Naaaaah.

Quote:Christianity describes the world in two senses: one, it claims that there are particular phenomenon

Exactly. And it provides no evidence to support those claims. In this it is no different from any other religion concocted by the minds of men. They postulate a 'god' and attribute everything they see to him.

I could claim that there are invisible pink unicorns drinking tequila in a Tiajuana bar at Mardi Gras and it would be as valid as your claims of 'heaven.' And both of us would be talking through our butts.

However there is also the political aim of xtianity which with all its focus on the "next life" and "heavenly rewards" "eternal punishments" and "render unto Caesar." It is the ideal religion for slave owners and even offers false hope to the slaves. "Keep your nose clean - do what your told - you'll get your reward in heaven........... meanwhile, we'll just clean up down here!"


Science is actually quite simple: "The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

There is no place for prayer.

(February 25, 2011 at 7:25 pm)everythingafter Wrote: Because miracles break the laws of physics. People don't tend to resurrect once they are pronounced dead except in holy books, or fiction, which are mostly same.

What, in your view, is a "law of physics"?

(February 25, 2011 at 8:04 pm)Nathan Wrote: What, in your view, is a "law of physics"?

Well, I said "laws," plural. There's many of them. Gravity's one. Look 'em up. lol

(February 25, 2011 at 8:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Exactly. And it provides no evidence to support those claims. In this it is no different from any other religion concocted by the minds of men. They postulate a 'god' and attribute everything they see to him.

I could claim that there are invisible pink unicorns drinking tequila in a Tiajuana bar at Mardi Gras and it would be as valid as your claims of 'heaven.' And both of us would be talking through our butts.

Minimalist, all I am doing is explaining what I meant by "describing the world". Notice how this actually follows on from what you were talking about. All I find in your post in a bunch of random objections about things I haven't said. All belief-systems claim things - that's what belief-systems do! It is the proponents of particular beliefs that provide evidence. You are making a strange category error here. Christianity is not a person that goes around failing to provide evidence and arguments. There are Christians that certainly do that I agree, but if you give me half a chance on this forum I will try to show you that I'm not one of them.

Quote:However there is also the political aim of xtianity which with all its focus on the "next life" and "heavenly rewards" "eternal punishments" and "render unto Caesar." It is the ideal religion for slave owners and even offers false hope to the slaves. "Keep your nose clean - do what your told - you'll get your reward in heaven........... meanwhile, we'll just clean up down here!"

I do not share this abhorrent escapist view which is sadly held by many Christians, and neither does the Bible. The Platonic view of a heaven upstairs and a hell downstairs is a view completely foreign to the Jewish mind. "Heaven" language was their way of talking metaphorically about "God's space" - not a special place that people go to when they die. The eternal punishment was death, and never being raised to life again. The hope of the New Testament Christians is a bodily resurrection here on earth, and so this world really does matter. We should render to Caesar what is Caesar's because what Caesar has put his face on has no intrinsic value, give it back to him if he really wants it because it is ultimately worthless. What is of value is what is God's: give to the hungry, the broken, and the oppressed. Have you read Paul's letter to Philemon? I don't find Paul pushing the "keep your nose clean" line too much.

Quote:Science is actually quite simple: "The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

There is no place for prayer.

No place for prayer...full stop? Or within science? Or what?

---

(February 25, 2011 at 8:25 pm)everythingafter Wrote:

(February 25, 2011 at 8:04 pm)Nathan Wrote: What, in your view, is a "law of physics"?

Well, I said "laws," plural. There's many of them. Gravity's one. Look 'em up. lol

Yes...but what in your view is one of these laws? For example, is a law of physics a general description of the way things happen? Or is a law a universal generalisation that tells us what things can and can't happen? Or...

"Minimalist, all I am doing is explaining"


Yes, I know. You got to word #10 before I felt compelled to point out that all religions make claims and most of them are as bizarre and unprovable as anything put forward by xtians. Please try to remember that I do not reject only your god. I reject all gods. In fact, I suspect that the only god we differ on is yours.

Quote:Christianity is not a person that goes around failing to provide evidence and arguments. There are Christians that certainly do that I agree, but if you give me half a chance on this forum I will try to show you that I'm not one of them.

I'll certainly give you a chance but I have a feeling that it is going to break down about the definition of "evidence."

Perhaps I will be surprised?

(February 25, 2011 at 8:39 pm)Nathan Wrote: Yes...but what in your view is one of these laws? For example, is a law of physics a general description of the way things happen? Or is a law a universal generalisation that tells us what things can and can't happen? Or...

One of the laws is the law of gravity. Another is thermodynamics. The law of physics are general rules about the mechanics of the physical world. I'm not a physicist, but I know matter does not, by the will of another person, multiply to feed hundreds, or else world hunger would be solved instantly because if it was possible, I would solve it right now.

(February 25, 2011 at 9:40 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Yes, I know. You got to word #10 before I felt compelled to point out that all religions make claims and most of them are as bizarre and unprovable as anything put forward by xtians. Please try to remember that I do not reject only your god. I reject all gods. In fact, I suspect that the only god we differ on is yours.

I find it strange that you choose claim-making to be such a special action of religions - all belief-systems, whether they are theistic or atheistic, make claims about the world. For example, some naturalists claim that all that exists is the physical, material world. Many atheists claim that religious experience is simply a by-product of evolution. Everyone has to make claims in order to make sense of what they observe.

I do not take "bizarreness" to be a particularly enlightening indicator of which claims we should view with suspicion. If we took some of the scientific claims we make about the universe to people in the past I think we would hear plenty of cries of "bizarre". What we consider to be "bizarre" mostly stems from particular views of rationality and metaphysics that have taken hold of the Western academic world.

As for unprovability, there is a certain sense in which nothing is 100% provable. We always have to be open to the possibility that we are wrong, no matter how convinced we are that something is true. But what I argue is that, unless Christianity is true, there is no good ultimate explanation of anything. In sum, if God as described by the Bible exists, then we can make sense of the world, but if He doesn't, we can't. That is a strong claim which can only be evidenced by the ability of Christian explanations to hold up under scrutiny, and the inability of non-Christian explanations to do the same.

Like me, you also have a set of beliefs about the world. In our discussions, if you would like them to continue, you will have to accept that we differ on two counts: your belief-system and my belief-system. I do not just reject your belief-system, I reject all belief-systems other than my own, and so do you.

---

(February 25, 2011 at 11:27 pm)everythingafter Wrote: One of the laws is the law of gravity. Another is thermodynamics. The law of physics are general rules about the mechanics of the physical world. I'm not a physicist, but I know matter does not, by the will of another person, multiply to feed hundreds, or else world hunger would be solved instantly because if it was possible, I would solve it right now.

You seem to think that the laws of physics are not just descriptive but prescriptive, and universally so. You believe that feeding the 5,000 is impossible because the laws of physics say that is impossible. What reason is there to believe that the laws of physics are universally prescriptive? Then there is the epistemological problem of how one could possibly ever establish a law of physics if the conditions for being one are so strong (this is the problem of induction). Finally, if you take the view that laws of physics cannot be broken, you make the implicit assumption that a God with the capacity to temporarily suspend the laws of physics does not exist.

(February 26, 2011 at 6:24 am)Nathan Wrote: You seem to think that the laws of physics are not just descriptive but prescriptive, and universally so. You believe that feeding the 5,000 is impossible because the laws of physics say that is impossible. What reason is there to believe that the laws of physics are universally prescriptive? Then there is the epistemological problem of how one could possibly ever establish a law of physics if the conditions for being one are so strong (this is the problem of induction). Finally, if you take the view that laws of physics cannot be broken, you make the implicit assumption that a God with the capacity to temporarily suspend the laws of physics does not exist.

What do you mean by universally prescriptive? Not pertaining to supposed forces outside of the realm of nature? Feeding large amounts of people does not occur and never has occurred on this earth (except in holy books) without there first being enough money and/or resources to acquire the food. Yes, I take the view that the laws of physics can't be broken because they never have been in all of observable science, and I see no reason to summon God as a roundabout force to the laws of nature. Believers need to answer why they are trying to introduce such a presumably complex entity that has so many unshakable powers over nature, yet has failed to move nature in any way except in highly contradictory and scientifically sophomoric holy books.

Quote:theistic or atheistic

Look, I can't speak for any one else but I make no claims. I merely state that there is no evidence for your god or any other god. Period. There is an amazing tendency among theists to attribute everything to "belief" but please don't tar me with that brush. Atheism is not a 'world-view.' It is a denial of superstition. We have atheists here who believe in Ancient Aliens tampering with australopithicus DNA. This has nothing to do with atheism and they are as free to believe as you are to believe that a dead carpenter came back to life.

Quote:I do not take "bizarreness" to be a particularly enlightening indicator of which claims we should view with suspicion. If we took some of the scientific claims we make about the universe to people in the past I think we would hear plenty of cries of "bizarre". What we consider to be "bizarre" mostly stems from particular views of rationality and metaphysics that have taken hold of the Western academic world.

Yes, but science investigates itself and changes its opinions based on accumulated evidence. Religion merely claims that its bizarre beliefs are really true and, where they can get away with it, throws rocks at the heads of those who doubt. This is more than a question of two equivalent systems. Science is better than religion.

Quote:We always have to be open to the possibility that we are wrong,

Please tell the pope and all the other con artists who pretend to know what happens after death. I already agree with you there.

Quote:Like me, you also have a set of beliefs about the world

Again, I take exception to the word "belief" which has a highly derogatory meaning. People have evidence to support the big bang and evolution that does not require magical beings and a rather pointless old book of dubious authorship written originally to keep primitive goat herders in line.