A challenge for the brave

a reply to: hudsonhawk69


How do you determine what is true?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Let's cut to the chase here. What it really comes down to is, can you refute that statement with the scientific method?

What? I don't think the scientific method applies to that statement which is why I asked you, Can you use the scientific method to verify the statement, "we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven?"

Because if cannot, the belief is self refuting. My point here was the scientific method is limited to how things works. Its not the end all be all of knowledge. Not to mentions it is based on a lot of unjustified assumptions. Do you know anything with 100% certainty?

a reply to: Mizzijr

There is nothing rational about our existence or this universe. We are an “intelligent“ species that is flying through space on a sphere at 828,000km/hr and we don't know why and we don't know where we're going.

I'd say we are head for position L3 in the next few months

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Ok I get you reject the reasons Christians give for their beliefs. Explain to me what a good world view is then. What is a more coherent view of the world than a Christian world view?

I think a better world view is to be open minded and form opinions based on evidence. I try to be open minded, but I am not going to believe in ideas that have no reasonable evidence. Every other religion could be replaced with Christianity. "What is a more coherent view of the world than a Judaic world view?"

I am sorry that has been your experience, but I definitely don't do that. The Bible is great as a historical resource to determine which God, but it will not help you understand the need for a God to explain certain things about the world.

That is the very basis of the Christian religion. Based on Christianity, all you have to do is "have faith" and pray for forgiveness and you are saved. This is what the religion is based on. I have read the bible more than once. I do not believe it is evidence, nor do I think it was written by anyone other than man. We cannot prove it either way, but based on scientifically proven inaccuracies, I have more evidence to believe that it is just a book, as opposed to it being a Godly work from heaven.

Well if this was a thread about proving the existence of God then i'd agree . I would have the burden of proof. However, I am not asking you about God. I am asking if God and Jesus are not the truth, then what do you think the truth behind reality is and how do you know? I've asked many people. What can you know with 100% certainty. Very few people have given me a clear response. I dont think there are very many things we can know for certain so it shouldn't be that hard.

That is the thing here. No one knows if the bible is accurate, or if it contains truth, or if it doesn't. I cannot know anything with 100% certainty. Neither can you. You can believe all you want, but you do not know for 100% certainty. Everything is just a theory. Scientists think there was a big boom. Christians believe the universe was created by God. Other's believe we live in a computer simulation, or a dream. No one knows for sure period. Seeing how none of us know for sure, I do not understand why people still gravitate to old books, other than geographical location, and following family traditions. If you argument is that atheists don't know for sure, so they should follow the bible, I think that is a flawed system.

So basically what I am hearing is you have a lot of reasons to reject other peoples beliefs, but you are willing to present your own knowledge for us?

My knowledge? I do not know. I do not claim to know either. I am "agnostic." Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't. Maybe one of the thousands and thousands of religions are right, and maybe none of them are right. The thing with religion, is that people claim to know for sure that the story they believe is truth, when the only evidence provided is an ancient book. If that is all the evidence someone needs, then how can you say that your book is evidence, and other's are not?

I think it is arrogant to claim to know for 100% certainty that any religion is the truth. There is no way to possibly know. Basically believing in any religion's holy book as truth, does not make any sense. They all have the same level of credibility in my mind. They are all written by men, all claim to be inspired by God, and they all claim to be the ONLY correct book.

I think that people naturally have a need to know that there is more to us than there may or may not be. I think people desire to live forever. I think the thought of ceasing to exist after death is terrifying to mankind. I also think that people have a need to serve a greater power outside of themselves. Religion fits all of these needs.

If I ever figure it out for 100% certainty, I will let you know. If you ever figure it out for 100% certainty, please let me know.

If your religion works for you, and it helps you be a better person to other's, then good! Please enjoy it. I hope it makes you and your circle of friends and family do good things in the world and fulfills everything that you wish to have in this life.

Religion is great until it starts impeding on other people's rights and well being. I have no problem with it until it starts to do that.

"ground zero" for acquiring knowledge is at your local library. a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: hudsonhawk69


How do you determine what is true?

I determine what is true for me in any given moment. The truth is not fixed. It is not constant. The truth is fluid. It changes and moves. What is true for me today may not be true for me tomorrow. Truth is dependent upon things like point of view and experience, Wisdom and knowledge.
There are some universal truths that are philosophically assumed to be true, how ever it is possible that the true truth can never be known.

For me the truth isn't found in one place... Little gems about god can be found probably everywhere you choose to look...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't have time for an entire book. Okay so you are an agnostic. That doesn't tell me much about the world. I am asking for your worldview not just your opinion on GOd.

Perhaps if you didn't post the exact same thread 3 times a day you could find the time to read a book huh? What is the point of asking people about their beliefs if you won't take the time to read a book that is offered up? Talking with you is pointless. You live in your own echo chamber and refuse to listen to anything that people tell you, all the while telling everyone else they are closed minded for not agreeing with you. This is pointless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: hudsonhawk69


How do you determine what is true?

I determine what is true for me in any given moment. The truth is not fixed. It is not constant. The truth is fluid. It changes and moves. What is true for me today may not be true for me tomorrow. Truth is dependent upon things like point of view and experience, Wisdom and knowledge.
There are some universal truths that are philosophically assumed to be true, how ever it is possible that the true truth can never be known.

For me the truth isn't found in one place... Little gems about god can be found probably everywhere you choose to look...

"The truth" should be true at any time. It is your beliefs which change when you are presented with new information.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

Let's cut to the chase here. What it really comes down to is, can you refute that statement with the scientific method?

What? I don't think the scientific method applies to that statement which is why I asked you, Can you use the scientific method to verify the statement, "we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven?"

No..But those things that can be proven with the scientific method should be accepted.

Giordano Bruno Circa 1600

He proposed that the stars were just distant suns surrounded by their own exo-planets and raised the possibility that these planets could even foster life of their own (a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism).
He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its "center".

Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic doctrines (including Eternal Damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and Transubstantiation).

The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600.

We could continue with round earth vs. flat earth and planets rotating around the sun, or dinosaurs, creation myths etc.

Nothing wrong with faith, community and principles...but science is real and religion is not a perquisite for morality, ethics and principles.

Can you imagine where we might be as a civilization is Christians hadn't burned so many scientists? Hell...Einstein might have been burnt at the stake if he had been born a few hundred years earlier.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

Let's cut to the chase here. What it really comes down to is, can you refute that statement with the scientific method?

What? I don't think the scientific method applies to that statement which is why I asked you, Can you use the scientific method to verify the statement, "we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven?"

Because if cannot, the belief is self refuting. My point here was the scientific method is limited to how things works. Its not the end all be all of knowledge. Not to mentions it is based on a lot of unjustified assumptions. Do you know anything with 100% certainty?

This is the only life and reality I have. I'm pretty certain of that. I'm also pretty certain that the scientific method works, and that you are not the end-all-be-all of knowledge either. The scientific method is limited yes but not wrong. We spend a lot of money paying a lot of people to work a lot of Sleepless hours and shed a lot of frustrated tears in order to prove that. And finally I'm pretty certain that you will not succeed in making science look dumb or creationism look better than science or equal to. Oh wait but I am also certain that you will still try. Okay I think that's a pretty good start.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Challenge for the brave? Not really. It's just common sense. Assume nothing. Prioritize objective evidence over subjective evidence and adopt an agnostic position. Easy.

I believe that all religions were created by clever men for the purpose of controlling the masses. I've had long term discussions with jehovahs witnesses and mormons and none have ever been able to answer my questions about their religious texts. I have read more than I can count on various websites and read a LOT of books. I created an account here to reply to this post. To get an idea of my beliefs about the origins of our existence read "Gods of war" by William Bramley. It summed up a lot (with evidence) of our human history. I also believe that we are, as Sting sang, spirits in the material world. I believe in past lives (because of memories in myself) not just other peoples accounts.

I could go on but I think that's enough for one post except that some musical performers (you may notice it in my reply) know something is wrong. All the info is there when you look/listen. After seeing the matrix before and then after realizing how the world works. we see and hear but we don't truly hear until we start to truly listen.

Regarding ground zero: For me it was the realization that Michael Jackson was right when he sang. All I wanna say is that they don't really care about us. Some people ruined him for waking up.

a reply to: TzarChasm

servantofthelamb, you said:

Can you use the scientific method to verify the statement "we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven?"

question - "should any proposition that cannot be scientifically validated be believed"?

background research - history indicates that propositions which have been scientifically validated beyond reasonable doubt are more likely to pass a rudimentary fact check

construct a hypothesis - "a proposition which cannot be scientifically validated beyond reasonable doubt will not pass a rudimentary fact check."

devise an experiment, execute experiment, observe and record results, go back to the drawing board.

servantofthelamb, do you have a proposition on which to test the scientific method for its merits?

originally posted by: aethertek
Better yet here's a challenge for the religulous.

How about you believe whatever silly BS you believe & stop trying to make everyone else believe the same nonsense.

That way we're all good.

See all the religulous have to do is mind their own damn business & stop trying to make people conform to their version of reality & their beliefs wont be challenged.

Tend to your own garden & stop mucking about in your neighbors yard.
K~

See all the gay people have to do is mind their own damn business & stop trying to make people conform to their version of reality & their beliefs wont be challenged.

See all the liberals have to do is mind their own damn business & stop trying to make people conform to their version of reality & their beliefs wont be challenged.

See all the Muslims have to do is mind their own damn business & stop trying to make people conform to their version of reality & their beliefs wont be challenged.

See all the blacks have to do is mind their own damn business & stop trying to make people conform to their version of reality & their beliefs wont be challenged.

See all the anti-gun people have to do is mind their own damn business & stop trying to make people conform to their version of reality & their beliefs wont be challenged.

originally posted by: aethertek
Better yet here's a challenge for the religulous.

How about you believe whatever silly BS you believe & stop trying to make everyone else believe the same nonsense.

That way we're all good.

See all the religulous have to do is mind their own damn business & stop trying to make people conform to their version of reality & their beliefs wont be challenged.

Tend to your own garden & stop mucking about in your neighbors yard.
K~

I have rarely seen religious people try to negate the beliefs of atheists, but a lot of athiests are disrespectful to religious people. I am totally fine with your assertion, as long as atheists stop trying 24/7 to tell me I am an idiot for believing what I believe. IMHO belief in a supreme being is no more far fetched than believing the entire universe came from a singularity smaller than a proton, and just assembled itself and its physical laws, stars, planets, galaxies and life just by accident. That is every bit as mythological as belief in God supposedly is.

a reply to: Winstonian

I think a better world view is to be open minded and form opinions based on evidence. I try to be open minded, but I am not going to believe in ideas that have no reasonable evidence. Every other religion could be replaced with Christianity. "What is a more coherent view of the world than a Judaic world view?"

Okay saying being "open" minded and forming opinions based on evidence. This is a very general statement. I applaud open mindedness, but I am looking for specifics about your belief.

That is the very basis of the Christian religion. Based on Christianity, all you have to do is "have faith" and pray for forgiveness and you are saved.

This is a problem I see a lot with people who have never taken the time to actually understand their theology, christians and atheist alike. I think its a failure on the the people of the church as many people when they cannot answer a question jump to a kind of slogan "you just have to have faith". Most people never take the time to figure out what the word faith means in the Bible. It means to trust completely in someone or something. The basis of Chritianity is NOT believe in Christ without any reason what so ever and you will be forgiven. The basis of Christianity is trust in the work Christ did on the cross. In fact the Bible tells Christians to be ready to give a reason for the Hope that is within them.

I do not believe it is evidence, nor do I think it was written by anyone other than man. We cannot prove it either way, but based on scientifically proven inaccuracies, I have more evidence to believe that it is just a book, as opposed to it being a Godly work from heaven

I think that is probably because you have a different view of what biblical inspiration means. I used to think it was very similar to autowriting, but that I am not sure that is my position anymore kind of on the fence. I think God using his foreknowledge chose certain people that would write down the text in such a way that it got his message across perfectly. I do think it quotes God verbatim sometimes, and I think there is evidence of his influence on it like prophecy. I do however also think that the culture of the day influenced the people who wrote the Bible. So even if I concede that it scientific inaccuracies like that of Paul when he speaks of the head covering. In 1 Corinthians 11, he says:

14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?


This is a reference to the work of Hippocrates, because they believed seamen to be stored in the hair. Why are these things in there? Because it was a way for the writers to relay concepts to the audience in a way they could readily understand. I think this is one of the coolest parts of studying Scripture. That is to find out how the culture would have taken certain things back then as opposed to how we would take them in modern times.


Ancient Jews believed the earth to look kind of similar to this:

twiggietruth.files.wordpress.com...


So yes you may find some things off in the Bible that were for the people of that day, but to be fair many of the verses used to construct these views are based on ancient Hebrew poetry and as such are open to interpretation. Maybe God did that so it could mean something to each culture as human understanding grew.

That is the thing here. No one knows if the bible is accurate, or if it contains truth, or if it doesn't.

This is an argument from omniscience fallacy. You do not know the perspective of each and every human being. You would need to know that in order to prove this statement true.

I cannot know anything with 100% certainty. Neither can you. You can believe all you want, but you do not know for 100% certainty. Everything is just a theory.

I disagree. There are things that I know to be objectively true. If you experience in life is similar to mine I am sure you can know them to be so as well.


I can know of my own existence with 100% certainty.(Note: I said I can know of my own existence, not the existence of others)

I can know with 100% certainty that perception is a real phenomena in the universe.(Note: I know that there is such a thing as perceiving as I do it, but I do not know the nature of these perceptions)

I can also know logical truths with 100% certainty. For example, there are no round squares or there are no married bachelors.

If you argument is that atheists don't know for sure, so they should follow the bible, I think that is a flawed system.

I haven't made an argument . I am just having a discussion man.

My knowledge? I do not know. I do not claim to know either. I am "agnostic." Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't. Maybe one of the thousands and thousands of religions are right, and maybe none of them are right. The thing with religion, is that people claim to know for sure that the story they believe is truth, when the only evidence provided is an ancient book. If that is all the evidence someone needs, then how can you say that your book is evidence, and other's are not? I think it is arrogant to claim to know for 100% certainty that any religion is the truth.

Why do people think that when I ask for their world view I am asking for their opinion on God? That is not what I want to know. I want to know what you think is really true, and how you came to the conclusion that it was true.

If you don't know about anything then how could your opinion that Christianity has no evidence hold any weight?

If that is all the evidence someone needs, then how can you say that your book is evidence, and other's are not?

Very few religious text are written in genres that would imply we should take them as literal history. For example, many of Paul's writings are letters he wrote to someone. Luke is historical narrative, The Gospel's are written as Graeco-Roman biographies. The genre tells us how the author intended the text to be taken. My view on the Bible is simple. Either Jesus rose from the dead and the Bible is true, or Jesus did not rise from the dead and the Bible is false.

I think it is arrogant to claim to know for 100% certainty that any religion is the truth.

I do not see why. If I have personal experiences that lead me to believe Christ is real, but I cannot share those experiences with you that does not mean I am arrogant. It means I simply have some form of experiential knowledge that you do not. I get that these experiences would never give you or any other person knowledge of God, but they do that for me.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

I determine what is true for me in any given moment. The truth is not fixed. It is not constant. The truth is fluid. It changes and moves. What is true for me today may not be true for me tomorrow. Truth is dependent upon things like point of view and experience, Wisdom and knowledge. There are some universal truths that are philosophically assumed to be true, how ever it is possible that the true truth can never be known.

You are the third person to bring this kind of view up. This view of the world is simply baffling to me, and I mean no offense by that. I just don't understand what people mean when they say things like, "What is true for me today may not be true for me tomorrow," what are you saying that what is true can literally change based on your own subjective opinion? Or are you saying that you can find out that a belief you thought was true was actually false? Are you saying God could exists and not exists at the same time?

a reply to: Indigo5

No..But those things that can be proven with the scientific method should be accepted.

Okay why? Things found by the scientific method are based on unjustified assumptions. If you can offer a justification for those assumptions that is logically valid and sound I will gladly agree. I cannot personally think of a logically valid way to do this on a materialistic view of the world.

We could continue with round earth vs. flat earth and planets rotating around the sun, or dinosaurs, creation myths etc. Nothing wrong with faith, community and principles...but science is real and religion is not a perquisite for morality, ethics and principles. Can you imagine where we might be as a civilization is Christians hadn't burned so many scientists? Hell...Einstein might have been burnt at the stake if he had been born a few hundred years earlier.

Or we could move on to you actually putting your own world view forth. i get that you reject mine....

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Indigo5

No..But those things that can be proven with the scientific method should be accepted.

Okay why? Things found by the scientific method are based on unjustified assumptions. If you can offer a justification for those assumptions that is logically valid and sound I will gladly agree. I cannot personally think of a logically valid way to do this on a materialistic view of the world.

We could continue with round earth vs. flat earth and planets rotating around the sun, or dinosaurs, creation myths etc. Nothing wrong with faith, community and principles...but science is real and religion is not a perquisite for morality, ethics and principles. Can you imagine where we might be as a civilization is Christians hadn't burned so many scientists? Hell...Einstein might have been burnt at the stake if he had been born a few hundred years earlier.

Or we could move on to you actually putting your own world view forth. i get that you reject mine....

If you agree to anything in this thread, it will be to disagree. You have already said you cannot demonstrate that the scientific method does not work. I don't see what the confusion here is.

a reply to: TzarChasm

This is the only life and reality I have. I'm pretty certain of that. I'm also pretty certain that the scientific method works, and that you are not the end-all-be-all of knowledge either. The scientific method is limited yes but not wrong. We spend a lot of money paying a lot of people to work a lot of Sleepless hours and shed a lot of frustrated tears in order to prove that. And finally I'm pretty certain that you will not succeed in making science look dumb or creationism look better than science or equal to. Oh wait but I am also certain that you will still try. Okay I think that's a pretty good start.

This is not science versus religion. I don't think the two are at odds.

This is the only life and reality I have. I'm pretty certain of that. I'm also pretty certain that the scientific method works, and that you are not the end-all-be-all of knowledge either. The scientific method is limited yes but not wrong.

If you are sure the scientific method works, but cannot justify the very assumption upon which it is based you have no coherency in your world view. Can you justify the basic assumptions of Science or not? If not then we cannot put things discovered via the scientific method in the category of knowledge with 100% certainty.

question - "should any proposition that cannot be scientifically validated be believed"?

Without validation for its justifications no. Now if you want to know my world view, and for me to step out of my ground zero for a second then Yes, but I think that because in my own world view I can justify the assumptions that science rest upon.

If naturalism is true, then each thought, feeling , and action are the result of a prior physical cause. I cannot actually think or choose in this scenario I am simply a biological automaton so I guess the answer would be I'll believe whatever my electrochemical reactions make me tell you I believe.

servantofthelamb, do you have a proposition on which to test the scientific method for its merits?

Well believe it or not the scientific method uses philosophy. My issue is not with the process, but the philosophical foundations of the process. So its not something you design an experiment for but rather I need a logical explanation for believing in these assumptions on a naturalistic view of the world.

construct a hypothesis - "a proposition which cannot be scientifically validated beyond reasonable doubt will not pass a rudimentary fact check." devise an experiment, execute experiment, observe and record results, go back to the drawing board.

You again are using the very assumption that I have questioned. How do you validate the belief that because an experiment is observed under certain conditions in the past, that this will give you evidence of how it will behave under the same conditions in the future? If your world view is based the scientific method, in order for me to understand how you believe what you believe I need an answer to this question. Otherwise I cannot understand how you could call information gained from the scientific method true knowledge.