Religious beliefs/Former Frodo and Sam thread

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

Did I spell that right? I doubt it. Who cares?

Anyway, here we can keep talking about....ummm...whatever it was that we were talking about in that thread! If y'all don't want to, that's fine and no problem: I've been know to debate things to death.

Ok, here we go.


"It is hypocritical to behave as a Christian, and in the same breath condem another for not sharing your belief. "

You seem to think for some reason that Christianity is tollerant of other beleifs. It's not. Christianity claims to be the one and only way. All other ways are false and of the devil. Christ is the only way to heaven. That's what Christianity says. It is very Christian like to say that another beleif is wrong.

"No person on this planet has the right or power to judge another by saying they are going to hell for a belief or practice that differs from that persons norm. "

I am not judging you. I am telling you that God will judge you. Big differance. I totally agree that I don't have the right to judge you.

"Only God can say who will go to hell, and who won't. "

Exactly!

"This is judging others, and is in direct contradiction with the Bibles teaching. "

Christ said that he is the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh to the father but by him. Christ taught that all other ways are false. Christ was not tollerant. He cannot tollerat sin. That's what makes the differance between you and me. We're both sinners. Neither of us deserve live in the presence of God. We both have earned death by our sins. The thing that makes us differant is that the blood of Christ has washed me clean. You haven't let him. Am I in anyway better than you? No. Do I look down on you? No. It's just that i have trusted and you haven't.

"There is no one on this forum, or on this planet that can say another is going to hell, and then say you are a Cristian, or a God fearing person. "

Ok, take this for example. You are going to die. When, I don't know, but you will die. Does this mean that I will kill you? No. Does this mean that I have decided you will die? No. It simply means that I know that everyone will die.

Here's another statement. You will go to hell if you don't trust in Christ. Did I decide you would go to hell? No. Did I decide that you must trust Christ to escape? No. It's just that I know it to be so. When I say that you wll die, it doesn't mean I have made it so. And when i say you must trust Christ or go to hell, it doesn't mean I have made it so. That's just the way it is.

[Darth Tater]

"Hate the sin, not the sinner."

Christianity is a religion that is very accepting of everyone, including sinners. Especially sinners. Jesus "came not to call the riteous, but sinners to repentance."

However, Christian churches are made up of human beings. We are imperfect. When faced with the knowledge that something is wrong (at least according to your faith) it is very difficult not to condemn those who do the wrong. It is not our place to judge, of course, but we do, we all do.

[Finmandos12]

That's right. Christians don't say they are holy. They try to be, but our best attempts are not good enough. See that Mathron?

[Mathron]

All religions are no more than the people within them, and people are imperfect. I have never made claims on a religion based on the actions of individuals, but on personal conflictions with the dogma. I find almost all religions just fine at the root, but may have difficulties with the organizations arising from them.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Strange-Looking Lurker


You seem to think for some reason that Christianity is tollerant of other beleifs. It's not. Christianity claims to be the one and only way. All other ways are false and of the devil. Christ is the only way to heaven. That's what Christianity says. It is very Christian like to say that another beleif is wrong. First, let me say that I think you have a misconception of Christians. I don't know if you have a documented source for this view that you present, or if it is just your opinion, but I don't think that Christianity claims to be the one and only way, but for themselves.

[i]I am not judging you. I am telling you that God will judge you. Big differance. I totally agree that I don't have the right to judge you. [/B] Let me remind you of what you said in the other thread: I said: "If I said that the Bible was the best fantasy book next to Tolkien, would you say that I was going to hell?" You said: "Yes I would say you are going to hell."


[i]Christ said that he is the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh to the father but by him. Christ taught that all other ways are false. Christ was not tollerant. He cannot tollerat sin. That's what makes the differance between you and me. We're both sinners. Neither of us deserve live in the presence of God. We both have earned death by our sins. The thing that makes us differant is that the blood of Christ has washed me clean. You haven't let him. Am I in anyway better than you? No. Do I look down on you? No. It's just that i have trusted and you haven't. [/B]Now this attitude is exactly what I am talking about. How do you know, and who are you to tell me that the blood of Christ has washed you clean and not me? Or, that you have trusted, and I have not? You don't know me, so you can not make these observation and be sure of them. That is judgeing, and that is a sin according to the Bible.

[i]Ok, take this for example. You are going to die. When, I don't know, but you will die. Does this mean that I will kill you? No. Does this mean that I have decided you will die? No. It simply means that I know that everyone will die. [/B]This is a silly analogy, and an excuse for your rant.

[i]Here's another statement. You will go to hell if you don't trust in Christ. Did I decide you would go to hell? No. Did I decide that you must trust Christ to escape? No. It's just that I know it to be so. When I say that you wll die, it doesn't mean I have made it so. And when i say you must trust Christ or go to hell, it doesn't mean I have made it so. That's just the way it is.[/B]Going to heaven and hell is mostly based on many different laws that have been laid down in the Bible, and our ability to keep them. When we break these laws it is called a sin. The degree of punishment is determined by the severity of the sin. If it is the way you describe, then you will go to hell for killing a fly. Does the Bible not say: "Thou shall not kill?" It is not specific The Ten Commandments are written in order 1-10 Does this mean that you will be more likely to not go to heaven if you break the first one then you would be if you broke the 10th one? The Bible is full of inconsistancies, and it is your right to translate the Bible in any way you wish. However, your translation does not mean that is the way it is for everyone, but only for you.

[Ñólendil]

I would just like to add (because it has seemingly been overlooked by the Lurker) that Jesus was not the first member of 'the Church' or the religion that bore his Greek surname. In fact, Jesus was Jewish. My other comments seems to have been covered by others.

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

"First, let me say that I think you have a misconception of Christians. I don't know if you have a documented source for this view that you present, or if it is just your opinion, but I don't think that Christianity claims to be the one and only way, but for themselves. "

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. " John 14:6

Jesus said that no man cometh to the father but by him! Yes, Christianity very much claims to be the only way. You seem to be the one with misconseptions here: read through the whole Bible if you want to, but you won't be able to find anything saying that any other way will get you into heaven.

"Let me remind you of what you said in the other thread: I said: "If I said that the Bible was the best fantasy book next to Tolkien, would you say that I was going to hell?" You said: "Yes I would say you are going to hell." "

Ok, your right, I didn't state that as clearly as I could have. How's this? "From reading your post, I have come to beleive that you have not placed you faith in Jesus Christ as your Saviour. If this is the case, then you are on your way to hell, and will end up there unless you put your trust in Jesus." Better?

"Now this attitude is exactly what I am talking about. How do you know, and who are you to tell me that the blood of Christ has washed you clean and not me? Or, that you have trusted, and I have not? You don't know me, so you can not make these observation and be sure of them. That is judgeing, and that is a sin according to the Bible. "

You make your point well. Please forgive me for judging you. Have you placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?

"The degree of punishment is determined by the severity of the sin. "

And what verse do you have to back that up?

"If it is the way you describe, then you will go to hell for killing a fly. Does the Bible not say: "Thou shall not kill?" It is not specific"

Considering the fact that God told Noah that "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things" (Gen 9:3) I would say that it's not a sin to kill a fly.

"Ten Commandments are written in order 1-10 "

And what verse do you base that on?

"The Bible is full of inconsistancies, "

Such as?

"it is your right to translate the Bible in any way you wish. However, your translation does not mean that is the way it is for everyone, but only for you."

Biggo wrongo! First off, the Bible is not to be translated, it is meant to be read. Second, what I read means the same thing as what you read: When the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" it means that I shouldn't kill, and that you shouldn't kill. You can SAY it means whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it means you shouldn't kill.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Strange-Looking Lurker


"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. " John 14:6

Jesus said that no man cometh to the father but by him! Yes, Christianity very much claims to be the only way. You seem to be the one with misconseptions here: read through the whole Bible if you want to, but you won't be able to find anything saying that any other way will get you into heaven. So, I guess if you are Jewish, or any other faith that does not recognize Jesus as the Son of God, then you are not going to go to Heaven? If that is the case then alot of people are in trouble and heaven will be a pretty empty place.


[i]Ok, your right, I didn't state that as clearly as I could have. How's this? "From reading your post, I have come to beleive that you have not placed you faith in Jesus Christ as your Saviour. If this is the case, then you are on your way to hell, and will end up there unless you put your trust in Jesus." Better? [/B] No, not better. This is still stated as what you think and believe about my fate. It does not count.

[i]You make your point well. Please forgive me for judging you. Have you placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your personal saviour? ]This, I will not justify with an answer. You are being sarcastic.

[i]And what verse do you have to back that up? I am not going to go thumbing through the Bible to win this debate with you. You can do that if you wish. Granted, you may be more religious then I am, or you may know your Bible better, but I am working from memory on what I was raised with. Are you saying that to lie is as bad as to kill and should be punished equaly?
[i]Considering the fact that God told Noah that "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things" (Gen 9:3) I would say that it's not a sin to kill a fly. Does that mean canibulism (sp) is acceptable?

[i]And what verse do you base that on? Look in Exodus. I don't know what verse.

[i]Such as? One of the most popular: "An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth." "Turn the other cheek." "Vengance is mine, so sayeth the Lord."



[i]Biggo wrongo! First off, the Bible is not to be translated, it is meant to be read. Second, what I read means the same thing as what you read: When the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" it means that I shouldn't kill, and that you shouldn't kill. You can SAY it means whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it means you shouldn't kill. [/B]No two people will read any book and see it in the same way as another. If that were the case, then we would not be having this debate, and there would be no Tolkien forums for discussion of those books. If every one perceived things in the same way when they read them then life would be very dull.

[Darth Tater]

According to Holy Tradition (something that most forms of Christianity ignore far too much), people who do not know Christ are given a chance after death. They are met by John the Baptist, who teaches them about Christ. If they choose to follow him, they go to heaven, if not...

Now this may sound harsh, but remember, your soul after death stays forever in the state in which you died. If you died a good person, your soul is good, if you died bad, then, well, you get it. And this is, of course, a reflection of what your whole life up to the point of your death.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Darth Tater
According to Holy Tradition (something that most forms of Christianity ignore far too much), people who do not know Christ are given a chance after death. They are met by John the Baptist, who teaches them about Christ. If they choose to follow him, they go to heaven, if not...

Now this may sound harsh, but remember, your soul after death stays forever in the state in which you died. If you died a good person, your soul is good, if you died bad, then, well, you get it. And this is, of course, a reflection of what your whole life up to the point of your death. Good point. Does not the Bible state that you will be judged according to your works on Earth?

[ringbearer]

Sister Golden Hair said...

The degree of punishment is determined by the severity of the sin. If it is the way you describe, then you will go to hell for killing a fly. Does the Bible not say: "Thou shall not kill?" It is not specific The Ten Commandments are written in order 1-10 Does this mean that you will be more likely to not go to heaven if you break the first one then you would be if you broke the 10th one?

Sin is sin...there are no degrees of severity.

This is "Old Testament" Law. Jesus came for the sinners(all of us). That is the basis of the "New Testament". Based on the "old" laws, none of us could get to Heaven!

In the "Old Testament" you sacrificed a lamb for your sins. God asked(tested) Abraham to sacrifice his only son...because Abraham was willing to do this, God had to send His Son to be the sacrificial Lamb. During the crucifixion, Jesus said "My Father! Why have you forsaken me?" At this point God (the Father) could not look on him because it was as if he had commited every sin possible...and God cannot bear to look upon sin! Jesus paid the price for all of our sins with the crucifixion...That is why He was sent...to give all of us sinners a chance!

[Mathron]

For those unclear - as Finmandos very clearly stated to me, the bible cares not whether you do good deeds or not, but only whether you pledge to Christ. Basically, since all are born sinners, and no one is perfect, it does not matter if everything you do is save lives and help others - if you don't accept Christ, you go to Hell, while the murderer who does become christian is forgiven and let into heaven.
In any case, I advocate this discussion be ended, as it will very easily turn into a heated discussion, that will benefit no one. Religion is a touchy subject, and I don't see either side being convinced by yet another religious debate.

[Sister Golden Hair]

I agree and will gladly bow out. I come to the board for the pleasure of discussing Tolkien. Unfortunately that thread became a bit more then that which is how it came to be here at GM. You are right of course, that religion is a touchy subject, along with abortion and politics. Three topics that can really get a war started. I would Just like to say that I respect Lurker 's beliefs and veiws, and I hope he does the same with me. No hard feelings and I look forward to debating many more Tolkien topics with him here at Entmoot and elsewhere

[Darth Tater]

I don't want us to become like the JC, where talking about anything that the whole world doesn't agree on is outlawed. We like heated debates up to a point. Just remember that ppl can have different views from your own, its OK!

[Finmandos12]

You brought it up again Mathron, and I don't think you're looking at it the right way. Let me use an analogy....

We are on one side of a mile wide canyon that circles the earth. Our first ancestors dug the canyon. God is on the other side. No matter how far you jump you can't get across. God built a bridge for us to cross. That's the only way to get across.

The mile wide canyon in this analogy is sin. The bridge is Jesus. God doesn't want the canyon to be there, but it is. He sent his son for us. Also, even though we didn't dig the canyon, its still there.

(Not sarcastic) Does that help clear things up at all?

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

Alright, if y'all want to quit, that's fine by me.


"I would Just like to say that I respect Lurker 's beliefs and veiws, and I hope he does the same with me. No hard feelings and I look forward to debating many more Tolkien topics with him here at Entmoot and elsewhere"

Yes, I do respect your beliefs: I understand that allthough I can disagree with you as much as I wish, it's your life, not mine. Yes, I do look forward to future debates: your quite fun to argue with!

[Sister Golden Hair]

Thank You.

[Sakata]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
[B]I am not going to go thumbing through the Bible to win this debate with you. You can do that if you wish. Granted, you may be more religious then I am, or you may know your Bible better, but I am working from memory on what I was raised with. Are you saying that to lie is as bad as to kill and should be punished equaly?
Well, it is obvious to me that you dont go thumbing through your bible, or you would know that God judges all sins equally.


I fail to see why everyone is so quick to end this disscution. I dont want to judge anyone,but personaly, God is the best thing that ever happend to my life, and I am sure other christians in here would fell the same, why wouldnt we want to share our faith with others? I find so many people that dont believe in God, and dont really know why, maybe thumbing through you bible wouldnt hurt?

[Mathron]

I would guess that some people, do find the idea unjust that a mass murderer who accepts christ goes to heaven, while a person who helps others his entire life, but is an atheist, goes to hell. That God would place more value on worship than on actually doing good acts. The idea of salvation only through christ seems to indicate that good acts, love and kindness and everything like that, is pointless and useless. This seeming contradiction would probably be some peoples problem, and I am sure there are others. Not every religion is meant for every person.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Sakata

Well, it is obvious to me that you dont go thumbing through your bible, or you would know that God judges all sins equally.


I fail to see why everyone is so quick to end this disscution. I dont want to judge anyone,but personaly, God is the best thing that ever happend to my life, and I am sure other christians in here would fell the same, why wouldnt we want to share our faith with others? I find so many people that dont believe in God, and dont really know why, maybe thumbing through you bible wouldnt hurt? As I told you in the LOTRs thread and I thought I explained in my reply to your private message, I have read the bible and have found it to be contradictory and unreliable. I am very happy that God is the best thing that has ever happened to your life, but that is for you. I have no reason to go searching through the bible to prove a point that I think I have already done. The fact that you and others do not care for my view or agree with it is fine. That changes nothing in my opinion anymore than my opinion will change yours. As I told Lurker, and I will tell you. I respect your belief and your view and would hope for the same in return. I said I would bow out of this debate and will, as long as I am no longer addressed in it.

[Gagool the Old]

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with Frodo and Samwise!!

It seems more like a debate among several Christian denominations. I reckon Tater's a Catholic, and the others Protestant.

Why was the thread named "Frodo and Sam thread continuded"?

[anduin]

Hullo and welcome! This is a continuation of this thread (http://www.tolkientrail.com/entmoot/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2067) . The title of this thread should have been changed when it was recreated over here.

Tater is not Catholic, but Orthodox Christian. The others I am not sure about.

[Darth Tater]

I reckon Tater's a Catholic

There's one way to get me really pissed off, and you've found it!

[Reverie]

Since I'm new, I have no idea how a thread about Frodo and Sam morphed into this - you guys must've really digressed! :)

Anyway, I hope I don't get figuatively burned at the stake for treading here (I'm Wiccan). I just wanted to say 'Thank you' to Sakata. He/she is the first person I've seen here that talks about taking joy in religion and not just thowing rules back and forth!
We, as a nation/world, need more of that! Worshipping and religious ceremony should not be seen as a duty or a chore, but as a gift and a grand oppurtunity to participate in the divine, no matter what you believe.

Even though y'all and myself have very different belief systems, I hope everyone rejoyces in thier respective religions. It is my belief that God/Goddess/The Universe...etc. doesn't want duty- bound puppets, but those who of thier own free and sacred will choose divine love. Bright Blessings!

[Darth Tater]

Amen to that Reverie! I wish more ppl would get that religion isn't supposed to be just about the facts and technicalities, but about personal convictions, and ones own connection with God

[noldo]

What was the original Frodo and Sam -thread about?

[Darth Tater]

Frodo and Sam being, well, I believe the originator of the thread put it "gay lovers"

[noldo]

Just the whole idea of the subject then becoming talk about sin and wrongness, makes me want to hurt myself again.

[Miriel Stormrider]

Several interesting points. I am Christian, but I do not belive that all who don't belive in Jesus will go to hell:

" Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me he has truely sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who will reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted"
C.S. Lewis The Last Battle
N.B Tash is an extreme example. I don't mean all other deitys are like him.
Actually, The Last Battle is full of good examples of how salvation works. Ch. 14 - the end.

About faith and works, you'll have to read all of the last bit of James, ch.2, verses 14-26. Some key verses are:

"My brothers, what good is it to profess faith without practicing it? Such faith has no power to save one, has it?"

"You have faith and I have works -- is that it? Show me your faith without works, and I will show you the faith that underlies my works!"

"You must perceive that a person is justified by his works and not by faith alone."

[Miriel Stormrider]

AAAAGGGGH! I Can't belive I did it again! Sorry ya'll. Posted again thinking I was on the last page when I was just on the first. I feel like such an idiot right now.

[Sakata]

Thats okay, I didnt think it out of place when I read it, it was a very thought provoking post as well.

[anduin]

I would have to agree.

Noldo.....you scare me. ;)

[noldo]

Now do I? ;)

[samwise of the shire]

Ephesians 2:8,9 says:By grace have you been saved and that not of yourselfs it is the gift of GOD, NOT of works lest anyone should boast.
If there was another way into heaven then Jesus' blood would have been useless because we'd be able to save ourselves and put ourselves in the possition of being able to brag.
If you said the bible was the second best fantasy book I would call you a fool and I would pity you as I do now.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by samwise of the shire
Ephesians 2:8,9 says:By grace have you been saved and that not of yourselfs it is the gift of GOD, NOT of works lest anyone should boast.
If there was another way into heaven then Jesus' blood would have been useless because we'd be able to save ourselves and put ourselves in the possition of being able to brag.
If you said the bible was the second best fantasy book I would call you a fool and I would pity you as I do now. Just answer one question if you or the others that share your perfect Christian and flawless, sinless ways can. What if you're not a Christian? Are you saying that all are damned who are not followers of Christ? Save your pity for yourself. My opinion differing from yours does not make me a fool.

And the judging goes on and on and on and on.......

[Ñólendil]

I count you brave Sister!

Personally, I do not for one actually believe that Jesus died to save our sins, historically. I don't believe I am such a bad person, and that the human Race is so bad that this nice man had to die. Jesus was executed for religious and political reasons. You don't [i]have[i/i] to take the Bible literally. Do you really believe Jesus preached condemnation? Do you really believe he said that you should be angry with those who are different, with those who have different beliefs? I've got this crazy idea he taught love and equality. There are two creation stories, folks, in the same Book. I am a Christian, I believe what the Bible says is True, I accept evolution as the most probably scientific idea of the beginning and I don't take the Bible literally. If you think God will send me to a fiery pit after death -- don't worry -- I'll be sure to tiptoe passed your room in the Heavenly Hotel so as not to shock you. I promiss you, if you don't make friends with peoples of different Faith (or those who claim no Faith), you're missing out.[/religious]

[Mathron]

I agree. I hope a lot more people will follow the message Jesus supposedly gave - of love and kindness towards fellow human beings, than the message that only through dogma and observance can you be saved. I have nothing against that - if people find that, in their heart, their way to salvation, I can only be glad for them. But the idea of kindness and forgiveness are what I hope most people come away believing.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Thank you Inoldonil. Well said.

Now, I just want to let everyone here know that I was born, raised, and baptized Catholic. I followed a Christian path all of my life. After many years and many changes and many sorrows, I changed in my belief. I believe in a devine presence "God" Do I believe the Bibles version of this? No, not anymore. Why? I am not sure, but I know that as I grew older, I found the Bible to be more confusing then I found it to be a comfort. I became unexcepting of its accounts. I began to explore the science of creation and found it to be a more realistic version. In other words, I had serious religious doubts. This was not an easy thing for me. I did not just wake up one day and say: Gee I don't think I want to believe in Jesus anymore. And btw, I do believe in many of the things Jesus taught. This was a long drawn out painful change. Now, I do not sit here and say that I am right and all of you are wrong. I will say that I don't know that your beliefs are anymore right then mine. I don't know what's out there. And for everyone that is positive and secure with their beliefs of Christianity, that's great. Just understand that it isn't that way for everyone and the whole world does not share your faith. If you spend your life being good and doing good for others, I don't care if you're an Atheist, Heaven is open to you, if it's there. Why should a killer that decided to accept Jesus be admitted more readily then a person that has doubted and has done good all of their life. That in itself doesn't seem right, and if this is the case, then I find the Christian way to be flawed, and Heaven would be imperfect. Also, remember that if a person does not accept the existance of Heaven, then hell is not there either. So if they do not share your faith, they do not fear the punishment of that belief because in their mind, it does not exist. But, to believe the Christian way, and then say others will go to Hell that don't believe that way, is in direct defiance of your own belief and the teachings of Jesus. You do not know what the Almighty has in store for anyone or even for yourself. There are acception to every rule, and if it is the way you believe, then you also know that the Bible says "God is a merciful god and a forgiving god" I have faith that if Heaven exists that anyone can be forgiven, from a murderer clear down to a doubting thomas. If the world is doomed to burn in hell for having religious doubts, then the herreafter is doomed aswell IMO.

[Phelan Kell]

To believe in something because you are afraid of what might happen if you don't belief in something, is no reason to believe in something.

God-fearing. What the f... I'll choose God-loving any day of the week.

I am a Christian....... but the open-minded kind. It seems to me that every day I am becoming more and more outnumbered. I hate to think that people like 'Lurker can share the same religion as me. I do not think that my mother's hairdresser, Greg, is going to hell. He is a very nice man and has done nothing that I am aware of that would give him a "Go directly to hell" card. I respect his decision and I do not judge him for his choice in mates. You might be thinking, Lurker, " How can he not think homosexuals are going to hell if he's read the bible?" The answer is that I do not believe in two parts of it: the book of Romans and the Old Testement. I don't believe in Romans because in the thirteenth chapter it says something along the lines of "God put all government leaders in their positions. To disobey a government leader is to disobey God." Now ask yourself, Lurker, if Bill Clinton was the condidate of choice for God. I think this book was written by a government leader long ago. Read it and try to think about it with an open mind as to what I'm saying. I am a firm believer in evolution. I think God could have starting the million-year-long chain reaction however and whenever the hell he wanted. I do not belief in the Big Bang Theory. It seems way too illogical and just doesn't make sense to my fifteen-year-old mind. Whether you realise it or not, Lurker, when you say that someone is going to hell, whether by your choice or not, you are judging person. Judging is ussueing a judgement. That is what you are doing.

Now please don't reply with a bunch a quotes from the Bible that what you so adamantly preach is true because, frankly, I don't care. I know this will not stop from trying to contridict me, so fire away and know I will give your response as much deep thought as you gave mine.

Sister Golden Hair, I salute you. I have never before found someone whose thoughts so mirrored mine. God bless you, truly.

[Phelan Kell]

And I don't believe in the Old Testament because of the many contridictions. I believe one comes to mind that has already been named in this thread, "God said, 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.'" - "Turn the other cheek," said Jesus.

[Phelan Kell]

I would like to apologize to any and all readers of my previous posts. I should not have hinted at profanity for any reason. I know there is no excuse for doing so, but I get really fired up sometimes. I perfectly understand if personel of this sight punish me, but I ask that I please not get permanently banned from this board. I can assure you that this will not happen again.

Thank you.

[galadriel]

The Old Testament bugs me too, but I've (kind of) managed to reconcile it. My best take is this: justice must be done. Otherwise, you can't be right with God, since he's holy and you're not. So, if you accidentally hurt your neighbor's sheep, you sacrifice a sheep. If you steal something, you pay for it. If you kill someone, you die. But then Jesus came and took all the punishments for us, so we don't have to. "Eye for an eye" was the first covenant (agreement) with God, "turn the other cheek" is the new covenant.

I don't neccessarily accept this all the time: in fact I wrote a poem about it a week ago when I was bored in study hall:

"I can't pretend to understand
What dogma can't explain
A holy war, a pharaoh's son, do you think
That all of Hagar's children go to hell?
Do you believe in vengeance, an eye for an eye;
For they stoned all the lovers before He came."

So, I don't expect you to take my word for it, or the Bible's. But I still do think that it has some truth to it, even if we don't understand it. An open mind is the best advice I can give you. Openness to other ways of thinking; and to God.

Oh, and if you look at the "eye for an eye" quote in context, one of the major points that is being made is: You shall have one law for the alien and for the citizen - Leviticus 24:22 That is, everyone should be punished equally. This was important in a society where the rich had much power over the poor; there was not much equality in punishment. It also does not advocate personal vengeance; and was supposed to be followed because God said so, not because you wanted to hurt those who hurt you.

[Phelan Kell]

These are all MY BELIEFS-do not judge me for them. If you want to discuss them with me, respect them, my right to have them, and me for having them. This is directed toward anybody who wishes to discuss them with me. (Directed not at all toward Galadriel)



I did not mean to say that I did not all of the Old Testament. I think that God made the Old Testament to scare the hethens into Christianity(the beginnings of-, obviously there was no Christ yet). Then, once the jews were ready, he sent Jesus to the world. Jesus revised the Holy Book and made the New Testament, where the main point is love, devotion, and . The Old T. God was the Angry God who struck down the evil-doers with an iron fist. The N.T. God was the God of love and forgiveness(made-up word?).

[anduin]

You are right, you shouldn't have hinted at profanity, but since you know this and made amends then I guess we can let you stay. ;)

[Darth Tater]

I would really love to see intelligent conversasions like this continue here, but once again I must urge you (and this is directed at no one single person. I just see the seeds being planted already), please, please dont' flame. It's OK for people to have different opinions. In a debate you do not insult your oponents, you simply dissagree. Dissagreement is a good thing, it inspires thought, but too often it makes people upset, tempers flare, and things go the wrong way. Don't insult those who dissagree with you. State your opinion, but don't get too excited about it. No one here hates you because of your opinion, don't think you have to hate them.

[samwise of the shire]

Ok I'm sure that what I am doing is going to make alot of people mad at me, but I say what I say in the hope that people will be civilized and polite.

First off to Sister Golden Hair, through Jesus' blood we are REDEEMED, it was JESUS who was flawless not US. We are all SINNERS from the moment of birth until the time we die, Romans 3:23 check it out. But we beleive that because God pitied and loved us so much he sent his son to be born and suffer the death on the cross(John 3:16), Jesus could've sinned, he was tempted and like us he could have chosen to go his own way but because of the love he had for us he chose to die for us. It is not ourselfs that makes us righteous it's Jesus.

Phelan Kell, God is a God of love no matter what. In the Old Testament he showed love to Adam and Eve by promising them a Messiah. He showed love to the world in sparing Noah and his family, he showed love to Lot by sending angels to Sodom to warn him against the fire, He showed love to Joseph by bringing him out of the hard times, to Moses, To Job,to David, to Solomon,and many more that I cannot name, but to those who disobeyed him he PUNISHED. Saul, Adam and Eve. Even those that were GOOD he punished because they SINNED.

Actually Phelan Kell the book of Romans was wirtten by Paul, and yes we should obey Leaders but Jesus REBUKED(notice I said REBUKED NOT DISOBEYED ) the religious leaders because they were hypocrites we should do the same. Pres. Clinton did something wrong and we as Christians should have spoken out against him but we sat on our hands and let a wicked man rule our country and that in itself was WRONG.
As for judgement, instead of judging someone we show them Jesus' love and then hopefully God will soften that persons heart, but if the sin is in the church itself we deal with it by talking to that person and if they dont listen we excommunicate them until they repent TRUELY repent.

Phelan Kell, if you dont beleive part of the Bible how can you believe the rest is true?

Peace be with you
Sam

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

This is getting quite interesting....

I will reply to this soon: right now I've only got ten more minutes on the computer. But please let me say that I respect Sister's and everyone else who has disagreed with me beleifs. I do not want to judge you, I do not want to make you change your minds. If you do, great, but it's your life and I can't live it for you. I am not trying to seem better than any of you: I am not.

I'm too lazy to find it, but somebody said they beleived in evolution. I would like to talk about that more, but that would make this topic too broad. How about starting a thread for a creation/evolution debate?

[Mathron]

Here is a question - What is the opinion (to those of you who consistently quote the bible for support) that the bible may have been, perhaps, not the direct word of God, and as such, influenced by the people who lived in that time? That there may be a difference between the word of God, and the word of the bible, or between the word of God and the word of the organized Church?

[Finmandos12]

Phelan Kell: here is what is said in Revelation 22:19...

And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy (Bible) God will take away form him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city...

So basically, Christianity is not a fast food restaurant. You can't say "I want extra love in my Gospel, and take out Romans...etc.


Mathron said
Here is a question - What is the opinion (to those of you who consistently quote the bible for support) that the bible may have been, perhaps, not the direct word of God, and as such, influenced by the people who lived in that time? That there may be a difference between the word of God, and the word of the bible, or between the word of God and the word of the organized Church?

Interesting that you bring that up, considering that yesterday was when Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the Wittenberg church door, starting the Reformation. The problem you speak of was rampant in the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, enabling the church to come up with such unbiblical ideas as the infallibility of the Pope, and the whole idea of indulgences. I think that the modern church has cleansed itself of most of that problem. God used Luther to stop that.

[Sakata]

Originally posted by Finmandos12


So basically, Christianity is not a fast food restaurant. You can't say "I want extra love in my Gospel, and take out Romans...etc.


Well said! lots of people today try to make god in to what they want to believe. As was disscused in the original "sam and frodo" lots of people where saying that god wouldnt do this or that, and that I wouldnt believe in a god who... people try to make god how they want to see him and worship that, instead of the truth. As was brilliantly illustrated by Finmandos12 is that god is unchanging, and you cant specify him to your personal fancy.

[Mathron]

Of course you can't specify him to your own fancy! Whatever you choose to believe has no effect on what or whether he is. But that applies to all people. Can you truly believe that, if errors in the bible did indeed exist, that all have been eliminated?
The bible was written quite a bit after the time of Christ, I believe, and written, and thus influenced, by mortal men. Some believe that the best way to understand God is to seek out the key message Jesus gave, than to trust in the word of the bible and the church. I am not saying either side is right - just that both are viewpoints with as much basis to them.

[Finmandos12]

The bible was written quite a bit after the time of Christ, I believe, and written, and thus influenced, by mortal men.

Sorry, wrong there. The Old Testament was written thousands of years before Christ, by many different authors. The four Gospels were written by people who actually knew Christ. Since there were many other eyewitnesses, if there was something wrong with the Gospels, they would have pointed it out.

[samwise of the shire]

Are you really 12 Finmandos?Or is that just a number you like? No offense meant, actually it was a compliment.

The bible was written quite a bit after the time of Christ, I believe, and written, and thus influenced, by mortal menYou said the Bible was influenced by men. If you could do something Please look these up
Isaiah 40:3-5, John 1:6-13, and John 1:29 These refere to John the Baptist.
Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:18, and Luke 1:26 Refurring to Jesus' birth
Micah 5:2, Matt 2:1, and Luke 2:6 Refurring to Jesus' place of Birth
Psalm 22:1-21,and Luke 23:26-49 Refurring to Jesus' Death
Isaiah 53:9, and Luke 23:50-56 Refurring to Jesus' Burial
Deuteronomy 18:15-19, and John 1:45 Refurring Jesus as Prophet
Psalm 110:4,and Luke 20:42 Christ as Priest
and Zechariah 9:9, and Luke 18:28-40 Christ as King

I suggest ALL of you read these verses because they are absolutley MIND BOGOLING especially that first Psalm verse, the Psalms were written by KING DAVID who was like two thousand years or more bfore Jesus and YET he describes IN DETAIL what would happen to him on the corss.

[Mathron]

While the Old Testament was obviously long before Christ, I was referring to the rest of it (my apologies for vague wording.)
But as for other stuff in it, much was picked and chosen as to be put in at... the council of Nicea, I believe, or something of a similar name? Anyway, a large amount of the clergy that had formed (as Christianity rose in the empire) realized the need for christianity to be homogenized, and basically decided what the 'proper' views for Christianity was to be. Those who had known Jesus were dead by this time, I believe, and who can know how much of what was put in was even the words of the Apostles, let alone Jesus - and how much was left out?

[afro-elf]

I have waited in the side lines,bidding my time. But I can not take it anymore.


Mathron is correct the new testament was written WELL after the time of J.C.

the council of nicea was 325 in Constantinople.



I think a problem is that people of all faiths tend to look at it from a faith point of view. they study their FAITH.

People just nod their heads at what they are told.

ex. take eastern religions and this NEW AGE philosophy.

they talk about reincarnation as if was one of the primal concepts in ancient eastern thought

WRONG. the vedic texts ARE the oldest "sacred" text in the world.
if I recall between the 2nd 3rd milenia BC.
there is NOTHING in those text that mention the idea of reincarnation.

the concept does not enter into existance until about the 5th/6th century BC

the same is true about the gospels they were written after JC

AND there was a vote at the council of nicea as to what was going to make up the bible..

the eastern church has several books in their bible that are considered "apocryphal" to the catholic church.


but votaries don't know this. why because they do not study their faith from OUTSIDE of their faith.

many christians, jew, muslims, hindus, buddhist, etc
do not study the THEOLOGY of their beliefs.

There is a big difference between the popular view of a topic and a " scholarly" study of a topic

IF the bible is the word of god then there should be no mistakes.
that is of course if god is perfect

so way is there contridiction? IF the book is infailible then ONE error would dispense with it.


what is faith

a hollow excuse. if the only way you can accept an assecrtion is by faith then you are conceding that it can not be excepted upon it own merits


people do nor argue over things they have complete conficence it.
we aren't arguing if the sun will rise tomorrow
WHY becuase truth does not demand faith.

don't point me to ancient fables show me now
your miracle are to ancient, your eyewitness are dead
where is a big flaming cross in the sky to shown us the way

prayer doesn't cure diseases research does

if aids was sent to kill sinners then two things
whopping cough and child onset cancer was sent to lamblast children
and lesbians would be god chosen since they are the least like to have/catch STD

faith: belief without proof, in what is told by one who speaks with out evidence of things without parallel

a casual stroll through an insane asylum shows that faith does not prove anything

the idea of a soul has now become quaint.

because bio-psychology and neuroscience show that all the attributes given to the soul are just the operation of the physical system

this statemnet about not judging a faith by its followers is bonk.

If it has not the power to make one better what use is it?

if you eraditacted every vestige of religion off of the face of the earth humanity would be none the worse


but if every vestige of science was wiped away we would be naught but naked savages cold and with out light (lit and figure)



anyway I think it is cool that we can "VENT" here and it does not seem to affect our LOTR topics
l

[samwise of the shire]

First question:What in the world is the council of Nicea?
Afro elf, you speak of contradiction have you looked in the Bible to SEE if there are any contradictions? If not how can you be sure you are just speaking on thin air, if so show me ONE you have seen and we can discuss it. You are mistaken Afro elf our eye witnesses are not dead, no they are alive. I am an eye witness I have seen someone go from the dust of the prison to live a true life for God.....he is my own brother. So no Our eye witnesses are living I'll be bakc.

[Darth Tater]

I've avoided getting into this debate, but I have to comment here. Each book of the New Testament was written within 100 years of Jesus' life, and almost all of them were written by people who knew and followed him. The few written by others were by the followers of these followers. The council of Nicea had nothing to do with writing the New Testament, just compiling it.

[afro-elf]

samwise of the shire wrote:




Afro elf, you speak of contradiction have you looked in the Bible to SEE if there are any contradictions? If not how can you be sure you are just speaking on thin air, if so show me ONE you have seen and we can discuss it

not only will i give you contradictions, i'll add some injustices, cruelty, insults to woman, false prophecy and a whole ton of fun.


to save space here just check out this site

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

have your own bible handy to verify


it's nice your brother turned his life around BUT NO ONE ALIVE has been a witness to the supposed mircales in the bible they ARE all dead.

many people change their life but that is FAR form a miracle.


darth tater:
Each book of the New Testament was written within 100 years of Jesus' life

do you think there is a subtle time difference between JC's life and JC's death?

i don't think anyone said that the council of nicea had to do with writing the text
but like different christian sect today they argued over many things in the faith.

they VOTED on what was going to be in the bible

[Finmandos12]

No, i'm not 12 Sam. You're thinking of Tesseract12.

Here is what Encarta Encyclopedia says about the Council of Nicea:
Held in 325, this first ecumenical council was convened by Constantine the Great, emperor of Rome, to settle the Arian dispute concerning the nature of Jesus Christ (see Arianism) Of the 1800 bishops in the Roman Empire, 318 attended the council.

The Nicene Creed, which defined the Son as consubstantial with the Father, was adopted as the official position of the church regarding the divinity of Christ. The council also fixed the celebration of Easter on the Sunday after the Jewish Pesach, or Passover, and granted to the bishop of Alexandria, Egypt authority in the East in the fashion of Rome's quasi-patriarchal authority, which was not, as sometimes erroneously stated, the same as that of the pope. In this granting of authority lay the origin of the patriarchates throughout the church.

If you're wondering what Arianism is....
Arianism, a Christian heresy of the 4th century that denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ. It was named for its author, Arius. A native of Libya, Arius studied at the theological school of Lucian of Antioch, where other supporters of the Arian heresy were also trained. After he was ordained a priest in Alexandria, in 319, Arius became involved in a controversy with his bishop concerning the divinity of Christ. In 325 Arius finally was exiled to Illyria because of his beliefs, but debate over his doctrine soon engulfed the whole church and agitated it for more than half a century. Although his doctrine was eventually outlawed throughout the Roman Empire by Emperor Theodosius I in 379, it survived for two centuries longer among the barbarian tribes that had been converted to Christianity by Arian bishops.

Arius taught that God is unbegotten and without beginning.
The Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, therefore, because he is begotten, cannot be God in the same sense that the Father is. The Son was not generated from the divine substance of the Father; he did not exist from all eternity, but was created out of nothing like all other creatures, and exists by the will of the Father. In other words, the relationship of the Son to the Father is not natural, but adoptive. In proposing this doctrine, Arius was attempting to safeguard the absolute transcendence of God, which in his view was compromised by theological tendencies such as Monarchianism.

The teaching of Arius was condemned in 325 at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (see Nicaea, Councils of). The 318 bishops assembled there drafted a creed that stated that the Son of God was "begotten not made," and consubstantial (Greek homoousios,"of the same substance") with the Father—that is, the Son was part of the Trinity, not of creation (see Nicene Creed). Previously, no creed had been universally accepted by all churches. The status of the new creed as dogma was confirmed by bans against the teaching of Arius.

So the council just wanted to clear up that issue.

Afroelf, that site ignores one main thing of Christianity: that even those who follow God are not perfect. In the insults to women part, it says Abraham had a concubine. Nowhere in the Bible is that practice condoned.

[afro-elf]

Afroelf, that site ignores one main thing of Christianity: that even those who follow God are not perfect. In the insults to women part, it says Abraham had a concubine. Nowhere in the Bible is that practice condoned.


out of all the things listed you have only given one example of abraham. and, saying that a practice is nowhere condoned i the bible IS NOT that same as saying it was forbidden.


are you saying the actions of christian are not perfect.

or the people who wrote the bible are not perfect.

both of these are obvious.

so why believe in a flawed book as the basis for a faith?

There are hundreds of examples of the non-divine orgin of the book on that site

but why are these glossed over to keep one's faith/

[Darkside Spirit]

For the moment, all I have to say is that justification by faith alone seems an incredibly convenient way to promote a religion.

More will come later, when I've had time to read all of this thread and the thread that preceded it.

[afro-elf]

faith: belief without proof, in what is told by one who speaks with out evidence of things without parallel

a casual stroll through an insane asylum shows that faith does not prove anything

what is faith

a hollow excuse. if the only way you can accept an assecrtion is by faith then you are conceding that it can not be excepted upon it own merits


people do nor argue over things they have complete conficence it.
we aren't arguing if the sun will rise tomorrow
WHY becuase truth does not demand faith

[Ñólendil]

Okay folks, let's end this debate. We're drawing straws. Yeah, and whoever draws the shortest straw is wrong and is going to Hell. :D

[Darth Tater]

Any "contradictions" found in the Bible can always be explained. Try me. The most common form is seeing one rule in the OT and another in the NT and saying they contradict each other. The answer to this is very simple. In OT times when you died you went to hell (with the obvious exceptions of course). That's because God had not yet sent his Son to redeem our sins, so the human race could not get into heaven. Therefore, the laws that governed man HAD to be different, since a just mans reward wasn't found in heaven for a LONG time.

Of course, that's the most simple explanation. There's also the fact that the Jews were surrounded by pagans, the temptations of the time were different, the needs of the people were different. And don't bother telling me those things didn't suddenly change when Jesus showed up. I'm not an idiot. But Jesus' teachings created a different atmosphere in the world. Perfect? You bet it ain't, but different.

[afro-elf]

In OT times when you died you went to hell

where in the bible does it say that?

Just because it was a different time you condone

Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!"
Psalms 137:9
.

DT3:6
And we utterly destroyed them... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

Rape of a slave woman is to be punished by scourging the victim (the slave woman) -- but the rapist's sins "shall be forgiven him." LEV 19:20-22


as far as contradictions here is one for you

why is it that Judas was hanged in one gospel and fell of the cliff in another.


tackle the hard ones

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

"why is it that Judas was hanged in one gospel and fell of the cliff in another. "

Huh?

"" Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me he has truely sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who will reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted"
C.S. Lewis The Last Battle
N.B Tash is an extreme example. I don't mean all other deitys are like him.
Actually, The Last Battle is full of good examples of how salvation works. Ch. 14 - the end."

I disagree with Lewis. That was not inpsired by God.

About the verses in James: it is not saying that faith alone cannot save you, it's saying that the proof of faith is good works!

"I just wanted to say 'Thank you' to Sakata. He/she is the first person I've seen here that talks about taking joy in religion and not just thowing rules back and forth! "

I do not beleive in throwing rules back and forth. In fact, I don't even have a religion: I have a relationship.

[Ñólendil]

Oh, come on people, I made a funny!

:mad:

[afro-elf]

why is it that Judas was hanged in one gospel and fell of the cliff in another. "

Huh?

Judas Iscariot's death (The betrayer of Jesus). Did he hang himself or did he just fall face forward and die?

(Mat 27:5 NRSV) Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.

(Acts 1:18 NRSV) Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.


sorry i said fell of a cliff. i should have said headlong to his death

However that does not change the contradiction




Any "contradictions" found in the Bible can always be explained. Try me. The most common form is seeing one rule in the OT and another in the NT and saying they contradict each other.


explained away and explained are not the same.

the most common ones attepting to be explained by votaries is the OT/NT

there are HUNDRED's of contradictions and they are not mostly about the OT/NT problems

but JC said that old laws STILL stood. So all the blood and violence of the OT stands today.

PLEASE do not gloss over the difficult parts.

The bible is fraught with errors.

[easterlinge]

So the consensus here seems to be: you are saved if you have faith and good works.

[Finmandos12]

So the consensus here seems to be: you are saved if you have faith and good works.

Well, heres what I believe... You are saved by faith. Good works are the natural result of your faith. Faith causes good works.

[Darkside Spirit]

"Faith causes good works"

Absolute rubbish. The vast majority of trouble, suffering and war through history has been caused by religion. Look at the Crusades, for one example; they were an example of what happens when a whole nation becomes so wonderfully faithful and bases their institutions on it. The most recent example is Hitler. He was extremely strong in terms of religious faith and it motivated him to do what he did.

I just about concede that many religious people are also "nice people". But there are many nasty religious people and many nice atheistic people. Don't ever try to claim that religion = moral fortitude, because it just doesn't hold water and it is extremely offensive.

[Mathron]

As much as I have stated my own arguments against the bible - or rather, against the seeming preaching of worship over good deeds, I must also discourage all those who seem to be attacking the idea of 'faith'. Faith is a perfectly acceptable way of choosing a religion, and remember that choice is not always conscious, but potentially learned or inwardly determined.

I am a very firm believing in not knowing. I don't know the right answer, and it could be catholicism. I don't think it is, but I certainly don't have any proof against it.
To Afro elf: You have defined faith as belief without proof. This is a very vague definition. Is it belief with no proof whatsoever? If so, than it does not exist, for the bible is proof. It is a very circumstantial and tentative proof, but it offers a degree of it nonetheless. Any idea conceivable can have proof in that it was, at the least, plausable in thought. So you can't have no proof whatsoever.
Meanwhile, if you would state that faith is belief without absolute proof, I would contest that nothing is absolutely proven. Science itself is just another belief system, and logically speaking, irrational at its roots. A good majority of science is based on empirical evidence and experimentation. If you perform an experiment 2000 times, and get the same result each time, then you will believe that the next experiment will give the same results, if everything else remains the same. However, this is not, technically, logical - it is inductive reasoning. The problem with inductive reason is that it is, itself, inductive in origin. Why do things that happen multiple times remain the same when we do them again? Because they always have before. Hence, you can't use inductive reasoning to proove its own validity, and science becomes a system of belief. Actual proof is nearly impossible to develop.
Hence, faith or science are just as fallible.

[Ñólendil]

*waves frantically* Hey! Over here! I was being funny! Acknowledge me!

[Mathron]

Ohohohohahahahehehe
Happy?
;)

[anduin]

I think I am going to change your user title to "Resident Funny Man."

[Darkside Spirit]

Hey! can I have a title too?

[easterlinge]

One thing I've noticed, different professions seem to attract different stances on God.

Astronomers seem to give God's existence the benefit of the doubt, at the very least, and most of them are spiritual if not adhering to a specific religion. Physicists are like this too, with Einstein exclaiming "God does not play dice!!" and Stephen Hawking seeking to know "the mind of God" through physics.

Biologists seem to regard the very idea of God anathema. So do many mainstream research psychologists.

There is something called the Chomsky controversy, in which Noam Chomsky hypothesized that the ability to use symbolic language is a function specifically built into the human brain only. Many Psychologists find this abhorrent because it seems to suggest the existence of a "designer"--- even though Chomsky himself never implied that. The reaction of the psychologists is an indication how atheistic some branches of psychology has become, such that even the barest hint of a suggestion is found offensive.

What I'm saying is that various professions and disciplines seem to attract very different people with regard to beliefs instead of a mixed bag in all scientific disciplines. I find this to be very curious.

[afro-elf]

Mathron


bravo, thanks for a well written reply

: You have defined faith as belief without proof. This is a very vague definition. Is

I maybe have left myself open for a straw man assault.

Your arguments to that statement I would GENERAllY agree with.

It was taken from ambrose beirce, however,
and were meant to be facetious. No damned smiley face:)

the other two statements

a casual stroll through an insane asylum shows that faith does not prove anything

and

if the only way you can accept an assecrtion is by faith then you are conceding that it can not be excepted upon it own merits


these are probably more accurate ways to see my POV.

as far as your problems of induction bertrand Russell and and david hume would be proud:)



Hence, faith or science are just as fallible.


To say "faith Or science is JUST as fallible" is like saying all opinions are equal.


YES there is the problem of induction YET the world in not PROVED by logical PROOFS

this was one of the mistakes of aristotle.

"i admit that reason is a feeble flame, a fickering torch, yet it is the only light, extinguish that and naught remains
We can obtain reliable albeit imperfect and tentative knowledge via science


when science speaks of truth/fact/"proof" it can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisonal consent

people often think of facts and theories as being on some sort of heirarchal scale. but facts are data and theories explain the data
theories are not just guesses. they are theoretical frameworks that explian existing data and make predications

there ARE varying degrees of certainty between theories.


as far as the verication of induction science may be better viewed as falsification.

where with induction a million succeses could still not prove thing BUT with Falsification ONE counter example and there goes the theory

its a matter of probability.
yeah spirits may exist but with the evidence the probability very low.
when I turn on the electricity it works and if it does we can fix it.
I don't pray for my lights to work i turn on the switch


again with this
Hence, faith or science are just as fallible.

I'm not gonna jump off a building because gravity is JUST a theory

if it was JUST as fallible why don't we get equal results

if a child is badly injured are you " not meaning you as mathron" just gonna pray that the child is healed. or are you going rush her to a hospital?

If science IS just as fallible WHY does it work so well?

Since the art of making fire and creating handcrafted tools, our civilization has come a long way. Science and Technology are making advances at an amazing rate. From telephones to the Internet, calculators to computers, cars to rockets and satellites, we are submerged in a sea of discoveries and inventions made possible by Science. Fields like Medicine and communications have made inroads into our cultures and thus our lifestyles.


Every bit of food you eat, clothes you wear, the houses we live in, and anything else we know or make.

Science has done more for the development of western civilization


ALL invention and innovation

Domestication of animals
Calendars
Mathematics
Metal smelting

Irrigation
Writing
Wheeled vehicles
Draft animals

Animation
Architecture
Art
Accounting
Agriculture
Forestry
Manufacturing
Mining
Telecommunications
Transportation
Computers
Robotics
Medicine
Nutrition
Aviation
Fireworks
Astronomy
Biology
Chemistry
Earth science
Physics
Anthropology
Archeology
Economics
Cognitive science
Geography
Psychology
Sociology
Aerospace
Engineering
Metrology



Crafts
Music
Radio
Photography
Television
Theater production

Writing
Reading
Printing press for magazine and books

hey two hands working do more than a thousand clasped in prayer

if we wiped every vestiage of "FAITH" meaning religion, new age etc off of the face of the earth no major loss

and then did the same with science we would naught but cold naked savages

if they were JUST as fallible ... well you get the idea.

Also thank you for such a good reply i really appreciate it.

[Finmandos12]

if we wiped every vestiage of "FAITH" meaning religion, new age etc off of the face of the earth no major loss


Hardly. we would end up like "A Brave New World."

Christianity and science are not two incompatible, opposite things. Many famous scientists were Christians.

[galadriel]

Well, heres what I believe... You are saved by faith. Good works are the natural result of your faith. Faith causes good works. I agree.... but I'll clarify, since people are having difficulty with it.

Faith *should* cause you to do good works, at least in Christian terms. But, as we all know, Christians aren't always the nicest kids on the block (look at the Crusades, the Cath. church in the middle ages, etc.)

God calls you to do good works, but you still have the choice to do them. He wants you to be good for the sake of helping people and glorifying him, but he doesn't count up your brownie points at Heaven's gates. We are all horrible sinners no matter what, and only through Christ can we get to Heaven.

Basically, God doesn't want you to be a "good christian" in fear of heaven. You should do these things because it's what's right.

[afro-elf]

Hardly. we would end up like "A Brave New World."

brave new world was a book of fiction
it is not necessary or sufficent that condition that lack of religion = brave new world


I could just a well say that without religion we would be just like
STNG ( star trek next generation)


is anyone going to continue the challenge about the bible flaws?

[Mathron]

Afro elf: Glad you enjoyed my response, and I would say the same about yours. :)

The answer to induction is practicality of course - we continue in our daily lives because, even if it is not founded in strict logic, we nevertheless percieve it as logical and tha rational response to assume it to be true. Almost every basis for science is centered in assumptions, just ones that seem logical. We can't, for example, prove that the earth actually exists. Or rather, we can't disprove that, say, some powerful force merely manipulates us into thinking the earth exists.

But there are degrees of proof and faith. The question becomes whether there is reason to follow things of high faith/low proof as much as things of high proof/low faith (like science). Religion cannot really be disproven. It asks for a basis in faith - we cannot prove faith to be somehow inherently wrong. You use the example of an insane asylum, yet that does not truly relate. You cannot claim that ONE instance of a belief without proof represents all of them. As you yourself said - even if true a million times, a single instance is all that is needed to counter it.

If I were to believe in gravity on faith, that would not negate the existence of gravity! Just that same, people believing in religion on the basis of faith does not disprove (or prove) that religion. It is a personal choice on their part, and has the potentiality to be true.

In the end, we can not currently know what the 'big answer' is. I find it most likely to be something not yet discovered or imagined, but simply see this as probable - not guaranteed. I think that, because of this, there is no reason not to choose religion over science, or vice versa. They are all viable possibilities.

[Ñólendil]

Mathron and anduin are officially the coolest people in this thread :D I can probably do that, you know.

[samwise of the shire]

AFRO ELF!!!!!! :mad: *takes deep breath* I dont know what to begin with. I guess the fact that Eve came from Adams side and the fact that he needed a helper. God told each and everything on the earth to MULTIPLY and replenish the earth.
How can you have a child with an ANIMAL? You cant replenish the earth with an animal as a mate and you know it and those people who made that site knew it.
Women are put under mans subbjection. Man and WOMAN SINNED both of them and because of that they could'nt walk off with more then a slap on the wrist.
Adam had to plow the earth while having thorns and weeds sprout up in his path, and Eve was put under mans authority because she had led him astray and had given him the fruit, and as for child labor, is that a DISHONORABEL thing? For me that pain will be BLESSED because I KNOW I DISERVE it and that a child is coming into the world. But there is one thing that YOU and those people missed. At the end of his tyrade God told the serpent that from the WOMANS(gasp noticed I said WOMAN) seed a man would spring up and the serpent would bruise his heel but the serpents head would be CRUSHED by the very same heel it had bruised and do you know who that man was?It was the MESSIAH and he came from the WOMANS(gasp again)seed not the MANS so THAT insults to women was totally mute.
No God did NOT agree with poligemy, but just because man does it does'nt mean God agrees with it. Does God AGREE with Abortion? Just because he does'nt DO something about it does'nt mean he agrees with it. Think, I dont think God liked having to turn his back on Jesus his only son but because of HIS PROMISE to Adam and EVE(added the woman) and his LOVE for them his plan was carried out and the serpent was CRUSHED.

Now on to other matters. WTC one persons report. Planes crashed into the trade center another persons report:the planes crashed to the ground. Both are TRUE but ONE of them happened before the OTHER. Lets see. Judas Hanged himself and maybe when they found Judas the Rope had broken. And stop saying he fell from a cliff that's stupid and DUMB.
btw. Read the first few chapter of Genisis. That's where I got my answers.
The somewhat enraged
Samwise of the shire

[afro-elf]

IN A TOTALLY NON VEXED AND SLIGHTLY HUMOROUS MANNER.....

sam what you take as FACTS to me are nothing more than Fables

they ARE NOT FACTS



people do not argue over facts

the sun rises in the east. it doesn't matter if I believe it or not.
I don't have to pray that power will flow into my computer for it to work


you take the myths and fables of ancient people and elevate them to sacred text
you are begging the question

What is the "proof" ( may mathron forgive me) of what you believe

it SEEMS that you are inculcated with an idea that you accept on faith

FAITH DOES NOT EQUAL FACTS

when the ideas that I have expressed are based on a CONSILENCE of evidence


IF YOU READ MY POST I DID CORRECT MYSELF CONCERNING JUDAS

your example is just ad hoc reasoning ( a logical fallacy)


i kindly suggest that you go to the site posted and read and think about the "HUNDREDS UPON HUNDRED" of flaws in the bible


IF the book was seemless then you might have a shot at some kind of non faith based reasoning


but accepting a work flawed with errors just by faith to me is as you said was.....

my guess it that you are young " a teenager" If you wish to believe as such cool BUT if you really wish to "prove" your points
you need "to step up your game"

try reading some books on christain apolgetics even though I think that they are still flawed
this will arm you with "BETTER" arguments than what you have posted

i repeat
i kindly suggest that you go to the site posted and read and think about the "HUNDREDS UPON HUNDRED" of flaws in the bible

i gladly await your return when you are in "GAME SHAPE"

[afro-elf]

mathron


in defense of science over the problem of induction

I'll state that science on based on a consilence of knowledge


not just on one induction that will bring it crashing down

but it is a framework of many "inductions"

[afro-elf]

sam I'm a teacher by trade

as an educator I am acutely aware of the failings of the educational system

i see it in myself and in my students


my admonishments to you are to help you

of course I would like to see you come over to my side HOWEVER
I wish have to worthy adversaries

the better you are at presenting your ideas the better i have to be to defend mine AND vice versa


ex.

your WTC analogy is very poorly constructed

the account of judas is one man with two different accounts of dying from two different gospels


the WTC/Pentagon attack involved several planes upon several different targets saved for all posterity by modern media


the judas situation is like saying that
the SAME plane crashed into the WTC and The Pentagon

your ex. about the rope breaking is well as you said....


falling headlong to his death

and hanging are two different things

what he tried to hang himself and failed then the rope broke and the fall killed him

did he rise from the dead to kill himself twice

interesting is it not by your account that they didn't mention the broken rope around is neck

wonder why?

I have have read genesis with all of its flaws

thats why i don't believe it

[afro-elf]

inoldonil


you are a comic genius


now can I be cool now

can i please huh

[samwise of the shire]

Afro Elf you're on.

[samwise of the shire]

I made a mistake, I will read the idiotic dogma that's on that website but I want to say something first, what is'nt GOOD about the beauty of the world?What is the uglyness of the Human body BEFORE the fall. Notice all this gunk they were taking about all the BAD stuff happened AFTER Adam and Eve sinned. I will read the stupidity on that website but only to give my point. You're still on.
Samwise of the Shire

[Ñólendil]

Sorry folks, I seem to have made a mistake in my last post. I meant Mathron, anduin and afro-elf. I don't know how I missed that ... oh yes, and Darth Tater. He informed me of the mistake through Instant Message.

[Darth Tater]

I did? Well, if you say so...

Sam, try to stay cool, be nice or I'll have to forbid you to join in in entmoot debates. We debate, yes, but we don't flame.

[fireworks19]

Originally posted by Strange-Looking Lurker

Biggo wrongo! First off, the Bible is not to be translated, it is meant to be read. Second, what I read means the same thing as what you read: When the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" it means that I shouldn't kill, and that you shouldn't kill. You can SAY it means whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it means you shouldn't kill.

Just one thought and I stop. I don't want to get into this.

If the Bible is not to be translated, it would still be in Hebrew.

[ryan]

This could literally mean, if he takes your eye, take his, if he takes your tooth, take his, but if he hits you with [non-permanent damage], turn the other cheek.

[Darth Tater]

In a literal translation from the Hebrew it's "Thou shalt not MURDER". Killing in defense is forgivable. As a matter of fact, monks in the past went to war to defend their monasteries.

[afro-elf]

sam sam sam


you use quite a few adjectives such as: dumb, stupid, idiotic, and my personal favorite dogma in a productive manner.
HOWEVER, these adjectives SHOULD be used in a reflective sense


why you may ask

the burden of proofs rest upon your shoulders not mine

extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence


my reasons are based on a plethora of evidence that does not require belief

a consilence of knowledge

you do not have this

your entire belief system is based upon a logical fallacy: begging the question

using your adjectives is another logical fallacy called against the man

making disparaging remarks DOES NOT prove your point

it only belittles yourself and makes it obvious that you posistion is weak

also stating that the things that are wrong with bible are an after effect of the fall DOES NOT explain logical incosistantcies




ON THE TRANSLATION THING


Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!"
Psalms 137:9


well it seems that if your statement were true there would be no believers because they would have killed all of thier children

[Mathron]

Here is a question for you, Afro-elf: Why does the burden of proof rest on him? The tenent of faith is that it does not require proof. Obviously faith can not be held as evidence, simply a personal choice. But science can no more disprove God than religion can prove his existence. The indefite state thus is resolved individually through, once again, a matter of personal faith.

You mentioned earlier that science is valid since it is built on a system of inductive reasons. I contest this. We have shown that inductive reasoning has no rational basis in logic. Thus, no matter the structure, it cannot be used as evidence. No more than I can use any amount of irrational claims to prove a point. So here is your burden of proof - show me evidence of science that I can find no fault with.

[afro-elf]

mathron sam is a girl


logic is a tool it does confer actuality

an example would be zeno's paradoxes


just because induction has a logical short coming does not necessarily make for an existiential short coming

because faith does not require proof therein lies its weakness

sometypes of people try to sound all so wise by stating all things are relative

we might not know the thing intself

however you are a person, we are posting on entmoot, we can write the same language etc this "PROVES" that there is "some kind" of common reality

no matter the "weakness' of induction science WORKS in reliable ways

i made a long list in a e-mail about the gifts of science
they work i do not think anyone will argue that

do i pray for my computer to turn on. no I turn on the on switch.


faith is NOT relaible

if science and faith are equal why does science give reliable, repeatable, and predicative powers


if induction is SO falliable why does the list of all the sciences i gave work?

why hasn't faith done ANY of that?

the burden of proof is on her because it is an extrodinary claim

there are levels of feasiblity

if my phones rings and someone picks it up and says

afro-elf it's your mom very feasible


its vladimir putin well that is within the realms of possiblity BUT its pushing it.


its gil-galad wanting to recruit me for the Last Alliance

well the burden of proof is on the person claiming its gil galad. THEY
are making an extraordinary claim

if you have a child and your child is dying of a disease and I come up to and say mathron I have a secret potion that will cure your child

or you can go an get vaccaine that "known" through induction works

whatcha gonna do ( call ghost busters) :) sorry couldn't resist

you CAN NOT function without induction. your memory is about induction. washing your face, driving your car, an infinite amount of things in your life based on induction


NOTHING would "work" without induction

you can not say just because something has not been proven true/false that it is

faith means it doesn't need proof that is just the pathway to a hell of guillibility



logic has its limits

to call upon the problem of induction is to state there are no absolutes but that statement is an abosulate itself

that shows that there is a logical problem with the problem of induction itself



i patiently await your reply

[Darth Tater]

Sam, Afro Elf, I'm gonna ask this now, but soon I may have to enforce it as a rule. I think it would be a good idea for the two of you to step out of the debate for a while, take a breather. Others seem to be able to understand that they don't need to flame to get their point across, but you two are obviously having trouble with that. I'm not gonna make you stop, but it's my recommendation that you do so to avoid harsher punishment in the future.

[afro-elf]

Darth

I apologize if you thought I was in FLAME mode

I thought I was fairly tame.

I will pull in the reigns some more. ( sound of horses neighing in frustation) :)

[afro-elf]

Darth

so i KNOW what you are looking for

can you give me a few examples where you thought i was flaming?


thanks

[Mathron]

Afro-elf: As I mentioned earlier, the solution to the inductive mistake is through practicality. Rationally, because inductive reasoning is flawed, no matter how well those processes you listed work there is NO way to determine that they will work the next time you use them. Obviously, however, our mind argues otherwise.

You are a product of your upbringing, and belief in patterns is imprinted in every culture far more deeply than religion is. You grow up believing in the properties of patterns, never realizing their intrinsic fallibility. Our minds convince us to take the practical route - that, from our experience (though it cannot be a logical basis), it is much easier to function in society if we accept these things as true. If I assume that my car will work, and not explode, I can actually use it to drive around. If, however, I assume it will turn into a butterfly when I turn the ignition, I probably won't do very well in society.

However, though practical, it is still illogical. It becomes a matter of learned behavior. We assume that, since these things work time and time again, they will continue to do so. As you have already conceded, however, this is based on inductive reasoning, therefore has no true logical connection. If you wish to give proof of science, I challenge you to do so through purely deductive reasoning.

In other words, take gravity. If I drop a rock, it will fall. I am sure you consider this a guaranteed truth. However, this is only because of empirical evidence. Can you give me a reason that the rock will fall, without using any knowledge derived from personal experience or previous experiences or experiments of others? I don't think you can.
Here is a logical proof:
1) In the end, since the world is physical, all evidence is empirical.
2) Empirical knowledge is inductive.
3) Inductive knowledge is flawed.
4) Scientific evidence is invalid.
5) All science is unproven.
Because of this, to some extent, science does operate on faith. If you wish to list, again, all of its accomplishments (which I have shown and you have, earlier, admitted are not proof), then you are mearly doing the same as any christian person quoting from the bible - trying to use something not grounded in definitive logic as the basis for your argument.
Science, in the end, is just another belief system. It is more solid, and does have points of rationality. But it comes down, in the end, to beliefs once again. Inductive fallacies aside, it can NEVER be 100% proven.

[afro-elf]

You are a product of your upbringing, and belief in patterns is imprinted in every culture far more deeply than religion is. You grow up believing in the properties of patterns, never realizing their intrinsic fallibility. Our minds convince us to take the practical route - that, from our experience (though it cannot be a logical basis


actually its a hardwired biological mechanism that goes deeper than culture




then you are mearly doing the same as any christian person quoting from the bible - trying to use something not grounded in definitive logic as the basis for your argument.



Science, in the end, is just another belief system. It is more solid, and does have points of rationality. But it comes down, in the end, to beliefs once again. Inductive fallacies aside, it can NEVER be 100% proven.



My argument is not if science is 100 % provible.

but that it's track record gives it more CREDENCE than faith.

i think that it would be an error to say they have equal relaiblity

to say that tomorrow that the sun MIGHT rise in the west
does not undo the feats of empircism's past.

I mentioned before that it gives RELIABLE however tentative information about the world.

I might word it this way just because you can not prove/disprove anything does not give equal weight to all things

the only "RELIABLE" knowledge we have is induction
yes it may not be 100% but it has proven track record

to cite that something maybe not work in the future does undo what it has done SO FAR


maybe we are arguing two different points

i THINK you are aiming to show the logical flaw of induction

i shooting for the what has it done point

i don't think anyone would be willing to give up everything, to accept everything JUST because of a logical flaw

unfortunately the only means of PRACTICAL knowledge we have is induction

just because it is not PERFECT does not mean it is not useful

i would say it this way the list I made earlier placed side by side with the benefits of FAITH (empirical benefits)

and I think that there would be a vast difference

fundamentally they be similar but pratically there is a vast gap

I will close this way induction may have its flaws but it certainly has its benefits


thank you for pushing me intellectually, its a much needed stimulus

[Finmandos12]

Science can never replace religion. Science is a part of the world, true, and is good. But if you think that there is no other truth besides science, why are we here? As I stated before, science and Christianity are not at odds. History and science back up the Bible.

The whole Judas' death issue...
Here's Matthew 27:5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

Acts 1:17-19 With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

Here's what people say. He hanged himself, the rope broke after he was dead and his body burst open.
You mentioned flaws in Genesis. Do you mean creation?

[afro-elf]

why are we here?

no one really knows. religions give answers not necessarily truth



History and science back up the Bible.
yes but only in non miraclous sense

yes there was the roman empire

egypt still exist

athens still stands

there were semetic tribes

but genesis no

the flood no

miracles no



The whole Judas' death issue...

your answer is an ad hoc response

PEOPLE say that but the BIBLE doesn't.


what about the hundreds of other flaws listed?

[Mathron]

To Finmandos:
Science can never replace religion. Science is a part of the world, true, and is good. But if you think that there is no other truth besides science, why are we here? As I stated before, science and Christianity are not at odds. History and science back up the Bible.

Not necessarily. Much of Christianity is not in any way proven - possible, but not 'backed up' in any sense of the word. And while religion and science may go hand in hand - who knows whether it will be some other religion in the world, or one as yet unknown? Or, entirely feasible, that science will explain everything in its own right. It can be true, after all, and reasons 'why we are here' may be yet to be discovered.

To Afro-elf:
actually its a hardwired biological mechanism that goes deeper than culture

~nod~ True, true. This only supports my point, however. You are following a train of thought based not on logic, but simply instinctual belief.

My argument is not if science is 100 % provible.

I love arguing with people so set in their beliefs. :) That is perfectly fine, but I would enjoy seeing you address the rest of my post, not a small, unrelated note I put on the bottom of it. ~grin~

but that it's track record gives it more CREDENCE than faith.

Watch out there! You just ignored exactly what I stated. Track Record means NOTHING. Because it is empirical/inductive evidence, it has no logical consistency. The more you claim it gives credence, the more you are ignoring the challenge. Your track record gives no credence at all (at least, logically speaking. I've already explained the reasons we follow it).

to say that tomorrow that the sun MIGHT rise in the west
does not undo the feats of empircism's past.

Doesn't undo them, sure. But they were all coincidence, in potentiality. Science is based on fact, not accident, and since you cannot prove them deductively (only inductively), those feats do NOT serve as adequate evidence. Again, inductive reasoning cannot be used as proof - you already conceded this quite a bit back, so I am somewhat surprised that you keep trying to use it as evidence.

I mentioned before that it gives RELIABLE however tentative information about the world.

Nope. Not reliable at all, save in practice. We are talking about logic here, proof and belief, not practice.

I might word it this way just because you can not prove/disprove anything does not give equal weight to all things

Of course not. You can prove/disprove things to lesser extents. All I am saying here and now is that you can't do it inductively. Please use some logical arguments, not your instinctual beliefs.

the only "RELIABLE" knowledge we have is induction
yes it may not be 100% but it has proven track record

Again, you argue for the basis of a track record. As already established, past evidence has no rational or reliable weight.

to cite that something maybe not work in the future does undo what it has done SO FAR

But what it has done so far is entirely unrelated, by rational logic, to what it might do in the future!

maybe we are arguing two different points
i THINK you are aiming to show the logical flaw of induction
i shooting for the what has it done point
i don't think anyone would be willing to give up everything, to accept everything JUST because of a logical flaw


What it has done means nothing! You are trying to use the worst logical error in the world - use inductive reasoning to prove its own validity!!
Perhaps we need to explain what it is again. Inductive reasoning is using past evidence to give strength to future evidence. Example: Sun has risen every day before, it will do so tommorow.
However, how do we know this is true? You are arguing that Inductive reasoning has worked in the past (by showing what it has done so far), so will work in the future. That statement itself is inductive logic, so Cannot Be Used To Prove Inductive Logic.

It would be like me saying: Everything I say is true.
When challenged on this point, I would use, as evidence, that everything I say is true, so if I say it is true, it is.
That is not rational - that is using something unproven to prove itself.

unfortunately the only means of PRACTICAL knowledge we have is induction
just because it is not PERFECT does not mean it is not useful


Certainly. We can use it to operate practically. But it is an irrational belief, in the end, no matter how much you wish to believe (emphasis on believe) otherwise.

i would say it this way the list I made earlier placed side by side with the benefits of FAITH (empirical benefits)
and I think that there would be a vast difference
fundamentally they be similar but pratically there is a vast gap
I will close this way induction may have its flaws but it certainly has its benefits


Yes, yes, yes. But only in practice. Just because it works proves nothing - it is still, at its roots, just as much a belief as anything else.

thank you for pushing me intellectually, its a much needed stimulus

Glad to help. I will ask, again, if you will answer my question, which you ignored in my last post. Can you prove science, without using any empirical evidence?

Here is one, simple, challenge: Show me that gravity works without pointing to anything using experimentation or empirical evidence.

Do that, and your argument might be able to have some weight. But I am positive that, eventually, backtracking along any argument route will result in using empirical evidence.

[Sister Golden Hair]

In a nutshell, faith is a feeling, science is a fact. As Spock once said in Star Trek: "If I drop a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see the hammer fall to know that it has actually fallen." Faith, is accepted without question, and requires no proof. But if you wish to prove substance in faith outside of your faith alone, then proof is the only way to make anothers doubt otherwise.

[afro-elf]

mathron

as to your challenge I can not

here I will concede defeat along the SOLE lines of logic

however in this part of the world it is late

and I'll switch my attack to logic itself tomorrow

which MAY be self defeating but oh well

[afro-elf]

I recant

I will not be attacking logic but induction

but I need to retreat

to marshall my forces


at to better prepare them to combat such a worthy adversary

so i'll be withdrawing from the field for a few days


so in the words of arnold

I'LL BE BACK

:)

[Sakata]

Originally posted by afro-elf



Just because it was a different time you condone

Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!"
Psalms 137:9
.

DT3:6
And we utterly destroyed them... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

Rape of a slave woman is to be punished by scourging the victim (the slave woman) -- but the rapist's sins "shall be forgiven him." LEV 19:20-22



nothing is more foolish than taking the bible out of context to prove your point my friend.

first off I dont know where you got this but psalms 137:9 says "...and the moon and stars to rule the night. His faithful love endures forever"

DT3:6 was reffering to the victory over Og of Bashan, who were rebeling against the lord. Whould you be so offended if this happend to the Taliban?

LEV 19:20-22 tells of a man who had sex with a slave girl, he repented and brought offerings, and was thus forgiven of his sins.

next time read the whole story, I hate seeing people loosing faith in the lord because they read some quotes taken out of context by some blind fool.

[Mathron]

DT3:6 was reffering to the victory over Og of Bashan, who were rebeling against the lord. Whould you be so offended if this happend to the Taliban?

Yes I Would. Killing the leaders in war is one thing. Killing every man, woman and child related to them another entirely!

[afro-elf]

nothing is more foolish than taking the bible out of context to prove your point my friend

It seems that you may also fall prey to this

first you most have not looked in the correct area

here are the quotes from different versions of the bible

SAB psalm 137:9

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.



NIV Psalm 137:9
he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

NLT
Psalm 137
9
Happy is the one who takes your babies
and smashes them against the rocks!

NASB Psalm 137
9
How blessed will be the one who seizes and <*1> dashes your little ones Against the rock.

KJV
9 Psalm 137
9Happy the one who takes and dashes
Your little ones against the rock!

NKJVPsalm 137

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.


RSV

Psalm 137
9
Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

KJ21
Psalm 137
9
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.


NIV FOR

Psalm 137
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.



YLT

Psalm 137
9
O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings on the rock!


DARBY
Psalm 137
9
Happy he that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock.


THOSE bibles have it.


to paraphase you


first off I dont know where you got this but psalms 137:9 says



Whould you be so offended if this happend to the Taliban?

see Mathron's reply

Maybe check out cnn and the video behind the veil it will give a veiw of the men, women and children that you may not have seen before


the point of LEV is that they BOTH will be scouraged BUT only the man seems to have his sins forgiven

[Darkside Spirit]

Just because afro-elf has strong views and doesn't use capital letters, does not mean he is flaming. I haven't seen anything approaching flaming in his messages - indeed, his posts are thoughtful and constructive. I certainly don't think he's done anything bannable.

[afro-elf]

thanks

[easterlinge]

It's interesting to note that Flood legends abound in every corner of the Earth, Hopi Indians, Inca, Aztec, Egypt, Hindu India, the Chinese......

Even Australian Aborigines have a Flood legend (something about a Giant Toad releasing all its water when tickled by an eel, flooding the earth).

Must have been one heck of a Flood to leave imprints on all those cultures, neh?

Some writers have said that it refers to the swift meltdown of the Ice Age, 15,000 years worth of ice melting in a single millennium or so.

[afro-elf]

think about all the civilizations you just named

how many developed around rivers



think about the present day US


there is something called flood SEASON

geo evidence supports many local floods but not a massive global flood

[Darth Tater]

Actually there's plenty of great evidence, which I'll outline when I'm not so tired

[afro-elf]

i patiently await

[Darth Tater]

Ok, let's start with the techtonic plates. According to the bible water didn't just rain down from heaven, it also came up from the earth. It is certainly possible that there was a great amount of water below of the surface of the planet, and that it shot up out of the ground, sendin gthe plates moving on their courses. The Great Rift (do I even have the name right? Long time since I've looked into this) makes this theory even look true.

Now let's look at the fossil record. For years systems such as carbon dating have been used, despite the fact that tests on these systems have proved they can be innacurate by thousands and thousands of years. Also, there are locations where (I am dead serious about this) fossilized trees can be seen going up straight through many layers of the fossil record! If the record built up over the period of thousands or millions of years this could not be possible. It is much more likely that it was created in one swift, instantanious moment, such as a great delluge.

And lets not forget that what certainly appears to be an ark can actually be seen in satellite photographs of Mount Ararat!

[afro-elf]

It is certainly possible that there was a great amount of water below of the surface of the planet, and that it shot up out of the ground, sendin gthe plates moving on their courses. The Great Rift (do I even have the name right? Long time since I've looked into this) makes this theory even look true.


tectonic plate theory DOES NOT have to do with water. it has to do with molten magma

it takes millions of years not forty days


fact that tests on these systems have proved they can be innacurate by thousands and thousands of years


darth i think the closer in time to the present the more accurate the carbon dating

take the stroud of turin. it is a fake it has been dated to the time of da vinci. even if it was 1,000 years off if it still WAY to recent to be the burial ropes of JC


now going back further in time a few thousand years in a 100 million plus time scale is a minor deviation


Also, there are locations where (I am dead serious about this) fossilized trees can be seen going up straight through many layers of the fossil record! If the record built up over the period of thousands or millions of years this could not be possible


your wording misrepresents the situation

it is not as if the tree was thrust through the fossil layers

if the tree died in one era the sediment and fossil record just built up around it.


once again i guess this is becoming a catch phrase there is a consilence of knowledge that supports this. it is not built upon one single observartion that would send it crashing down


they say that when the flood receded, Noah and his zoo were perched upon the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Presumably, at that time, all the animals dispersed to the far recesses of the earth. How the animals got to the different continents, we are not told. Perhaps they floated there on debris. More problematic, I think is how so many species survived when they had been reduced to just one pair or seven pairs of creatures. Also, you would think that the successful species which had the furthest to travel, would have left a trail of offspring along the way. What evidence is there that all species originated in Turkey? That's what the record should look like if the ark landed on Mt. Ararat

Still, none of this deters the true believer from maintaining that the story of Noah's ark is the God's truth. Nor does it deter those who think the ark has been found. For example, in 1977 a pseudo-documentary called "In Search of Noah's Ark" was played on numerous television stations and CBS showed a special in 1993 entitled, "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark." The first is a work of fiction claiming to be a documentary. The second was masterminded by George Jammal, who has admitted that the story was a hoax. Jammal said he wanted to expose religious frauds. His hoax was seen by about 20 million people, most of whom probably still do not know that Jammal did not want them to take it seriously.

During his show, Jammal produced what he called "sacred wood" from the ark, which he later admitted was wood taken from railroad tracks in Long Beach, California, which he had hardened by cooking in an oven. He also prepared other fake wood by frying a piece of California pine on his kitchen stove in a mix of wine, iodine, sweet-and-sour and teriyaki sauces. He also admitted that he had never been to Turkey. The program was produced by Sun International Pictures, based in Salt Lake City, and responsible for several pseudo-documentaries on Nostradamus, the Bermuda Triangle, the Shroud of Turin, and UFOs.

Stories of floods are not unique to the ancient Jews.* What geological or archaeological evidence is there of such a universal destruction of all human societies, all plants and all animals except for the ones on Noah's boat (or Ziusudra's [Sumeria], or Utnapishtim's [Babylon])? There should be a layer of sediment dating from the same time which contains all the bones of these poor creatures. There should be evidence that all human societies were wiped out simultaneously. No such evidence exists of a universal flood.


as i provided a site with the flaws of the bible I will now give one with the flaws of the flood story


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[Finmandos12]

While carbon14 dating could be inaccurate because of the flood, they usually use Uranium- Thorium dating, which would not have been messed up because of the Flood.
For some solid evidence of the flood, afro-elf, read the May 2001 issue of National Geographic (an evolutionary magazine). It has an article about an expedition in the Black Sea by Robert ballard, discoverer of the Titanic.

[afro-elf]

Darth you never got back to me on this



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In OT times when you died you went to hell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



where in the bible does it say that?

Just because it was a different time you condone

Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!"
Psalms 137:9
.

DT3:6
And we utterly destroyed them... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

[afro-elf]

Fin

i'm aware of mr.ballard


Evidence of *A* great flood,( not a universal flood)
perhaps caused by melting glaciers bursting through the Bosporus straight some 7,000 years ago, has been discovered off the coast of Turkey by Robert Ballard (who found the remains of the Titanic)

on a total side note i've been to turkey twice the bosporus is quite nice


The Biblical flood is due to rain, not a bursting dam. As archeological anthropologist John Alden notes

...the story in the Bible is clear -- it rained for weeks before Noah's flood, and after it stopped raining the floodwaters receded. The Black Sea flood wasn't caused by rain, and after the water rose it never went away. And neither [the Sumerian nor the Biblical] story mentions the most dramatic consequence of the Black Sea flood, which turned fresh water into salt. Noah's flood, in short, doesn't sound anything like the inundation of the Black Sea.



do not forget about the other problems that i listed

[afro-elf]

Mathron

give me about a week hopefully sooner to get back to you on the problem of induction

ramadan is starting and it places the class schedule in a complete disarray changes the time frame to prepare the kids of exams

[Mathron]

No problem - take your time. :)

[Darth Tater]

I keep finding myself in this debate yet I really shouldn't be since I'm an admin. Anyways, In OT times only 2 (or was it three, can't remember) ppl went to heaven, which was closed to man till Jesus reopened it By taking on our sins.

You're explanasion of the tree is silly. It would have totally dissintigrated in the thousands of years that scientists say it took for the layers to build up. There is no way they could have built up around it unless it was an instanious thing

[Sakata]

Oops, my mistake, I was looking at Psalms 136, 137 does indeed say that, but you must understand that is in not god saying go bash your babys against rocks, This psalm is David telling about what he felt when he was beside the rivers of Babylon as a prisoner thinking of Jerusalem. David was pouring out his fealings before God, his anger towards his captors and his craving for revenge. It is obevious that God does not want christians to go aroung killing babys, for he says thou shalt not kill. You took the time to look up all the translations in all the different bibles Afro-elf, did you not read the whole psalm?

[afro-elf]

Darth

not so
where do you find fossiled things?

In the ground buried surrounded by layers of earth.


I"VE found fossiled remains of wood on the surface


there have been finds of shifts where remains of different times have been together

darth wrote: In OT times only 2 (or was it three, can't remember) ppl went to heaven, which was closed to man till Jesus reopened it By taking on our sins.

But you said that people went to hell. not going to heaven doesn't mean going to hell. i believe the Jews the people who the OT was about , thought you went to Sheol. not sure on the spelling. and i would like more info on this

sakata

his anger towards his captors and his craving for revenge. It is obevious that God does not want christians to go aroung killing babys, for he says thou shalt not kill. You took the time to look up all the translations in all the different bibles Afro-elf, did you not read the whole psalm?


you place upon me words i never said: I NEVER said GOD said do that


i made that post about psalm 137:9 several times

one was to show the problems of taking things literally or out of context

the other was asking darth about his condoning of certain actions

even with him being angered isnt dashing little ones against the rocks a TAD extreme?


as far as god not wanting to kill
for he says thou shalt not kill

NUM 15;35-36
And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp
And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.


NUM
21:34
And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon.

21:35
So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land.



NUM
25:16
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

25:17
Vex the Midianites, and smite them:


DT 7:2
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them



Kill any prophets or "dreamers of dreams" if they say or dream the wrong things. Dt.13:1-5
Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Dt.13:6-10
Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Dt.13:12-16
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Dt.17:2-7
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Dt.17:12-13
Kill any false prophets. Dt.18:20
Kill all the men and boys in the cities that God "delivers into your hands," but keep the women for yourself. Dt.20:13-15
Kill everything that breathes in the cities that God gives you for an inheritance. Dt.20:16
Kill rebellious or disobedient sons. Dt.21:18-21
Women, be sure to keep the tokens of your virginity. Otherwise the men of your city may stone you to death. Dt.22:13-21
Kill adulterers. Dt.22:22
Kill rape victims if they fail to cry out loud enough. Dt.22:23-34


did god command these things?

[Darth Tater]

I've already addressed "Thou shalt not murder." Sheol = hell. For more info on the scientific stuff (i'm no expert) I recommend "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man." Never actually read the whole book myself, it's a bit deep for me, but I've spoken with the editor/compiler/occasional author who put it together. He's a brilliant monk and at least in speech can put things in simple terms. It's published by the St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood

[afro-elf]

I'll see if I can dig up some info on the book you mentioned. But being stuck in the desert it may take awhile


as far as murder not necessarily meaning killing fine


but the things I just listed seem murderous to me at least.

[easterlinge]

Whoaaaaa...... what do you mean, in Old Testament times, everyone went to hell? What's the point of all those prophets then? Why all those laws? Why follow any commandment if you're going to Hell anyway?

[galadriel]

A good Jew doesn't follow the laws because they don't want to go to hell. They do it because they're supposed to, and it's the right thing to do, and following God's law makes their life overall better. Of course, no one's that virtuous, but it's a nice ideal to aspire to.

The Old Testament hardly ever mentions hell. Instead, you atoned for your sins. Biblical Jews atoned for their sins in various ways, but generally atonement meant sacrificing an animal on an altar. Occasionally you would simply pay money or barter for it, for instance if you accidentally killed one of your neighbor's sheep. For the more serious crimes, you sacrificed your own life. So, if you think about it, even a murderer who gave his own life willingly might have a chance at getting into heaven, since he'd atoned. (I could get into a spiel about how this relates to Christianity, but I'll spare you all for now. It's late. I'm tired.)

In a nutshell, no, Old Testament people did not go to hell according to the Jews of that time, as long as you were faithful to God and the Jewish religion. I'm not quite sure what the criteria is nowadays, since there's no more sacrificing and Jewish ideas about the afterlife are varied, due to time and coloring by more recent Jewish folklore and tradition. I think it's still basically the same: good religious people go to heaven, bad people don't.

[Sakata]

Originally posted by afro-elf


you place upon me words i never said: I NEVER said GOD said do that




When did I ever accuse you of saying that? I was just explaining that that was not god's will.

As for all the rest of your quotes, It might take me a while to get back to you, I am in my Junior year of high school and I have 2 research papers due, along with studying for the PSAT *sigh* I could debate (that is what we're doing right?) religon all night, but i'll have to take a rain-check :(

[afro-elf]

Sakata

When did I ever accuse you of saying that? I was just explaining that that was not god's will.

no problem. i read too much into it.

As for all the rest of your quotes, It might take me a while to get back to you, I am in my Junior year of high school and I have 2 research papers due, along with studying for the PSAT *sigh* I could debate (that is what we're doing right?) religon all night, but i'll have to take a rain-check

i'm in a similar boat at the opposite end I've gotta prepare exams


yes this a debate

good luck on your tests and I await your return

[Darkside Spirit]

And while we're awaiting her (his?) return we can pour over this:

http://stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Essays/Terrorism.shtml

Please don't flame me, but I know it's a pretty contentious piece, so if you have to, I will understand :)

[Finmandos12]

As to how people got to heaven in OT times...

They had to trust that God would send a Messiah. They sacrificed animals to atone for their sins. When Jesus dies, he was the sacrifice for all who accepted him as their savior.

As to when God told the Israelites to kill people...

Most of those verses you quoted were about killing the enemies they had defeated. If they had not killed them, their descendants would have uprisen against Israel later. Also, they would have intermarried with the Jews and introduced their religions to them. It was not like they were innocent. Their religion included such things as child sacrifice, prostitution, etc.

[Mathron]

Again, that was not the point. Should we kill all of our enemies, all who might potentially be our enemies, and all of their women and children?

[afro-elf]

what would happen if america had went in an just tactically nuked afghanstan or iran 10 tens ago

think of all the uproar about killing the woman and children

what would happen if the respone was an answer like you gave
It was not like they were innocent

why do you equate the enemies of isreal with the most barbaric pagan rituals

have you looked at the historical evidence for this?


BUT lo and behold did god just say thou shall not kill?

[ryan]

First off, theres no reason to nuke afganistan, the taliban basically doesn't exist there anymore (or won't for much longer at this rate..). If one of us did decide to nuke the other, itd turn out like the cuban missile crisis in the 60s.. he with the biggest balls and best poker face will win.

[afro-elf]

First off, theres no reason to nuke afganistan,

the point is not about nuking afganistan

the point is about killing innocent people



finmandos said


Most of those verses you quoted were about killing the enemies they had defeated. If they had not killed them, their descendants would have uprisen against Israel later. Also, they would have intermarried with the Jews and introduced their religions to them. It was not like they were innocent

there is the already defeated part

well lets GO GET UM BOYS. better kill all the filthy afgans before they grow up and kill us

come on


hum sounds like genocide

are you at all revolted by the nazi treatment of jews
or there treatment of anyone they conquered

or the isreali treatment of palestinians

or america's prior history of native americans and slaves

of stalins starvation of ukraine

the armenian cleansing in turkey

the ethinc cleansing in the balkans

[Finmandos12]

Calm down afro, stop putting words in my mouth. The canaanites were not innocent. I am not a theologian, but what I believe is that their time to repent was past. God had warned the Canaanites to repent, and they did not. He was using the Israelites to punish them. It says somewhere that the sins of a few affect many. Take, for example, the Jew's captivity in Babylon. Because many (but not all) of their kings had been evil, they were deported to Babylon. That's not fair. But God will not hold back his punishment all the time.

[afro-elf]

One problem that occurs with writing is that it is quite inadequte it reveling the emotionanal state of the writer and reader.

I have really never been angry with anyone here


my question is WHERE did i put words in your mouth?


what happened to the loving merciful god?

what kind of supposedly loving, forgiving, merciful, god
would be so low and barbaric?


what happened to thou shall not kill?


why is this lowerer than even human standards?

[afro-elf]

My friend I'm almsot ready.

Just trying to streamline

see ya soon

[Darth Tater]

Don't go off topic or I will be forced to close this thread

[afro-elf]

if that message was for me

i told mathron earlier in the thread that i needed some time to answer his challenge

i was just letting him know i'm almost ready

[afro-elf]

thanks for the joy of a good mental workout

I admit that reason is a feeble flame a flickering torch yet it is the only light extinguish that an naught else remains

Finally a reply

You state that
Hence, faith or science are just as fallible.

The adv just here means equal to. Religion and pseudo science

ARE NOT equally fallible. They may have similar

IF they were JUST as fallible why don’t people jump off of building just because it’s a theory. IF its JUST as fallible it mean they would have the same FAILURE RATE

you state

I think that, because of this, there is no reason not to choose religion over science, or vice versa. They are all viable possibilities.

I am adding pseudo science to religion here they are NOT equally viable

you state
The tenent of faith is that it does not require proof. Obviously faith can not be held as evidence, simply a personal choice.

Do you think that just because something is personal choice that frees them from critical thought as to WHY they accept something

This leads to gullibility of the worse kind. People have reason s for believing but are they good reasons.



I’ll try to answer you below

First of all I think that we need to clarify difference between theoretical problems and pragmatic problems

Often these problems go hand in hand
Often they are on the same page
Often they are not even in the same ballpark

You cite the SO CALLED problem of induction

It is a problem for the field logic not NECESSARILY one for science

(formal) Logic can be seen as set of rules a theoretical framework. A lot of it is theory and not pragmatic. ( though it CAN be applied to the “real” word)

However it has problems that don’t, such as zeno’s paradoxes and the problem of the liar

Zeno logically “PROVED” that there is not such thing is motion

That is a logical problem NOT a pragmatic problem

Nevertheless, there are some instances where logic can give conclusive proof that has more utility. Because of the logical precept ex nihilo nihil fit (Latin for “from nothing, nothing is produced”), it is impossible for nothingness to cause something. Thus, anything that comes into being must have a cause for its existence. This fact is very useful because it supports a fundamental law of science called the law of cause-and-effect (the theory that no effect can be produced without something to cause it). Sadly, not very many helpful theories can be thoroughly proved by logic

Though we speak of scientific theories science is at its heart a pragmatic endeavor
Its goal it to solve problems

Now people will say that induction can not predict the future but it has.
Science makes accurate predictions all the time often years in advance. It makes predictions about the past that can be verified by evidence
Now no one is saying that induction is perfect
BUT it is reliable HOWEVER do not construe reliable with infallible or perfect OR everstatic
In science when we mention the word fact it means only confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provision consent

Also if you insist on induction science is not a ONE induction pony. It is based on a consilence of multiple induction. It is POSSIBLE that it Has ALL been a coincidence but….

Feelings are not facts, emotions are nor evidence
how does the invisible intangible eternally elusive differ from the imaginary

IF they were JUST as fallible why doesn’t faith or pseudo science DO anything

If people really believed in their faith why do they cry at funerals or go to doctors

IF god where real he would exist independent of my subjectivity

we realize that the acceptance by science of a law or of a theory is tentative only; which is to say that all laws and theories are conjectures, or tentative hypotheses and that we may reject a law or theory on the basis of new evidence, without necessarily discarding the old evidence which originally led us to accept it. (But the widespread belief in induction shows that the far-reaching implications of this view are rarely seen.)

I disagree that induction is a fact and in any case needed. The belief that we use induction is simply a mistake.
What we do use is a method of trial and the examination of error; however misleadingly this method may look like induction, its logical structure, if we examine it closely, totally differs from that of induction. Moreover, it is a method which does not give rise to any of the difficulties connected with the problem of induction.
The first is commonsense realism; this is the view that there is a real world, with real people, animals and plants, cars and stars in it. I think that this view is true and immensely important, and I believe that no valid criticism of it has ever been proposed.

. For since it is possible for some conjectures to be preferable to others, it is also possible for our conjectural knowledge to improve, and to grow.
We may prefer some competing theories to others on purely rational grounds. It is important that we are clear what the principles of preference or selection are.

In the first place they are governed by the idea of truth. We want, if at all possible, theories which are true, and for this reason we try to eliminate the false ones.
In other words, there is no 'absolute reliance'; but since we have to choose, it will be 'rational' to choose the best tested theory. This will be 'rational' in the most obvious sense of the word known to me: the best tested theory is the one which, in the light of our critical discussion, appears to be the best so far; and I do not know of anything more 'rational' than a well-conducted critical discussion.

. And I propose to replace, therefore, the question of the sources of our knowledge by the entirely different question: 'How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?'

So my answer to the questions 'How do you know? What is the source or the basis of your assertion? What observations have led you to it?' would be: 'I do not know: my assertion was merely a guess. Never mind the source, or the sources, from which it may spring - there are many possible sources, and I may not be aware of half of them; and origins or pedigrees have in any case little bearing upon truth. But if you are interested in the problem which I tried to solve by my tentative assertion, you may help me by criticizing it as severely as you can; and if you can design some experimental test which you think might refute my assertion, I shall gladly, and to the best of my powers, help you to refute it.'




. But science isn't like mathematics. There can be no guarantee about what evidence we will discover tomorrow.


when science speaks of truth/fact/"proof" it can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent

But there are degrees of proof and faith. The question becomes whether there is reason to follow things of high faith/low proof as much as things of high proof/low faith (like science}


I mentioned before that it gives RELIABLE however tentative information about the world.

I might word it this way just because you can not prove/disprove anything does not give equal weight to all things

is to differentiate between science and pseudo-science.

If the objective of science lies in solving problems, and it is to the solution of problems that we can turn to find rationality in the way scientists work. A scientific decision will be rational if it is progressive, choosing the theory with the maximum benefits (problem-solving efficacy) and the minimum number of problems and anomalies.


We alone can be wracked with doubt, and we alone have been provoked by that epistemic itch to seek a remedy: better truth-seeking methods. Wanting to keep better track of our food supplies, our territories, our families, our enemies, we discovered the benefits of talking it over with others, asking questions, passing on lore. We invented culture. Then we invented measuring, and arithmetic, and maps, and writing. These communicative and recording innovations come with a built-in ideal: truth. The point of asking questions is to find true answers; the point of measuring is to measure accurately; the point of making maps is to find your way to your destination. There may be an Island of the Colour-blind (allowing Oliver Sacks his usual large dose of poetic license), but no Island of the People Who Do Not Recognize Their Own Children. The Land of the Liars could exist only in philosophers' puzzles; there are no traditions of False Calendar Systems for mis-recording the passage of time. In short, the goal of truth goes without saying, in every human culture.



We ought to adopt a more pragmatic approach and think of what we call "truth" as what's useful to believe.
A scientific theory is "empirically adequate" if it gets things right about the observable phenomena in nature. Phenomena are "observable" if they could be observed by appropriately placed beings with sensory abilities similar to those characteristic of human beings.

This is called "inference to the best explanation." The argument for this view is that in everyday life we reason according to the principle of inference to the best explanation, and so we should also reason this way in science.

Pragmatic View an explanation is a body of information that implies that the phenomenon is more likely than its alternatives,


Approximate Truth

The "Success" of Science. This notion means different things to different people, but is generally taken to refer to the increasing ability science gives us to manipulate the world, predict natural phenomena, and build more sophisticated technology

.

[afro-elf]

another question for you math

if they are JUST as fallible/ same success rate

if YOU are seriously wounded would you prefer for me to take you
a doctor and have NO ONE pray for you or to have people ONLY pray for you?

what are the reason for your choice?


is learning possible? is it induction? or trail and elimination of error?
or something else?



thanks

[Mathron]

thanks for the joy of a good mental workout

No problem, glad you enjoyed it. :)

I admit that reason is a feeble flame a flickering torch yet it is the only light extinguish that an naught else remains

Reason is perfectly acceptable. The issue here is that induction is not logical reasoning, merely practical application for convenience's sake.

Finally a reply
You state that
Hence, faith or science are just as fallible.

The adv just here means equal to. Religion and pseudo science

ARE NOT equally fallible. They may have similar

IF they were JUST as fallible why don’t people jump off of building just because it’s a theory. IF its JUST as fallible it mean they would have the same FAILURE RATE

Not the issue. This is a discussion of origin, not result. Science is infallible because it is based on an incorrect assumption of truth. The reason people don't jump off buildings is because it is more practical not so - an ingrained instinct to believe in the validity of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning *could* be right, it just has not been proven.
And YOU. CAN. NOT. QUOTE. FAILURE. RATE. Doing so shows you do not understand the issue at all - a failure rate is an accumulated log of past instances, so using it to prove your point is using inductive reasoning. As we have already established, you cannot use inductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning! To clutch at such things shows a lack of willingness to expand horizons. Ignore past instances - prove that science works without evidence, without rates, without anything based on past empirical gatherings!

you state

"I think that, because of this, there is no reason not to choose religion over science, or vice versa. They are all viable possibilities. "

I am adding pseudo science to religion here they are NOT equally viable

False. In potentiallity, all possibilities are equal. Science utilizes an illogical basis. Simply saying that they are not equal does not make it so.

you state
The tenent of faith is that it does not require proof. Obviously faith can not be held as evidence, simply a personal choice.

Do you think that just because something is personal choice that frees them from critical thought as to WHY they accept something

Yes! Duh. :P Is there some unwritten law that people must think the same way as you, the same manner, the same illogical standards? Of course not! If I want to believe the sky is pink, is someone going to stop me, and tell me that my beliefs are not allowed? It all is a matter of perspective, after all, and personal belief is just that - personal. Certain minds may operate, in fact, on entirely different tracks of logic than humanly the norm.

This leads to gullibility of the worse kind. People have reason s for believing but are they good reasons.

And thus you claim to be God, and to be the only one who can define 'good' reasons? And would regulate people's beliefs? NO! People can believe whatever they want - what you WANT them to believe does NOT come into it.

I’ll try to answer you below

Nevertheless, there are some instances where logic can give conclusive proof that has more utility. Because of the logical precept ex nihilo nihil fit (Latin for “from nothing, nothing is produced”), it is impossible for nothingness to cause something. Thus, anything that comes into being must have a cause for its existence. This fact is very useful because it supports a fundamental law of science called the law of cause-and-effect (the theory that no effect can be produced without something to cause it). Sadly, not very many helpful theories can be thoroughly proved by logic

Assumption: That the precept is valid, and not simply rationally adaptable to the human mind. But continue on...

Though we speak of scientific theories science is at its heart a pragmatic endeavor
Its goal it to solve problems
Now people will say that induction can not predict the future but it has.


Gadzooks! Again, you use temporal evidence as proof! You say it has - lies! You are using induction to prove itself! I've asked you in every post before to not do so - it just doesn't work!

[Mathron]

{snip more using induction to try and prove itself}

In science when we mention the word fact it means only confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provision consent

[/quote]Also if you insist on induction science is not a ONE induction pony. It is based on a consilence of multiple induction. It is POSSIBLE that it Has ALL been a coincidence but….
[/quote]

Hmm. Induction is valid, because we can have *many* inductive facts work? Again... well, don't think I need to repeat myself.

IF they were JUST as fallible why doesn’t faith or pseudo science DO anything
If people really believed in their faith why do they cry at funerals or go to doctors

Hmm. Um... cause, for the first, human emotion responds to loss by a feeling of sadness. By your laws, a chemical reaction. By other laws, they are crying for their own loss and grief, not the lost one. As for doctors, because there is no reason not to seek health? Not all religions claim that God will cure all sicknesses - only the most extremist beliefs....

IF god where real he would exist independent of my subjectivity

Yep. So?

we realize that the acceptance by science of a law or of a theory is tentative only; which is to say that all laws and theories are conjectures, or tentative hypotheses and that we may reject a law or theory on the basis of new evidence, without necessarily discarding the old evidence which originally led us to accept it. (But the widespread belief in induction shows that the far-reaching implications of this view are rarely seen.)

Ahhh, I see. Widespread belief = proof? Heh, please tell me that isn't your argument - by that, you proove most religions as well. :)

I disagree that induction is a fact and in any case needed. The belief that we use induction is simply a mistake.
What we do use is a method of trial and the examination of error; however misleadingly this method may look like induction, its logical structure, if we examine it closely, totally differs from that of induction. Moreover, it is a method which does not give rise to any of the difficulties connected with the problem of induction.


sigh... trial and error utilizes a evaluation of patterns in the past of various experiments. In other words, uses induction. Induction is basing a hypothesis on how events have behaved in the past. You can not tell me that trial and error is not induction, unless you are lying.

In the first place they are governed by the idea of truth. We want, if at all possible, theories which are true, and for this reason we try to eliminate the false ones.
In other words, there is no 'absolute reliance'; but since we have to choose, it will be 'rational' to choose the best tested theory. This will be 'rational' in the most obvious sense of the word known to me: the best tested theory is the one which, in the light of our critical discussion, appears to be the best so far; and I do not know of anything more 'rational' than a well-conducted critical discussion.

Anything based on being 'the best tested theory' has been grounded in induction. And, hence, illogical.

And I propose to replace, therefore, the question of the sources of our knowledge by the entirely different question: 'How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?'

So my answer to the questions 'How do you know? What is the source or the basis of your assertion? What observations have led you to it?' would be: 'I do not know: my assertion was merely a guess. Never mind the source, or the sources, from which it may spring - there are many possible sources, and I may not be aware of half of them; and origins or pedigrees have in any case little bearing upon truth. But if you are interested in the problem which I tried to solve by my tentative assertion, you may help me by criticizing it as severely as you can; and if you can design some experimental test which you think might refute my assertion, I shall gladly, and to the best of my powers, help you to refute it.'

Interesting idea: All theories are true until proven false...
Ok. God exists. Go again, design a test to refute my assertion.
It doesn't work, really. You can't give an assumption and demand to be proven wrong. That is why we can't accept the countless religions as inherently true - yes, they may be logically consistent, and possible, but possibility is not truth. IF you insist on your method, that is fine, but it proves my point just as well, for science is, then, just as viable as religion.
If you wish to prove me otherwise, show a logical BASIS for science.

But science isn't like mathematics. There can be no guarantee about what evidence we will discover tomorrow.

True. My biggest problem with science: Judging at how it has done in the past, most of what we believe is, in all probability, wrong, and 'new' science will be discovered to disprove it in the future. Only human arrogance insists that our beliefs are 'better' than scientific beliefs in the past that were proven wrong.

when science speaks of truth/fact/"proof" it can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent

Sure. Just remember than all inductive reasoning has no amount of confirmation, so doesn't help at all.

But there are degrees of proof and faith. The question becomes whether there is reason to follow things of high faith/low proof as much as things of high proof/low faith (like science}
I mentioned before that it gives RELIABLE however tentative information about the world.

Tsk. Reliable reeks of induction. Try again.

I might word it this way just because you can not prove/disprove anything does not give equal weight to all things

Not the issue - that is a random side tangent. Ignore it.

is to differentiate between science and pseudo-science.
If the objective of science lies in solving problems, and it is to the solution of problems that we can turn to find rationality in the way scientists work. A scientific decision will be rational if it is progressive, choosing the theory with the maximum benefits (problem-solving efficacy) and the minimum number of problems and anomalies.

Hmm. No, not at all. What it results in doesn't prove rationality - rather, where it came from. If they arrived at the decision through blind luck, is that rational? No. If they arrive there by induction, the same.

We alone can be wracked with doubt, and we alone have been provoked by that epistemic itch to seek a remedy: better truth-seeking methods. Wanting to keep better track of our food supplies, our territories, our families, our enemies, we discovered the benefits of talking it over with others, asking questions, passing on lore. We invented culture. Then we invented measuring, and arithmetic, and maps, and writing. These communicative and recording innovations come with a built-in ideal: truth. The point of asking questions is to find true answers; the point of measuring is to measure accurately; the point of making maps is to find your way to your destination. There may be an Island of the Colour-blind (allowing Oliver Sacks his usual large dose of poetic license), but no Island of the People Who Do Not Recognize Their Own Children. The Land of the Liars could exist only in philosophers' puzzles; there are no traditions of False Calendar Systems for mis-recording the passage of time. In short, the goal of truth goes without saying, in every human culture.

Interesting, but entirely unrelated.

We ought to adopt a more pragmatic approach and think of what we call "truth" as what's useful to believe.
A scientific theory is "empirically adequate" if it gets things right about the observable phenomena in nature. Phenomena are "observable" if they could be observed by appropriately placed beings with sensory abilities similar to those characteristic of human beings.

Empirical evidence and observation both utilize induction. Hence, useless. Try again.

This is called "inference to the best explanation." The argument for this view is that in everyday life we reason according to the principle of inference to the best explanation, and so we should also reason this way in science.

Yes and no. It is practical to do so. But not rational.

Pragmatic View an explanation is a body of information that implies that the phenomenon is more likely than its alternatives,

The pragmaticism used here is, rather, a human instinct, not any possibility law. The human inherent belief in induction.

Approximate Truth

The "Success" of Science. This notion means different things to different people, but is generally taken to refer to the increasing ability science gives us to manipulate the world, predict natural phenomena, and build more sophisticated technology

Success = using past evidence = induction = no.

another question for you math

Please no cheap nicknames...

if they are JUST as fallible/ same success rate

I never claimed they had same success rate. I claimed that to use success rate as a factor is to use induction, and hence flawed.

if YOU are seriously wounded would you prefer for me to take you
a doctor and have NO ONE pray for you or to have people ONLY pray for you?

A doctor, because of my personal choice, pragmatic approach, and natural instinct. So? Does my belief, however illogical, decide the way the universe works?

is learning possible? is it induction? or trail and elimination of error?

The latter two are the same, and that is what learning often is. Depending on type of learning, of course. Again, it is practical, not logical, information - for now.

[Mathron]

My apologies for multiple responses, but had to abide my max limit on message size. :)

Anyway, my final conclusion: You have completely ignored my question, or misunderstood my point.

What is induction?
It is using past patterns to hypothesize that those patterns will continue in the future.

Why do we believe in it? Because of its success rate, of the fact that it has worked in the past, and so should work in the future.

But this is induction, so we are trying to prove it by proving itself.

Can you, on this issue - not completely unrelated other issues that you keep bringing up, that have no applicable relationship - show that this is not so.

Can you, without using any empirical evidence, or anything based on past proof, show any validity to induction?

Or not?

[afro-elf]

Would i be right here my saying for you it is a LOGICAL problem?

MY point is not the theoretical short comings but application


to wish i would reply again

First of all I think that we need to clarify difference between theoretical problems and pragmatic problems

Often these problems go hand in hand
Often they are on the same page
Often they are not even in the same ballpark

You cite the SO CALLED problem of induction

It is a problem for the field logic not NECESSARILY one for science

(formal) Logic can be seen as set of rules a theoretical framework. A lot of it is theory and not pragmatic. ( though it CAN be applied to the “real” word)

However it has problems that don’t, such as zeno’s paradoxes and the problem of the liar

Zeno logically “PROVED” that there is not such thing is motion

That is a logical problem NOT a pragmatic problem


you state
Reason is perfectly acceptable. The issue here is that induction is not logical reasoning, merely practical application for convenience's sake.

to which i agree

I'm saying that though it may not have a theortically logical basis
does NOT mean it is USELESS


you state

Not the issue. This is a discussion of origin, not result

I am discussing result, that is my reason for these post

i think that the problem goes deeper than logic it is a problem for epistemology

both of these endeavors epistemology and theoretical logic have"OFTEN" inherent problems in real world application


you state
Science is infallible because it is based on an incorrect assumption of truth

who said that it was infallible?

science works more along the lines of what we know NOW is blah blah blah

i do not think any competent sciencist would say otherwise


you state

Ignore past instances - prove that science works without evidence, without rates, without anything based on past empirical gatherings!

that is a not a pragmatic problem that is a theoretical one



an ingrained instinct to believe in the validity of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning *could* be right, it just has not been proven.


I'm NOT saying that inductive reason is infallible only that it is a neccessary component of life

i make mistakes with induction reasoning
however i m usaully correct

JUST because it does not have theoretical perfection does not mean it is not useful.



. In potentiallity, all possibilities are equal. Science utilizes an illogical basis. Simply saying that they are not equal does not make it so

saying that all things are possibily possibile does not make them so

science is based on practical reasoning not of theoretical logic
the stuff of scienitic theory is to provide answers to problems to DO things

you state
The tenent of faith is that it does not require proof. Obviously faith can not be held as evidence, simply a personal choice.

Do you think that just because something is personal choice that frees them from critical thought as to WHY they accept something
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





[Yes! Duh. :P Is there some unwritten law that people must think the same way as you, the same manner, the same illogical standards? Of course not! If I want to believe the sky is pink, is someone going to stop me, and tell me that my beliefs are not allowed? It all is a matter of perspective, after all, and personal belief is just that - personal. Certain minds may operate, in fact, on entirely different tracks of logic than humanly the norm.




AH DUH... when these people have power that affect the lives of people. i sure hope to hell that they have good reasons for doing so.

And thus you claim to be God, and to be the only one who can define 'good' reasons? And would regulate people's beliefs? NO! People can believe whatever they want - what you WANT them to believe does NOT come into it.


i restate

AH DUH... when these people have power that affect the lives of many people. i sure hope to hell that they have good reasons for doing so

there can be pretty bad reasons for doing things


reporter to billy bob hick killer
"why did you kill everybody in the house?"

billy bob
"cause they was home"

you make a statement about personal beliefs being personal
however this beliefs are acted upon and this action can affect people

take the kansas board of eduaction for example




Gadzooks! Again, you use temporal evidence as proof

we happen to exist in time. that it the only evidence that gets stuff done. is it perfect no. its useful yes.

arguing possibly of future failure does not MAKE it pramatically usless to use induction
it is suffice to know that this may change
that is just plain prudence one level
yet it would be utterly absurd to say that since it does not have a theoretically flawless basis lets chuck the system

IF they were JUST as fallible why doesn’t faith or pseudo science DO anything

what PRACTICAL reasons are there for be to believe in pseudo science, religion, new age, mysticism

why are they full of apolgetics and empty of results

not the theoretical reasons for their failure but practical



Anything based on being 'the best tested theory' has been grounded in induction. And, hence, illogical.

BUT reasonably accectable( pragmatic)

Interesting idea: All theories are true until proven false...


the point is trying to find things that are of practical import by elimanating less practical

here practical does not imply easy

But science isn't like mathematics. There can be no guarantee about what evidence we will discover tomorrow.



True. My biggest problem with science: Judging at how it has done in the past, most of what we believe is, in all probability, wrong, and 'new' science will be discovered to disprove it in the future. Only human arrogance insists that our beliefs are 'better' than scientific beliefs in the past that were proven wrong.



what are you basis the state on that most of what we believe (in science i presume) is wrong and will be replace by new science...
.
Scientists tend to respond to this by simply pointing out that science is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. New theories improve upon previous theories, rather than turning them completely upside down. For example, Einstein's theories of relativity did not "overturn" Newtonian physics, which are still taught in school and widely used today. They demonstrated superior accuracy, but only in very anomalous conditions. In fact, the predictions of Einsteinian and Newtonian physics are so close in the vast majority of situations that observational evidence for Einstein's theories did not appear until several decades after he had first proposed it, due to limitations in the accuracy of measurement methods at the time.

it is possible for a theory to be wrong even though science teachers still teach it in schools and engineers still apply it when designing technologies (eg- Newtonian physics). How? It's a simple matter of degrees: a theory which is very slightly inaccurate is still better than a theory which is grossly inaccurate. In some cases, a slightly less accurate theory may even be preferable, if it is easier to apply and the difference in accuracy is deemed negligible.

A new and improved scientific theory will have identical predictions to the old, or "conventional" theory in most situations. Why? Because the old theory would never have been accepted in the first place if its predictions weren't close to measurement. Since those measurements are still valid, the new theory must account for them too.

when science speaks of truth/fact/"proof" it can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent


Sure. Just remember than all inductive reasoning has no amount of confirmation, so doesn't help at all.

no amount of future confirmation

but that is a theoretical problem not a pragmatic one

science makes a lot predictions are world is basically run of this

as mentioned earlier with zeno's logical problems do not have to a correspondence in practical application

!@@##$ zeno there IS motion. if it aint logically feasible that's too bad cause i move

But there are degrees of proof and faith. The question becomes whether there is reason to follow things of high faith/low proof as much as things of high proof/low faith (like science}
I mentioned before that it gives RELIABLE however tentative information about the world.

.

Tsk. Reliable reeks of induction. Try again.

Oops I forgot I gotta surrender utility for theory.

i guess then that nothing is certain except uncertainty


here is a quote

You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers
which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and
different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not
absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything
about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here... I don't
have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being
lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really
is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me."
[Richard P. Feynman, "Genius, the life and science"]

however it does not prevent me from seeking practical knowlege

[afro-elf]

cont...

We alone can be wracked with doubt, and we alone have been provoked by that epistemic itch to seek a remedy: better truth-seeking methods. Wanting to keep better track of our food supplies, our territories, our families, our enemies, we discovered the benefits of talking it over with others, asking questions, passing on lore. We invented culture. Then we invented measuring, and arithmetic, and maps, and writing. These communicative and recording innovations come with a built-in ideal: truth. The point of asking questions is to find true answers; the point of measuring is to measure accurately; the point of making maps is to find your way to your destination. There may be an Island of the Colour-blind (allowing Oliver Sacks his usual large dose of poetic license), but no Island of the People Who Do Not Recognize Their Own Children. The Land of the Liars could exist only in philosophers' puzzles; there are no traditions of False Calendar Systems for mis-recording the passage of time. In short, the goal of truth goes without saying, in every human culture.


Interesting, but entirely unrelated.

No it IS related because it shows the pragmatic use of science


We ought to adopt a more pragmatic approach and think of what we call "truth" as what's useful to believe. A scientific theory is "empirically adequate" if it gets things right about the observable phenomena in nature. Phenomena are "observable" if they could be observed by appropriately placed beings with sensory abilities similar to those characteristic of human beings.



Empirical evidence and observation both utilize induction. Hence, useless. Try again

its sure has some utilitary whoop !@# though



This is called "inference to the best explanation." The argument for this view is that in everyday life we reason according to the principle of inference to the best explanation, and so we should also reason this way in science



Yes and no. It is practical to do so. But not rational.

yeah, i'm defending the that view

The "Success" of Science. This notion means different things to different people, but is generally taken to refer to the increasing ability science gives us to manipulate the world, predict natural phenomena, and build more sophisticated technology

Success = using past evidence = induction = no.

success=this stuff works=practical
induction= a logical problem not a pragmatic one

[afro-elf]

Anyway, my final conclusion: You have completely ignored my question, or misunderstood my point.


I will accept the blame for the misunderstanding


it has been awhile since I had to really think of my PRIMARY reasons to I jumped into battle unprepared



I have not been trying to defend induction on theorectically logical reasons

but pragmatic ones

with that said science IS the most successful pragmatic endevor ever

i believe i have answered your questions about belief
concerning WHY people should have good reasons for belief, this does not mean they should act in same manner but have good reasons for doing so and why the burden of proof rest upon those who make extraordinary claims

they may have been implicitly stated if you need clarity i'll glady do so



thanks for the challenge and sorry for the misunderstanding

[afro-elf]

my non sequitor thingy

IF they were JUST as fallible why doesn’t faith or pseudo science DO anything
If people really believed in their faith why do they cry at funerals or go to doctors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hmm. Um... cause, for the first, human emotion responds to loss by a feeling of sadness. By your laws, a chemical reaction. By other laws, they are crying for their own loss and grief, not the lost one.

one of their "laws" state the person is going to a MUCH better place they should be happy

unless at those times they innately realize it may all be garbage
and have a real reason to be sad

i limited 1st response to funeral when is should have been mentioned as berevment

As for doctors, because there is no reason not to seek health? Not all religions claim that God will cure all sicknesses - only the most extremist beliefs....

BUT western theology proports god as being beneficent AND all powerful and intercative and this is COMMON, NOT extremist

i am sure you can see the impliction here

[afro-elf]

Reason is perfectly acceptable. The issue here is that induction is not logical reasoning, merely practical application for convenience's sake. QUOTE]Sure. Just remember than all inductive reasoning has no amount of confirmation, so doesn't help at all. [/QUOTE


however IF i judged your statement correctly, it seems to me that you are state that since science is weak in a logical proof that is is useless


illogical DOES NOT equal irrational

logic is a THEORETICAL system: there are many different kinds of logic, aristotelian,boolean,fregean, russellian etc

rational may be seen as good reasoning

as i have stated before

logic as its problems

the easiest is zeno'e paradoxes

as i said earlier to hell with his logical proof

there is motion

the world still goes on

do we give up the ship because of this?


"If your faith is opposed to experience, to human learning and investigation, it is not worth the breath used in giving it expression."

ALL we have IS experience. an no matter what logical proof there is nothing is going to change it. is it perfect no but it and reason are the few tools we have to navigate life

just because induction in logically fallible does that make ALL opinions equal?

just because i use induction to go home every night and that is logically fallible does that mean that i have GOOD REASONS to accept that angels are guarding my path or demons make bad things happen







"

Yes! Duh. :P Is there some unwritten law that people must think the same way as you, the same manner, the same illogical standards? Of course not! If I want to believe the sky is pink, is someone going to stop me, and tell me that my beliefs are not allowed? It all is a matter of perspective, after all, and personal belief is just that - personal. Certain minds may operate, in fact, on entirely different tracks of logic than humanly the norm.




i restate

AH DUH... when these people have power that affect the lives of many people. i sure hope to hell that they have good reasons for doing so

there can be pretty bad reasons for doing things


reporter to billy bob hick killer
"why did you kill everybody in the house?"

billy bob
"cause they was home"

you make a statement about personal beliefs being personal
however this beliefs are acted upon and this action can affect people

If I believe that whales are mammals and that all mammals are fish, then it would also make sense for me to believe that whales are fish. Even someone who (rightly!) disagreed with my understanding of biological taxonomy could appreciate the consistent, reasonable way in which I used my mistaken beliefs as the foundation upon which to establish a new one. On the other hand, if I decide to believe that Hamlet was Danish because I believe that Hamlet was a character in a play by Shaw and that some Danes are Shavian characters, then even someone who shares my belief in the result could point out that I haven't actually provided good reasons for accepting its truth.


one is a good reason one is not

in relation to what is said earlier

As for doctors, because there is no reason not to seek health? Not all religions claim that God will cure all sicknesses - only the most extremist beliefs....

BUT western theology proports god as being beneficent AND all powerful and intercative and this is COMMON, NOT extremist

i am sure you can see the impliction here
If God exists, forget trying to cure cancer, ease pain, or whatever! It's in his hands. Oh, sure, he might bless us or think better of us if we help out, but it is still his property, his responsibility, his creation, his choice, etc...etc...

If God doesn't exist, let's try to cure cancer and ease pain. Better yet, let's try and find what grounds people can unite upon...namely the fact that they live mortal lives of flesh and blood...and not some supernatural opinion that can be shared only in select crowds.


take the kansas board of eduaction for example


. The will to believe even contrary to demonstrative evidence, credo quia absurdum, is often lauded as a religious virtue."


In India it was the religious duty of the widow to be burned on the funeral pyre of her late husband.

the the various genocides throught history


to even mundane choices

wanting to have people have good reasons for their action does not mean i want them all to choose my choice but have good reasons for doing so


bad reasons can lead to bad results more often than good reason can lead to bad choices

[Mathron]

Alas, I can't continue this debate anymore. You continue to ignore the argument entirely. You cite, again, that you are debating results, when I have logically proven that results mean nothing - and you can give no response to this. In the end, this shows that, speaking on a purely logical basis, you have just as much grounds for your reasoning as any follower of religion. ~grin~
The issue here is that you CAN'T adequately defend induction, and can only clutch at the same instinctive beliefs - even while deriding their beliefs and chastising them for believing in things without a logical basis. People believe blindly, and will refuse to admit even in the phase of evidence - whether they believe in science or religion. I am certainly playing devil's advocate here, yet I really have not seen any real defense from you - just drawing in more and more issues entirely unrelated, as well as trying to use induction to support its own validity.
But, as I wholeheartedly believe, you should choose your belief according to your own measures. So feel free to continue believing in induction and science. As for me, I think this debate must end - for one thing, this discussion has gotten far too long, and we are the only ones remaining debating it. ;)

[afro-elf]

You continue to ignore the argument entirely. You cite, again, that you are debating results, when I have logically proven


and I have shown at least one example ( zeno's paradoxes)
that show a logical proof does not necessarily correspond to "reality" ( let us please not go deeper into the meaning of reality)


now if i have shown that a logical proof (theory)does not necesarily affect the was things WORK why do you SEEM to completely rely on it


JUST because it has a logical weakness does not mean it has a rational weakness

I do not believe you responded to that at all

I AGREE WITH YOU IT HAS A LOGICAL WEAKNESS BUT NOT A RATIONAL WEAKNESS

it seems you are entreached in logical theory

fine

but it has it shortcomings
Do you deny this yes or no?

I however do admit that BOTH have their weakness

aren't you using induction yourself?
what guarantee that someday it may be POSSIBLE ( to use your words) that there may be a way to LOGICALLY prove induction


I really have not seen any real defense from you - just drawing in more and more issues entirely unrelated, as well as trying to use induction to support its own validity.

i do AGREE that my earlier post had some non sequitor material

but you have failed in my opinion to address the logical problems in my last posts.

namely logic as its own problems though while useful not perfect
just like rational thought

but IF you are suggesting to deny all experience on a theoretical problem well....

anyway i think that BOTH sides have a weakness and i do not believe you have addressed this( the logic end of it) in my latter post

what does that leave us

SOL

thanks for the riff

[afro-elf]

INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING IS FLAWED

you asked me to give some deductive proof BUT that is flawed too.

Here again is a confusion that can be traced to the fact that principles are imaginary: Because the imagination is so powerful, it is quite possible to have three seemingly incompatible sets of principles, each of which is internally consistent. This realization requires us to reconsider the supposed infallibility of logical deduction in science

( this concerns Euclid, Lobachevsky, and Riemann and math problem which I can post if you wish)

So although deductive inference may indeed yield conclusions that must be correct if the premises are correct, the choice of those premises clearly depends on fallible human judgment.

Suddenly we are no longer able to build an unshakable fortress of logic in the realm of imaginary ideal forms that can be simply identified with aspects of the actual world. Whether a particular formal model is appropriate or inappropriate depends as much upon the criteria for appropriateness, and our ability to determine if they have been met, as it does on the various details of the physical situation. We are in the same position when we attempt to decide if a particular scientific theory is applicable to a particular situation or to a particular kind of situation. This human decision -- whether the principle is appropriate as a model of the relevant aspects of the situation -- can never be removed from the equation.

we might say that if what you mean by 'logical deduction' is starting from premises or assumptions that are certainly true, and proceeding by logical steps that are CERTAINLY appropriate, to reach conclusions that are CERTAINLY true -- which is what many people do mean by the term -- then we can agree that deduction has no role in the scientific study of the natural world.

Deduction can't create new information
So once again

SOL

[afro-elf]

i do not think that the problem of induction negates science

either more than zeno has LOGICALLY negated motion

it just shows it aint perfect

[Finmandos12]

I agree Mathron this arguement went on a tangent. Oh well, it was interesting for a while.

[afro-elf]

yeah i agree

well it WAS fun while it lasted

[afro-elf]

what happened to all those who said they would get back to finish the battle

with the exception of mathron which i feel is unresolved

he never answered ( to my POV) the non induction problems i raised

but to every one else save my allies

where art thou?

[Alethes]

I'm new here, but I have been reading this thread and wanted to make some comments.

Someone (I think afro-elf, but I'm not sure) said something to the effect of "You can't say that just because something isn't proven true/false doesn't mean that it is true".
By the same token, you can't say that it is false.
You have to take something like this on faith, no matter what you believe. BTW, in Hebrews 11:1, the Bible defines faith as "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see".

In another discussion, someone (again, I think afro-elf but I'm not sure) said that in some verses, God ordered the Israelites to kill someone (stone sinners for various reasons, etc.) and that this violated the "Thou shalt not kill/murder" command. I looked up "murder" in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and it defined murder as "the unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice". The "stone sinners" commands were in the Books of the Law, and were laws that God gave to the Israelites. Since these were laws, they could not be murder.

Hope I'm not intruding on a conversation. I just wanted to make a few points.

[crow]

Note: I have not read all messages posted in this thread, but have merely skimmed a small selection.

Also I have no quotes at this point in time. Sorry!

Furthermore, I'm just a fallible 16 year old who is interested in religion generally and took a history of world religions course last spring. If I oversimplify for the sake of brevity or out of laziness, if I misrepresent or misinterprete, if I'm just plain wrong, that's pretty much why. I'd appreciate corrections, but don't be too harsh.

Christianity is what the overeducated call an ethical monotheism. Judaism and Islam are the other two ethical monotheisms at large in the world today. "Monotheism" refers the fact that there is only one deity is central to the religion's dogma. "Ethical" pretty much means that there are a number of laws that describe how to be an ethical human being. Major oversimplification and poor wording. I suggest you don't take my word for any of this and do a bit of your own reading.

Anyway.

The holy book(s) of all three religions declare, whether explicitely or through implication (this is where I'd like to have some quotes), that their way is the right way if you want to, say go to paradise/heaven (Christianity and Islam) or have a piece in the world to come (as Jewish scholars have often put it), or simply be a good person as the deity of the religion in question defines good.

I feel I'm expressing this very poorly. My point is that it is the nature of ethical monotheisms - such as Christianity - to inspire in their followers a sense that they are right and the heathen masses are wrong and something bad will most likely happen to them. In fact, one could argue that it is the nature to all religions, even all cultures (cultures having a tendency to entwine themselves with religion), to make people feel they are automatically in the right. The whole Us and Them thing.

And now I throw my poor little post to the wolves.

[afro-elf]

nice to see some new faces

hello crow and alethes

i'll stick my head occasionally I might even begin to reply again

and no you were not intruding you're welcome to enter here anytime

ciao

[samwise of the shire]

Oh boy I've missed alot haven't I?

Ok where are we?I haven't read the posts after I stopped posting here. All I need is a fast pickup if you would like to tell me what's been happening in my absence.
And If anyone is offended by my posts please understand I am a VERY zealous Christian and when it comes to anyone saying God or the Bible is not true than I will write back in DEFENSE of my Faith because I am commanded to do such. If I offend anyone I'm sorry please tell me if I do so. Afro Elf told me to write my relegious "dogma" here and so I am.
Sam

[sepulchrave]

The worship of the living God, the maker of all worlds, is not a matter of following a list of rules and regulations, but a relationship. If we miss this fundamental point, we miss all. The rules were written so that we would all realize our utter dependance on the divine mercy, and not our own righteousness. When the mercy came amongst us, the rules were placed under it. You may have the rules if you wish, but I would rather take the mercy. My relationship with my maker is different than yours. Some of us will refuse to accept the concept that a mortal being can have a relationship with the Creator, and hopefully one day they will come to the place where they will be able to enjoy this wonderful reality. God will do the preparation and inviting. All that the servants of the divine are able to do is plant loving seeds in the soil that has already been prepared.
Some, in the face of this reality, still refuse to live in the confines of love, and will choose selfishness instead of selflessness. Some of these are also called Christians. This is a shame, but foreseen ahead of time. It is no surprise that these things take place. Human beings are as capable of being hypocrites now as they have ever been. This fact should not reflect on the nature of the one they call their master, as he wills all to gracious loving existence, but he will not impose that will on any living being, rather preferring to allow the created to choose to love their maker, and each other, as that is the only appropriate response to such a love as is offered through existence.
It is my belief that due to this facet of the character of God, if a soul decides its primary desire is the feeding of self above and beyond all other things, then that soul will recieve its hearts desire. That soul will be permitted, sorrowfully, to remain by itself, alone, forever, or perhaps until such an eternity passes that that soul will come to reach out beyond its own self imposed darkness, its own hell if you will. Perhaps an eternity with oneself becomes so tortuous that even the most reprehensible can find repentance. God will not force all of his creations to commune with him, but will desire it and bring opportunities for this communion until all hope is indeed lost and the soul no longer resembles the thing that was capable of love, but now is a twisted, perverse thing that cannot find anything to love, and desires nothing but itself. The hebrew name for hell is Gehenna, or the garbage dump, a place of perpetual burning of trash... things which have no further use.
The book which Christians read for guidance and direction has many hard sayings, and many mysteries within its pages. Aged wise men and theologians have been puzzling over many of them for centuries. Are we so arrogant as to think that we will clear these things up because we have the benefits of modern science? It will not ever be so until all is done. What about all the heathen? What about those to whom the message was never preached? What about the children who starve in poverty worldwide? What about the Canaanites? Will I discard the faith I have because of these hard things? Do I trust the God I know enough to believe that he is greathearted enough to have the fates of the heathen in his heart too? What am I doing to aid the starving? Do I care? Of what use are my theological ponderings when babies die in the cold, and justice is not done. If to my eyes the things done in the book seem horrifying, is it possible that it is not the book, but my understanding? Do I know all things? I know the character of the one that I worship, and I know He is good. Can you imagine if the maker of everything was not a loving one? Then the scoffers and mockers would really have something to complain about! As it is, He loves us with an everlasting Love, one that does not change or fade. Not everyone wishes to participate in the dance of creation, and they cannot be forced. The Lord of the Dance invites all who will, to come and join in, but the freewill of mankind is, for the moment, the crux of the issue. There will come a time when all things shall be revealed, and the script unveiled, and we will see as He always sees. Then the truth about all of us will be shown, and there will be no more doubt as to the justice at the heart of all things.
These are my own observations. I have not always seen things in this way, but as I grow older, I am beginning to understand somewhat of the faith that I have struggled with all these years. I invite sincere comments, but mockers and scoffers will not be replied to. I have not the time to waste, the days are getting short.

[HOBBIT]

Wow, this topic just popped up. I guess SGH must have moved it in from somewhere....

[Rána Eressëa]

All this religious stuff is freaking me out.

Personally...I think until you have physical proof - you have no say in it at all. Honestly. Why must everyone make a big deal out of such an agrument that will never be won? It's a waste of time. If you just say "you're wrong - go to Hell" do you think that's gonna make them actually believe you? If anything, they'll only disbelieve you more.

I'm not going to say that I or anyone else is right OR wrong - because I can't prove it. A book is a book, and unless it was written by Christ or God himself and you can prove it - you can't use it as fesible evidence. You just can't.

My motto is: "Be and let be."

Please, everyone - just be and let others be.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Umm, no Hobbit. I haven't seen this topic for ages.

[HOBBIT]

Forgive me then. For it just seemed to pop up, and you seemed to be the only mod on. My apologies. I guess i'm just going blind over here :D

[Sister Golden Hair]

No problem Hobbit. Frankly, I would have been happy not to have seen this topic again.

[sepulchrave]

A man I deeply respect once said:
People go to heaven because they want to.
People go to hell because they didn't want to go to heaven.

Another man i deeply respect once said:
Going to church doesn't make you a christian any more than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger.

nuff sed

[sepulchrave]

Sister Golden Hair,
It was with extreme reluctance that I posted my earlier message, not desiring to muddy the waters any further; however due to some extremely inflamatory posts, I wished (perhaps foolishly) to present a point of view that was somewhat different than the standard "if ya don't believe yer gonna fry" variety. I think we can sensibly tackle these debates, but the horrors of both extreme fundamentalism and extreme atheism do tend to rear their ugly heads in these things. For the record, I had not encountered this thread before, and was quite surprised when I saw it here today. It is not my wish to inflame things or cause offence.

[markedel]

All this Christian theological debate makes me glad I'm Jewish...it seems there aren't any other Jews to argue with me, so at least I'm safe...

[afro-elf]

To SGH and HOBBIT,

I will accept the full responsibilty for the resurrection of this thread.


Another poster was engaging in Christian apologetics on another thread. So, I asked them to post their views here and to leave the other threads clear.

[Nibs]

This basically reminds me about other things on this board... they're all just a matter of opinion, and telling someone else that they're wrong isn't going to get them on your side.

Sure, I have deeply entrenched religious beliefs, but this kind of thing needs to be discussed on a more personal level. I mean, we Mormons (yes, I'm a Mormon, if you couldn't tell just by my being in Utah) are notorious for proselyting, but I refuse to impress my opinion on others, especially through a message board. You can't force this kind of thing on someone. You need an inquiring mind.

[Arathorn]

I'm with Nibs on this one; except I'm catholic (again another implied opinion which we need not debate).

On the resurrection of this thread:
I think there was a discussion that evolved towards a religious discussion on LOTR Juxtaposition and afro-elf pointed samwise of the shire to this one and which got bumped back up.

[markedel]

Well the relgious beliefs in LOTR are pretty clear. Tolkien was catholic and didn't mind imposing his worldview on middle earth.

[Arathorn]

Although he did not force any of us to read his works, nor, I believe, was he able to convert more than half the readers to catholicism.

BTW, I've been reading this Book of Enoch which deals mostly about angels (there's so many of them). I got curious after that Prophecy movie series. Is it part of Jewish beliefs?

[Feraway Hawkbriar]

Religion...

I simply dont get it... I really dont... I cant grasp the concept of being so absoluty shure of one thing or another in relation to life, afterlife, great creators and dogma.

I mean, how can you REALLY be sure?

I have always beleived and will always beleive that there absolutly no way that anyone can for a fact be sure of what they beleive. Now follow me closely on this one because i'm not even sure if I'm makeing sense to myself. When I say noone can be sure, I dont mean as in the solidity of ones beleife in something, for anyone can be absolutly sure of what they BELEIVE. But rather in where they are getting the messege of what they beleiev from. How can any holy scripture or scrole or tablet or what have you be trusted and be absolutly proven to be from the mouth of god/goddess/munky/whatever?

Theres SO MANY. I mean, how can just one be right? Perhapse none of them are right, perhapse Religions are just things to make people feel better about their life and death and theres no such thing a soul and theres no point to life at all. Or perhapse they are all right and theres a bunch of greater beings campeigning for the biggest following so one of them can win the office jackpot? or a different beleifs different destinations thing is going on?

Or maybe I'm just freeky for being only 15 and thinking about this kind of stuff and chooseing not to make assumptions about powers that be...if there be any...

Forgive me for rattleing on and probably not makeing much sense...*sigh* I'm going to bed.

[Arathorn]

Its ok, I guess. Even in academic discussions in software newsgroups, when people never agree on, let's say which OS or Linux flavor works best, people just raise their arms up and say: "We're obviosly from different OS religions"

[Nibs]

Well, that's just asking for us religious zealots to rattle on ourselves... here goes:

I've always believed that you have to try these things for yourself. Of course it sounds silly when someone says :I just know." It's vague and unconvincing. However, that's looking at it from a strictly logical view. If you were to say "hmmm... maybe 'll try whatever so-and-so did and see if I get the same results" you may or may not see what he/she means.

I'm not sure if this will sound clear, but I've always been taught that philisophical (of man) and spiritual (of God) knowledge is learned on different levels. You can't understand something spiritual from a strictly philosophical level. You can read as much as you like about it, but it all comes down to doing what the religious lexicons tell us. Praying, fasting, whatever you will, they are outlined steps to believing.

I hope that makes sense. Once again, just my beliefs, take them as such.

[markedel]

Enoch is not canonical in any ways, though belief in angels exist in Judaism, if not nearly to the same extant as in Christianity. Judaism tends to lean away from mysticism not that there isn't a mystical strain, but for various reasons it's less predominent. Mostly because it's wasn't out to convert anyone and din't need "cool religious stuff"

[markedel]

Tolkien did manage to convert C.S Lewis. I think that's pretty impressive.

[Arathorn]

I see. I also think Tolkien was able to convert C.S. Lewis because Tolkien's family were also not originally Catholics. It's easier for him to focus on the right things that would convince Lewis to change beliefs.

[sepulchrave]

Tolkien was involved in a discussion with Lewis that was pivotal in his conversion. the discussion concerned the nature of myth and whether the christian story might be an example of myth becoming fact; that is, the common images of the "dying god" that are widespread amongst diverse ancient mythologies having been shadows or premonitions of the real thing...that God placed in the heart of man the image of the incarnation prior to its occurence. In other words, any mythologies invented by ancient peoples would necessarily resemble the actual plan that would later unfold in this world. This talk had little or nothing to do with catholicism vs. protestantism or any sectarian or doctrinal issues, rather, the nature of truth. It is one of the central points of Christian belief that the omnipotent Author of all things incarnated and invaded history. Without the incarnation, there is obviously no Christianity. Jesus the Nazarene claimed outrageous things for himself. He left his audience without an exit. he could not be simply regarded by his listeners as a "wise man", because he did not give them this option. He claimed to be the maker of the worlds. we can call him insane, or a demonic deceiver, but we cannot call him a wise man that taught nice things and leave it at that.
For a thorough treatment of the conversion of C.S. Lewis, I refer the reader to the book "Surprised by Joy", which Lewis wrote as an autobiographical treatment of his philosophical search for truth. No one can say that Lewis didn't think things through! In the book, the rigorous, logical mind of this great man really shines as he sifts through the weight of various philosophical worldviews and detects the underlying flaws in each one before (quite reluctantly) coming to the conclusion, thanks to dear JRRT, that the Christian myth might actually be the central truth of all existence. I highly recommend this book for all, not simply Christians, as it is not only a good read, but also an interesting perspective on a remarkable man. Certainly, if you have read the Narnia books or the Space trilogy, This little book will allow the reader to understand the mind that brought them all to fruition. Lewis and Tolkien were great friends for many years.