, nor a history book, nor a music book, nor a cookbook, nor a comic book, it is an anthology of THEOLOGICAL wrighting.
standinstann 2 years ago
My point is: Theology and Spirituality do not have to be "Science" in order for them to be true, good, or understood, and I don't understand why you think otherwise.
standinstann 2 years ago
this exactly the reason you, your brother, my mom, and my friend zac is on my
"not a chance in hell, heaven, or the entire fucking universe, can i possibly win an argument agenct"
please excuse my spelling i have i very hard time writing in a language that is so full of bull shit. like having laws that contradict other laws or the sounding out thing
fathersky24688642 2 years ago
where is the apocalypto review
jeffalien619 2 years ago
WOW, you're articulate. I hope your parents have seen this. They'd be proud.
dilettantegirl 2 years ago
Sorry, not enough space in these posts.
One last point. You blast Stein, yet you leave untouched the scientists he interviewed. They made many comments and claims that are contrary to your point of view presented in this video. According to them there are major religious ramifications. At some parts they make the claim to welcome the religious but then go on to say that evolution logically leads to atheism and religous people are just ignorant. Maybe that's in part 2, I don't know.
fortran7771 2 years ago
I don't think that anything need be said about the scientists other than andswering the question "are they doing science of philosophy"? And I think they're doing the latter.
As for evolution leading to atheism, they arent the only ones who said so, and both are equily false.
standinstann 2 years ago
Another point I would like to make is concerning the holocaust portion of the show. Of course, we should all be wary of those using such history in a cheap or missrepresentative manner.
But I think you missed the point being made. He wasn't saying scientists were Nazis. There is good evidence though to show that scientific theories such as Eugenics which was a program created to increase the pace of man's evolution did heavily influence Hitler and the Nazis.
fortran7771 2 years ago
Comment removed
DeHerg 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Eugenics isnt a scientific theorie, it ist the using of cattle breeding methods on humans(wich are older than "the origins of species")
DeHerg 2 years ago
@fortran
Eugenics isnt a scientific theorie, it ist the using of cattle breeding methods on humans(wich are older than "the origins of species")
@stan
you said tht ID starts from Nature n then goes to the theological implications.
I think they just pretent to do so, to give themselves a false image of science(to give themselves the credibility of it)
DeHerg 2 years ago
The moew I learn about what ID realy is (IE the Debski stuff) The more I'm starting to realize that it's even less than i thought.
In any case, they do look at natural objects and point out the theological implications, which is not science.
standinstann 2 years ago
(unknown to me when I made this:) The inference they draw is an (unwarrented) comparrison of man made things to natural objects.
standinstann 2 years ago
I would have to agree that this documentary could have been less opinionated. But I would also have to say I disagree with many of your statements about it.
First is your claim that ID isn't scientific. You say that it is something of phylisofical debate as it implies God, yet Stephen Hawking himself said that one of the possible theories of how man got here was by being planted by some advanced alien race.
The point is, evolution by random mutation isn't the only explenation.
fortran7771 2 years ago
I'm not religious, but I disagree with what you said about science being unable to prove God. If you and I saw an angel fly down from the clouds and explain to us God is real, and then started performing miracles, we'd be hard pressed to explain that away, at least in an honest, rational way.
Science can tell us a lot about the character a creator would have had to have, if there is one.
(I just tuned in. This is my first clip.)
highwind8124 2 years ago
If we saw an angel fly down and preform miracles, we could observe the being and understand what it's saying, but we're still talking about an immeterial being. we could observe the phenominon, and make determinations about what kind of being it is, but we couldn't test in empericaly.
Take the miracle of the sun. If it was indeed a miracle, the only thing that science can tell us is that there is no material explaination.
standinstann 2 years ago
I don't know what miracle part of the Sun you're talking about. Scientists understand a lot about the natural forces at work in the Sun.
And we could definitely put the angel into empircal tests. We could make it lift incredibly heavy weights. We could observe empiracally supernatural forces at work.
If Zeus trotted down and introduced himself, then started chucking lightning bolts, I'd be pretty hard pressed to say he's not real.
highwind8124 2 years ago
1. I should have worded that better. I'm talking about the incident at Fatima.
2. All we could end up doing is observing that it is incorporial.
3. That's true. I'm not saying we couldn't determine weather or not an angel is real, I'm saying we can't determine it through anyting but observation and inference.
standinstann 2 years ago
If an angel failed to lift incredibly heavy weights, would he therefore be disproved as an angel? An angel wrestled with Jacob for quite some time. It has never been suggested to my knowledge that they all have superior strength.
Say an angel were to have wings or fly. Would that prove it. Science can only say that there is a man with wings and he is capable of flight, it might observe that the motions of the wings account for his flight or that they do not and if they do not account (cont)
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
for his flight, science is not capable of concluding that the event is supernatural. It can only say that the man's flight is not adequately explained by our observations of the event coupled with our present understanding of how the world works. The scientific conclusion is that we failed to observe the mechanism.
If an angel were to wave a hand over a wound and make it disappear, the conclusions that we might be able to draw are that we have either been tricked or the man (cont)
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
possesses a means of making wounds go away that we are not familiar. We might be able to perform tests on the wound, the man, or the event, but we can never conclude that he has supernatural power, only that our tests fail to suggest an explanation for the occurrence. We certainly couldn't conclude that the man healed the wound with God's divine power.
Science is accustomed to having things unexplained and being incomplete in its understanding, an angel would hardly stand that on its head.
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
We would never be in that hypothetical situation since so much evidence and basic logic tells us how obviously false the Bible is. But if we to set aside all that, and if an angel did indeed fly down and perform some outstanding miracle, and said: "Jesus is God.", the most logical conclusion is that Jesus is God. It would take a lot of dishonest mental gymnastics like we've never seen to avoid that.
The same is true for Zeus. We see him start chucking thunder, he would be real.
highwind8124 2 years ago
I can see from the first statement that there's really no point in discussing this with you. Your mind is already made up.
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
Yes, based on mountains of evidence, my mind is made up, just as your mind is made up that the world isn't flat.
Your mind is made up that Zeus doesn't exist. I guess there's no point discussing that with you, either.
highwind8124 2 years ago
It's like my uncle who is both a paleontologist and a Christian told me. He has colleagues who look at the world and see the work of God and others who look at the world and see only natural processes. We each see what is already in us.
In my heart, I believe in God, so when I learn about the origins of the universe, of the earth, and of life, I learn something about how God made the world. I see that not because I see empirical evidence of design but because I believe in Him.
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
I don't say this to convince you of anything, only to say that I know (because I'm not new to this arena of debate) that the evidence presented by the New Atheist movement is not conclusive, it can't be. It ultimately boils to arguments which in turn ultimately boil down to a difference in premises.
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
Science is not anti-miracle. If someone saw an angel fly down, a man with wings, no scientist is going to say: "I guess a man evolved some wings." Evolution is evident in seeing homologies, and seeing something this complex and random without explanation would blow our minds.
We wouldn't say: "I must be hallucinating." or "God is trying to trick me." No one is that in denial to their own detriment, not the devil, not anyone.
The reason people don't believe is simply because of evidence.
highwind8124 2 years ago
I agree that people witnessing an angel fly down and perform miracles will generally believe they have witnessed an angel. The point is, no scientific analysis can conclude that the event is supernatural. The analysis will either find a natural explanation (in which case its not a miracle) or it won't find one (in which case the results are simply inconclusive.)
Once the angel leaves, only witnesses and people predisposed to believe in such things will believe what they saw. (cont)
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
Skeptics not present to witness the angel are likely to think the event is some kind of hoax or hallucination. Think about it.
People claim they've seen Bigfoot or aliens or the Virgin Mary and there are numerous stories of angel sightings. They aren't generally believed and an alternate explanation is usually sought (was the witness drinking? do they have a history of psychotic episodes?) There are even people who think the moon landings were faked in spite of the camera footage and press.
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
There's nothing wrong with thinking Bigfoot exists. There's simply insufficient evidence. If we got Bigfoot in a cage, and found his relatives, no doubt about it, then Bigfoot would exist.
If a person who was abducted by aliens said: "Oh, by the way, I brought back this fully functional ray gun.", then guess what? He was abducted by aliens.
If the Virgin Mary manifested herself, had a press conference where she predicted next week's lottery numbers, it's her.
highwind8124 2 years ago
If the Virgin Mary showed up one day, how would you know her from a crazy woman? Why would predicting next weeks lottery numbers prove anything? Mary wasn't said to be a psychic or a prophet.
While a ray gun would probably help with an alien story, its certainly not proof. Some of the UFO sightings over the years have turned out to be experimental government technology (if they weren't hoaxes or simply unexplained) what if the ray gun was man made?
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
If Mary shows up and says: "Hey, my son Jesus is God, and through his power I time travelled here from the past. Look, I can levitate.", ignoring all the evidence contradicting the Bible and its internal contradictions, she would be real.
In the same way, if you were placed in a space shuttle which orbitted the Earth and you saw its flat edge from the side, that would prove the Earth is flat, that is, if all the evidence against a flat Earth didn't exist.
highwind8124 2 years ago
You'd buy that? I'd actually be skeptical. Its not consistent with the behavior of God as he is depicted in the Bible or really any religious text nor with the stated qualities of the Virgin Mary, plus levitation is something magicians like David Copperfield do. It wouldn't prove anything.
The flat earth example is a bad one because the condition is easily tested. We can see the Earth from the sky and from space, but we can perform a similar test on God. Not seeing God doesn't prove anything.
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
If a person claiming a UFO abduction had with him a piece of technology that was millenia ahead of our time, then to say: "He made it." is stupid. The rational thing to conclude in that instance is not that he made it, but he got it off of some really advances beings, the aliens he claims to have been abducted from.
highwind8124 2 years ago
How do we know which technologies are "millenia ahead of our time." These things don't happen on anything even remotely considered impossible and we can do things today that were thought by many to be impossible even 50 years ago. For example we actually do have powerful lasers today, they're just big and bulky.
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
People don't disbelieve in the Virgin Mary because of some radical state of denial where people would make up absurd explanation to counter conclusive evidence in her favor, if it were to exist.
People disbelieve in the Virgin Mary for the same reason they disbelieve in Buddha, Vishnu, Lord Xenu, and leprechauns - there is no evidence for any of them. And just because you happen to take a liking to any one of them doesn't make them real.
highwind8124 2 years ago
I agree with this statement but I think you're missing my point.
If a woman came forth today claiming to be Mary and performing some kind of "miracle" I wouldn't blame anybody for thinking it was some kind of trick. It would be reasonable.
As for comparing Mary to leprechauns, whats so hard to believe about her? She was said to be a human being who gave birth to Jesus while still a virgin. We can do virgin births in the modern era, is it so hard to believe that some other being can do that?
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
I got your point, but it wouldn't be reasonable for someone to believe that if Mary could perform such astounding feats that she's lying. The most reasonable explanation would be she's got Holy Spirit powers, as she would claim.
Of Vishnu cartwheeled onto the scene with all six arms, there's no: "Hey, that's a trick." The debate would be over. That's Vishnu. There he is.
People would accept it if they saw it, and no fruitcake would be in so much denial to their own detriment. None.
highwind8124 2 years ago
The only place the "Virgin" Mary exists is in the Bible. And in the Bible, she's visited by angels to a god who ordered the slaughter of babies, condoned slavery, and ordered rape victims to marry their rapists.
That puts her squarely on the same level of respect as a leprechaun. Actually, the leprechaun is less ridiculous. He/it would be more likely to exist.
highwind8124 2 years ago
We're about done here, but, while I think I probably know what you're referring to in each instance, could you show me your examples of God condoning slavery and ordering rape victims to marry their rapists?
As for the Virgin Mary example. Lets say that you read a story stating that a man in China reported being visited by a unicorn. Obviously, you don't believe in unicorns, but would you conclude on that basis that the man didn't exist? (cont)
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
Point is, by your statements, you are rejecting the existence of a woman who claimed a virgin birth and angelic visitation and the existence of a priest who claimed to be the son of God rather than simply rejecting the claims that these two people make. I think that says a lot about your personal biases.
groupthinker1984 2 years ago
If some dude claims to be visited by unicorns and has no evidence for it, I'm not going to believe him. If I believed every supernatural claim made by everyone... that would make no sense. There would be tons of contradictions between them, not to mention issues of ridiculousness.
It's not silly to reject that angels visited Mary any more than it is to reject angels visited Mohammed or Joseph Smith. They have pitifully little to show for it. It's not bias that stops me.
highwind8124 2 years ago
A unicorn is an arbitrary being, and isn't a posit to explain anything. God is a necisary being (if he exists), and one that we can posit beyond a reasonable doubt, or reject on the grounds of materialism.
The mistake you're making is to put arbitrary things in the same catagory as an intellectual construct. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
An arbitrary object of thought: unicorns, celestial teapots, faries. etc, are not like intellectual constructs and posits: Black Holes, Quarks, God, etc.
standinstann 2 years ago
While that is actually a good point, that something is more improbable to be true the more details you add to it, especially arbitrary ones - the god of the Bible is not without a myriad of such arbitrary details.
You're departing from generic deism to a god that has a son, a mom, feelings of regret, who sinned by persecuting a man (Job) for no reason, who supervises pedophile Moses, who wrestles with people, who is a man with a penis, etc.
And the Bible even says unicorns are real as well.
highwind8124 2 years ago
I'm not a big fan of deism because I don't understand how a person can come to the conclusion that there is a necissary being, but go no farther in trying to define it. Defining it is difficult, but I don't think we can stop short of doing that if we reached the first conclusion.
The bible is a bad place to start, and its a bad place to go if you (not you personaly, but people in general) don't know anything about the narrative styles and contexts. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
It's like picking up shakespere and reading it strait away; you arent going to understand much about it, because you need to familiarize your self with the context and literary style it was written in (and that has been abandoned for centuries).
The bible is even more difficult because it's an anthology of theological writing written in MANY styles and structures, all of which the reader really needs to know, at least the basics of. (con't).
standinstann 2 years ago
that having been said, there is at least SOME historical evidence that a person named Jesus lived, taught what he taught, and was killed for it, and there is even a little bit of circumstantial evidence that points to the ressurection, or at least to the fact that belief in the ressurection is reasonable. I can't say the same for very many other religions, which, to me, makes christianity the most reasonable if we're trying to better define that necissary being. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
But this is a far cry from what most people would say about belief in God. People talk about belief or non belief in God is an easy conclusion to reach. It isn't, both are very difficult.
standinstann 2 years ago
I understand the point of proper interpretation. I was a Christian for three years. Not a Catholic, but even still, I can understand the light in which a believer sees the stories and finds the morals in them. These morals become the evidence to what would otherwise simply be myth and folklore.
However, your emotional motivation, the appeal the religion has to you, no more adds truth to obvious myths than it does for the Quran, Buddhism, or Hinduism.
highwind8124 2 years ago
No, it doesn't, but in order to find out what is and isn't true in a book like this, you need to at least know what you're saying is true about it, and that usualy boils down to the nicene creed.
standinstann 2 years ago
As for claiming there is historical evidence for a person named Jesus, you know better than to parrot the catch phrases and lines passed down from a church intent on having your money and services.
While I was 50/50 certain about Christianity and wanted evidence, I went through those so called historical evidences by Josh McDowell, and after seeing them, I realized Jesus never existed at all and that the best evidence for Christianity are ones that stood against it.
highwind8124 2 years ago
I don't know anything about McDowell, and I don't know of very many historians who say that Jesus never existed at all. I'm not even sure how you can arrive there considering that people who had every reason to say that he didn't exist at the time didn't.
standinstann 2 years ago
Any historical piece of evidence you find convincing, just send it to me as a message. I'll send a reply showing how dubious it really is.
And I never said God was a necessary being. I merely said you've departed from generic deism. There is no proof of God's necessity.
highwind8124 2 years ago