the right religion

[Curious George]

First of all a large portion of the Christian community believes that Genesis is allegory. So your contradiction is more with an interpretation than a known biblical claim. I do not have a position myself. Second of all your scientific explanation is anything but. It is a scientific guess based on faith based assertions and violates scientific laws itself. Macroevolution is academic schizophrenia. As I pointed out there are still raging debates over what happened at Gettysburg or who Shakespeare was and that was a cosmic second ago but scientists arrogantly claim they know what transpired billions of years ago with no witnesses and no battle reports. They even dislike the implications of our finely tuned universe so they invented a concept (bubble universes) to escape from it which not only has not one shred of evidence but never can and claim they have actually accomplished something. I saw back to back shows concerning string theory and some holographic effect where the first claimed the universe is actually two dimensional and the second said it has at least 11 dimensions. To make it even worse they were the same scientists. They can suggest all the theories they want but when they start thinking their absurd hypotheses based on flawed premises derived from best guesses can counter the bible they have left science and are using more faith than the religion it's self requires. There are different classes in science. The ones who must produce workable results are fine by me. The academic who get paid to sit around all day and think about stuff they don’t and can’t know and then find the nearest camera and claim otherwise I can do without. So again I say science has not and probably never be able to solve the mystery of religion.

I don't know that all of that was necessary since most had naught to do with what I suggested. Firstly, I acknowledged that I was dealing with a specific interpretation of the bible. And the biblical claim that is presented is Gen 1:20-26. That is a specific claim in the bible. Now that claim has indeed been interpreted differently by many people. But nonetheless science has proven those people wrong. We could use evolution to demonstrate this, but rather let us focus on what we Know. Specifically, the demonstrable age between all human and human artifacts and the demonstrable age of dinosaurs. Before anyone jumps in and tells me the problems with radiometric dating and other forms of dating, let me state clearly: if any of the necessary conditions were to arise that would alter the dating as they are present in dinosaur remains, so, too, would they be present in human remains.

Furthermore, since you dispute evolution, let me direct you to my empirical evidence thread in which I have already provided scientific evidence dealing with speciation and macroevolution.

 

[waitasec]

Nope, it had to do with this: That is why it was posted with the statement. It is also why you cannot highjack it and then wonder why it doesn't do whatever it is that you are saying it doesn't.

watch it now, your tendency to be selective is showing

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3013213-post2066.html

i hope that was an honest mistake...

Speaking of tools. It was saying that science as a tool can solve the debate. I said it could not. Tools do not have to be intentional to be capable. A BB gun can't stop a T-55 tank. Science can't solve a religious debate.

and horses can't fly.

 

[Curious George]

First of all a large portion of the Christian community believes that Genesis is allegory.

A large number of Christian's believe most of the bible to be allegory. In fact, if we were to prove tomorrow that unequivocally Jesus did not turn water into wine as a baby, then many Christian's would not renounce Christianity they would say that the story was an allegory or metaphor, or it was slipped in by some fanatic.
Note: I am not suggesting that one could ever prove this event happened or did not happen.

 

[1robin]

I do not know that it is logically sound to make the first bold conclusion given the second bold evaluation.

You might be confused which was the former and which the latter as I did not do the best job to indicate which was which. Actually I revisited the post and I think it is technically in the right order. If you still can't figure it out and desire to then elaborate on what the problem was please.

 

[1robin]

A large number of Christian's believe most of the bible to be allegory. In fact, if we were to prove tomorrow that unequivocally Jesus did not turn water into wine as a baby, then many Christian's would not renounce Christianity they would say that the story was an allegory or metaphor, or it was slipped in by some fanatic.
Note: I am not suggesting that one could ever prove this event happened or did not happen.

When did baby Jesus turn anything into anything? No the bible has specific rules of exegesis that were developed over many years and serve to clarify most of whats literal and whats allegory. There are a few instances where the jury is still out and the creation is one.

 

[waitasec]

A large number of Christian's believe most of the bible to be allegory.

46% Americans Believe In Creationism According To Latest Gallup Poll

 

[1robin]

watch it now, your tendency to be selective is showing

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3013213-post2066.html

i hope that was an honest mistake...

Actually you are right. Something in the cosmos must be out of whack. I was attempting to respond to this "Science can solve all this debate. Science shows biological evolution is true. Science shows that we are members of the Animal Kingdom. Science shows that animals and plants have consciousness, a soul. Science proves Jainism is the way." by Jain I think. I must have seen your name and involuntarily countered. Actually I have no idea what happened if you look at the post my response doesn't fit the post you made at all. I guess you finally get a check mark on your side of the board. If you need to borrow some, I have plenty.

and horses can't fly.

Glad you cleared that up in your usual meaningful and articulate way. However the non use of emoticons will cost you on form with the judges.

 

[waitasec]

Actually you are right. Something in the cosmos must be out of whack.

no, you just experienced the alignment of the stars....

I was attempting to respond to this "Science can solve all this debate. Science shows biological evolution is true. Science shows that we are members of the Animal Kingdom.

but science is at the mercy of the arrogance of mankind...
so is everything else.

Actually I have no idea what happened if you look at the post my response doesn't fit the post you made at all. I guess you finally get a check mark on your side of the board. If you need to borrow some, I have plenty.

thanks...

Glad you cleared that up in your usual meaningful and articulate way. However the non use of emoticons will cost you on form with the judges.

:sad4:

 

[Curious George]

You might be confused which was the former and which the latter as I did not do the best job to indicate which was which. Actually I revisited the post and I think it is technically in the right order. If you still can't figure it out and desire to then elaborate on what the problem was please.

well let us look at your statement to clarify:

These two systems are in no way equal on the issue. In fact one is almost the inverse of the other. To claim otherwise is biased rhetoric and desperate. Science might give some insight as to how but the bible would as to why. The former has no moral input the latter institutes the only justified ultimate moral meaning to the equation.

"In fact one is almost the inverse of the other."

then you provide us with an evaluation of the two concepts that clearly contradicts that they are close in inverse statements.

"[Science] has no moral input" the inverse of the statement would be Science has moral input.

and you also suggest "[the bible] institutes the only justified ultimate moral meaning to the equation. The inverse of this statement is:
The bible does not institute the only justified ultimate moral meaning to the equation.

now let us compare the inverses and see if they are "almost the same:"

Science has moral input Is not Almost the Same as The bible does not institute the only justified ultimate moral meaning to the equation.

In fact those statements are vastly different. Or, as you put it earlier, "in no way equal." But, they are not inverses, or almost inverses. Thus for you to conclude such is illogical. Now I don't think that it matters if I am confused about which was the former and which was the latter. I do understand English, and had you made a grammatical error I probably would have asked for clarification if I was confused.

 

[1robin]

well let us look at your statement to clarify:



"In fact one is almost the inverse of the other."

then you provide us with an evaluation of the two concepts that clearly contradicts that they are close in inverse statements.

"[Science] has no moral input" the inverse of the statement would be Science has moral input.

and you also suggest "[the bible] institutes the only justified ultimate moral meaning to the equation. The inverse of this statement is:
The bible does not institute the only justified ultimate moral meaning to the equation.

now let us compare the inverses and see if they are "almost the same:"

Science has moral input Is not Almost the Same as The bible does not institute the only justified ultimate moral meaning to the equation.

In fact those statements are vastly different. Or, as you put it earlier, "in no way equal." But, they are not inverses, or almost inverses. Thus for you to conclude such is illogical. Now I don't think that it matters if I am confused about which was the former and which was the latter. I do understand English, and had you made a grammatical error I probably would have asked for clarification if I was confused.

Since semantics has taken the place of substance, then for one thing almost is a relative statement and is dependant on my point of view since it has no absolute value. The opposite of morality is not immorailty because they both incorporate a moral value system. The opposite of morality is moral indifference. Religion is the only suffecient absolute source for morality if it exists. Science has no input on the subject, it is impotent. Without a higher standard that only religion provides then no absolute meaning can be assigned to morality. There is no way to know a line is crooked unless it is known what a straight line (a higher standard) is. Since science or at least it's language is made by man then as immanuael Kant said "out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made". In a world with religion Hitler could do what he did and he would probably be and was opposed and destroyed beacause of priciples that find their justification within religion. In a world with only science Hitler could do what he did and he might or might not have been destroyed but neither action could find justification in science. Actually Hitler specifically said his actions were justified by the principles of evolution. If the whole world was run by scientific professors like Dawkins who concluded using science that ?", Richard Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question
Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler - Conservapedia
without some of us crazy religious folks around he might have been left alone to do what he was doing.

I do not have time to really get into this issue. Clarify your contention so I can actually see what it is you are driving at and I will try to tomorrow but as of now I don't get the contention.

 

[Curious George]

I do not have time to really get into this issue. Clarify your contention so I can actually see what it is you are driving at and I will try to tomorrow but as of now I don't get the contention.

my contention was with the term almost inverse. I agree that almost is a relative term. Unfortunately to conclude even that the two inverses are "almost" the same is illogical. That would be akin to me saying an X is almost Y even though they are distinctly different. For while you can say that, doing so undermines the value of the definitions in the first place. I could say that the bible and a pile of poop are almost the same. If any contended against this crazy statement I could say almost is relative therefore you must acknowledge the logic in what I said. Semantics are one thing but your statements were not almost inverses nor were there inverses almost the same. And as far as you immoral moral argument I am not sure what you mean. I never stated immoral anywhere. However I would have you know that the inverse of moral is "not moral." whether you take this to be amoral or immoral I don't really care. the point is that based on your words, your statement was illogical.

 

[Curious George]

In regards to Hitler:

though he was not religious, Hitler was able to commit the atrocities which he did with religion. To argue that he would have done the same but with a different outcome were it not for religion is illogical.

 

[waitasec]

Since semantics has taken the place of substance,

explain substance without semantics...

 

[1robin]

explain substance without semantics...

I am going to try something guaranteed to trip you up. Let's say that I agree. That still doesn't make the concentration on semantics to the exclusion of substance a meaningfull exercise. Even if substance has a component of semantics which I don't care enough to think about there is still a marked difference of importance concerning these issues. If the engine explodes discussing the tire pressure is useless.

 

[1robin]

In regards to Hitler:

though he was not religious, Hitler was able to commit the atrocities which he did with religion. To argue that he would have done the same but with a different outcome were it not for religion is illogical.

And it was convictions that only have justification and validation in any real and ultimate sence that convinced most of the big players as well as the common man to risk ruin to stop him. In a world without religion there is no basis to even know what he did was wrong and certainly nothing that justifies the sacrifice or death of millions that were given to stop him. This is an interesting issue which I am only scratching the surface of. If you want more we can go much deeper but it only gets worse for the no religion side. The only connection Hitler had with religion was a superficial consent to Catholicism until the Church rejected him so he had no further use for them and rejected them in return.

 

[waitasec]

I am going to try something guaranteed to trip you up. Let's say that I agree. That still doesn't make the concentration on semantics to the exclusion of substance a meaningfull exercise. Even if substance has a component of semantics which I don't care enough to think about there is still a marked difference of importance concerning these issues. If the engine explodes discussing the tire pressure is useless.

i'm sorry did you explain the meaning of substance without semantics?

semantics is key. i understand that for you it's not that important...but it is to me and if god cannot reach me by my language then either
1. god plays favorites
2. god is a monoglot

 

[1robin]

i'm sorry did you explain the meaning of substance without semantics?

semantics is key. i understand that for you it's not that important...but it is to me and if god cannot reach me by my language then either
1. god plays favorites
2. god is a monoglot

Since monoglot does not exist in my language you must use a different one. Why are you asking me about my semantic understanding? It is the bibles semantics that should be discussed. Usually your equivocation over some technicality of MY grammer or semantics has no meaningfull effect on the bible even if true. You may prove the astonishing truth that I am not perfect but still have not addressed the actual issue. Like I said it is like a lawyer getting his guilty client off by a techical loophole. He is technically free but he is still guilty and justice was not done. Explaining substance with semantics or without does not solve any biblical issue. That is why I just conceded because I would rather discuss meaningful things.

 

[waitasec]

Since monoglot does not exist in my language you must use a different one. Why are you asking me about my semantic understanding? It is the bibles semantics that should be discussed.

that is my entire point.
monoglot is a person who speaks one language.
if god limits himself to one language, a language not all can understand then
1. god plays favorites
or
2. god can only speak one language

why would you want to limit your god like that?

semantics is key when it comes to the semantics of the bible.

 

[Jain]

"Unlike other religions, Jainism cannot be called a violent religion by any stretch of the imagination. There are no Jain terrorists nor is there likely to ever be any."
Sam Harris from the The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (2004)

 

[kjw47]

science didn't do those things...man did....

Man using their form of science did those things.