02 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI had a long reply to this but by the time I hit 'Post', the companies thought police software had kicked in and blocked the site. C'est la vie.
[b]So Christianity is a religion of do's and don't (just as much as any other religion).
You didn't read what was written. You asked if the Ten Commandments are part of the Christian belief system. I responded that they are not. You then continued as though I had answered in the affirmative as opposed to the negative. Emphatically, Christia wholly impossible. Thus, the agnostic/atheistic view of things is doomed from the onset.[/b]
I misinterpreted your response and took 'yes they are not' as 'yes they are'. I apologise for that. However the rest of the paragraph: All of the commandments have specific categories and classifications, by which we determine their application. The first ten are for everyone and define a standard of living for all societies--- a morality, not a spirituality. does not explain why the commandments are not part of the belief system. What are the categories and classifications of thou shalt not killfor example and how does our determination of their application remove them from Christianity? Why are they in the Bible, written as instructions, if they are not supposed to be taken as such?
By relying strictly on the natural world to explain the natural world, one will forever be caught on a Mobius strip. The very nature of matter tells us such a proposition is wholly impossible. Thus, the agnostic/atheistic view of things is doomed from the onset.
The nature of matter tells us only about the nature of matter. If the supernatural has any effect on the natural world, those effects will become susceptable to the application of the scientific method. If the supernatural has no effect on the natural world, then it effectively does not exist. The fact that no supernatural phenomenon (ghosts, telepathy, prescience, prayer, faith healing...) have ever stood up to rigourous objective scrutiny implies the second of these two possibilities. Therefore atheism or agnosticism are the only justifiable options.
--- Penguin.
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot all people are strong minded and need something else in their world. Some fill that need playing World of Warcraft, others need something superior. They can't find the answers to the big questions (why are we here? how did all of this come from?) in what science has achieved, and add to that the great fear of death and the justification for moral, and you have all the conditions for a God.
Why do you find belief in God acceptable but frown on belief in "a lot of stupid, near to impossible things."
As far as I know belief in God invariably goes along with belief in miracles which are violations of the laws of physics. The central beliefs of both Christianity and Islam require a belief in impossible things. (or at least impossible in the scientific sense).
I find acceptable that these people try to find comfort in the collective illusion of that God. If I was talking about my ideal world, of course there would be no such God, because all people would have a good, strong, independent education. But we don't live in such a world.
My "acceptable" god doesn't make miracles and is non-interfering. He's just there for the impossible justifications, and as the gatekeeper to after life and for the justification of moral and blablabla.
If you ask me, any God is useless. But if people want to believe something, let them believe. As long as their belief doesn't interfere with the progress humanity has achieved in the last centuries.
To the ideal world:
We must go by steps. First make religious people stop believing in the mythological gods and start using their heads. You can't take them their God just like that... It may me possible but it's hard. First let them change to a "spiritual god". With time we'll get to a non-religious world, where the spiritual god will be a synonymous to "luck" or "circumstance" or "what can't be explained".
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Penguin... does not explain why the commandments are not part of the belief system.
I had a long reply to this but by the time I hit 'Post', the companies thought police software had kicked in and blocked the site. C'est la vie.
I misinterpreted your response and took 'yes they are not' as 'yes they are'. I apologise for that. However the rest of the paragraph: All of the commandments have specific categories and classif ities. Therefore atheism or agnosticism are the only justifiable options.
--- Penguin.
The codices are generally categorized according to their application, which I won't get into here right now. Nonetheless, the first ten commandments were meant to act as a governing rule for any society, irrespective of worship (or non-worship) of the living God. As any atheist/agnostic will tell you, we don't need a worship of God to follow the basic tenets of not doing evil to our fellow man.
Christianity is not about morality, nor did God ever intend for man to need morality. What is morality when knowledge of good and evil does not exist? The laws were given to keep man safe, not to provide a spiritual life. This is precisely what the overwhelming majority of seemingly-observant Jews failed to get in the time of our Lord. He was not there to give them a new system of do's and don'ts: He was there to restore what was lost in the Garden. Christianity is a standard of living far and above any system of morality, including the ten commandments. It is a system of integrity.
The nature of matter tells us only about the nature of matter.
Agreed, to a point. By its very nature, matter nonetheless demands a starting point.
If the supernatural has any effect on the natural world, those effects will become susceptable to the application of the scientific method.
Three fallacies. One is that the scientific method is anywhere close to being cohesive and consistently applied. It is not.
Secondly, assuming the unlikely discovery of an agreed-upon scientific method, said SM is not the only and decidely not the best method to mediate reality in all cases.
Third, with your inferred application of the SM, history is rendered meaningless. All history.
The fact that no supernatural phenomenon (ghosts, telepathy, prescience, prayer, faith healing...) have ever stood up to rigourous objective scrutiny implies the second of these two possibilities. Therefore atheism or agnosticism are the only justifiable options.
In the face of the parenthetical absurdities (sans one), I would have to agree with such a disbelieving stance. Fortunately, the Bible does not speak of such as part of the spiritual life, sans the one.
03 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe codices are generally categorized according to their application, which I won't get into here right now.
[b]... does not explain why the commandments are not part of the belief system.
The codices are generally categorized according to their application, which I won't get into here right now. Nonetheless, the first ten commandments were meant to act as a governing rule for any society, irrespective of worship (or non-worship) of the living God. Fortunately, the Bible does not speak of such as part of the spiritual life, sans the one.[/b]
That's a shame because that bit is meaningless to me.
Nonetheless, the first ten commandments were meant to act as a governing rule for any society, irrespective of worship (or non-worship) of the living God.
But the first 3 commandments are (roughly, they vary a little between the various flavours of the Abrahamic religions)
1. God (the Jewish one) is the only one and you must worship him and no other
2. Don't use God's name in vain
3. Observe the Sabbath
The rest are fair enough and most religions (and non-religeous societies) have some sort of similar code but those first 3 are not reasonable governing rules for non-Abrahamic societies. They are part of the Abrahamic belief systems, including Christianity.
By its very nature, matter nonetheless demands a starting point.
Matter demands nothing. It's just matter.
Three fallacies. One is that the scientific method is anywhere close to being cohesive and consistently applied. It is not.
I'll agree that it is not consistently applied. That's because we are a biological animal with hopes, fears, egos and all the rest of the baggage of the human condition. The scientific method though, if we have the discipline to apply it consistently, can take account of these issues. I'd like to know how it not 'cohesive' though.
Secondly, assuming the unlikely discovery of an agreed-upon scientific method, said SM is not the only and decidely not the best method to mediate reality in all cases.
Ok, so it can't provide 'Truth'. The thing is, neither can anything else and the scientific method is the only one that can reveal Falsehood because it is the only system that demands that its claims be testable.
Third, with your inferred application of the SM, history is rendered meaningless. All history.
This claim you will have to explain to me. How does the SM render history meaningless? I suppose it depends how you define 'meaning'. As I understand it, history is our understanding of things that have happened. Our understanding can be mistaken (and probably is in many areas) but even if it is right, can it have any intrisic 'meaning'? It is just stuff that has happened after all.
In the face of the parenthetical absurdities (sans one), I would have to agree with such a disbelieving stance. Fortunately, the Bible does not speak of such as part of the spiritual life, sans the one.
And where is the evidence that the one (prayer, I presume) has stood up to rigorous objective scrutiny better than any of the others?
--- Penguin
04 Oct 07
Originally posted by PenguinThey are part of the Abrahamic belief systems, including Christianity.
The codices are generally categorized according to their application, which I won't get into here right now.
That's a shame because that bit is meaningless to me.
Nonetheless, the first ten commandments were meant to act as a governing rule for any society, irrespective of worship (or non-worship) of the living God.
But the first 3 ...[text shortened]... up to rigorous objective scrutiny better than any of the others?
--- Penguin[/b]
They are only part of the history, not the spirituality. Throughout the entire New Testament, we are repeatedly enjoined to rid ourselves of the legalistic thinking found in systems of do's and don'ts. Instead, we are entreated to adopt the thinking of Christ.
Matter demands nothing. It's just matter.
When man encounters matter, his mind does not allow him to not make a determination of the same. He classifies, categorizes, calls it something. He makes determinations about its origins, its expectancy, its utility, its meaning. Matter, on its own, just is: a rock is just a rock. Man, however, is not satisfied with leaving matter in the state thus found. He goes out of his way to call it a rock, for instance. Further, he reverses time to determine origins and predicts to consider outcomes. Thusly, matter to man demands a response.
The scientific method though, if we have the discipline to apply it consistently, can take account of these issues.
So far, no luck in this area. Even if we were successful at eliminating the plethora of human obstacles, this cannot be the only method to mediate reality. For instance, how will we measure imagination?
I'd like to know how it not 'cohesive' though.
This referred to our lack of a unified consensual formula which would universally carry the moniker "scientific method."
... the scientific method is the only one that can reveal Falsehood because it is the only system that demands that its claims be testable.
Supposedly, we are left with nothing but fact, then? History--- among other things--- is flushed out as the sham we all suspected it to be. Even the SM will become a victim to such ravages of the mind: what was tested yesterday cannot be taken by faith today.
And where is the evidence that the one (prayer, I presume) has stood up to rigorous objective scrutiny better than any of the others?
Prayer has been shown to have (what is considered to be) positive influence on the ones so occupied. Flip side: the nocebo effect on practioners of voodoo, among other things.
04 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThroughout the entire New Testament, we are repeatedly enjoined to rid ourselves of the legalistic thinking found in systems of do's and don'ts. Instead, we are entreated to adopt the thinking of Christ.
They are part of the Abrahamic belief systems, including Christianity.
They are only part of the history, not the spirituality. Throughout the entire New Testament, we are repeatedly enjoined to rid ourselves of the legalistic thinking found in systems of do's and don'ts. Instead, we are entreated to adopt the thinking of Christ.
Matter dem so occupied. Flip side: the nocebo effect on practioners of voodoo, among other things.
We are 'enjoined to rid ourselves'. We are 'entreated to adopt'. In other words we are told how we should behave. However, I think we have been distracted from the purpose of this part of the 'debate' which was to establish whether Christianity was a religion or not. I think it is pretty established to be a supernatural belief system and that is a pretty good description of all religions.
Thusly, matter to man demands a response.
Well that is a property of man, not of matter. Matter, itself, does not demand anything. And neither does the existence of matter.
So far, no luck in this area. Even if we were successful at eliminating the plethora of human obstacles, this cannot be the only method to mediate reality. For instance, how will we measure imagination?
It's the only reliable method there is. Science can easily measure aspects of imagination, robustly, objectively, repeatably and testably. How does religion measure imagination?
This referred to our lack of a unified consensual formula which would universally carry the moniker "scientific method."
The scientific method is well defined and agreed upon. Just Google for it.
History is not revealed as a sham, it's our best understanding of past events from present data.
Prayer has been shown to have (what is considered to be) positive influence on the ones so occupied. Flip side: the nocebo effect on practioners of voodoo, among other things.
I'd like some references to these studies that show prayer (do you mean any prayer or just Christian prayer?) is more effective than meditation, homeopathy, chrystal healing a sugar pill or salt water injection when applied convincingly by/to someone who believes in the treatments efficacy.
--- Penguin.
07 Oct 07
4 edits
==========================
You know, science is not as simple as opening a book and reading the answers.
==========================
That's the goal toward which they are striving. isn't it?
E=MC2 What's that if not opening a book and getting the answer?
The work was done for you. The answer is provided in a concise and elegant manner for the encrease of your knowledge.
You know, you're so prejudiced against people of faith that you say a lot of foolish and jaded things.
07 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI think you didn't quite get it.
[b]==========================
You know, science is not as simple as opening a book and reading the answers.
==========================
That's the goal toward which they are striving. isn't it?
E=MC2 What's that if not opening a book and getting the answer?
The work was done for you. The answer is provided in a concis ...[text shortened]... you're so prejudiced against people of faith that you say a lot of foolish and jaded things.[/b]
When a science makes an assertion about reality he's not saying "The world follows this formula".
We are saying "The world seems to behave this certain way, we don't know why, but experience show us that".
Our goal is find out about the world. You proudly think you got your answers in a book. A book is shown to be wrong. Men made. But you have 2k yrs of lousy arguments to circumvent evidence. It works for you, it's your belief, I don't care.
E=mc² is not an answer. It's a special case, that's been shown to be extremelly accurate in the conditions for the experiment. It doesn't provide us answers. Only a model of what the behavior of the laws of physics are in this place.
No pretensions at all.
Of course I have a prejudice against people of faith. It increases each time I hear you (not you in particular, I meant most people of faith in general) talk and argument.
But what foolishness did I say? I may have offended your beliefs, I know, but it's part of the discussion. You guys are constantly offending my knowledge, but I don't care, I don't take it for granted.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by PenguinIn other words we are told how we should behave.
Throughout the entire New Testament, we are repeatedly enjoined to rid ourselves of the legalistic thinking found in systems of do's and don'ts. Instead, we are entreated to adopt the thinking of Christ.
We are 'enjoined to rid ourselves'. We are 'entreated to adopt'. In other words we are told how we should behave. However, I think we have been dist ...[text shortened]... convincingly by/to someone who believes in the treatments efficacy.
--- Penguin.[/b]
In a torturous manner of speaking, perhaps. Principally, however, the Lord Jesus Christ was teaching His followers about thought, not action. If you wish to redress thought and call it action in order to make your formula fit, so be it; it doesn't fit under the straight-forward meaning of the concept, however. On one side, religions demand a cessation of certain activities and/or a call to positive action regarding other particular activities. On the other side, Christianity demands a position of thinking.
There is no action or deed by which the actor can be saved. Thought, and only thought is the sole price of admission.
Matter, itself, does not demand anything. And neither does the existence of matter.
As we are discussing man's experience and relative implications thereof, (as stated) the existence of matter sparks something within man which compels him to respond. I am not declaring any magical properties within matter; I am speaking to the relationship between man's universal desire to know and matter's position within said universe.
It's the only reliable method there is.
All flippancy aside, you aren't reading what is written. Either that, or your understanding of the current and historical status of the scientific method is superficial. Putting aside the question of which scientific method to use, anyone who espouses such a view as the only mediator for reality is devoid of any historical perspective whatsoever. Run from such a false prophet.
The scientific method is well defined and agreed upon. Just Google for it.
I believe you may have just answered your own question.
I'd like some references to these studies...
Adopting now my usual flippancy: "just Google for it."
08 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn a torturous manner of speaking, perhaps. Principally, however, the Lord Jesus Christ was teaching His followers about thought, not action. If you wish to redress thought and call it action in order to make your formula fit, so be it; it doesn't fit under the straight-forward meaning of the concept, however. On one side, religions demand a cessation of certain activities and/or a call to positive action regarding other particular activities. On the other side, Christianity demands a position of thinking.
[b]In other words we are told how we should behave.
In a torturous manner of speaking, perhaps. Principally, however, the Lord Jesus Christ was teaching His followers about thought, not action. If you wish to redress thought and call it action in order to make your formula fit, so be it; it doesn't fit under the straight-forward meaning of the conce erences to these studies...[/b]
Adopting now my usual flippancy: "just Google for it."[/b]
There is no action or deed by which the actor can be saved. Thought, and only thought is the sole price of admission.
However, Christianity is still a religion, which is what you were trying to dispute in this part of our debate. I think you originally said it was not a religion because it made no demands on people (or something like that). However, that is not the definition of a religion so we have got sidetracked. Can we return to why you think Christianity is not a religion?
As we are discussing man's experience and relative implications thereof, (as stated) the existence of matter sparks something within man which compels him to respond. I am not declaring any magical properties within matter; I am speaking to the relationship between man's universal desire to know and matter's position within said universe.
You proposed that the existance of matter should compel me, as a supposedly intelligent and educated person, to believe in a non-naturalistic explanation for it. I agree that as inquisitive animals we desire to find out how the natural world works but I reject the idea that we should conclude some super-natural driving force, and especially that we should believe in any particular super-natural explanation that was first proposed 2000 years ago with far less understanding of natural phenomena than we have now and that has no more evidence supporting it than any other of the hundreds of contemporary supernatural explanations.
All flippancy aside, you aren't reading what is written. Either that, or your understanding of the current and historical status of the scientific method is superficial. Putting aside the question of which scientific method to use, anyone who espouses such a view as the only mediator for reality is devoid of any historical perspective whatsoever. Run from such a false prophet.
I did not say it was the only mediator for reality, I said it was the only reliable method there is. I may have put an innaccurate case there and I apologise for that. I should have said it is the most reliable method to understand reality. Can you suggest a method which can be shown to be more reliable than the scientific method? If any given supernatural explanation for a phenomenon was wrong, how could you find that out?
--- Penguin
08 Oct 07
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe scientific method is well defined and agreed upon. Just Google for it.
[b]In other words we are told how we should behave.
In a torturous manner of speaking, perhaps. Principally, however, the Lord Jesus Christ was teaching His followers about thought, not action. If you wish to redress thought and call it action in order to make your formula fit, so be it; it doesn't fit under the straight-forward meaning of the conce erences to these studies...[/b]
Adopting now my usual flippancy: "just Google for it."[/b]
I believe you may have just answered your own question.
Lets look at the 1st 5 results from a Google search of "scientific method" then (obviously I'm taking extracts from each one but if you want the whole thing without my selective picking, you can go and look for yourself)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:
- Characterizations (Quantifications, observations[15] , and measurements)
- Hypotheses[16] [17] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)[18]
- Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[19] from hypothesis and theory)
- Experiments[20] (tests of all of the above)
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
The steps of the scientific method are to:
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm
The following steps make up the Scientific Method
- Observation
- Question
- Hypothesis
- Prediction
- Testing
They all essentially say
- Observe a phenomenon
- Make a guess as to how that phenomenon might work (the hypothesis)
- Use the hypothesis to predict other phenomena
- See whether the predictions are confirmed
The third link adds that the prediction and test phases need to be repeated and the hypothesis adjusted or discarded accordingly. The 4th and 5th split the 1st phase into 2 and they swap the two sub-phases around and the fourth hilights the fact that you need to communicate your results: essentially other people must be able to make the same predictions, do the same experiments and get the same results. Peer review is essential the scientific method and all 5 sites cover all these aspects even if they did not put them in their bulleted lists.
Obviously, within this basic framework, there is variety but now that I've shown you that the first five sites all give consistant descriptions of the method, I'd like you to point me to a reputable site that describes it differently.
I'd like some references to these studies...
Adopting now my usual flippancy: "just Google for it."
Yes well Googling "Scientific method" is easy. You'll have to help me with the exact phrase I need to type in here though.
--- Penguin.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by PenguinCan we return to why you think Christianity is not a religion?
In a torturous manner of speaking, perhaps. Principally, however, the Lord Jesus Christ was teaching His followers about thought, not action. If you wish to redress thought and call it action in order to make your formula fit, so be it; it doesn't fit under the straight-forward meaning of the concept, however. On one side, religions demand a cessation of ...[text shortened]... natural explanation for a phenomenon was wrong, how could you find that out?
--- Penguin
No. I've already given the reasons why I hold Christianity to be distinct from religion, and any further discussion will simply be rehashing what you and I both already know.
You proposed that the existance of matter should compel me, as a supposedly intelligent and educated person, to believe in a non-naturalistic explanation for it.
Correction: my charge is a double-header. First, that matter demands a creation: a point in time beginning to its existence. Second, that creation cannot be self-induced. If one wishes to call such as initiated that creation 'super,' so be it. At this stage of the game, nothing has been established that there exists any link between the natural and its creator, so it may be somewhat restrictive to assume relational qualities.
Can you suggest a method which can be shown to be more reliable than the scientific method?
Faith in a reliable source (hint: it has three letters).
If any given supernatural explanation for a phenomenon was wrong, how could you find that out?
Phenomenon such as... ?
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by PenguinI'd like you to point me to a reputable site that describes it differently.
The scientific method is well defined and agreed upon. Just Google for it.
I believe you may have just answered your own question.
Lets look at the 1st 5 results from a Google search of "scientific method" then (obviously I'm taking extracts from each one but if you want the whole thing without my selective picking, you can go and look for you ...[text shortened]... have to help me with the exact phrase I need to type in here though.
--- Penguin.[/b]
Ah, now the internet is the arbiter or reality, eh? 😉
There are many well-prepared and much more articulate teachers out there who are able to shed more light on the on-going battles for an accurate definition of science knowledge. I can suggest one such lecture available on CD's from most libraries, "Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It," by Steven Goldman, Lehigh University and Boston University. You will see that the issue has not been settled as perhaps previously thought.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI've already given the reasons why I hold Christianity to be distinct from religion, and any further discussion will simply be rehashing what you and I both already know.
[b]Can we return to why you think Christianity is not a religion?
No. I've already given the reasons why I hold Christianity to be distinct from religion, and any further discussion will simply be rehashing what you and I both already know.
You proposed that the existance of matter should compel me, as a supposedly intelligent and educated pers ...[text shortened]... anation for a phenomenon was wrong, how could you find that out?
Phenomenon such as... ?[/b]
No, I can't just let this one go. It is fundamental to your argument for a rational, intelligent person to believe in the Christian God since you seem to accept that such a person should not believe in any other religion (or indeed superstition). You say that Christianity is exempt from this because it is not a religion. So presumably if we can establish that Christianity is a religion after all then you would retract your assertion that it is rational to believe in it.
Correction: my charge is a double-header. First, that matter demands a creation: a point in time beginning to its existence. Second, that creation cannot be self-induced. If one wishes to call such as initiated that creation 'super,' so be it. At this stage of the game, nothing has been established that there exists any link between the natural and its creator, so it may be somewhat restrictive to assume relational qualities.
Ok so the existance of matter along a time line implies either infinite existance or some starting point . Fair enough I think, although there may be other possibilities that are harder to grasp concerning the relationship between space and time. I don't currently see how any of these models implies the necessity for a purposeful, intelligent creator though.
Faith in a reliable source (hint: it has three letters).
Ahh, so you're a Pastafarian then? Seriously though, so faith in some divine creator helps us understand how stars shine, birds fly, water freezes and magnets attract? How do we deduce the existance of the strong nuclear force using faith in your specific deity? And presumably faith in other deities or indeed no diety at all would lead to us buildiing a less accurate model of this particular phenomenon.
And again, we're back to which deity? Zeus? Krishna? Vishnu, Brahma & Shiva? Allah (the one worshiped by the Shia or the Suni or some other sect)? Jehova? Ra? God (the one worshipped by Roman Catholics? Protestants? Sikhs? the Amish? CofE? Born Agains?)? Haile Selassie? Or maybe the Space Aliens of Scientology?
Why does your particular take on christianity stand out as the logical, rational, reasonable choice amongst all these alternatives?
--- Penguin