A case for religion, and against AA.

[alzan]

Don't you realize who you're speaking with?

All too well.

 

[Retro Rob]

Above suspicion? What? The whole of science is to question AND keep questioning. Nothing is able to rest because even things that may be determined to be laws of the universe may yet be found to not be. The key is questioning and testing.

No religion can withstand questioning and testing. In fact, Jesus is indignant at Thomas for needing proof, demonstrating how the judeo-christian mythology values faith and obedience over belief founded in questioning and testing.

You're clueless. Jesus rebuked him for asking a silly request. Jesus was standing right there, and have performed many miracles in front of the Apostles, so it was pointless.

He was in effect saying that he reflected his Father so well, that seeing him was like seeing the father.

Again, get a clue about what you criticize.

 

[alzan]

I don't have to. And "some" is only more than 1, so of the millions of scientists in the world, you probably asked hardly any...comparatively.

But I'd just like to say that its really unrealistic to hold that humans completely suspend belief when they want to. A lot of what we do is personal (if we take it seriously, we take it personal), and how we interpret information depends on our personal beliefs.

For instance, a person who believes in a personal Creator God, would look at DNA as a robust instructions that shows the supreme intelligence of his Creator, who used evolution as a tool or not. OTHO, a non-believer would see this as telling him something about how we're all related with no recourse to God.

I think personal beliefs have a tremendous influence on how we interpret and present data, how we view the world, and how we live our lives. Our personal beliefs basically shape us as individuals. There is no way that gets completely suspended when doing lab work.

We're humans, not machines. I know that people like to view science as this unblemished pursuit of knowledge, clean, uncorrupted, but some recent findings show otherwise:


http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/29/internal-harvard-report-shines-light-misconduct-star-psychology-researcher-marc-hauser/maSUowPqL4clXrOgj44aKP/story.html




https://www.commissielevelt.nl/

...and we all remember Piltdown Man.

Now, I am NOT saying that science is fraudulent...don't get me wrong. Peer review helps correct wrongs. But science and scientists aren't above suspicion as many people like to portray it as being. Its has it share.

Of the people I know I asked scientists within that circle. That works for me since I have neither the resources or time to ask all the world's scientists.

People suspend their belief or disbelief everyday; reading books, watching movies or plays, viewing art, listening to music, etc., all to enhance and better understand the experience. Suspension of belief or disbelief is not a "all or nothing" or "on/off" state, it's a process.

So you found three examples of falsification or mistakes; I guess, in your words, you've hardly found any, comparatively.

Again, get a clue about what you criticize.

Physician, heal thyself

 

[Retro Rob]

The difference being that the theist inserts an unknown (God) into the equation for no rational reason and the non-theist doesn't add an unknown. They are not even remotely the same.

I agree that they are not exactly the same. But personal beliefs are personal beliefs, and they affect how we do our work.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it. Just acknowledging that it exists.

 

[Retro Rob]

Of the people I know I asked scientists within that circle. That works for me since I have neither the resources or time to ask all the world's scientists.

People suspend their belief or disbelief everyday; reading books, watching movies or plays, viewing art, listening to music, etc., all to enhance and better understand the experience. Suspension of belief or disbelief is not a "all or nothing" or "on/off" state, it's a process.

So you found three examples of falsification or mistakes; I guess, in your words, you've hardly found any, comparatively.



Physician, heal thyself

I have plenty more examples, but I'm not a science-basher. Three examples are sufficient for the point I wanted to make.

 

[jackstar7]

You're clueless. Jesus rebuked him for asking a silly request. Jesus was standing right there, and have performed many miracles in front of the Apostles, so it was pointless.

He was in effect saying that he reflected his Father so well, that seeing him was like seeing the father.

Again, get a clue about what you criticize.

I know the story of which I am speaking. I'm confused that you seemingly do not.

Also, excellent job throwing stones from inside your glass house.

Clueless indeed.

 

[Retro Rob]

I know the story of which I am speaking. I'm confused that you seemingly do not.

Also, excellent job throwing stones from inside your glass house.

Clueless indeed.

Knowing the story doesn't mean you understand it -- you implied Jesus simply didn't want thomas questioning, as in believing without evidence.

Jesus showed Thomas had NO REASON to question, as in questioning if the Sun actually exists, for example.

As usual, you applied the story to fit your own agenda.

 

[PingviN]

I agree that they are not exactly the same. But personal beliefs are personal beliefs, and they affect how we do our work.

They are not remotely the same. Personal beliefs should be kept out of scientific issues. When you start adding unknowns because you want a certain result then you start distorting what's true and what isn't true.

 

[alzan]

I have plenty more examples, but I'm not a science-basher. Three examples are sufficient for the point I wanted to make.

As were my examples for the point I made. You choose to dismiss others' examples on a point while lauding your own on the same or different point.

 

[Retro Rob]

As were my examples for the point I made. You choose to dismiss others' examples on a point while lauding your own on the same or different point.

I provided links -- all you did was give me unproven hearsay -- that's the difference.

I can dismiss your hearsay as just that, hearsay.

 

[jackstar7]

Knowing the story doesn't mean you understand it -- you implied Jesus simply didn't want thomas questioning, as in believing without evidence.

Jesus showed Thomas had NO REASON to question, as in questioning if the Sun actually exists, for example.

As usual, you applied the story to fit your own agenda.

You and I must have read different translations. Thomas isn't there when Jesus appears to the other disciples and they all tell him that Jesus is returned. He basically calls bullshit and then Jesus throws it in his face when they meet up later.

John 20:29 -- Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

So take your haughty attitude somewhere else. I understand the story just fine. You apparently will twist it to your own means (everyone can SEE/Feel the sun, so not a great comparison). I read it and understood it just fine.


This story is about Jesus openly saying blind faith trumps empiricism in God's eyes.

 

[alzan]

I provided links -- all you did was give me unproven hearsay -- that's the difference.

I can dismiss your hearsay as just that, hearsay.

Noted for your future posts which contain no links.

 

[Retro Rob]

You and I must have read different translations. Thomas isn't there when Jesus appears to the other disciples and they all tell him that Jesus is returned. He basically calls bullshit and then Jesus throws it in his face when they meet up later.

John 20:29 -- Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

So take your haughty attitude somewhere else. I understand the story just fine. You apparently will twist it to your own means (everyone can SEE/Feel the sun, so not a great comparison). I read it and understood it just fine.


This story is about Jesus openly saying blind faith trumps empiricism in God's eyes.

You quoted another verse, seems we were taking about separate things.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

They are not remotely the same. Personal beliefs should be kept out of scientific issues. When you start adding unknowns because you want a certain result then you start distorting what's true and what isn't true.

They're not actually all that different. Personal belief are always relevant in scientific issues on the basic level, simply because that's where hypotheses are drawn from. They're free to add in whatever they'd like. Science doesn't care what you're hypothesizing or why - it will simply examine the hypothesis, and let the culling begin.

At which point the error correcting machinery that is the scientific method steps in. Someone will hypothesize the exact same statement, except without involving god. Both will fit the data available to exactly the same extent, at which point we apply Occam's razor and god gets removed from the equation.

It's such a foregone conclusion that it seems like a waste of time, but it's hardly disallowed.

 

[jackstar7]

Well, do tell what you were talking about.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, do tell what you were talking about.

I thought you were talking about when Thomas asked to see the father.

My bad, then.

 

[Retro Rob]

Noted for your future posts which contain no links.

Same.

 

[jackstar7]

I thought you were talking about when Thomas asked to see the father.

My bad, then.

So then let's get back to it. You now know what I was referring to and the context in which I cited that passage remains up-thread.

I demonstrated that this particular god prefers faith over empiricism explicitly.

How do you reconcile that?

 

[Retro Rob]

So then let's get back to it. You now know what I was referring to and the context in which I cited that passage remains up-thread.

I demonstrated that this particular god prefers faith over empiricism explicitly.

How do you reconcile that?

There is no dichotomy between faith and science. In fact, Christians are specified to look at the physical world as evidence. -- Rom 1:20.

So I frankly don't care what science says is or isn't evidence of Gods existence. I know you simply don't like that we use the physical world as evidence of a designer, but not liking something doesn't make it false.

That's really what this is...you don't like the conclusion we offer.

 

[jackstar7]

There is no dichotomy between faith and science. In fact, Christians are specified to look at the physical world as evidence. -- Rom 1:20.

So I frankly don't care what science says is or isn't evidence of Gods existence. I know you simply don't like that we use the physical world as evidence of a designer, but not liking something doesn't make it false.

That's really what this is...you don't like the conclusion we offer.

What?

I did not bring up a dichotomy. I'm not arguing some mutual exclusivity. I said that the christian god prefers faith over empiricism as quoted BY Jesus.

I'm asking how you reconcile that.

Do you envy the blindly faithful?

 

[Retro Rob]

What?

I did not bring up a dichotomy. I'm not arguing some mutual exclusivity. I said that the christian god prefers faith over empiricism as quoted BY Jesus.

I'm asking how you reconcile that.

Do you envy the blindly faithful?

You are wrong. You quoted him as saying people believing without seeing. All that's saying is that you don't have to see him to know he exists.

That's not saying belief without evidence.

 

[soulcougher73]

Knowing the story doesn't mean you understand it -- you implied Jesus simply didn't want thomas questioning, as in believing without evidence.

Jesus showed Thomas had NO REASON to question, as in questioning if the Sun actually exists, for example.

As usual, you applied the story to fit your own agenda.

Could you have not done the same? Pot/Kettle moment perhaps?

 

[Exophase]

There is no dichotomy between faith and science. In fact, Christians are specified to look at the physical world as evidence. -- Rom 1:20.

Hmm...

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

The physical world provides evidence not just that God made it but God has eternal power and a divine nature? That's a truly amazing conclusion.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Could you have not done the same? Pot/Kettle moment perhaps?

Is that all you have to offer is a thinly disguised way to call people names....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally Posted by Romans 1:18-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

The physical world provides evidence not just that God made it but God has eternal power and a divine nature? That's a truly amazing conclusion.

no it`s an amazing conclusion to somebody who lacks the understanding of the scriptures.....
Retro Rob has these passages 100% correct!!

20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse

.
<<-- so what don`t you understand concerning this verses.....and the words -- clearly understood??