Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 34 35
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
Blacknad. I sincerely hope I have not offended you too much with Dorsey's comments about religion.


Terry,

Not at all. I enjoy a bit of spirited debate, as does Dan. And for the record Dan was recently over in the UK and bought my wife and I dinner and was the most charming company you could want to meet and has a great sense of humour that doesn't always come across on this medium.

I thought I'd use the opportunity to set the record straight, as he is sometimes critisized for coming across a touch sharp. (And maybe I can soften him up and make him take it easy on me when he responds to my last post) wink

Blacknad.

.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
You might want to check out this website.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257812.htm
with respect to Mr. Buffet and others.


Dan,

Surprised you linked to this meaningless straw-man argument. I never claimed that atheists don't do charity.

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Blacknad wrote:
Isn?t this clear enough?

Perfectly clear. Surely you didn't think I could be caught so easily?

I took that into account. Take another look at what I wrote:

0.86 * 217,800,000 * 1391 = 260,545,428,000
0.86 * 217,800,000 * 958 = 179,441,064,000
---------------
Total 439,986,492,000

The first line is the $1391B, the second line the $958B, and the third the total. I then compared that total to the $199B claimed to be their total giving.

PS: The use of adherents.com was only for purposes of getting a rough idea of the percentage of Americans who report themselves as having a religious affiliation.

Want to take another shot at it? <g>


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
If I wanted to rubbish religious giving I could easily do so. My purpose was only to point out, with published numbers from my country, that the claim of more non-religious giving by persons who self-identify with a religion is suspect.

How's your reading of "Misquoting Jesus" coming? Perhaps I should get Nadine a copy as a belated Christmas present. <g>


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
DA
ones belief in GOD should not be based on the words that men
have written.

I read your reply about the book you sudgested that I read in
order to gain knowledge about jesus.

if there were a room full of republican writters how many of these writters would write good things about democrats?

GOD gave man a brain to reason with and a heart to feel with
and eyes to see with.

It is each individual mans choice to believe in that which he believes in.

if he chooses wrongly then he has chosen wrongly.
if he is led to choose wrongly then he has still chosen wrongly.

if he questions his beliefs then he is using what GOD gave him to reason with , he is not simply following what others have written , he is reasoning what he feels in his heart to be correct.

no matter what men write about be it ufo's or the lock ness monster or quarks or why there are cosmic rays comming from all
directions in the universe any or all of them could be wrong.

it may be that GOD writes on the heart the things he wants you to know.


















3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #17667 01/14/07 07:27 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Paul wrote:
"ones belief in GOD should not be based on the words that men
have written."

Assuming you are correct. Take away all of the words men have written. Heck even take away the one's women have written. You've nothing left.

Paul wrote:
"if there were a room full of republican writters how many of these writters would write good things about democrats?"

I would like to respond but I've not a clue what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could be less obscure.

If your assumption is that the person who wrote "Misquoting Jesus" is an agnostic or atheist you could not be further removed from reality. Here's the man's CV.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/BartDEhrman/BartCV.htm
I challenge you to find anyone more qualified to have written a credible book on the subject.

Paul wrote:
"GOD gave man a brain to reason with and a heart to feel with
and eyes to see with."

No he didn't. We received our hearts and eyes from the invisible purple rhinoceros. Something revealed to me by the big guy himself.

Paul wrote:
"it may be that GOD writes on the heart the things he wants you to know."

You mean like my knowledge that you have been brain-washed by a religious cult?

Last edited by DA Morgan; 01/14/07 07:30 PM.

DA Morgan
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Paul wrote:

"one's belief in GOD should not be based on the words that men
have written."

Unfortunately, Paul, research has shown the Bible itself is actually the words that men have written. So your own belief in God is too. It is doubtful that any of the Bible was written in anything like its present form until at least as recently as 1000 BC. It received a massive editing and rewrite during Josiah's rule, 639-609 BC. So even if God originally zapped a piece of rock his words have been completely mutilated by now.

Last edited by terrytnewzealand; 01/14/07 11:14 PM.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
I think that Paul said what I was trying to say. God only exists if you believe in him/her/it. You cannot be MADE to believe, possibly you can be brianwashed, but that is the imposition of someone else's belief, not your own. Your own vision of the supreme 'whatever' will be different to anyone else's. Religions attempt to rectify this and have all sorts of initiations to ensure exclusivity, and fight wars about it. Still do.

Reigions have little to do with faith and belief and all to do with power. On the other hand belief in gods exist in the presence of Faith--but are not present without it. That is why I feel it presumptuous to demand proof of the existence (or not) of the divine. It can't be done. Faith is untestable, illogical and (for some) worth dying for. It's impossible to argue against that fervour--but it does not prove the truth of anything.

Ellis #17676 01/15/07 04:04 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Ellis wrote:
"God only exists if you believe in him/her/it."

Well then on that basis the invisible purple rhinoceros exists too.
He will be pleased to know that.

Ellis wrote:
"You cannot be MADE to believe"

Wholesale nonsense. I can make anyone believe anything I wish just like I can turn anything made of carbon into a diamond. It is just a matter of time and pressure.

Ellis wrote:
"Reigions have little to do with faith and belief and all to do with power."

On this ... we agree.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Paul wrote:
"ones belief in GOD should not be based on the words that men
have written."

I never sudgested that there were not writtings by men. did I?

if you place a child in an environment where only 1 of the many diverse religions are taught , then that child will most likely grow up to believe in that particular religion.

if at a later date he begins to reason with his teachings and finds that 1 of the other of the many religions seem to him to
be a more correct religion to him then he has used his reasoning
ability to choose a new religion for himself.

if he feels in his heart that the new religion is a more correct
religion then he is not simply following what he was originally taught as a child.

just as you chose to believe in the invisible purple rhinoceros
he has chosen to believe , not made to believe in any certain religion.












3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #17678 01/15/07 07:37 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Paul wrote:

"If he feels in his heart that the new religion is a more correct religion then he is not simply following what he was originally taught as a child."

Perhaps not, but I would maintain his need to follow any sort of religion is a result of the conception of the universe he developed during his childhood.


Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
If your assumption is that the person who wrote "Misquoting Jesus" is an agnostic or atheist you could not be further removed from reality. Here's the man's CV.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/BartDEhrman/BartCV.htm
I challenge you to find anyone more qualified to have written a credible book on the subject.


Dan,

I remember you refusing to take on board what was said by the leading American expert on Egyptian manuscripts regarding the Gospel of Judas, because it didn't suit your existing notions.

So what makes someone qualified to write a book on a subject seems to be whether they are in agreement with you or not.

Here is a look at Bart Ehrman's book by Professor Ben Witherington:

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html

This is interesting for a fuller refutation of his work:

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogs...g-jesus_31.html

I have seen many of the points Ehrman makes solidly challenged -
example (from comments):

"The claim that reading ORGISQEIS in Mark 1:41 radically changes the picture of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark doesn't stand up to close examination. Ehrman's project to deconstruct evangelicalism, starting with the doctrine of scripture, relies on exaggerations like this one.

The idea that evangelicals should be scandalized by ORGISQEIS in Mark 1:41 is without merit. Both Lane (Mark NICNT 1974) and France (Mark NIGTC 2002) argue for reading ORGISQEIS in Mark 1:41. No scandal here.

Ehrman has chosen as his target for attack, a very rigid form of fundamentalism which seeks mathematical certainty in matters of NT text. This sort of target is very easy to attack."

An aquaintance of his, Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. has written a pretty devastating critique on both Ehrman's general approach and also on his specific points.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000


There always seem to be two views and both of them are subjective. So how does one choose.

"I think Bart is writing about his personal journey, about legitimate things that bother him," says Darrell Bock, research professor of New Testament studies at the Dallas Theological Seminary. Like many Christian scholars who have studied the ancient scrolls, Bock says his faith was strengthened by the same process that destroyed Ehrman's.

Bart was a part of Fundamentalist Christianity and he was enrolled in the Moody Bible Institute, "an austere interdenominational institution in Chicago that forbade students to go to movies, play cards, dance, or have physical contact with the opposite sex", and eventually became disenchanted with it (rightly so), and this disenchantment may have lead to him taking opposite views to people like Bock.

Anyway, I've read enough solid criticisms of Ehrman's work to be convinced that I won't be convinced, but I would expect someone holding your views would entertain no doubts about his book.

Blacknad.

Last edited by Blacknad; 01/15/07 10:16 AM.
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

Has anyone checked this out?

#17688 01/15/07 07:58 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Blacknad wrote:
"I remember you refusing to take on board what was said by the leading American expert on Egyptian manuscripts regarding the Gospel of Judas, because it didn't suit your existing notions."

I don't. I have no such recollection. Can you point me to the specifics?

Blacknad wrote:
"So what makes someone qualified to write a book on a subject seems to be whether they are in agreement with you or not."

I didn't say he was correct. I said he was an expert on the subject. And I didn't say I agreed with him once. Nor, of course, did I say I disagreed. Just that he is a subject matter expert.
Though you might note that a huge percentage of his lectures are for very conservative religious institutions at their request.

Blacknad wrote:
"but I would expect someone holding your views would entertain no doubts about his book."

Then you don't understand me well. See you in November. I'll try again to convince you I don't have 666 tattooed on my tail.

You really must stop assuming that just because I post something I agree with it. Really!

Last edited by DA Morgan; 01/15/07 08:00 PM.

DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Roadkillguam asks:
Has anyone checked this out: "http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/"

The US federal courts has. The decisions, to put it mildly, were scathing. Here's a reference to one of them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html

The creationscience website is just the product of a cult with zero science content. It is the ethical equivalent of the tobacco industry trying to convince people smoking doesn't cause cancer.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Of course the invisible purple whatsit can exist as an objest of veneration if you wish it to. That is the nature of belief. There was a group of people convinced that they would be taken up by a flying saucer in the tail of a comet...and they died together ( and probably happy) to achieve their destiny. They had total faith in the veracity of their belief. Incidentally, often if you are brought up in a belief system it is possible to break from it. Converts to a cause are usually its most passionate believers not those raised in it.

You cannot make people believe unless they cooperate, and you never really know what people relly believe in.

Ellis #17711 01/17/07 09:02 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
To express my understanding of the concept of God, I use the symbol, G?D
I first used this symbol in 2005 in
http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16227
where I have been involved for some time.
I call the theology 'unitheism', similar to panentheism.
===========================================================
Although I have participated in other forums since 1997, this is my first post in this forum, so go easy on me, please!

Though I have some training in theology/philsophy/psychology and pneumatology--using an integrated approach--I prefer to take the child-like approach to knowledge. I am very curious, open-minded and willing to agree to disagree agreeably. I love exploring the claims of the New Physics--talk about having to have faith in the unknown--and other sciences. In my humble opinion--an expression I will use often using the acronym, IMHO--no one I know of is infallible.

Above all, I love it when we do not have take ourselves and our opinions too seriously. I love a good joke, even about religion.
I like the saying: We should not be so heavenly minded that we are of no heavenly good. smile

I will begin by saying that I was raised in a fairly open-minded kind of theist religion--The United Church of Canada--based on the Old and New Testaments and we were expected to believe, in a liberal (freedom-based) sort of way, in God as an almighty, all-knowing, everwhere-present and loving Heavenly Father who hears and answers our prayers.

As a child I was taught to speak to God, in prayer, as if he is a person. I have always found this a difficult concept to accept as a fact. For awhile in my youth, as I began the serious study of science am mathematics, I became an agnostic, if not almost an atheist.

I am still agnostic--I hope a very curious one--about many things, however, because, in my university years, I was encouraged to bring reason, science and faith in harmony with one another I began to explore the history of beliefs. The led me to new ways of theological thinking and I stopped trying to igagine that God is a three-dimensional and personal being separate and apart from the Cosmos--IMHO, the all that is physically, mentally and spiritually.

Inspired by the fact that Orthodox Jewism scholars, to avoid making God and objective being, write the divine name thus: G-d.
I devised the symbol, G ? D. I will parse it in a later post.

BTW, as you write to me in response to what I write, feel free to tell me where you stand, theologically. I respect all sincerely held beliefs, including agnosticsm and atheism. I will do my best to avoid attacking people, personally, and tell me if it appears that way. However, I hope you don't mind me challenging your beliefs.

I repeat: In all this, let us do our best to agree to disagree, agreeably--even lovingly. smile





Last edited by Revlgking; 01/18/07 02:04 AM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Revlgking wrote:
"as you write to me in response to what I write, feel free to tell me where you stand, theologically."

You asked us to play nicely so I will respect your wish.

Which part of the name of this site, SCIENCEagogo.com do you think makes it acceptable to invite people to write about where they stand on matters of theology?

Surely there must be at least one website where you can engage in discussing religion and be a troll. One where you don't need to push the c?ntrivance d'jure.

I am glad you are here. I hope you stay and contribute. But if you are not discussing science ... the gloves come off.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Ah... but I think that there is a objective scientific point raised in Rev's post here. Is the belief in God (note the capitalisation) a suitable topic for scientific discussion? How do you propose to prove/disprove a belief? This topic has already strayed into the areas of philosophy, if not theology.

Ellis #17717 01/18/07 03:33 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Good point, Ellis, thanks! If the "gloves are off", as suggested by DAM, perhaps it's now a wrestling match. How would you like to join my tag-team? :lol:

BTW, I think of theology and pneumatology as soft sciences--somewhat like psychology and sociology--and open to philosophical exploration--not a lot of hard evidence. Interestingly, 'pneumatology' is an archaic term for 'psychology' (World Book Dictionary).

IMO, there is no such a thing as ONE psychology, or ONE sociology. For example, there are several broad schools of psychology: There are the materialistic psychoanalysts (Freud, et al); the equally materialistic behaviourists (Watson), who eschew the analysts, and the more spiritually inclined analysts such as Jung and Rogers, the humanists (William James, Abraham Maslow) and the logo therapists (Victor Frankl). All, in their own way, have made valuable contributions to the understanding of human nature.

BTW 2, when I ask respondents to "feel free" to state their position, keep in mind that this is not a demand, just a suggestion. Currently, I think of myself as a unitheist/panentheist. It is similar to that advocated by the process theologians and philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead.

ABOUT PANENTHEISM/UNITHEISM:

http://www.panentheism.com/
http://websyte.com/alan/pan.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Page 4 of 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 34 35

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5