Quote: I dont think it is healthy to doubt everything and can one really know anything if they are overly skeptic?

In my opinion,personal certitude is the purview of the smug,the ignorant and the stupid.

Every question remains open,without exception.That doesn't mean one scoffs at everything,merely that one remains open, rejecting dogma. Science does not claim absolutes or "THE TRUTH", neither does the skeptic.It is only the hubristic believer who makes such fatuous claims.

(September 21, 2010 at 2:57 am)solja247 Wrote: Well, it appeared like you had commited the slippery slope fallacy, howver, perhaps I didnt understand you.
Im not against skeptism. Im against over skeptism, I dont think it is healthy to doubt everything and can one really know anything if they are overly skeptic?

I'm sure there was a communication breakdown at some point between one or both of us. I suppose it's irrelevant now anyway - the respective points has been made.

(September 21, 2010 at 2:57 am)solja247 Wrote: Perhaps I should say, 'Science flourishes in a secular country, even if the majority of scientists are religous?'

A majority? I've seen conflicting statistics on whether religious scientists are statistically in the majority or minority, but regardless, I see that a fair consensus amongst all of the studies I've seen appear to come to the following conclusion:

Wikipedia: Relationship between religion and science Wrote:Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than the rest of the population.

But that's not the most interesting aspect of this all. For you see, if you've clicked on any of the many links I've provided above, I've linked many sites that I wouldn't normally typically use as proof of anything. For example, in an arguement of religion vs. science, I don't consider the Discovery Institute a place a place to go to to prove anything except what religion is saying about science. I would never go to the discovery institute for information on anything actually scientific because they have an agenda to prove, whereas a place like NASA.gov or most professional scientific papers are more interested in truth and facts based on empirical evidence and theories based on that than an agenda.
However, I linked just about everything I could google on atheism among scientists adn linked even the less-than-reliable websites because - even though the more religiously-inclined websites seem to cite a larger perponderance of religion amongst scientists than virtually all of the others, even they still cite a signficantly larger percentage of atheism and/or agnosticism amongst scientists than the general population. Still, other religious sites will actually cite a majority of scientists being non-religious than those with religion.
As such, I consider this fact indisputable to the conclusion that scientists are overwhelmingly atheists or possibily agnostic with a smaller number of religious websites posting a large minority of such scientists.

(September 21, 2010 at 2:57 am)solja247 Wrote: Very much so! Due to the evolution/creation controversy a lot of effort has been in seeing Genesis one as a Jew back in the good old days, truly incredible! They didnt care about structure, they cared about purpose...

I recall a stand up act done by one Lewis Black (a well known jewish comedian) said something to this effect. Instead of paraphrasing, I'll use the magic of youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj...re=related
As such, it doesn't seem to conflict with my earlier reasoning that religion doesn't change so much as the interpretation of the texts change to accomodate the fact that the world is changing to believe what it believes whether the various religious establishments wish it to or not.
However, this isn't really changing anything other than your interpretation of your own holy texts. It's the eqivelent of rearranging your furnature. Further, it not only doesn't address all of the problems created by a the fact that your own holy book isn't factual in many regards, but it can even create other problems. The fact is that Christians believe that Jesus, as the Messiah, was anointed by God as savior of humanity, and hold that Jesus' coming was the fulfillment of messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.
So, if what you're telling me is true, then parts of the old testiment merely become metaphors -stories- as it were, instead of the literal word of god.
How does a christian reconsile this without throwing away basic tenants of your faith considering that only the interpretation of the old texts have changed and not the content?

You see, science doesn't have this problem. There are no books to be reinterpreted as new information and discoveries arise because everything that needs to change - be the very concept of how the universe came to be and will one day die or how life can evolve on this or other planets - then it will change. Scientists' only dogma is the pursuit of truth. No respectable scientist claims to have it.
If something changes, books can and will be rewritten.

What you've told me above is absolutely nothing like this.

(September 21, 2010 at 2:57 am)solja247 Wrote:

TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:However, the professionally religious - the priests, rabbis, and those of that nature - are precisely the ones you've stated have committed 'intellectual suicide' - assuming they still actually believe what they're preaching.

How so? Im attending to spend my entire life as a Pastor, I couldnt think of anything better (Either going into youth ministry or apologetics/philosophy)

Because, generally speaking, their respective faiths require that they teach their own respective faiths. From my understanding, in order to be Christian, the literal word of god is understood to be written in the Old and New Testiments.
Given your statement:

solja247 Wrote:Christians who only read KJV commit intellectual suicide

(just to note, I did catch the 'who only read the KJV' portion of that statement)
I can only surmise that, regardless of whether those priests and such read other books on theology, the KJV bible is still the very core of the Christian faith and all of the issues, falsehoods, contradictions, and other problems that fall with it.

I should also note that while I've been saying that Catholocism has accepted certain scientific ideas, this creates major problems that I'm not aware have been reconsiled with their beliefs.
After all, how does a catholic believe in evolution and big bang and reconsile that with one of their core foundational beliefs of the "Original Sin" without an adam, eve, and all of the creationism that follows?

(September 21, 2010 at 2:57 am)solja247 Wrote: I disagree. Without Christian, I would be a normal young Australian, getting drunk on the weekends doing stuff with women...Christianity has kept my mind sharp, I have read the Bible for myself and looked deep into certain theology. If I wasnt a Christian I would of commited intellectual suicide...

That's rather anecdotal - the same story could be said of many individuals who became atheists after spending much of their lives trapped within the confines of their religion. The same could be said of someone who joined alcoholics anonymous, 'came out' as gay to their friends and family, joined the military, went back to school for a higher education, so on and so forth.
I think your joining christianity is better proof of you simply getting your life together in a satisfactory manner to you than anything that specifically has to do with religion or your religious faith. That is to say, it is because of you and not christianity.

(September 21, 2010 at 2:57 am)solja247 Wrote: Is it 'God of the Gaps' fallacy or is there infact a creator? To my knowledge, more scienists are seeing the evidence that there was most likely some sought of being who created the universe.

Actually, the statistics say the opposite. Scientists are becoming increasingly secular and have been since (according to one of those statistics I provided above) 1917.

(September 21, 2010 at 2:57 am)solja247 Wrote: I agree wtih you, however, the resurrection has considerable weight for me. I was more so convinced by the evidence than some sought of 'experience'

Why? What evidence is there of a resurrection of any human who has been dead at that point in time in history?

(September 21, 2010 at 2:57 am)solja247 Wrote: In my honest opinion, the only thing one should get from the Bible is the plan for redemption, from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22...
The Bible doesnt tell us what happens when you die
Or give us morality (As Dawkins points out)
Doesnt explain the problem of evil

It shows a plan for redemption, a plan I want to apart of, that is why I will put my desires on hold and live my life the best I can...

any why that part of the bible and nothing else? Why is some parts metaphor, but jesus' existance and god's providence and everything else true but the bible is all metaphor except for Jesus' resurrection?

I've heard of some city bus company in Ohio, or something, doing the same thing. It is quite awesome to see people actually thinking for themselves and being brave enough to say that they do.

---

(September 19, 2010 at 12:10 am)everythingafter Wrote: Oh, he probably existed, but not as we know him from the Bible, and certainly not as the resurrected savior. Read some of the quite in depth studies by John Crossan.

There were many jesuses in that day. However I don't think that many claimed that they were a deity.

(September 22, 2010 at 1:15 am)radames Wrote: There were many jesuses in that day. However I don't think that many claimed that they were a deity.

There are many people who claim to be a deity/jesus/messiah now in modern times. A lot of them have been found in compounds in the American west with a few pregnant underage girls and several damaged women or some other horrible situation.

It makes you really wonder about some of the messiahs from modern faiths (though Mohammad seemed fairly open about his particular depravities.)
Though I suppose in regard to christianity, if the actual Jesus were someone like that, then I have to hand it to christianity to really have their beliefs transcend the man, however, I'm certain that isn't the case (though I can't say anything with any certainty because there's no evidence that the man existed at all, but that's neither here nor there) but this applies to many historical figures as well.

(September 22, 2010 at 1:58 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(September 22, 2010 at 1:15 am)radames Wrote: There were many jesuses in that day. However I don't think that many claimed that they were a deity.

There are many people who claim to be a deity/jesus/messiah now in modern times. A lot of them have been found in compounds in the American west with a few pregnant underage girls and several damaged women or some other horrible situation.

It makes you really wonder about some of the messiahs from modern faiths (though Mohammad seemed fairly open about his particular depravities.)
Though I suppose in regard to christianity, if the actual Jesus were someone like that, then I have to hand it to christianity to really have their beliefs transcend the man, however, I'm certain that isn't the case (though I can't say anything with any certainty because there's no evidence that the man existed at all, but that's neither here nor there) but this applies to many historical figures as well.

Here is wikipedias list of messiah claimants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants

Simon son of Joseph (c. 4 BCE) a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled. The messiah of Gabriel's Revelation.
Athronges (c. 4-2? BCE), leader of a rebellion with his four brothers against Archelaus and the Romans after proclaiming himself the Messiah[1]. He and his brothers were eventually defeated.
Jesus of Nazareth (ca. 4 BC - AD 30), in Galilee and the Roman province of Judea. Jews who believed him to be the Messiah were the first Christians. It is estimated that there are between 1.5 and 2 billion Christians in the world today[2], making Jesus of Nazareth the most widely followed Messiah claimant.
Menahem ben Judah partook in a revolt against Agrippa II in Judea
Simon bar Kokhba (died c. 135), defeated in the Bar Kokhba revolt
Moses of Crete (5th century)
Isḥaḳ ben Ya'ḳub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani of Ispahan lived in Persia during the reign of the Umayyad Caliph 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (684-705).
Yudghan, lived and taught in Persia in the early eighth century. He was a disciple of Isḥaḳ ben Ya'ḳub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani of Ispahan.
Serene (Sherini, Sheria, Serenus, Zonoria, Saüra) (c. 720)
David Alroy or Alrui (c. 1160)
Abraham Abulafia (b. 1240)
Nissim ben Abraham (c. 1295) active in Avila.
Moses Botarel of Cisneros (c. 1413)
Asher Kay (1502) a German near Venice.
David Reubeni (early sixteenth century).
Solomon Molcho (early sixteenth century).
Sabbatai Zevi (alternative spellings: Shabbetai, Sabbetai, Shabbesai; Zvi, Tzvi) (1626-1676)
Barukhia Russo (Osman Baba), successor of Sabbatai Zevi.
Miguel (Abraham) Cardoso (b. 1630)
Mordecai Mokiakh ("the Rebuker") of Eisenstadt (active 1678-1683)
Jacob Querido (d. 1690), said to be the reincarnation of Shabbetai Zevi.
Löbele Prossnitz (Joseph ben Jacob), early eighteenth century
Jacob Joseph Frank (1726-1791), founder of the Frankist movement.
Shukr Kuhayl I, 19th-century Yemenite pseudo-messiah
Judah ben Shalom (Shukr Kuhayl II), 19th-century Yemenite pseudo-messiah
Menachem Mendel Schneerson; a 20th century Rebbe and charismatic leader who is believed to be the Messiah by mainstream orthodox Chabad-Lubavitch Chasidic Judaism

When you think about how fallacious a "god-man" is, how gullible most people are, and how desperate most people are to discard personal responsibility and dump all blame for immoral action on an imaginary person, then it makes sense that manipulative persons with a hunger for power, riches, and fame won't pass up a "golden opportunity."

I'm an actor. I've thought about going into a ministry just to get famous and rich before but it would take too much effort so I discarded that idea.

Quote:Every question remains open,without exception.That doesn't mean one scoffs at everything,merely that one remains open, rejecting dogma. Science does not claim absolutes or "THE TRUTH", neither does the skeptic.It is only the hubristic believer who makes such fatuous claims.

The skeptic is too skeptical to be ojective, that is the problem I have with skeptism...

Quote:A majority? I've seen conflicting statistics on whether religious scientists are statistically in the majority or minority, but regardless, I see that a fair consensus amongst all of the studies I've seen appear to come to the following conclusion:

I mean in the 17th and 18th century, not recently.

Quote:As such, I consider this fact indisputable to the conclusion that scientists are overwhelmingly atheists or possibily agnostic with a smaller number of religious websites posting a large minority of such scientists.

Its all about world view, it would not matter if everyone was a theist or atheist, its all about ones world view...

Quote:Because, generally speaking, their respective faiths require that they teach their own respective faiths. From my understanding, in order to be Christian, the literal word of god is understood to be written in the Old and New Testiments.

This is a post-reformation idea, an idea which is wrong. People like John H Walton (an expert on Genesis) and N.T wright (NT scholar) is showing us how the people back in the day read their Bible or their Torah. I dont see why one should take everything literal...

Quote:I should also note that while I've been saying that Catholocism has accepted certain scientific ideas, this creates major problems that I'm not aware have been reconsiled with their beliefs.
After all, how does a catholic believe in evolution and big bang and reconsile that with one of their core foundational beliefs of the "Original Sin" without an adam, eve, and all of the creationism that follows?

I see the origins of sin to be much more complicated than some eating a piece of fruit from a tree, it doesnt make ruin any core beliefs, instead of giving an answer, we say; 'I dont know.' That is all we can say at the moment.

Quote:Why? What evidence is there of a resurrection of any human who has been dead at that point in time in history?

Plenty. If you are interested you should, 'The Resurrection of the Son of God' by N.T wright, one of the greatest books defending the Resurrection...

Quote:any why that part of the bible and nothing else? Why is some parts metaphor, but jesus' existance and god's providence and everything else true but the bible is all metaphor except for Jesus' resurrection?

I dont take the bible as being metaphoric. I believe the Jews literaly believed that Genesis 1 was literal, that God gave the Earth a purpose and existence. But I believe the Earth came around a different way...
I dont take Abraham or Moses as being metaphoric, why should I?
At times, I will argue 'poetic lisence' when the sun stood still for Joshua or in Job 1 the meeting with the other 'chiefs' I take that as being interesting, may of happened by most likely didnt...

Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants

What is incredible about the followers of Jesus, they believed full heartedly what they believed and they died for it, not many other leaders have the same affect. Christianity received persecution from day one and continued to grow and thrive, people gave up everything for this new belief, that the Messiah had come. People were used to 'Messiahs' coming and going, but this Messiah stopped the world...

Quote:When you think about how fallacious a "god-man" is, how gullible most people are, and how desperate most people are to discard personal responsibility and dump all blame for immoral action on an imaginary person, then it makes sense that manipulative persons with a hunger for power, riches, and fame won't pass up a "golden opportunity."

Perhaps you are the fool?

(September 23, 2010 at 9:33 pm)solja247 Wrote: The skeptic is too skeptical to be ojective, that is the problem I have with skeptism...

I fail to see how this can happen. It just seems like this idea of 'too skeptical' you have is quickly becoming a hyperbole if it hasn't been already, not that there aren't nihilists or solipsists as it is.
Not htat I don't find solipsism entertaining.

(September 23, 2010 at 9:33 pm)solja247 Wrote:

Quote:A majority? I've seen conflicting statistics on whether religious scientists are statistically in the majority or minority, but regardless, I see that a fair consensus amongst all of the studies I've seen appear to come to the following conclusion:

I mean in the 17th and 18th century, not recently.

Then you should have given some hint as those centuries being that part of the topic, in which case not only do you have no evidence of any of that from those centuries but even if, during those times, religious scientists were in the majority, there's no reason to believe that scientists wouldn't still have been more secular than the general public. Particularly when the general public did much worse things to people who ideaologically disagreed with them or believed were against god.
I point to Salem for evidence of that.

(September 23, 2010 at 9:33 pm)solja247 Wrote: Its all about world view, it would not matter if everyone was a theist or atheist, its all about ones world view...

... which explains why scientists tend to be more secular/non-religious than the genral public. How religion tends to dominate in areas with the least scientific literacy, and so on and so forth.
A worldview based on anything other than empirical evidence and scientific/secular views tends to be as irrational as it is religious.
Irrational views on the world are not conductive to being a good scientist. It is the opposite. There is a reason, after all, why there is a correlation between secularism and the scientific community. The more professional the scientist, the less religious scientists of that 'level' tend to be.
Even those who are religious scientists often have to change their views from the religious dogma to which they are accustomed in order to do their world without conflict between their beliefs and their work.

(September 23, 2010 at 9:33 pm)solja247 Wrote: This is a post-reformation idea, an idea which is wrong. People like John H Walton (an expert on Genesis) and N.T wright (NT scholar) is showing us how the people back in the day read their Bible or their Torah. I dont see why one should take everything literal...

I don't see why people should waste their time on irrational beliefs at all - but what I think on the matter is irrelevant. It doesn't change the facts of the matter.
And the fact is that despite what a few 'religious scholars' tell you, everything I said in my preivous post regarding your religion and religion in general is still true.

(September 23, 2010 at 9:33 pm)solja247 Wrote: I see the origins of sin to be much more complicated than some eating a piece of fruit from a tree, it doesnt make ruin any core beliefs, instead of giving an answer, we say; 'I dont know.' That is all we can say at the moment.

That may be how you rationalized it, but the origin on sin is still written in the manner to which you disagree with in the old and new testiments - it's how it's being taught now by and large to the general public and that's how it's been taught - regardless of just about anything and everything - since your faith first begin being taught.
I don't see any science textbooks teaching alchemy but a few 'scholars' quietly telling some people with certain degrees or prominant positions in their respective hierarchy that alchemy is actually just a primative precursor to modern chemistry (which classrooms teach as blasphemy.) No.
You'll see alchemy as a historical footnote in history textbooks. Nothing more. Nothing less.

(September 23, 2010 at 9:33 pm)solja247 Wrote: Plenty. If you are interested you should, 'The Resurrection of the Son of God' by N.T wright, one of the greatest books defending the Resurrection...

I'm sure he made a very convincing arguement. I'm certain he may have even said there is proof. I'm also certain you just said that he's a New Testiment Scholar. I'm sure he's very christian. I'm quite certain he has no actual empirical evidence. I'm certain he made it seem like he did as best he could. I'm also certain that, as a religious scholar specifically for the New Testiment and as a Christian, that his religious views precluded any chance he may be wrong.
That's why you're only going to hear about the truth of Jesus' resurrection only from Christians and Christian scholars - because it didn't actually happen. There's no evidence of it. None. Zero. Zilch.

(September 23, 2010 at 9:33 pm)solja247 Wrote: I dont take the bible as being metaphoric. I believe the Jews literaly believed that Genesis 1 was literal, that God gave the Earth a purpose and existence. But I believe the Earth came around a different way...
I dont take Abraham or Moses as being metaphoric, why should I?
At times, I will argue 'poetic lisence' when the sun stood still for Joshua or in Job 1 the meeting with the other 'chiefs' I take that as being interesting, may of happened by most likely didnt...

I think you can stop proving my point now, unless I'm wrong about the fact that you appear to be tiptoeing around my point as best you can while being vague on the point that you're still accepting some parts of the bible as literal less than others.

(September 23, 2010 at 9:33 pm)solja247 Wrote: What is incredible about the followers of Jesus, they believed full heartedly what they believed and they died for it, not many other leaders have the same affect. Christianity received persecution from day one and continued to grow and thrive, people gave up everything for this new belief, that the Messiah had come. People were used to 'Messiahs' coming and going, but this Messiah stopped the world...

How much of that do you honestly believe is due to Jesus performing miracles and being the son of god or simply being a martyr to an opressive government over a minority (assuming those events actually happened) and Christianity's popularity being helped by a numbe of cruisades that converted many by sword point by simply being in power over a large swath of humanity for many generations?
I suppose I should already know which answer you would give but I'm already quite certain of the actual answer.

Quote:I fail to see how this can happen. It just seems like this idea of 'too skeptical' you have is quickly becoming a hyperbole if it hasn't been already, not that there aren't nihilists or solipsists as it is.
Not htat I don't find solipsism entertaining.

I still am a skeptic, to a degree and objectiveity cant be reached unless you believe it could of happened. For example if I was too say, 'Napoleon lived in the 18th century.' I cant be skeptic about Napoleon because I believe he lived. If one says, 'Pft, the Bible is a load of S*#$' Anything arguing the contrary is not going to get through to them, because they are being subjective and dont believe anything in the Bible is historical...

Quote:... which explains why scientists tend to be more secular/non-religious than the genral public.

The reason is, because in the 18th and 17th century people wanted to dismiss God (aka modernism) Modernism still exists in the world today. I believe God can exist because of my world view, just like Dawkins believes was God disproven by evolution, its all about worldview...

Quote:Irrational views on the world are not conductive to being a good scientist.

Irrational views according to you?

Quote:And the fact is that despite what a few 'religious scholars' tell you, everything I said in my preivous post regarding your religion and religion in general is still true.

How so?

Quote:I'm sure he made a very convincing arguement. I'm certain he may have even said there is proof. I'm also certain you just said that he's a New Testiment Scholar. I'm sure he's very christian. I'm quite certain he has no actual empirical evidence.

Give me empirical evidence that Socrates existed.

Quote:I'm certain he made it seem like he did as best he could. I'm also certain that, as a religious scholar specifically for the New Testiment and as a Christian, that his religious views precluded any chance he may be wrong.

He was actually a historian, before a scholar and has produced some great works, perhaps you should read it, before you dismiss it so quickly, who knows, you may become a Christian...

Quote:That's why you're only going to hear about the truth of Jesus' resurrection only from Christians and Christian scholars - because it didn't actually happen. There's no evidence of it. None. Zero. Zilch.

If a scholar does believe in the resurrection of Jesus, they are a Christian! so yes correcto!
But there is evidence, the evidence you want is ridiculous...

Quote:That may be how you rationalized it, but the origin on sin is still written in the manner to which you disagree with in the old and new testiments

How so?

Quote:I think you can stop proving my point now, unless I'm wrong about the fact that you appear to be tiptoeing around my point as best you can while being vague on the point that you're still accepting some parts of the bible as literal less than others.

I want to read the Bible as a Jew or an early Christian would understand it, if that questions whether it is literal or metaphoric, so be it!
Gen 50:26 So Joseph died, being a hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.
Did Joseph live to a hundread and ten? Who knows, however, living to 110 in ancient Egypt, was a honorific number and shows his status and that he was a righteous man, rather than him actually living to 110 years old (who knows how old he was when he died?) perhaps he was just a man with a very status?

Quote:How much of that do you honestly believe is due to Jesus performing miracles and being the son of god or simply being a martyr to an opressive government over a minority (assuming those events actually happened) and Christianity's popularity being helped by a numbe of cruisades that converted many by sword point by simply being in power over a large swath of humanity for many generations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution...man_Empire

You would not die for something you did believe in:

Quote:In their very deaths they were made the subjects of sport: for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights. Nero offered his own garden players for the spectacle, and exhibited a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the dress of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. For this cause a feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers, though guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but were victims of the ferocity of one man."

Islam, had peace! It didnt suffer mass persecution, after its leader died, it went on a conquest! Christanity, on the other hand, was persecuted pretty much everywhere. It doesnt make sense, a belief in a Jewish Messiah causing so much stir. There were false Messiahs, none of them caused that much stir, this one did and the people were ready to die for Him and to become scum of the Earth, they were certain that Jesus did live, die and rise again.

Quote:Perhaps you are the fool?

Is there an argument you are making or did a fart go out the wrong hole?

Yeah, logic, reason, and common sense are annoyingly accurate as proven by the apex of your pointless guffawing culminating to childish insults. Go work on your coloring book young lady! Grown ups are talking.