I don't see how that has to do with anything.
>Because of all the support for racism, slavery, homophobia, misogony, cruelty, evil, and intolerance and so on and so forth.
The world use to be perfect, but because of man's sin (see Genesis in the Bible) the world is now full of racism, slavery, homophobia, misogyny, cruelty, evil, and intolerance for truth.
>Have eight.
None of those are a change of kind including the peppered moth (which was admitted as a fake by evolutionist a long time ago),and Darwin's finches (which are still the same kind of bird by the way).
So
>Have eight.
No. Have none.
>In accordance with fact or reality: "a true story"; "of course it's true".
The Bible is "a true story" and "of course it's true".
>Oh, no we aren't.
Your right were not. The Bible is obviously truth. Just observe the infinite universe and we will see (if we have an open mined to truth)that the Bible is truth.
>Give me an observable example of someone turning water into wine via divine intervention.
I have not personally observed this so I can't, but then again I have not personally observed your brain, but I have faith that you do have one.
>I don't see how that has to do with anything.
Because if you want to say that that we have a purpose, it's up to you to prove it. By default, there's no reason for me to believe it until you do.
>the world is now full of racism, slavery, homophobia, misogyny, cruelty, evil, and intolerance for truth.
Which the bible encourages.
>peppered moth (which was admitted as a fake by evolutionist a long time ago)
No it wasn't.
>None of those are a change of kind
.
>The Bible is "a true story" and "of course it's true".
Oh no it isn't.
>The Bible is obviously truth. Just observe the infinite universe and we will see (if we have an open mined to truth)that the Bible is truth.
That's a non-sequitur.
>I have not personally observed this so I can't, but then again I have not personally observed your brain, but I have faith that you do have one.
So you believe in evolution, by the same logic.
I got tired of bothering with putting any effort in my writing, just to have him ignore it. So I started putting making my words equally convincing to his. It's fun. Perhaps that's why he does it.
>Because if you want to say that that we have a purpose, it's up to you to prove it. By default, there's no reason for me to believe it until you do.
The bible has the proof, if you want it.
>Which the bible encourages.
I don't know what bible your reading, but my bible dose not encourage that.
>No it wasn't.
Look it up.
>Oh no it isn't.
My bible is.
>That's a non-sequitur.
What you are trying to say is that you are not open minded.
>So you believe in evolution, by the same logic.
The idea that you have a brain is logical. Evolution is not at all logical; So no, I do not believe evolution.
> What you are trying to say is that you are not open minded.
What he is trying to say is that you in your argumentation use fallacies all the time. You are not making a logical argument.
>The bible has the proof, if you want it.
Well in that case, I could just write my own holy book and it would be just as valid as the Bible.
>I don't know what bible your reading, but my bible dose not encourage that.
Deuteronomy chapter 7, God says tells the Israelites“to smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them nor shew mercy unto them. Neither shalt thou make marriages with them.” in regards to non-Israelites. Rascim
Leviticus 25:44
Romans 13:1-5
Titus 3:1,
Titus 2:9
Peter 2:18
Col 3:22
Cor 7:21-22
Eph 6:5
All support slavery.
And don't you dare try and tell the Bible isn't misogynistic or homophobic. Don't you dare.
Cruelty. See the above. And the countless examples of God and his followers doing awful things to non-Christians/Jews with the full support of the Bible.
Evil. All of the above and more.
Intolerance. "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
>Look it up.
I did.
>What you are trying to say is that you are not open minded.
What Newton said.
>The idea that you have a brain is logical. Evolution is not at all logical; So no, I do not believe evolution.
Meanwhile, the Bible is one gigantic piece of circular logic. "We know the Bible is true because God says so, and we know what God says because the Bible tells us." There is no logic in the Bible whatsover.
On the other hand, evolution is just genetics extended over time. Off-spring are not identical to their parents. They are even more different from their grand-parents. Logically, they will be very very different from their very very distant ancestors.
On the topic of slavery, the Bible teaches that before the nation of Israel was established, people had already begun to make slaves of other people. Then we find that when God established the nation of Israel, He gave laws addressing all aspects of life, including the issue of slavery. He makes is clear that there are responsibilities of slave owners and slaves alike, plus ways a person who is enslaved might gain their freedom. The New Testament teaches that if we have a chance to get free from slavery, we should take it.
On the topic of misogynistic or homophobic, I don't see that. God clearly teaches that men and women are unique in their creation. It is true, that He made gender and that they had special roles, but that these roles were complimentary to one another. The Bible teaches that God also established marriage, and His perimeters for our sexuality. In the New Testament it is clearly declared that God doesn't respect one gender above another when it comes to honor, to eternal life and life after death. There is no room for hate or disrespect for anyone of the opposite gender that I can see in the Bible.
The Israelites were given clear laws about sexual relationships by God, according to the Bible. All sexual contact out side of the man and woman marriage relationship established in Genesis is sin. And, just as Jesus forgave the women caught in adultery in the New Testament, I believe that any of us who are living outside of God's design can find the same love and forgiveness through Christ. The Bible does not condone mistreatment of other people, even if they are living life styles that we believe are immoral. We are to love those that hate us and misuse us, etc...
As for the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc... who use their Holy Writings to justify abuse against other people, it is sad and wrong. The Bible clearly teaches that God made everything perfect and that people messed it all up by their disobedience to God. It also teaches that all of creation has suffered because of man kind's sin.
As for God's disgust and intolerance of false gods... Well can you blame the God of all things wanting to protect people from the lie that there are other gods?
Well those are some of the things I see. I even have relatives who are homosexuals, and I love and care for them. Yet, I don't have to say that what they are doing is right.
Thanks again for taking the time to challenge my thinking and beliefs. :)
> As for God's disgust and intolerance of false gods... Well can you blame the God of all things wanting to protect people from the lie that there are other gods?
uhm… please elaborate.
are you talking about ppl lying and saying there are specific gods (that they themselves don't believe in) just to damage other people?
or are you talking about good moral people who happen to believe in another god than you (or in another name for the same one? or in a multitude of gods that together fulfill what your one god does?)
>My point is that according to the Bible there is only one God.
1. Do you believe there is only one god?
2. Do you think that anyone believing in another god is lying or believing a lie?
Call me egoistical, but I would very much like to believe that there is more interesting stuff to discover, and not the big "nah, sorry, everything you do will probably die with this rock you're on" that it looks like so far. I mean, what kind of jerk would god be if he didn't leave some loophole in there for FTL spaceships? :(
we just need negative energy
and tadaa
oh wait. Alcubierre Drives are uncontrollable from the inside.
so we just bend spacetime enough to create superluminal space highways.
but most likely we will still die on this big wet rock
but they found a way to only require a few nukes worth of energy
anyway: energy requirements are only delays, if it's physically possible, humans will do it (in case they don't exterminate themselves first)
>On the topic of misogynistic or homophobic, I don't see that.
I'm going to respond to this as politely as I can:
I am done talking to you.
I have loved talking to you. :)
I hope you do reconsider.
I will always be your friend.
Since they are stuck with an 2000+ year old work and no new prophet is in sight who could update it, it is completely natural to reinterpret sections as being meant metaphorically slash in an ancient context etc. What else did you expect?
I venture to say that most of what we think of practised Christian belief in history and nowadays were and are based on interpretations on the bible. The convenient thing about the bible is that it's not a law book, rather a story book: It is mendable in the hands of religious scholars and the laws deducted from it vary in different eras.
>Then give me an observable example of a kind of animal changing into another kind animal.
Give me an observable example of someone turning water into wine via divine intervention.
> Everyone has a belief and everyone has a bias and everyone has a point of view and none are neutral.
A bias in this context means you selectively ignore or colour what you see so it better fits into your view. Science is all about not having such bias: Permitting all questions, and accepting only the answer that makes the least assumptions.
That's what evolution is about. We know that it exists, as a mechanism. Take a colony of bacteria, subject them to antibiotics for some time, and after a few hundreds or thousands of generations only bacteria are left that are resistant. You can run that experiment in a petri dish in a month. There's also strong evidence that our own genetic code is evolving - for example we probably managed to get mostly immune to leprosy over just the last few hundred years. Nobody can really contest that kind of evidence at this point.
Is it the same mechanism that caused us to evolve in the first place? We can't prove it, because we can't just visit the past. Even if we somehow managed to re-run the experiment and re-evolved humans from monkeys over millions of years, we couldn't actually *prove* that this is the same mechanism that made us. You can always go and say "yeah, but circumstances were different".
That's why everything science proposes are theories: Things that have been demonstrated to be true for a large number of examples, and at some point we extend this and say that it is probably going to be true for other examples we see in the past or the present. The fewer assumptions we have to make on the way, the easier it is, the more likely we regard a theory to be.
So why does science discard the theory that humans might have been designed by a higher entity? Simply because it would make evolution more complicated. Instead of saying "If we have an organism that reproduces, it will over time optimize to its environment" we have to add "except if it happens to be a human or anything that the Bible mentions, in which case it can only evolve minimally as it would otherwise stray too far from God's plan".
From a theoretical point of view, that is a completely arbitrary restriction - wouldn't you also get suspicious if somebody announced that "1+1 = 2, expect if it's my salary, then 1+1 = 1000000"? This is the same principle, but on a much larger scale: The more cases a theory covers (= the fewer assumptions it makes) without having a counter-example, the more likely it is to be true. That's a completely neutral way to gauge true-ness, which we call the scientific method. Science is not knowledge, but it is qualitatively more than a belief.
And what is exactly an assumption? Or rather how do I minimize the number of assumptions?
And yes, it's obviously just an explanation of the scientific method as I understand it. Actually this whole discussion should be "go read Popper" :)
It might be a bit subtle, but note that using terms such as "remove an assumption" implies some sort of measure of complexity. After all, otherwise we wouldn't know what direction a "removal" is. For example, this does not mean that Newton's theory of gravity is unscientific just because we have to assume that relative speeds never approach light speed. After all, we would have to first add a whole bunch of math before we could remove that assumption.
And at this point, the scientific method is superior - simply because it is all about going out and challenging your beliefs. Keep in mind that you can't actually disprove "science" - because once you disprove it properly, that's just more science. If we find something in the world that actually strongly points towards a biblical origin story, scientists would be on board in seconds. Contrast that with most religions actually forbidding even touching other view-points ("You shall have no gods beside me"?).
In short: Strong "no". Science is all about that we all arrive at the same conclusions no matter where we start, as long as we are rigorous in never believing anything that we can't challenge.
And nowadays, people believe in science because any science must have been, by definition, produced through the scientific method.
>If we find something in the world that actually strongly points towards a biblical origin story, scientists would be on board in seconds.
This is not true. Everything in the world is obviously intelligently designed, but some people say that it is not. What I am trying to say is people will deny truth even when there is no logical alternative; This is because some people do not want the accountability and consequences that comes with truth. For example if we want "something" and truth says that you can't have that "something" then we may choose to deny truth, because it gets in the way of what we want even if what we want will cause us harm.
>This is not true.
Yes it is.
>Everything in the world is obviously intelligently designed
Have you ever tried using the London Underground?
>What I am trying to say is people will deny truth even when there is no logical alternative;
Like you keep doing.
>Yes it is.
All I am trying to do is help you see truth, but because you don't want to accept the truth and its consequences (which you still will have by the way) you are going to do what ever you want and that is your choice not mine. I love you, because God commands us to love even our enemys, and I don't want you to go to hell. That dose not mean that I am perfect or do not make mistakes, but I believe the bible, and that is absolutely not a mistake.
>Have you ever tried using the London Underground?
No, but because of man's sin there is chaos.
>Like you keep doing.
All I "keep doing" is believing the truth.
> I love you, because God commands us to love even our enemys
Funny, my bible says "stone everyone who worships other gods" (Deuteronomy 17) :)
The whole "knowledge means responsibility" thing feels like quite a tangent, but I would say that science puts a much larger burden on us than the bible in many ways. After all, we can (and probably will) destroy the earth if we keep on like this, something that God would probably not let happen.
I think only god is able to do so ;)
>Don't call a point of disagreement "obvious". If somebody sees things differently, it is by definition not obvious. If you resort to that kind of claim we have to assume you had nothing better to say in your favor.
Hm, your right I guess It seems obvious to me, but maybe not to some people.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill