Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Knowledge is based on evidence, and experiments or tests to validate a given story or concept. Agreed?
In addition, we humans, being only human, tend to come to our inevitable personal conclusions based on common understandings, past evidence and our own experiences. We see things around us and we form opinions. Over time, given the mass of such evidence, we can become quite ardent in our beliefs. Agreed?
Science teaches us to remain open to any new information, given an adequate proof, a well-designed study, and conclusions which do not obviously over-reach. Agreed?
Religion, on the other hand, relies on us accepting, without question, the teaching of others which we place in positions of assumed power and knowledge. They could be mis-representing facts to us, and we'd have no means of knowing. Right?
Over time, when vigorous, obviously reliable research provides us with facts (your TV, computer and new high-Tech hybrid car do work as represented to you, right?) we come to some conclusions about the reliability of honest research and it's results, right?
So... Over time, I've seen that all the presentations of the apologist fundamentalist Christians have been pretty much blown away. If this is simply because I'm right, and there was never such a mythical godly beginning, you'd sorta expect the evidence to always fall on it's face, right?
I mean, RIGHT?
There's no good proofs of Noah's Ark with only 3500/2 species on board to restart the entire devastated global ecosystem, or of an "Insta-Poof" Genesis, or of a single family as the progenitors of the Earth's entire 6.5 B+ human population in a mere 2500 post-flood years, or of talking snakes or the fervent but unanswered prayers of an amputee's family for spontaneous regeneration, and on and on....
Against those concepts, we see an ever-expanding march of newer, better, more credible and proven evidence for Evolution, the early formation of the universe, of how life may have arose on Earth initially, and of a multitude of other stories. The more research we do, the more our ideas are substantiated, unlike the Christian or Muslim versions.
So, those of us in our golden years, who have formed those opinions based on our life's experiences, now tend to discount any new fundamentalist ideas, any special new proofs of co-habitating dinos & men, of Noah's Ark, of the second coming, of god's hand in the creation of the entire universe just for lonely little us...
Therefore, to my OP point: we tend to automatically discount, I agree, out of hand, all of these new "evidences" which come up regularly to support the greater Christian mythology. Why? Because, to date, there's been literally nobelievable corroborating evidence. Whenever these startling new findings come up, they are soon enough debunked. or explained by a more rational conclusion (example: see: DNA in dinosaurs.)
That's why we argue here. It's just not believable any more. Any of it, with a long history to back that claim up.
Knowledge is based on evidence, and experiments or tests to validate a given story or concept. Agreed?
In addition, we humans, being only human, tend to come to our inevitable personal conclusions based on common understandings, past evidence and our own experiences. We see things around us and we form opinions. Over time, given the mass of such evidence, we can become quite ardent in our beliefs. Agreed?
Science teaches us to remain open to any new information, given an adequate proof, a well-designed study, and conclusions which do not obviously over-reach. Agreed?
Religion, on the other hand, relies on us accepting, without question, the teaching of others which we place in positions of assumed power and knowledge. They could be mis-representing facts to us, and we'd have no means of knowing. Right?
Over time, when vigorous, obviously reliable research provides us with facts (your TV, computer and new high-Tech hybrid car do work as represented to you, right?) we come to some conclusions about the reliability of honest research and it's results, right?
So... Over time, I've seen that all the presentations of the apologist fundamentalist Christians have been pretty much blown away. If this is simply because I'm right, and there was never such a mythical godly beginning, you'd sorta expect the evidence to always fall on it's face, right?
I mean, RIGHT?
There's no good proofs of Noah's Ark with only 3500/2 species on board to restart the entire devastated global ecosystem, or of an "Insta-Poof" Genesis, or of a single family as the progenitors of the Earth's entire 6.5 B+ human population in a mere 2500 post-flood years, or of talking snakes or the fervent but unanswered prayers of an amputee's family for spontaneous regeneration, and on and on....
Against those concepts, we see an ever-expanding march of newer, better, more credible and proven evidence for Evolution, the early formation of the universe, of how life may have arose on Earth initially, and of a multitude of other stories. The more research we do, the more our ideas are substantiated, unlike the Christian or Muslim versions.
So, those of us in our golden years, who have formed those opinions based on our life's experiences, now tend to discount any new fundamentalist ideas, any special new proofs of co-habitating dinos & men, of Noah's Ark, of the second coming, of god's hand in the creation of the entire universe just for lonely little us...
Therefore, to my OP point: we tend to automatically discount, I agree, out of hand, all of these new "evidences" which come up regularly to support the greater Christian mythology. Why? Because, to date, there's been literally nobelievable corroborating evidence. Whenever these startling new findings come up, they are soon enough debunked. or explained by a more rational conclusion (example: see: DNA in dinosaurs.)
That's why we argue here. It's just not believable any more. Any of it, with a long history to back that claim up.
Right?
Right, but wrong. Science is not the end point.
It seems to me science is really just the next evolution of religion. Both seek to answer the question: "WTF are are we and how did all this get here?" by observing the world around us and trying to understand it in a way that is palatable to the human mind. Science does a MUCH better job at it than religion did, but it is really just a new spin on the same idea and may one day seem just as uninformed and dogmatic as religion does to us today.
Bottom line, the universe is not the human mind, and our cognative abilities (while quite good for hunting and gathering) are limited in their scope. Try to understand string theory and it's spin off theories, for example and try comprehend exactly what and how alternate dimensions are and how they exist. We really can't, our brains just cannot do it. We have to do insanely complex mathematics to translate the info into a medium we are capable of understanding.
Also, the further we probe into the micro and macro scales, the further they seem to go. We went from cells to elements of cells, to molecules to atoms, then atomic particles and now we are looking for quarks in atomic particles. Likewise with continents to the world, to the solar system to the galaxy, the universe and now mulitverse. We've already found more than people 150 years ago could ever comprehend and everytime we think we've reached a base functional unit, we soon learn there is yet another and then another, ect.
I think we might as well be (scientific) fish in a fishbowl. We know all about the algae that grows on the gravel, and the water we live in and that Mt wannahockaloogy exists, but we still debate whether it descended from sky into the center of the bowl in a magic hand or grew there over millions of years from hardened algae and gravel.
We know there is a living room that we cannot live in because it has no water in it, and can see there are houses down the street through the window that may or may not contain other fishbowls. And just before we die, we learn there is another room in the house that contains another white bowl and a long, dark tunnel.
But we could never imagine a coral reef, the Amazon river, the Mariana trench or a great white shark, much less the Himalayas or the galaxy itself.
We lack perspective. Science, like religion before it is an insufficient tool for understanding all that is. Religion is even worse.
Knowledge is based on evidence, and experiments or tests to validate a given story or concept. Agreed?
Not always. Much of man's knowledge is, but not all knowledge is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
In addition, we humans, being only human, tend to come to our inevitable personal conclusions based on common understandings, past evidence and our own experiences.
On this I will agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
Science teaches us to remain open to any new information, given an adequate proof, a well-designed study, and conclusions which do not obviously over-reach. Agreed?
Partly....we should be open to any new information, and not dismiss it completely until such a time as there is adequate proof, a well designed study.......that will DISPROVE the theory. There are three elements......Theory, Proof, and disproof.....until a theory is proved or disproved it remains a theory. And we can act on a theory as though it IS proven and extrapolate and interpolate and rely on that theory until such time as it is disproven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
Religion, on the other hand, relies on us accepting, without question, the teaching of others which we place in positions of assumed power and knowledge. They could be mis-representing facts to us, and we'd have no means of knowing. Right?
No, not right. Although there are sects in most mainstream faiths (in fact, the majority of sects) that do accept without question, there are those of us who, through personal experience, know that some things that are unprovable are in fact true. Some people call it intuition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
So... Over time, I've seen that all the presentations of the apologist fundamentalist Christians have been pretty much blown away.
I think the key word here is "fundamentalist." Mysticphd, for one cannot be considered a fundamentalist, yet he is a Christian in the best sense of the word. The reason he has the faith that he does is not because of rational thought, it is because of experience and understanding......and intuition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
If this is simply because I'm right, and there was never such a mythical godly beginning, you'd sorta expect the evidence to always fall on it's face, right?
I mean, RIGHT?
No, your theory is NOT provable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
There's no good proofs of Noah's Ark with only 3500/2 species on board to restart the entire devastated global ecosystem, or of an "Insta-Poof" Genesis, or of a single family as the progenitors of the Earth's entire 6.5 B+ human population in a mere 2500 post-flood years, or of talking snakes or the fervent but unanswered prayers of an amputee's family for spontaneous regeneration, and on and on....
Again you are talking fundamentalist mentality.........
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
.......to date, there's been literally nobelievable corroborating evidence.
so those who experience death on the operating table and are revived and tell what they experienced cannot be believed because you can't replicate the experiment?
Knowledge is based on evidence, and experiments or tests to validate a given story or concept. Agreed?
In addition, we humans, being only human, tend to come to our inevitable personal conclusions based on common understandings, past evidence and our own experiences. We see things around us and we form opinions. Over time, given the mass of such evidence, we can become quite ardent in our beliefs. Agreed?
Science teaches us to remain open to any new information, given an adequate proof, a well-designed study, and conclusions which do not obviously over-reach. Agreed?
Religion, on the other hand, relies on us accepting, without question, the teaching of others which we place in positions of assumed power and knowledge. They could be mis-representing facts to us, and we'd have no means of knowing. Right?
Over time, when vigorous, obviously reliable research provides us with facts (your TV, computer and new high-Tech hybrid car do work as represented to you, right?) we come to some conclusions about the reliability of honest research and it's results, right?
So... Over time, I've seen that all the presentations of the apologist fundamentalist Christians have been pretty much blown away. If this is simply because I'm right, and there was never such a mythical godly beginning, you'd sorta expect the evidence to always fall on it's face, right?
I mean, RIGHT?
There's no good proofs of Noah's Ark with only 3500/2 species on board to restart the entire devastated global ecosystem, or of an "Insta-Poof" Genesis, or of a single family as the progenitors of the Earth's entire 6.5 B+ human population in a mere 2500 post-flood years, or of talking snakes or the fervent but unanswered prayers of an amputee's family for spontaneous regeneration, and on and on....
Against those concepts, we see an ever-expanding march of newer, better, more credible and proven evidence for Evolution, the early formation of the universe, of how life may have arose on Earth initially, and of a multitude of other stories. The more research we do, the more our ideas are substantiated, unlike the Christian or Muslim versions.
So, those of us in our golden years, who have formed those opinions based on our life's experiences, now tend to discount any new fundamentalist ideas, any special new proofs of co-habitating dinos & men, of Noah's Ark, of the second coming, of god's hand in the creation of the entire universe just for lonely little us...
Therefore, to my OP point: we tend to automatically discount, I agree, out of hand, all of these new "evidences" which come up regularly to support the greater Christian mythology. Why? Because, to date, there's been literally nobelievable corroborating evidence. Whenever these startling new findings come up, they are soon enough debunked. or explained by a more rational conclusion (example: see: DNA in dinosaurs.)
That's why we argue here. It's just not believable any more. Any of it, with a long history to back that claim up.
Knowledge is based on evidence, and experiments or tests to validate a given story or concept. Agreed?
In addition, we humans, being only human, tend to come to our inevitable personal conclusions based on common understandings, past evidence and our own experiences. We see things around us and we form opinions. Over time, given the mass of such evidence, we can become quite ardent in our beliefs. Agreed?
Science teaches us to remain open to any new information, given an adequate proof, a well-designed study, and conclusions which do not obviously over-reach. Agreed?
Religion, on the other hand, relies on us accepting, without question, the teaching of others which we place in positions of assumed power and knowledge. They could be mis-representing facts to us, and we'd have no means of knowing. Right?
Over time, when vigorous, obviously reliable research provides us with facts (your TV, computer and new high-Tech hybrid car do work as represented to you, right?) we come to some conclusions about the reliability of honest research and it's results, right?
So... Over time, I've seen that all the presentations of the apologist fundamentalist Christians have been pretty much blown away. If this is simply because I'm right, and there was never such a mythical godly beginning, you'd sorta expect the evidence to always fall on it's face, right?
I mean, RIGHT?
There's no good proofs of Noah's Ark with only 3500/2 species on board to restart the entire devastated global ecosystem, or of an "Insta-Poof" Genesis, or of a single family as the progenitors of the Earth's entire 6.5 B+ human population in a mere 2500 post-flood years, or of talking snakes or the fervent but unanswered prayers of an amputee's family for spontaneous regeneration, and on and on....
Against those concepts, we see an ever-expanding march of newer, better, more credible and proven evidence for Evolution, the early formation of the universe, of how life may have arose on Earth initially, and of a multitude of other stories. The more research we do, the more our ideas are substantiated, unlike the Christian or Muslim versions.
So, those of us in our golden years, who have formed those opinions based on our life's experiences, now tend to discount any new fundamentalist ideas, any special new proofs of co-habitating dinos & men, of Noah's Ark, of the second coming, of god's hand in the creation of the entire universe just for lonely little us...
Therefore, to my OP point: we tend to automatically discount, I agree, out of hand, all of these new "evidences" which come up regularly to support the greater Christian mythology. Why? Because, to date, there's been literally nobelievable corroborating evidence. Whenever these startling new findings come up, they are soon enough debunked. or explained by a more rational conclusion (example: see: DNA in dinosaurs.)
That's why we argue here. It's just not believable any more. Any of it, with a long history to back that claim up.
Right?
Interesting the way your title is posed.... I guess to "disagree" with your soliloqy would make us "closed-minded".
You couldn't possibly be the close-minded one could you? Closed to the
possibility of something beyond science or this physical realm?
Knowledge is based on evidence, and experiments or tests to validate a given story or concept. Agreed?
In addition, we humans, being only human, tend to come to our inevitable personal conclusions based on common understandings, past evidence and our own experiences. We see things around us and we form opinions. Over time, given the mass of such evidence, we can become quite ardent in our beliefs. Agreed?
Science teaches us to remain open to any new information, given an adequate proof, a well-designed study, and conclusions which do not obviously over-reach. Agreed?
Religion, on the other hand, relies on us accepting, without question, the teaching of others which we place in positions of assumed power and knowledge. They could be mis-representing facts to us, and we'd have no means of knowing. Right?
Over time, when vigorous, obviously reliable research provides us with facts (your TV, computer and new high-Tech hybrid car do work as represented to you, right?) we come to some conclusions about the reliability of honest research and it's results, right?
So... Over time, I've seen that all the presentations of the apologist fundamentalist Christians have been pretty much blown away. If this is simply because I'm right, and there was never such a mythical godly beginning, you'd sorta expect the evidence to always fall on it's face, right?
I mean, RIGHT?
There's no good proofs of Noah's Ark with only 3500/2 species on board to restart the entire devastated global ecosystem, or of an "Insta-Poof" Genesis, or of a single family as the progenitors of the Earth's entire 6.5 B+ human population in a mere 2500 post-flood years, or of talking snakes or the fervent but unanswered prayers of an amputee's family for spontaneous regeneration, and on and on....
Against those concepts, we see an ever-expanding march of newer, better, more credible and proven evidence for Evolution, the early formation of the universe, of how life may have arose on Earth initially, and of a multitude of other stories. The more research we do, the more our ideas are substantiated, unlike the Christian or Muslim versions.
So, those of us in our golden years, who have formed those opinions based on our life's experiences, now tend to discount any new fundamentalist ideas, any special new proofs of co-habitating dinos & men, of Noah's Ark, of the second coming, of god's hand in the creation of the entire universe just for lonely little us...
Therefore, to my OP point: we tend to automatically discount, I agree, out of hand, all of these new "evidences" which come up regularly to support the greater Christian mythology. Why? Because, to date, there's been literally nobelievable corroborating evidence. Whenever these startling new findings come up, they are soon enough debunked. or explained by a more rational conclusion (example: see: DNA in dinosaurs.)
That's why we argue here. It's just not believable any more. Any of it, with a long history to back that claim up.
Right?
You think maybe they're afraid to partake of the fruit of the "tree of knowledge(science)"... and open their minds, just a thought...
so those who experience death on the operating table and are revived and tell what they experienced cannot be believed because you can't replicate the experiment?
And yet the more appropriate question that should be asked is why is it that those who experience this are almost always adults? Why are there hardly any records of children with these particular experiences?
And yet the more appropriate question that should be asked is why is it that those who experience this are almost always adults? Why are there hardly any records of children with these particular experiences?
DD
Not true....
Dr. Melvin Morse Web Site (http://www.melvinmorse.com/light.htm - broken link)
Science has little to do with the believers. They cling adamantly to the bible stories because that is where they derive their authority within our society.
By giving in to any scientific facts they are giving away their authority. The religious have had much authority over the past centuries. As any group that holds power they too will not give it up easily.
Science has little to do with the believers. They cling adamantly to the bible stories because that is where they derive their authority within our society.
By giving in to any scientific facts they are giving away their authority. The religious have had much authority over the past centuries. As any group that holds power they too will not give it up easily.
This is simply not true. My knowledge (what you would call faith/belief because you cannot experience it, or, at least, haven't experienced it) has nothing to do with bible stories. I'm sorry, but the Bible is largely a collection of stories and letters designed by the Emperor to ensure the perpetuity of the Emperor. It has little relevance to my experience.
I will say that the majority of those who call themselves Christians or believers are neither. Thus they rely on rules and commandments and argue trivialities and attempt to maintain control. but do not assume that simply because the majority act in this manner that there is no validity to the experience of others.
And using the scientific method, unless you can empirically prove that there is no such thing as god/creator, they you are making an assumption based on a theory. As you can neither disprove or offer credible alternatives to my experiences, you are basing your hypothesis on your "gut feelings" which has absolutely no credibility in the scientific methods.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess to "disagree" with your soliloqy would make us "closed-minded". 
and open their minds, just a thought...
