Radorth

Re: Starboy

Well I'm sorry you can't detect sin. You might end up living in a bubble of denial for a long time. Personally I think our failure to detect it is the bane of mankind, and the resulting self-righteousness prevents any meaningful change in the behavior of the religious or the irreligious. But then prophets have been saying that for thousands of years, yet we only become more clever at inventing sin and covering it up.

And of course Starboy is sole arbiter of what "detected" means, and whether he can "detect" God in a physics lab. I'm afraid the Christians who have seen manifestations of God, and realize he feels no particular need to prove anything, find Starboy's approach the irrational one. You can't detect a parallel universe accessed through a wormhole now either, but the evidence should at least make some skeptics skeptical of the blanket assertions we read here.

Not that you need hard evidence for your speculations, suddenly.

Heh. Flame deleted, eh?

I'd much prefer something that can help us understand human nature, which science has failed miserably to do. Ah yes, we have a perfect understanding of how to prevent smallpox in a dangerously overcrowded world where millions starve. I'm thankful for medical discoveries, yes, but forgive me if I see science chasing it's tail. Some of those who invented the A-bomb hoped it would bring peace, and cheap power but realized "I have become a destroyer of worlds." We can broadcast beautiful hiss-free love songs anywhere, but the people who hear and write them can't stay married for five years, afraid they might "miss something."

I'm afraid the "science" of evolution has helped us understand our origins less and less, since a couple of Darwin's predictions have been completely debunked by honest scientist, along with the discovery of a pig's tooth claimed to be human, and several other hoaxes invented by those desperate to find evidence there is no God. The latest "proof" is a few fragments of bone Meave Leakey calls "flat-faced man," but one "science" magazine was too desperate to ask for anything more convincing before reporting this "find." Some scientists think biogenesis is, based on the evidence, complete nonsense, but we are assured "they aren't real scientists."

Actually Augustine postulated an evolutionary theory 1500 years ago which has never been disproven and never will, since it explains far more new and contradictory evidence than any theory which can be gleaned from modern evolutionary "science."

You have your theories. I have mine.

Rad

hezekiah jones

Radorth
I'm afraid the "science" of evolution has helped us understand our origins less and less, since a couple of Darwin's predictions have been completely debunked by honest scientist, along with the discovery of a pig's tooth claimed to be human, and several other hoaxes invented by those desperate to find evidence there is no God.

Radorth
I see we're at a loss for a meaningful response again.

It's almost like he's talking to himself isn't it.

hezekiah jones

Starboy
Leprechauns, Santa Claus, trolls, elves as well as god, soul, sin, angels and so forth fall into the category of undetected.

Hmm. Points well taken. But trolls are real (see above).

Rational BAC

Back to Bumble Bee-------

I have to admit I am not very good at "reading into things" and tend to disparage that sort of thing.

I was never very good at poetry either, no matter what language. The prof would read all kinds of things into a piece of poetry that I could never see-----

-----"Don't you see that this really means that and that really means something else and don't you see the sublime true meaning of the whole thing and how it fits all together?"---"DON'T YOU SEE ?????????"

And I would look at it and see nothing extra at all in there, and think to myself this guy (or lady) is full of shiit. But being the agreeable sort, I would tell the Prof. -------"Of course!!!!--it is all clear to me now!!!--thank you SO much!!!"---"My life is forever changed because of you!!!! (actually the last one is a bit of an exageration)

---after all better to get a passing grade than an "F". And what does it really matter anyway?---

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Radorth
Actually Augustine postulated an evolutionary theory 1500 years ago which has never been disproven and never will, since it explains far more new and contradictory evidence than any theory which can be gleaned from modern evolutionary "science."

Sorry, I had to laugh out loud at that too. Behold my Onmiscience! It shall never be disproven!

Radorth, any theory that "explains everything" and "never will be disproven" is pretty much useless by definition. Your friends Marx and Freud are cases in point.

There is much comedy in your posts. I'll stop reading them when they are funny on purpose though.

Starboy

Blackhawk, your philosophical bent is so great that you have missed my point entirely. Please get it through your head philosophy is not science. Claims about the benefit of an agent can be tested using science. That is my point. When Christians make such claims they come under the scrutiny of science. Science is the test not the antidote. It is how we will determine if an ethos has actual value for humanity as opposed to an ethos like Christianity that is no better than placebo. But because Christianity screws with its adherents heads to the point where they cannot think strait, until the day comes when it becomes a minor force in society we will not be able to use science to find a more effective ethos.

That’s very nice Blackhawk but what does that have to do with how we explore and understand reality today.
Blackhawk, I don’t want to get into a discussion on the lack of merit of philosophy since it is a topic far from the OP. I have had this discussion before with other supporters of philosophy. You are welcome to find and read those threads.
This is the last time I am going to explain this. Study this carefully because it is indicative of how science goes about its business. And how reality claims made by Christians can be tested and come up short. Also it should make it clear to you how little philosophy has to do with the workings of science.
1) Christian: I claim that a god exists.
2) Scientist: What are the properties of god.
3) Christian: God is all-powerful, loves all those that love it and answers their prayers however you cannot detect god directly.
4) Scientist: The only reality claim that I can test based on your description of god is that it answers prayers. I can construct an experiment to test this reality claim.
5) The scientist constructs the experiment using classic double blind techniques used in medicine, human behavior studies and so forth. After the test is conducted the results show that prayer is no more effective than placebo therefore the purported active ingredient does not appear to work.
6) Conclusion: The agent god may exist but does not operate as hypothesized. The Christian theory of god doesn’t work.
Yes it is and my answer should have made it clear that as far as science is concerned it doesn’t matter. Whatever reality is, if we want to understand it actual explorations of it is how it will be done. The history of philosophy shows that endless mind centric armchair exploration of reality gets you nowhere. Don’t get me wrong from time to time they can be very useful but only when practiced by a person that takes the time to fully acquaint themselves with the current knowledge gained from reality explorations, and even then the exercise is only considered fruitful if the results hold up under direct observation and experimentation on reality.
Yikes more Christian gibberish. I suppose you also think that all of creation was created for a purpose as well? That 14 trillion cubic light years of almost nothing fits us perfectly?
Blackhawk, people do need a guide to help them live life well. It doesn’t have to be a supernatural religion that makes baseless reality claims. There are other non-supernatural ethoses available. I also see this as an opportunity to create new ones, much more suited to our times and more effective. When Christianity was first created it fit its times well. People were ignorant. They had little control over their environment. We live in very different world. Supernatural religion is just plain wrong for our times and level of understanding of our surroundings. I happen to think that animals are incredible things, that all life is incredible. I do not think this because of some maternal or paternal emotion transferred to me by a religion. I think it because I have gained an understanding of just how incredibly complex, interconnected and amazing life is. To see myself as an animal doesn’t denigrate me in the least bit, it makes me realize that I am indeed part of something huge. There is no way I could ever take a worldview based on the anthropomorphic reality constructs of the first century seriously. But it goes way beyond that. By persisting such inaccurate, outdated and useless constructs we place barriers in our way to gaining a much better understanding of ourselves. If you would just read some of the scientific literature on sexual behavior and response in humans. Work on brain and emotional development, environmental and genetic influences on behavior and so forth. This is the stuff that will help us live life well, because without a good understanding of the basis of our behavior there is no way that we will be able to deliberately construct an ethos that allows us to live lives of peace, love and harmony. I don’t see Christianity as a friend to mankind. I see it as an enemy. Its time is over on this planet along with the rest of the supernatural religions.

Starboy

scombrid

Prophets have said a lot of things and have a dreadful track record of being wrong (How many times should the world have ended now? When was is exactly that Jesus was coming back?). You say we're too self riteous to detect sin and that is preventing us from changing our behavior for the better. If we all started living holy lives (according to the Holy Bible) would all the bad things in the world suddenly vanish? Some muslim countries instate Sharia law. That is as close to living by the rules set forth in the Old Testiment as one will find these days and look and the shitholes that lifestyle creates. They believe rather fervently that they're living according to the rule of god. What's the assurance that the promisses of the bible are equally hollow?




Yeah religion is so useful regarding human nature. It's nice to have a place to look to find the proper treatment for demon possess.. ahh umm mental illness.

Studying the behavior of non-human social animals gives more incite into "human" nature than the bible ever did. It allows us to strip away culture and analyze the base behavior patterns and tendencies that underly expressed human behavior.

You probably consider Freud as being science's latest answer to human nature and tendencies.

And religion is so useful for recognizing and alleviating the population problem.

These claims of yours re: evolution have been generally proven unfounded in the evolution and creation forum (where they belong if you wish to discuss them). Why are trotting them out here? The pig's tooth crap is getting old. Are you just looking to get a rise?

lpetrich

blackhawk:
2) I think it does. Christian ethics tell us to love my wife and vice versa and to love and take care of my children in all respects.

Except that Jesus Christ himself believed that one ought to abandon one's biological/marital family. Which makes me conclude that "Christianity" is often little more than certain sort of Political Correctness (understood in some generic sense).

4) They are. The value to love your neighbor is a great for society. ...

Including your atheist neigbor?

Well you have your classical evidences for God from ST. Thomas Aquinas.

Except that they are all non sequiturs. Imagine a Muslim agreeing 100% with many of these arguments -- and claiming that they all prove the existence of Allah.

If the one who created you created you for a purpose then it is very logical to believe that finding the meaning to your life that the creator designed you to have would make you fullfilled.

Except that an omnipotent being who chooses to run off and hide somewhere does not deserve much respect, let alone worship.

lpetrich

Radorth:
Well I'm sorry you can't detect sin. You might end up living in a bubble of denial for a long time. ...

While Radorth refuses to concede that he has often been guilty of the sin of pride in his postings at this website.

I'm afraid the Christians who have seen manifestations of God, and realize he feels no particular need to prove anything, find Starboy's approach the irrational one.

A very convenient way of covering up lack of real evidence, like a big voice coming out of the sky. It's like someone who claims that his/her paranormal powers don't work when skeptics are around.

I'd much prefer something that can help us understand human nature, which science has failed miserably to do.

As opposed to Radorth's favorite form of religion creating an earthly paradise where everybody is a total, 100% saint.

Ah yes, we have a perfect understanding of how to prevent smallpox in a dangerously overcrowded world where millions starve.

Some things are politically easier than others, it must be said.

And how did we learn how to prevent smallpox? It must be something that the Bible is rather short on, hmmmmm?

Why don't doctors perform exorcism and magical spit therapy? If the Gospels say they are so great, then why not?

I'm thankful for medical discoveries, yes, but forgive me if I see science chasing it's tail.

Some things are easier than others. To take one glaring example, human-scale artificial intelligence is MUCH more difficult than anyone ever expected in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. If we are to believe some of the predictions back then, we'd be able to have very meaningful conversations with our computers instead of pushing buttons and pulling down menus and filling in text fields like some dead-tree form to fill out.

Some of those who invented the A-bomb hoped it would bring peace, and cheap power but realized "I have become a destroyer of worlds."

You're complaining about that?

We can broadcast beautiful hiss-free love songs anywhere, but the people who hear and write them can't stay married for five years, afraid they might "miss something."

And how is that supposed to be the case?

And is Radorth willing to brag about how much he hates his wife, yet is unwilling to get divorced?

I'm afraid the "science" of evolution has helped us understand our origins less and less,

???

since a couple of Darwin's predictions have been completely debunked by honest scientist,

???

along with the discovery of a pig's tooth claimed to be human, and several other hoaxes invented by those desperate to find evidence there is no God.

Radorth seems very willing to believe evil things about those he dislikes -- the vast majority of hominid fossils are genuine. And these fossils are searched for because they are interesting in themselves; if there is a god, then It is not complaining about this quest.

I wonder if he would enjoy being accused of supporting baby killing on account of Psalms 137:9 -- it's the same kind of "evidence".

The latest "proof" is a few fragments of bone Meave Leakey calls "flat-faced man," but one "science" magazine was too desperate to ask for anything more convincing before reporting this "find."

Probably quoted out of context.

Some scientists think biogenesis is, based on the evidence, complete nonsense, but we are assured "they aren't real scientists."

I think you mean abiogenesis, but the only thing that that would prove is that the Earth had been seeded about 4 billion years ago by time travelers or visitors from another planet.

Actually Augustine postulated an evolutionary theory 1500 years ago which has never been disproven and never will, since it explains far more new and contradictory evidence than any theory which can be gleaned from modern evolutionary "science."

Whatever that "theory" is supposed to be beyond "goddidit".

Radorth

He said even he didn't know, and anyway, what is 5000 years to God? But if he comes in your lifetime, you'll doubtless wish he'd waited another 30 years.

When people say there is no such thing as sin, and claim to take totally responsibility for all their "mistakes," yes I think we are talking self-righteousness. I make no such claim, nor do I have any need to. One of the things Jesus does is forgive mistakes no one could possibly make up for. But I atheists never could commit one of those. You could tomorrow look off at a road sign for two seconds and destroy somebody's life, so such a statement is absurd, and born of a faith in self which is just as absurd.

This is why God is wise to ignore us, by the way, until we have well tested all our own foolish theories, which depend on some human effort and righteousness nobody has ever been able to muster. You've had at least 175 years to prove your theories, and none of them work I'm afraid. Maybe God should give you another 2000 years, because you haven't learned much.

Of course when ever people say something like this, they wisely point to the Old Testament.

The New one of course says the Law is basically useless, and God well knew we could never obey it. Before God could justly punish sin, he had to make us clear on what it was and let us try to obey it by our human effort. All we did was prove how unholy and self-righteous we are, and how clever we are at pretending we are obeying the rules.

THE STRENGTH OF SIN THE LAW, remember? Is there something unclear about Paul's statement? How about when he said not to bother with religious law, like "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle"?

Re Ipetrich:

Pot, kettle, black. Let me know if you ever admit to being a hypocrite, Ip

Ip is out of ammo already, dredging up his three favorite NT verses, which no Christian here ever interpreted as he chooses to.

Rad