Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

Page 26 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
You can be a Christian who has Jewish heritage, sure. You can even be a Christian who chooses to follow Jewish observances. But belief in Jesus is the defining difference between Jews and Christians, and you won't find anyone who isn't Christian themselves who recognizes your inherently dishonest belief system as being anything other than a form of Christianity designed for missionary purposes.
Charles, it's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's probably best that you avoid discussing religion in a public forum.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Not interested in your word games.
YOU are the one who started the word game! :D Now that you are shown to be wrong you don't want to play your own game. Priceless!


Theoretical physics states up front what is based on evidence and what is speculation. This is substantially different -- far more honest -- than believing something as fact for which there is no evidence, which is the way of religion.
Goalpost shift attempt detected.
Goalpost shift mocking subroutine engaged.
HAHAHA! Wow, you actually think shifting the goalpost will go unnoticed! What a goof!
Goalpost shift mockign subroutine completed.
Goalpost shift attempt nullified.

Other than you, no one mentioned facts. Nice try, but you need to get far better if you wish to succeed in shifting the goal posts.

Since we both know there is no way to know if the rules the universe operates by today are the same as they have been AFTER they stabilized AFTER the universe began, why do you continue to try and say that the assumption they have always been the same is not a faith based belief?

There is no shame in holding faith based beliefs, no need to rail against it.

An assumption is something believed to be true without any supporting evidence. It is entirely faith based.

The big difference between science and religion is that there can never be anything to show a religion to not be true (at least with the major ones - I cannot say this is true of all religions as I do not know them all), while eventually we may find a way to show the assumptions in science are not true. When and if that happens, the theories based on those assumptions will be thrown out (albeit not without a LOT of fighting to do it).

A good example is Newton's failed Universal Law of Gravitation. Newton assumed that gravity was transmitted instantaneously and undiminished to every object in the universe. This was a faith based belief, as he has not supporting evidence of it. The alternative assumption made it impossible to craft a theory, so he chose the one which allowed him to make one. He was wrong, though, so his "Law" based upon it is also wrong. You will still find people who proclaim his failed theory is not actually failed - but they are simply trying to defend one of the great pillars of science and allowing emotion to override their minds.





You are a Jew by birth as well as by religion. This is a well known fact.

Jewish atheism is practiced by atheists who are ethnically, and to some extent culturally, Jewish. Because Jewishness encompasses ethnic as well as religious components, the term "Jewish atheism" does not necessarily imply any kind of contradiction. Based on Jewish law's emphasis on matrilineal descent, even religiously conservative Orthodox Jewish authorities would accept an atheist born to a Jewish mother as fully Jewish.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,805
1,494
136
However, it (Evolution/Big Bang) seems presented as factual by dismissing the other possibility - God and creation..
Just a quick word. Belief in God or a Creator does not in any way preclude one from also believing in evolution or the big bang, and vice versa.

In fact, I would even say they are complementary of each other, depending on what kind of God you believe in.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Charles, it's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's probably best that you avoid discussing religion in a public forum.
Explaining what it is you think I've gotten wrong would be a lot more productive.

You'll find that my views on this are consistent with those of pretty much all Jews except for "messianic" ones.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Do you agree that science makes the assumption they have always been the way they are? You know, what you actually quoted and are discussing.
No, I do not.

When you (generic you) believe something is correct without any supporting evidence, you hold a faith based belief. This is simply what the word faith means. You do not need to be defensive about it, it simply is what it means.

Science makes assumptions. An assumption is when you say something is correct without any supporting evidence (as stated by Asimov and Hawking). They obviously believe their assumption is correct else they would have made a different assumption. A belief without supporting evidence is a faith based belief.

There is no shame in it - it is needed. We must have a starting point.
The "starting point" is entirely arbitrary. That's not an example of having any "faith" in the starting point being correct.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
No, I do not.
Then you are wrong. Easily shown via the distance of the stars based on a non-changing speed of light.

The "starting point" is entirely arbitrary. That's not an example of having any "faith" in the starting point being correct.
No, the starting point is not arbitrary. You really have no idea how scientific theories work.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Then you are wrong. Easily shown via the distance of the stars based on a non-changing speed of light.
No, I am not. There is no reason to assume the speed of light is constant in all circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

No, the starting point is not arbitrary. You really have no idea how scientific theories work.
Yes it is. It is based on the sum of everything we know up to that point. Since we don't know what will happen next, we arbitrarily pick what to try next.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
No, I am not. There is no reason to assume the speed of light is constant in all circumstances.
No one said all circumstances, though I understand your need to shift the goalpost so you can pretend you are right and Asimovand Hawking are wrong wrt scientific theories.

Pardon me if I believe them over a random Internet poster.

Yes it is. It is based on the sum of everything we know up to that point. Since we don't know what will happen next, we arbitrarily pick what to try next.
Sigh...

I am not talking about NEXT. I am talking about BEFORE. This should be obvious when I say "has been". Is English not your native tongue? What part of "starting point" makes you suddenly decide it means "happens next"?

And you are still wrong about "arbitrarily". You make it sound like science is nothing but random guesses. You would be wrong in that.
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
No one said all circumstances, though I understand your need to shift the goalpost so you can pretend you are right and Asimovand Hawking are wrong wrt scientific theories.

Pardon me if I believe them over a random Internet poster.
The point is that science doesn't assume the speed of light is constant. The VSL concept is incorporated, too... so there is no reason to conclude that science is based on the belief that the laws of the universe have always been the same.

We don't really know for a fact what any of the laws of the universe are. We have theories, nothing more.

Sigh...

I am not talking about NEXT. I am talking about BEFORE. This should be obvious when I say "has been". Is English not your native tongue?

And you are still wrong about "arbitrarily". You make it sound like science is nothing but random guesses. You would be wrong in that.
No need to get your undies in a bunch. Before? Before what? The starting point in attempting to learn about something new is based on everything you know (as the preponderance of the evidence suggests) up to that point about everything else. Since the new thing you're trying to learn about may not at all be related to what you know about everything else, starting to learn is an initial arbitrary decision to try something.

And no, I am not wrong about "arbitrarily". Random guesses are what is done when absolutely no observations/calculations have been performed on a new thing, but after that first observation evidence kicks in and the guesses become educated guesses.
 
Last edited:

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
You believe the Bible is nothing more than a collection of parables. You believe this without any supporting evidence. Due to the very meaning of the word faith, you are holding a faith based belief.


Like I said in the previous post, having faith based beliefs is not bad - in fact, it is necessary.
I think the Bible is a collection of parables.

So, you don't believe we were created, nor do you believe in Big Bang/Evolution?


Hmm......
I think the Big Bang/Evolution theories are good explanations. No belief required.
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
You believe the Bible is nothing more than a collection of parables. You believe this without any supporting evidence. Due to the very meaning of the word faith, you are holding a faith based belief.
The Bible is nothing more than an ancient book. That is all we can know for certain about it. Everything else is a matter of faith.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
I think the Bible is a collection of parables.



I think the Big Bang/Evolution theories are good explanations. No belief required.
Well... may I asked... how do YOU think we got here?

There are only two possibilities... but I am just wondering though.. not trolling you.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Well... may I asked... how do YOU think we got here?

There are only two possibilities... but I am just wondering though.. not trolling you.
Neither Big Bang or Evolution theories speak to how we got here. Big Bang is a theory on how the universe was created; Evolution is about how species adapt to environmental changes.

What you're specifically asking me concerns abiogenesis or how did life begin. Truth be told I've never thought about it all that much. Knowing that I was alive and was capable of loving and of being loved are ultimately more important than knowing what was the initial "spark" of life's beginning. I do find the topic interesting but try not to let it get in the way of living. It's interesting to discuss because the discussions are life-affirming after a fashion but they pale in comparison to holding hands with my wife as we lay in bed at days' end talking about anything and everything; stroking my cat's cheeks as she purrs contentment, etc.

So was it random chance or a planned event by G-d or an Intelligent Designer? After seeing, hearing and reading about things good and bad that happen to people through no fault or planning on their own, I lean towards random chance but I don't have any evidence one way or the other.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Neither Big Bang or Evolution theories speak to how we got here.
...or they (scientists) can just say "hey... we don't know, but we're trying to find out". Trust me, there are a plenty of documentaries that my wife and I watch and they don't present Big Bang/Evolution as mere theory.

I think too many of them have ruled out creation in an attempt prove a theory as fact.
 

modestninja

Senior member
Jul 17, 2003
753
0
76
...or they (scientists) can just say "hey... we don't know, but we're trying to find out". Trust me, there are a plenty of documentaries that my wife and I watch and they don't present Big Bang/Evolution as mere theory.

I think too many of them have ruled out creation in an attempt prove a theory as fact.
Documentaries <> science. They have peer reviewed journals full of scientific research, if you want to criticize scientist, go straight to the source.

Science always ignores out untestable hypotheses because there is no way to test them. What kind of experiment would you propose to test whether the universe was created?
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Science always ignores out untestable hypotheses because there is no way to test them. What kind of experiment would you propose to test whether the universe was created?
I can understand that.

We have evidence that there is a creator.

Outside of the Genesis account account about the earth being created, here's something I found interesting:

Over three thousand years ago the Bible mentioned that the earth is suspended in space. Just hear its account of this: &#8220;He [God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing.&#8221; (Job 26:7) Then more than two thousand year before Columbus sailed to America from Spain to prove the earth to be round, the Bible had already stated it to be round, &#8220;There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth. (Isa. 40:22).

Random statements? No.. and to add, this was before we even had anywhere near the ability/know how to send satellites out to take pictures of the earth to corroborate something the Bible already said.

I understand that since we can't see or touch God, he doesn't exist... But looking beyond the physical world is more than possible for humans to do -- If they wanted to. Since God is invisible to the human eye, we can't rely on our physical senses to "see" that he does exist.
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
We have evidence that there is a creator.
What evidence is that?

Over three thousand years ago the Bible mentioned that the earth is suspended in space. Just hear its account of this: “He [God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)
That doesn't say the earth is suspended in space. That's your modern interpretation of what it says.

Then more than two thousand year before Columbus sailed to America from Spain to prove the earth to be round, the Bible had already stated it to be round, “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth. (Isa. 40:22)
And again here. "Circle" does not refer to the sphere of the earth.

The bible repeatedly refers to the world having "four corners".
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
That doesn't say the earth is suspended in space. That's your modern interpretation of what it says.
What does "hanging upon nothing" imply then?


And again here. "Circle" does not refer to the sphere of the earth.
Whatever. Not gonna argue semantics with you.

The bible repeatedly refers to the world having "four corners".
I'd think I'd be wasting my time answering this with you...
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Why didn't you respond to the part about evidence of a creator? :)

What does "hanging upon nothing" imply then?
The Hebrew implies nothingness, from which everything was created. There is no specific nothing of "space" in the way in which we know it.

Regardless of that, you need to look at the context of the passage. Job 26 is basically a psalm, poetry. I mean, if you want to take it literally, 26:11 refers to the "pillars of heaven". Does that sound scientific to you?

I'd think I'd be wasting my time answering this with you...
It's an Internet board. Isn't all of it a waste of time?
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
]Why didn't you respond to the part about evidence of a creator? :)
Don't think that you "had" me, 'cause you didn't. Reading your reply, didn't think it was worth the effort to be honest.


The Hebrew implies nothingness, from which everything was created. There is no specific nothing of "space" in the way in which we know it.

Regardless of that, you need to look at the context of the passage. Job 26 is basically a psalm, poetry. I mean, if you want to take it literally, 26:11 refers to the "pillars of heaven". Does that sound scientific to you?

It's an Internet board. Isn't all of it a waste of time?
I think you're smart enough to know when to take something literal, and when it's in a figurative context ... in fact I know you can differentiate between the two.

If you want to draw me into that sort of debate, it ain't gonna happen.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Don't think that you "had" me, 'cause you didn't. Reading your reply, didn't think it was worth the effort to be honest.
I don't care about "gotchas". I just found it telling that you'd make such a bold claim and then run away from it immediately.

I think you're smart enough to know when to take something literal, and when it's in a figurative context ... in fact I know you can differentiate between the two.
Ah, of course. So Job 26:7 should be taken literally (because it suits your needs) but Job 26:11 should be taken figuratively (because it suits your needs). Even though they are part of the same poetic monologue by the same person.

Fascinating.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
I don't care about "gotchas". I just found it telling that you'd make such a bold claim and then run away from it immediately.



Ah, of course. So Job 26:7 should be taken literally (because it suits your needs) but Job 26:11 should be taken figuratively (because it suits your needs). Even though they are part of the same poetic monologue by the same person.

Fascinating.
No.. because using a little common sense tells you that no "physical" pillars are in a spiritual (non-physical) place.

My point isn't to be right, but just to give information. I am willing to look "cowardice" for the sake of arguing.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
No.. because using a little common sense tells you that no "physical" pillars are in a spiritual (non-physical) place.
Yes, and my point in bringing it up is that the entire passage is allegorical. Trying to claim that it "proves" something about God knowing about outer space is silly.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Yes, and my point in bringing it up is that the entire passage is allegorical. Trying to claim that it "proves" something about God knowing about outer space is silly.

How? You want to play word games with "sphere" in regards to "circle"... or "round".

It said the earth was "sphere" or "circle" before man even remotely had the ability to even come close to seeing it.

You write it off as allegory. It really isn't. But you're free to do that, sir.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY