Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 84

Thread: Bible makes strong comeback

  1. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fivel View Post
    @James, great post, I think you have pulled together a very complex discussion in a few paragraphs.

    I'm busy reading Gunning for God by John C Lennon, where he dismantles what Dawkins says etc. This to and fro between theists (in its broadest sense) and atheists is great to read and sometimes very confusing but remains an important discussion to have.
    You should read "Life - how did it get here? By evolution or creation? " . Try to get your hands on it. Hell I can even mail it to you.

  2. #72
    Lycanthrope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5,658

    Default

    I really abhor the mindless abuse of reason by using the personal philosophy of "Goddidit."

    If that's all you choose to ever see, than that is all you will ever see.

  3. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lycanthrope View Post
    I really abhor the mindless abuse of reason by using the personal philosophy of "Goddidit."

    If that's all you choose to ever see, than that is all you will ever see.
    Elaborate on your statement...like we all did here. You are welcome to join in on the discussion and voice your opinion with some motivation if that's not too much trouble.

  4. #74
    Lycanthrope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    Elaborate on your statement...like we all did here. You are welcome to join in on the discussion and voice your opinion with some motivation if that's not too much trouble.
    I honestly have very little interest in a debate about religion. It has been done to death.

    My opinion is as simple as I stated: if people choose to use a variable "thought" that they then quantify with their own expectations and morality and choose to call it "God" then that is all they will ever use to negotiate their way through life.

    Why does the wind blow? Goddidit. What causes tides? Goddidit. Why gravity? Goddidit. Why us? Goddidit.

    It's not an answer, it's an excuse.

    And that same excuse has been used to justify bigotry, discrimination, sexism, rape and murder.

    Your personal god is your own and it doesn't apply to anybody else.

    That is the extent of my interest in this discussion and any like it.

    Sorry, Lyt.

  5. #75
    Lycanthrope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5,658

    Default

    Regarding the article though, 160,000 sold Bibles in a 5-million strong country fortunately doesn't mean much.

    The Scandinavian countries remain staunchly irreligious and often see religion as something to be wary of.

    Something that needs to be remembered regarding national statistics is that out here people are by default listed as being part of their national religion (some varying degree of Protestant Christianity) if at least one of their parents is listed as a member. Citizens have to opt themselves out in the national register and many choose not to simply because it has no real-world benefit and it's a hassle.

    It's far more appropriate to gauge the religious folk by number of active church-goers.

    Many other rituals such as baptism, Christenings and confirmation ceremonies are done out of tradition--Scandinavians tend to value tradition quite highly.

    They also maintain many old Norse traditions as well, such as Valborgsmässoafton (or Walpurgis Night), performed at the end of winter/beginning of summer with the summer and winter counts battling it out to show that winter has come to a close.

    These are wonderful traditions but that's all they are: social traditions.

  6. #76
    MyGaming Alumnus James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    MyGaming Hive
    Posts
    12,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    The big bang is far from well-substantiated or proven, and yes I have looked at a LOT of 'evidence' that claims the big bang actually happened ( my stepfather is a theologian, pastor and studied philosophy, we had tons of discussions about this subject ).
    If you don't want to accept the BBT evidence that many, many scientists (physicists, astronomers, etc) around the world, using the most advanced equipment humans have yet developed, have put together to test the theory, then I'm not going to exhaust myself trying to present it to you. I am of course no scientist, but I'm an intelligent critical thinker, and I have read up on much of the evidence, discoveries, and methods, and I am convinced that this is humanity's best model so far explaining the universe as we can observe it today.

    Don't you think that discussing things with your father who is a theologian and pastor would introduce a degree of confirmation bias into the conclusions you draw? To balance that you will need to discuss the subject with scientists who support the big bang theory.

    I will further suggest that the scientific validity of the BBT isn't the realm of theology or philosophy, and being a proponent of a particular religion doesn't lend credence to arguments against scientific theories that undermine its tenets. As far as science is concerned, the BBT has nothing to do with whether or not a god exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    It would be wrong to call it anything more than a hypothesis, since it's only a suggested explanation.
    I reject that statement, as there is a large body of observable collected data in support of mathematical and physical models for the universe - this goes beyond mere suggestion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    Of course there is a lack of evidence that such a divine deity exists, just like there is a lack of evidence that the earth is 13 billion years old.
    I think you have your numbers mixed up. The Earth is placed at around 4.5-billion years - this is a lower limit for the age of the Earth based on tests. The universe post big-bang is placed at 13.5-billion years. I reject your claim that there is no evidence to support the age of the Earth - there's quite a bit actually. There are several radiometric dating methods used to test Earth sediment samples and test meteorites of varying materials that have landed on Earth. Scientists can plot the data gathered and demonstrate how it correlates to an Earth of around 4.5-billion years old.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    Logically it doesn't make sense that something came out of nothing...
    I agree with you, and no scientist has ever claimed that, and if an atheist claimed it, then he is incorrect. BBT is not describing how the universe came into existence, it is describing how it is expanding. The 'bang' in BBT might be an unfortunate misnomer as people tend to think of bangs as having been caused by some sort of explosion. BBT is not about an explosion of matter from nothing ('nothing' is a pretty ludicrous concept in itself when used to describe an absolute state).

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    ...that something has to be created by something or somebody else.
    I'm not going to argue against this follow-on assertion because it is circular, as I explained before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    That is where atheism falls short, and has no base whatsoever.
    I don't know how you can state this. I gave the definition of atheism, and its "base": the rejection of the claim that a deity exists because there is a lack of evidence to prove that one exists. The things you have said above do not change this position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    From the study of the universe, both by atheist and christian scientists, everything comes to the conclusion that the universe is finely tuned to an incomprehensible precision to support life. Aka designed.
    From what have observed, the universe is largely devoid of life - Earth is the only example we have of a planet supporting life. As far as optimal design goes, it seems rather wasteful. I reject the notion that any competent scientist (physics, astronomy, etc) would suggest that the universe as we know is a 'finely tuned machine' for supporting life. Beyond our own solar system, we have no way of verifying that life exists.

    If you are talking about the Earth as an example of life-supporting planet with good conditions to support that form of life as we know it, then yes, we got rather lucky on that one. It rather fits with a mathematical model of "randomness" that if you iterate a core set of variables enough times (i.e. near infinite) you will get an anomalous occurrence such as a planet that supports a form of life, and life forming in those conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    Don't tell me that the universe randomly started expanding and the energy was converted into atomic particles, and then formed elements. Something like this happening by random, don't think so.
    Aside from being inaccurate, that description is also far too simplistic. You seem determined to reject the scientific models that have been developed and simply rely on your own opinion. The random nature of the universe is observable. Galaxies collide, stars collapse or explode, quasars blast star-stuff out into the void; on a smaller scale, meteors careen around solar systems, trapped in gravitational tides, until they inevitably collide with a planet, and closer to home, causing mass extinction events. Is this all random or 'by design"? It is certainly observable and measurable (to the best of our current abilities).

    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    There are of course many logical flaws to that faith-based approach as well, but logic gets thrown out the window on matters of faith.
    - I clarified my statement here by updating my earlier post. It seems in the interim you quoted my earlier version but were addressing the part about throwing out logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    So does it when it comes to atheism. As I said, there is no base.
    The assertion is that atheism "throws out all logic". I reject that assertion. The logic is simple - it's binary: A) there is no scientific evidence that god exists -or- B) there is scientific evidence god exists.

    When you accept that the answer the answer is A, you are an atheist. Those who accept B are misguided on the supposed evidence. The rest form a special category outside of that binary logic: C) There's no scientific evidence that god exists but I choose to believe god exists despite that (based on a whole range of other supposed reasons').

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    Science cannot prove that a god doesn't exist, neither can it prove that he does exist. So far science has only presented the alternatives to religion ( such as the big bang and the theory of evolution [ I do believe in evolution to a certain extent, people as well as animals evolve every day ] ) . Science has never discredited the existence of a omnipotent deity, since it's impossible.
    The default position is that something does not exist/isn't true until there is sufficient evidence to support it. The burden of proof is with the claimant making the extraordinary claim. Further, the claim that a god exists is an unfalsifiable theory, meaning it cannot be proven by scientific methods because it does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory - most notably, at least one observable instance or previously measured evidence of similar circumstances. Demanding that science prove that something does not exist is absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    God is formless. Out of formless came form. Form is temporal. Trying to prove formlessness through science which deals with form in time is impossible.
    This is a classic example of 'begging the question' - a proposition demanding proof is assumed without proof, and used as a premise for a statement. In this case your assumptive premise is that god exists, which then leads on to all these other claims about the nature of god. However, I can agree with the second part of the statement, as discussed above: "Trying to prove formlessness through science which deals with form in time is impossible."

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    The universe is everything, without the universe there is nothing. So for the universe to be created there must have been something before it, a creator. It goes against all logic to deny that nothing has created the universe.
    This is loaded with logical flaws.

    First you take the scientific model of the universe (moments ago we agreed scientific models cannot be used to prove the existence of a formless god so why use it as a base to argue that god exists);

    Then you assume an absolute state of nothing (whatever that would be - science has made no claims) is the opposite of the scientific model of the universe;

    Then you make the leap to "for the universe to be created", which presupposes it was indeed "created" out of nothing, by a creator who is apparently "something" (which undermines the claim of absolute nothing, unless he is exempt from logic as a special case) not subjected to the physical laws of the universe as we currently understand them.

    Somehow this is meant to prove the existence of a creator god?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    According to the big bang 'theory' the universe had zero volume and infinite density before the big bang : zero volume = nothing. Now they claim that energy was converted into subatoms, aka the protons , neutrons and electrons. How the fk can energy come out of nothing?
    I think I adequately, albeit briefly addressed the BBT earlier in this post. Your understanding of it is wholly incorrect, you should go read more about it before you argue against it.

  7. #77
    MyGaming Alumnus James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    MyGaming Hive
    Posts
    12,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    Also search " T-rex collagen " on google. They found proteins in a t-rex femur. Now you tell me how long animal tissue lasts. Certainly not millions of years.
    I am familiar with this story, and why it was contentious in the scientific community. It's actually an example of the scientific method working correctly. To summarise, proteins in soft tissue were known to last about a million years if preserved in the right conditions based on previous recoveries. However, there had never been an example of a soft-tissue protein surviving 65-million years. The initial findings were published and the mass media blew it out of proportion before the scientific community had a chance to properly confirm the initial claims. The scientists who made the claims were put under intense scrutiny, had their methods and data sets questioned, and it was demanded that they release everything to the scientific community so it could be peer reviewed and tested independently which they have now done). The initial scientists have built a rigorous scientific case to support their claim, but it has also not held up entirely to peer review, with other studies backing both sides of the conclusion.

    Did you bring up that last point to try and prove that science can produce flawed results? There is no denying this - that's why things are tested rigorously to ensure the results are accurate, and remain accurate in light on new information.

    I assume from your assault on the scientific model that you are a believer in creationism?

    There seems to be this innate desire in some theists to try and attribute the 'creation' of the universe to a deity. This really misses the point of scientific investigation into our universe, which should ultimately be for the progression of the human race. I'd go so far as to say that's it's really irrelevant to scientific pursuits whether or not a god exists.

    The problem theists seem to have with all of this is that it doesn't fit the model prescribed by their holy texts (assumed to be absolutely correct since it is the word of god) and therefore undermines it.

    I'll reiterate that science is not concerned with proving or disproving the existence of god, only understanding our universe. Theists actually want to plead the special case for god, that he is somehow beyond our realm of physical understanding - unfortunately this means some theists want to bend science to suit their models of the world (based on the holy texts) or discredit it entirely because it does not fit.

    This is the same sort of mentality that had ancient cultures worshipping the sun, the moon, lightning, sacrificing virgins to entice the rain gods, and more recently, had people believing that the Earth was flat. As our understanding of the world and the universe has become better through scientific investigation, so have these outdated religious concepts been cast aside.

    I'd just like to add that I'm not trying to undermine anyone's personal faith or religion in this discussion, but I will stand up for my side of the argument in support of scientific method and the atheistic stance.

  8. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyt View Post
    Yeah I know, I just found this goof on facebook , quite funny to me. But still it's right to an extend, SOMETHING must have created something. Something can't just come out of nothing .That's where different religions have their own views.
    Indeed, but the thing with atheism is we have no problem with saying 'we don't know.' We don't know what caused the big bang and we're fine with it. A lot of people often take this to mean we believe everything came from nothing. I, for one, know that something caused the big bang. We just don't know what yet and I'm not going to ascribe they big bang to a supernatural being simply because we have not yet discovered what caused the big bang.

    That's not saying I don't respect people who believe in creationism, but I just feel that even though I don't know what caused the big bang, I don't especially think creationism is the answer to the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
    Ok well, I hsve been going through an incredibly tough time, Still not ok and some days are really bad as far as the pain is concerned.
    If not for my faith and the bible and of course my girlfriend and my family I don't think I could have coped. I find comfort in reading the bible and relaxes me to know that Someone is looking out for me and is there for me. Whether that makes sense to you or not doesn't matter.

    Now take something that you find comfort in and something that means a lot to you not just on a religious level but on a very personal level and see how you feel when someone bashes it and makes jokes about it. You have no idea how it feels to go through some of the stuff I go through on a daily basis and you think its ok to bash something that means a lot to me.
    And that's fine. I'm happy you find solace in your religion and in your bible. That does not, however, mean we can't make jokes that are religious in nature. It does not mean that any religious jokes are necessarily bible bashing either. You need to learn to differentiate between jokes that are mean-spirited and jokes that are not.

    I am not talking about homosexuality or racism here, the topic at hand has nothing to do with it, so why bother mentioning it.
    Because it's the exact same thing. If someone claims we're not allowed to make religious jokes because it offends him, someone else can just as well say the same thing about homosexual jokes.

    I had clinical depression in high school because I had trouble coming to terms with my homosexuality. I had a pretty rough time, made worse by the fact that I couldn't tell my parents what caused it, because they were religious fundamentalists who believe that homosexuals go to hell.

    That does not mean I automatically take offence at the very existence of a homosexual joke, though. Obviously I'm not going to claim innocence in calling people out unnecessarily. I've had my fair share of past experiences where I called someone out for saying something that was not necessarily meant maliciously, but overall I have no problem with homosexual jokes as long as they're made in good spirit and I'm definitely not going to ask for all homosexual jokes or discussion to be banned.
    Last edited by Graal; 07-06-2013 at 11:14 PM.

  9. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fivel View Post
    I guess I give a damn about what I post and what affect it has on others, I sense you could care less. Good luck with that approach.
    And I guess I don't give a damn if I offend people with things that are not intended to be offensive. I don't take offence at things that are not intended offensively either, because I'm an adult and I realise that if I take offence at such things, that's my problem, not anyone else's.

    Good luck with your approach, though.

  10. #80
    Dakka Dakka DCWarhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    I'm the 'who' when you ask 'who's there?'!!
    Posts
    3,711

    Default

    Like i said,this is exactly the reason religious discussion is banned on MyGaming (Yet not enforced)
    Last edited by DCWarhound; 08-06-2013 at 01:38 AM. Reason: I meant MyGaming,Not MyBB.
    Connection to reality could not be established,please try again later

Similar Threads

  1. Sony on track for a comeback, says CEO
    By James in forum Gaming News Articles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-01-2013, 09:19 AM
  2. PC-is-making-a-comeback
    By Zev01f in forum Gaming News Articles
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 30-09-2011, 11:46 AM
  3. Daytona USA Set For an HD Comeback? WooooooooT
    By Dohc-WP in forum Gaming News Articles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16-09-2011, 10:46 AM
  4. The Bible Online - an MMO based on the Bible
    By Tinman in forum Gaming Discussions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 31-08-2010, 08:10 PM
  5. LolCats Bible
    By Toxin in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 30-06-2010, 03:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •