Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/5/08 07:44 PM, Pontificate wrote: Well we're entering in to the uncertainty principal here; are things concrete and it is our observations that change or do our observations change what we're percieving? If we take the latter to be true then we would probably notice; unless it changed to the extent it would be physically impossible to contemplate the world in any other manner. In the case of the former... who's to say it hasn't already happened?

I'm taking the cheater's way out of this one: Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. It's all just BS anyways.

Ultimately, however, in the case of an omnipotent god if he wanted us to know we would. Omnipotence makes everything so very simple, does it not?

It does. In which case, I think the reigning deity does not want us to know.

Ah you see I view it from a different angle: it is the pure, brilliant truth of music, of poetry, of art that appeals. I revel in the knowlege that such simple concepts can culminate in an experience that draws emotion from me.

Equally as valid. I revel in the complexity of music, seeing just how far one can take it. You revel in the simplicity of music, seeing just how effective one can make it.

Indeed; I think that what most atheists hate is ignorance and blind belief but miscontrue that as being essential to the religious experience. Sadly missing that such qualities can lead people to atheism just as easily.

Which brings me back to my point; an idiot's an idiot. Group association seems to matter little.

If they write coherently, understand the simply joys of the period & the comma and can offer an informed response to the opposition I assume the latter. I see a disturbing obsession in the actions of some which is less than comforting; I can only hope it is due to frustration rather than zealotry.

On these boards motivations are pretty much always unknown. Occasionally you can get patterns, but I find more people out for blood than for anything else. And it's not intensity in the debate, these people are just out to "win". What the prize of winning an NG debate is I have zero clue though.....

Frankly everyone belongs in the third group; it is merely the fourth that differentiates between us. I might posit a fifth who do not claim to know the answer but care to seek it but I fear membership would be depressingly small.

Maybe I should clarify. The 3rd group is for people who admit they don't know. There's more than a few people, especially here, that think they've got a damn good bead on things. They either KNOW religion is true, or they KNOW religion is false. The weird thing is there doesn't seem to be any layers inbetween.....then again, I think it's out of arrogance people say such things anyways.

You might find yourself in an OK sized group. I wouldn't be in it except on these boards. APATHY IS TEH TRU RELIJON!!!

I embrace the electrical and chemical viewpoint personally and as I stated earlier I find my spirituality in the awe of life's pure simplicity: a specific combination of chemicals/electrical impulses creates in me a sensation of love, of joy or even sadness. I do not find it cheapens it or removes their importance: what is evil is what hurts the group, what is good is what benefits the group.

Where this becomes problematic for me is where the lines become more blurred. Psychologists have shown that there do seem to be some universals to things like beauty, good, and evil, but they aren't significant enough to carry the full weight of human motivation.

What's really interesting is that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, claims they're doing things for a higher, moral purpose. Everyone thinks they're doing the right thing, regardless of what the rest of us perceive. Even Hitler thought he was doing good things for the German people by wiping out the Jews......

Very true; arrogance can act as a rationalisation for harming people. After all, if they're beneath you it is your right to abuse them for profit. Sadly it always seems to be evil men who are drawn to power whereas it is good men who are drawn to change and power is the greater motivator.

To steal shamelessly a line from Dark Knight; you either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain.

I find more often than not the good men assume the power of the evil and ultimately become what they once despised. Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader more often than not. (I'll go with the movie theme right now I guess.....).

Well that's most likely because they're dependant upon the context; the only universal truth I've found thus far is death. Where one applies another won't and vice versa.

Godel's incompleteness theory? If Death begins, must it not also have an ending?

The responsibility must always lie with the human but the blame of failure depends upon the nature of god, really. If it is an arbitrary, capricious god then the human cannot be blamed and if it is a benevolent god it should know whom to trust.

Fits in with the paradox between a Creator and Free Will. Frankly, I think if our bodies are basically engineered towards reacting to stimuli, Free Will is more of an illusion than not. But things like suicide tend to keep me between the lines on this one. Suicide is clearly not a reaction to stimuli, it's a decision based on thought.

I disagree; I feel a creator implies an ultimate lack of potency or choice. We were created and so therefore we have purpose but the purpose is not our own. If we are created through natural processes then our destiny is ours to carve: born from chance we are free of obligation and control. Our lives or our own; no matter how solitary, poor, nasty, brutish or short.

But that's just it, our lives our not our own. We're controlled by our environments, our responsibilities, our societies, and ultimately, our synapses. Our decisions are dependent on the right synapses firing at the right times, and our personalities are dependent on those synapses being intact. Phineas Gage shows that our life is built on other factors, rather than personal choice.

And with that, we're in a Nature v Nurture debate......
Not really surprising, Free Will vs no free will is loosely connected.

Suicide implies choice; without fully understanding the circumstances or consequence the choice is phantasmal. I do not believe the majority of animals understand the world around them, this predicament called life or themselves to consciously choose life or death.

That's what I thought, wasn't sure though.

Ah, but you put too much importance on the beginning: it leads to the same conclusion. The integral, damning and liberating part is simply: I am.

Existence is more the penultimate for me. The justification for existence for me holds the key.
The reason existence is said to be true (in that example) is because "I think".

While "I am" is the same regardless, it's also not a point that can even be addressed. We might as well believe we exist, since you can't really make a mistake on the consequent. If you can make a mistake about your own existence, then you can't make mistakes, even about your own existence. Therefore it's almost necessary to assume we exist, and then deliberate on the antecedent.

It's whether we think, perceive, or simply "act" (ie, living) that justifies why the consequent holds true.

Maybe it's even simpler; We interact, therefore "I am". The mere impact of our existence justifies our existence, rather than thinking, or passively "releasing neurotransmitters". I can touch you, and you'll move, therefore I exist. I can be touched by you, therefore I exist.

also wow, this thread has come a long way. i remember posting here a coupla years ago when it actually was just about heathens!

What's amazing is that it's still just as Idiot-Free as when it started.

As a comparison:
Heathenry:
Start Date: 03/10/07
8,072 views
393 replies
20.5 views per reply

Intelligent Design and Why It's Dumb:
Start date: 7/8/08
5,762 views
694 replies
8.3 views per reply

Science VS Religion:
Start Date: 1/18/07
41,063 views
3,282 replies
12.5 views per reply

Guess which one is the least prone to flame wars?
It's amazing that when people actually stop and READ and think before posting, that the thread doesn't suck complete donkey balls......

Forgot one:
"official" atheism vs. non atheism:
Start Date: 1/22/08
5,731 views
471 replies

12.1 views per reply

Still holds true. It's official, we're better than everyone else. We've even got the proof.

Whoops....

Not sure if I missed this or not, but I'll answer anyways.

Something that is LOGICALLY impossible. Which is different than defying physics, theory, or explanation. Theory is always evolving... so something theoretically impossible might only indicate the boundaries of our knowledge. If something can defy logic (say pi = 4.587 for a week, then it goes back to 3.14159)... then we're talking. Because god, especially as described in the bible, MUST be unbound by logic... and thus only something that was literally illogical could prove him to be existent.

Still begs the question of whether we'd recognize it.
Maybe such an even has already happened, but how would we know? If Pi reverted to 3.14, then all our calculations are correct, and any calculations using 4.5 would be wrong.

The problem with this event is it'd have to occur in the present day, ie, our lifetimes, be recorded, and understood. We'd have to literally participate when the change was made, and record the change. Especially if the change reverts after such a short period of time. The world would be turned upside down for a week, but revert to normal again (assuming the consequent of the change doesn't destroy the world in the process of course).

But if we dug up some ancient manuscript that had pi at 4.5, we'd naturally assume their number for Pi was just "off", would we not? We wouldn't assume that a deity had changed pi to 4.5 for them, and that those numbers were correct at one point in time. Or am I understating the impact of said change?

I think the problem lies with the question though. It's rather difficult to define something illogical, logically.

I think all of you have bad understandings of the nature Logic.

Logic is something we use to study and describe reality.
So if we see something that is real and illogical at the same time, we will not assume god, but we will assume bad logic.

At 8/8/08 02:12 PM, Imperator wrote: Maybe such an even has already happened, but how would we know? If Pi reverted to 3.14, then all our calculations are correct, and any calculations using 4.5 would be wrong.
The problem with this event is it'd have to occur in the present day, ie, our lifetimes, be recorded, and understood. We'd have to literally participate when the change was made, and record the change.

Yes. That is what it would take. I couldn't trust any source that wasn't independently verified, or any observation that wasn't repeatable by several different people, or any historical account of such a thing, because it would be impossible to determine if the occurrence was real or just some medieval misunderstanding/mass hallucination.

But if we dug up some ancient manuscript that had pi at 4.5, we'd naturally assume their number for Pi was just "off", would we not? We wouldn't assume that a deity had changed pi to 4.5 for them, and that those numbers were correct at one point in time. Or am I understating the impact of said change?

Correct. I realize that my requirements are strict, but it would take an unimpeachable source to convince me that an actual miracle had occurred... something that would require a force unbound by logic (logic, of course, being the rule(s) that govern(s) the universe).

I think the problem lies with the question though. It's rather difficult to define something illogical, logically.

Omnipotence is illogical...

>_>

At 8/8/08 09:27 PM, Ravariel wrote:
Omnipotence is illogical...

>_>

If omnipotence was never (or hardly ever) exercised, what would that do to the verification process?

I'd be somewhat fearful if omnipotence was actually proven, partly because I believe every perfect system has a fail-safe, and partly because such a claim would inevitably create a strife unsolvable without extermination of one side or the other.

If omnipotence were realized, like time travel sans the theoretical side-effects, I'd think that those involved in the travel itself would be amputated irrevocably from our perceptive abilities.

I mean, what does omnipotence actually tranlate into, perception-wise, if not a seemingly perfect system where breaking the rules results in being cast from the system of perception itself?

At 8/8/08 06:30 PM, therealsylvos wrote: I think all of you have bad understandings of the nature Logic.

Logic is something we use to study and describe reality.
So if we see something that is real and illogical at the same time, we will not assume god, but we will assume bad logic.

Hmmm ok.

This leaves me a little confused with what constitutes proof of the divine though.....

Change of subject a little bit:
Back to music references.

I think it's easy to see certain hierarchical trends in music, especially in terms of response and social status attributed to each genre. You wear jeans for a rock concert, but a Tux for a concert (or solo by Yo-yo ma or someone of that caliber).

Suffice to say, wearing jeans at a concert that features Chopin is a no no.

Is there a "divine" music genre though? Is there something above our understanding of music, "music of the gods" as it were?

Thought basis came from reading some good old Greek myth. All their gods have special things; weapons, armor, food, drink, etc. Also their idea of the Ages of Man, and the general debasement of the race.

I wonder if music is in a similar downhill trend. Rap certainly isn't what is used to be, and the new techno stuff has none of the power that comes from Classical composers (IMO). If so, what was at the top? Something greater than Beethoven and Chopin, the Golden Age of music, "divinely" inspired?

I'm just rambling now, but hey, if it gets some conversation flowing, I'll be content.

It's hard to find bards who casually strum and sing about you as you pass by.

I'd think that would be how music originally started.. as the audience grew, so did the musician's need for greater mass appeal.

At 8/8/08 09:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: If omnipotence was never (or hardly ever) exercised, what would that do to the verification process?

Make it impossible. Without the breaking of logic, there is no way to determine if a phenomenon is actually the result of omnipotence... for any phenomenon that does not break logic will only require a finite amount of power (think Clarke's 3rd Law). If the holder of omnipotence never exercised it, there would be no way to perceive it... same as if a rock never moves, we can't measure it's speed (0 is really just a "no data" number in this case).

I'd be somewhat fearful if omnipotence was actually proven, partly because I believe every perfect system has a fail-safe, and partly because such a claim would inevitably create a strife unsolvable without extermination of one side or the other.

Huh? Are you thinking of the burrito to hot to eat paradox? Because that's what I'm talking about when I say that the only proof of omnipotence is breaking logic... to be able to do something paradoxical. If there's a fail-safe that either splits the universe into two, one where the burrito is too hot, and another where it can be eaten, then that does not really break logic... because while both supposedly paradoxical situations are true, it is only in their respective areas, and they wouldn't exist together, thus not breaking the paradox.

I mean, what does omnipotence actually tranlate into, perception-wise, if not a seemingly perfect system where breaking the rules results in being cast from the system of perception itself?

Well, I don't know why a breaking of the rules would require the results being unobservable... considering that omnipotence, by definition, would require that they could be... even were the limiting factor our own perception... because again, omnipotence can get around that (hence why it's so problematic).

At 8/8/08 11:26 PM, Imperator wrote: Suffice to say, wearing jeans at a concert that features Chopin is a no no.

If only more people thought so... good god, sometimes I want to strangle people...

Is there a "divine" music genre though? Is there something above our understanding of music, "music of the gods" as it were?

Possibly... There are several legends around the world of creation of everything from mundane items to the universe through music or song. Oftimes the history of a people can be traced only through their songs. This is especially noticeable in more nomadic people... like the Aborigines of Australia, Bushmen of Africa and the Roma of Europe. Honestly, I have no idea what it might sound like, to hear some supernatural music, but I would think it would use harmonics we haven't even thought of yet... and possibly use some of the crazier physical laws that we only barely understand.

Hell, string theory says that all of the most basic building-blocks of matter are made up of little rolled-up dimensions that each vibrate at a different frequency...

I wonder if music is in a similar downhill trend. Rap certainly isn't what is used to be, and the new techno stuff has none of the power that comes from Classical composers (IMO).

I'm not so sure about that...

Now, I'm stopping short of saying that these guys are the next Beethoven... cuz godDAMN! (pun intended)... however, it has plenty of power if you've got the right stuff. But every genre of music goes through its transformations. Some might say that current classical music is simply re-treading the ground of past composers... and that there's not much more the genre can innovate. Similar things could be said of rap (though groups like D12, The Black Eyed Peas, and Roots can make a case against that), rock (see: glam metal, grunge's decline into the generic alt-rock we have today), and any other. The fusion of multiple genres into new and exciting music, like we see from bands like Juno Reactor, Apocalyptica, Cruachan, Origa and Yoko Kanno, Deep Forest and Peter Gabriel, and others is some of the most exciting music around today.

Media itself is allowing the blending of a diaspora of music together, and yet ironically, perpetuating the top-40 mentality that limits the amount of what you'll hear on the radio and in other easy-to-reach outlets. Aside from a couple of Apocalyptica songs, nothing I linked is ever played on the radio... I've found most of it through research online and friend's suggestions (which they usually found the same way). Hooray for sites like www.pandora.com and www.slacker.com... some of the best ways to find new music.

If so, what was at the top? Something greater than Beethoven and Chopin, the Golden Age of music, "divinely" inspired?

Who says any of it's at the "top"? Or than any of it is or is not divinely inspired? Wouldn't we consider that which we love to listen to the most to be that which is most inspired and inspirational? If so, can we even try to determine what is and is not divinely inspired? Can't itr ALL be? Or at least much of it? I could probably say with some certainty that I Kissed a Girl isn't divinely inspired... but can we say that about much beyond the generic pop grindhouse that is the result of an industry?

I apologize profusely for linking that song, by the way...

At 8/7/08 11:50 PM, Imperator wrote: I'm taking the cheater's way out of this one: Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. It's all just BS anyways.

Well how far Godel's theorem applies outside of mathematics is debateable but point taken; if we take it to be an absoloute (how ironic) that is.

It does. In which case, I think the reigning deity does not want us to know.

The veritable surfeit of contrary evidence supports your position it has to be said.

Which brings me back to my point; an idiot's an idiot. Group association seems to matter little.

Except, of course, to the group who feels tarred by association. Which is why your patently correct point is ignored to a baffling extent.

On these boards motivations are pretty much always unknown. Occasionally you can get patterns, but I find more people out for blood than for anything else. And it's not intensity in the debate, these people are just out to "win". What the prize of winning an NG debate is I have zero clue though.....

Eristic pure and simple; I've said it before and I shall do so again. When winning matters more than learning a debate becomes entirely meritless.

Maybe I should clarify. The 3rd group is for people who admit they don't know. There's more than a few people, especially here, that think they've got a damn good bead on things. They either KNOW religion is true, or they KNOW religion is false. The weird thing is there doesn't seem to be any layers inbetween.....then again, I think it's out of arrogance people say such things anyways.

Well it's difficult to take any real stance other than negative or positive on such an issue; all other variations are just labelled 'agnostic' and subsequently dismissed. Proffessing ignorance, while noble, simply earns one scorn in a world of percieved absoloutes.

As for the forums it's simply two sides of that same hideous coin: zealotry. The crux is whether this zealotry stems from genuine fanaticism or the desire to 'win'.

Where this becomes problematic for me is where the lines become more blurred. Psychologists have shown that there do seem to be some universals to things like beauty, good, and evil, but they aren't significant enough to carry the full weight of human motivation.

Well I would posit that these lie in the very basic principles that have evolved within us as our societies became increasingly complex. Barring beauty, of course, that lies more in subconscious appreciations of fertility and good genetics.

Perhaps the largest arguement that morality is dependant upon brain chemistry is the cases where people change entirely when the brain is affected in some manner. Case in point: brain tumour creates paedophilic urges.

What's really interesting is that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, claims they're doing things for a higher, moral purpose. Everyone thinks they're doing the right thing, regardless of what the rest of us perceive. Even Hitler thought he was doing good things for the German people by wiping out the Jews......

The road to hell is paved with good intentions; when one is blinded by an end they see no limits to the means. Also on a more humanistic level people rationalise their behaviour: very few people can honestly believe themselves or their behaviour to be 'evil'. If they did it would be very difficult to continue behaving in that manner.

I find more often than not the good men assume the power of the evil and ultimately become what they once despised. Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader more often than not. (I'll go with the movie theme right now I guess.....).

Well it's probably due to making practical concessions till your original agenda is lost entirely; idealists are idealists as long as they're not required to govern.

:Godel's incompleteness theory? If Death begins, must it not also have an ending?

Well as discussed beforehand it depends upon the definition of a constant; or rather to which frame you apply the term. For humanity it is safe to say death is inevitable and ubiquitous; once life ends then really the point becomes moot anyway.

Fits in with the paradox between a Creator and Free Will. Frankly, I think if our bodies are basically engineered towards reacting to stimuli, Free Will is more of an illusion than not. But things like suicide tend to keep me between the lines on this one. Suicide is clearly not a reaction to stimuli, it's a decision based on thought.

Well dismissing the human experience as a 'reaction to stimuli' is a little glib; while everything we experience is based upon sensory information how we process that and act upon it is entirely within ourselves due to higher thought. Much of human behaviour is nonsensical from a purely biological point of view.

But that's just it, our lives our not our own. We're controlled by our environments, our responsibilities, our societies, and ultimately, our synapses. Our decisions are dependent on the right synapses firing at the right times, and our personalities are dependent on those synapses being intact. Phineas Gage shows that our life is built on other factors, rather than personal choice.

Ah but does that make free will an illusion? We rely on our anatomy in its entirety but which synapses fire and to which ends is within our control and even if our personality is changed because of damage it does not change the freedom of our will, just what that will is. Furthermore if humans were entirely shaped by society without any free-thought or individuality society would not change. We are a reflection of our time and environment but we also create them and in this is our free will, our individuality: as a species and, to a lesser extent, ourselves. One's own free will is evidenced by our ability to go entirely outside the norm.

Existence is more the penultimate for me. The justification for existence for me holds the key.
The reason existence is said to be true (in that example) is because "I think".

While "I am" is the same regardless, it's also not a point that can even be addressed. We might as well believe we exist, since you can't really make a mistake on the consequent. If you can make a mistake about your own existence, then you can't make mistakes, even about your own existence. Therefore it's almost necessary to assume we exist, and then deliberate on the antecedent.

It's whether we think, perceive, or simply "act" (ie, living) that justifies why the consequent holds true.

Maybe it's even simpler; We interact, therefore "I am". The mere impact of our existence justifies our existence, rather than thinking, or passively "releasing neurotransmitters". I can touch you, and you'll move, therefore I exist. I can be touched by you, therefore I exist.

Well my point is that existance is its own justification: 'I am therefore I am'. In looking for rhyme or reason one dismisses the wonder of 'being' and while it is, logically, a given it also implies its own reasoning. Without a creator existance does not require any justification beyond itself and with one the creator IS the justification.

At 8/8/08 11:26 PM, Imperator wrote: This leaves me a little confused with what constitutes proof of the divine though.....

God, which must by its nature transcend logic, would be able to perform feats that defies the traditionally accepted laws of nature. While it would be gratifying, as a humanist, to believe humanity would consider the possibility of bad logic before jumping to the conclusion it must have been a higher power I cannot reconcile that with reality.

I think it's easy to see certain hierarchical trends in music, especially in terms of response and social status attributed to each genre. You wear jeans for a rock concert, but a Tux for a concert (or solo by Yo-yo ma or someone of that caliber).

Suffice to say, wearing jeans at a concert that features Chopin is a no no.

I think, really, most of that lies in pretension and arrogance. The conventions in the Classical world were created for a sense of 'us and them' in a time of very real social division (possibly plain old conformity plays a part as well). This means that there is only a percieved difference in the validity of a musical genre when ultimately it boils down to whatever appeals.

If I had to set up an objective system I would base it upon how difficult it was, generally, to compose and play a piece from that genre. Which still leaves Classical and Jazz at the top, conveniantly *chuckle*.

Is there a "divine" music genre though? Is there something above our understanding of music, "music of the gods" as it were?

If such a genre existed I would posit that it would sound entirely amelodical to our ears; our understanding of music is based entirely upon what sounds pleasant to our ear. Personally I do not believe it can exist as what sounds pleasant to our ear is based upon simple mathematical concepts (for the life of me I cannot remember the greek philosopher who theorised this) and therefore for something to exist outside of this it would have to revoloutionise the entire affair. Which, oddly enough, brings us back evidence for the divine.

I wonder if music is in a similar downhill trend. Rap certainly isn't what is used to be, and the new techno stuff has none of the power that comes from Classical composers (IMO). If so, what was at the top? Something greater than Beethoven and Chopin, the Golden Age of music, "divinely" inspired?

Personally I believe this is a misconception based upon either memory or the factors influencing public preservation. If something is very good it is more likely to be recorded and displayed in the future and is also more likely to be remembered. This is why it seems better because one is only remembering or witnessing the very best, as it were. In the present, however, one is inundated with the awful, the mediocre and the decent so everything seems so much less impressive. In thirty years time people will not remember or replay the awful music made today but the good shall live on.

At 8/8/08 11:26 PM, Imperator wrote:

I wonder if music is in a similar downhill trend. Rap certainly isn't what is used to be, and the new techno stuff has none of the power that comes from Classical composers (IMO). If so, what was at the top? Something greater than Beethoven and Chopin, the Golden Age of music, "divinely" inspired?

well following this train of thought, then the most divine and perfect music would be the earliest, and also the simplest; voice and basic percussion.
interesting to note how these two elements are still relatively ubiquitous in almost all music. most genres have rythm as a priority (minus some avant garde jazz, classical etc.) also most old & well established instrumental styles of music are taught through an oral tradition, and are probably evolved from earlier vocal music. for example indian sargam, western solfege, plus tons of other examples in folk traditions. even classical music would have started off in this way, before the transition to written notation.

fun news ladies and gentlemen; someone has attempted to sue God for damages and suffering! the case was (obviously) thrown out on the grounds that without an address it would be impossible to make Mr. God aware of his charges. though, in my opinion, a swift kick to the head should have been enough explanation as to why the case did not go to court.

this brings up a question; what belief would actually validate such a move?
believing in (the Abrahamic) God entails the belief he is perfect and all his works are right and for a greater good therefore undermining the grounds for said lawsuit.
while being an atheist would create further complications seeing as it is impossible to place blame on something that does not exist.

At 10/18/08 03:51 PM, SolInvictus wrote: fun news ladies and gentlemen; someone has attempted to sue God for damages and suffering! the case was (obviously) thrown out on the grounds that without an address it would be impossible to make Mr. God aware of his charges. though, in my opinion, a swift kick to the head should have been enough explanation as to why the case did not go to court.

I really hope you realize he was making a point, not actually trying to sue God.

this brings up a question; what belief would actually validate such a move?
believing in (the Abrahamic) God entails the belief he is perfect and all his works are right and for a greater good therefore undermining the grounds for said lawsuit.
while being an atheist would create further complications seeing as it is impossible to place blame on something that does not exist.

Hah, the funny part here is that I have the perfect thing to point to. Look at the national motto. "In God we trust" That definitely acknowledges a God, in which the nation trusts in. This case would be no more diffrent than when the defendant says that there is no murderer because the whole thing was an accident.

Its been to long since this thread was active. I miss it. So guys, what's happening?

At 11/25/08 06:31 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Its been to long since this thread was active. I miss it. So guys, what's happening?

I've ran the gauntlet of trying to stir conversation here. Your turn.

I dunno....

Ooh....
Jesus had brothers.

I mean, definitively so. The Greek is very clear (Lk 8. 19):
"adelphoi"
Brothers.

Wonder if people know of English versions where they try to make this "cousins" or whatever else.

Moreover, I've never understood why there's any sort of crisis of faith with Jesus having brothers. I know some people interpret it that way, but I've never really understood what acknowledging Jimbob, brother of Jesus, does to the canon of the faith......

it wouldn't be kind of God to leave Jesus without brothers, at least where Josephs concerned.

At 11/25/08 10:02 PM, SolInvictus wrote: it wouldn't be kind of God to leave Jesus without brothers, at least where Josephs concerned.

That's just the thing isn't it?

It's like on the one hand they want to affirm the divinity of Jesus, but they want to deny the humanity of Joseph on the other.

To quote Dogma:
"The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility. "

The only reasonable explanation as to why they would do such an act is that they wish to give the idea that she was a virgin for Jesus, but that is more than slightly unbelievable given the fact, as you pointed out, as did Dogma, they were married. If I had to guess, it wasn't the case, and what's more, I'm thinking either A, she is sleeping around on ol' Jo, or B, she was sleeping with Jo there and decided to bluff it. I'm guessing A...

I've always heard it referred to as Norse mythology.

At 11/26/08 03:39 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I've always heard it referred to as Norse mythology.

a heathen is a non-believer and given that believing or not believing is relative this is the place to come and discuss all those crazy heathen religions!

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=ne ws&div=5411

Oh how I love this.

According to the theologian, science and religion do not oppose one another, but should jointly oppose various superstitions and false doctrines.

It's time for a round of sport the retard statement!

So, he thinks science and religion fits together, and should join to fight....false religion?

To rephrase in a less bullshit language. He thinks science and his religion fits together, and he wants to use the authority that science has been given to stamp out the other religions than his own.

At 11/27/08 12:48 AM, Drakim wrote: http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=ne ws&div=5411
According to the theologian, science and religion do not oppose one another, but should jointly oppose various superstitions and false doctrines.

facepalm.jpg

At 11/27/08 12:48 AM, Drakim wrote: http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=ne ws&div=5411

Oh how I love this.

According to the theologian, science and religion do not oppose one another, but should jointly oppose various superstitions and false doctrines.

It's time for a round of sport the retard statement!

So, he thinks science and religion fits together, and should join to fight....false religion?

To rephrase in a less bullshit language. He thinks science and his religion fits together, and he wants to use the authority that science has been given to stamp out the other religions than his own.

Christianity and science can somewhat fit together. There is nothing in the bible, excepting some miracles, that counteract any proven science. If you think I am wrong please give me examples.

At 1/14/09 05:25 PM, odnarble wrote: Christianity and science can somewhat fit together. There is nothing in the bible, excepting some miracles, that counteract any proven science. If you think I am wrong please give me examples.

Everything about the creation of the universe, how we were made, and really anything in genesis.

At 1/14/09 05:25 PM, odnarble wrote: Christianity and science can somewhat fit together. There is nothing in the bible, excepting some miracles, that counteract any proven science. If you think I am wrong please give me examples.

I would certainly hope there are some falsities in there.
1.) The book is 2000 years old. The theories of that day I'm HOPING are at least somewhat more refined now, if not (some of which) have been refuted.

2.) The book is not professing to be a mathematics book, nor a physics book.

3.) I don't even get that argument. What's there to "fit" together anyways? They take on completely different topics, use completely different methods, and are just generally completely different.

I don't see how one "opposes" the other, or vice versa. How do you compare two things on an uneven field?

It's like saying pens don't mix well with radiators because of barometric pressure.
C'mon, the only given info in the entire argument is this:

A+b=/=C

D= a grilled cheese sandwitch

Seriously, that's what the argument boils down to, and people STILL think they've got the answers.....

Ridiculous......

At 1/14/09 05:25 PM, odnarble wrote: Christianity and science can somewhat fit together. There is nothing in the bible, excepting some miracles, that counteract any proven science. If you think I am wrong please give me examples.

Somebody already replied and showed you examples, so I won't bother.

But serious, worldwide flood? Man living inside a whale? ringing any bells?

I kinda just figure that a lot of stories in the Bible are allegorical in nature and not necessarily intended to be taken as literal fact. Sure, there are parts that talk about the history of the early Hebrews, but life is a lot simpler without trying to rationalize Genesis to people as anything other than a metaphor for the evolution of moral conscience in early man (in that some caveman somewhere was the first to decide that "right" and "wrong" existed as concepts and accidentally invented "guilt" and "innocence" as byproducts).

At 1/15/09 04:12 AM, dySWN wrote: I kinda just figure that a lot of stories in the Bible are allegorical in nature and not necessarily intended to be taken as literal fact. Sure, there are parts that talk about the history of the early Hebrews, but life is a lot simpler without trying to rationalize Genesis to people as anything other than a metaphor for the evolution of moral conscience in early man (in that some caveman somewhere was the first to decide that "right" and "wrong" existed as concepts and accidentally invented "guilt" and "innocence" as byproducts).

What we really need is someone well educated on the Old Testament (aka SECRET JOOO!) to shed some light on just what the hell the Book's intent is. We needs ourselves a Jew.

In any case, I'm having more fun looking at the Greek of the New Testament anyways. Never been a fan of the Old. And I look for more historical, or linguistic things than anything else.