It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 64
7
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I don't really follow what it is you're asking...


intrepid is looking for passages that state there will be an outpouring of the spirit post-pentacost. I was hoping mine would fit (in addition to the previous ones you've quoted), but maybe there's something you can add. If I'm off-base intrepid, feel free to correct me.




posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Maddam H.P. Blavatsky, founder of the theosophical society, makes the point in her book Isis Unveiled that the god worshipped in those ancient times, was not actually a new monotheistic God, but a member of a whole pantheon of gods.

They have even changed the spelling of the name of God, as Sir W. Drummond proves. Thus El, if written correctly, would read Al, for it stands in the original -- Al, and, according to Higgins, this word means the god Mithra, the Sun, the preserver and savior. Sir W. Drummond shows that Beth-El means the House of the Sun in its literal translation, and not of God. "El, in the composition of these Canaanite names, does not signify Deus, but Sol."

This information is no secret. It has been known in the Catholic church since its beginnings. Just another little lie



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
If I'm off-base intrepid, feel free to correct me.


No, you're spot on.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Skept all you like, here's a LINK which documents strange rain.

Strange Rain


as soon as i started reading i knew what it was. whatever fell, whether it be fish, frogs or cows, get sucked up during storms (normally a tornados) and are frozen to death in the air and rained or hailed down. this happened to two pilots in a small aircraft, one of those ones with no roof over your head, they were caught in a storm and were frozen and came back to earth as hail stones...but ones the size of people. it is mostly amphibious creatures if you read because often tornados whilst moving over water pick up a lot of water and what is in the water. there's nothing wierd at play, just some storms, tornados, and hail.

i'd like to see some 'evidence' of all of those happening though. like blood falling from the sky...no pictures, video etc...



You obviously like to hear what you want. I said nothing about evolution, and as for it, evolution is a somewhat sound theory with some holes. It is a reasonable theory. There are various other reasonable theories, I was referring to the unreasonable ones. The ones science instantly dismisses.


i was saying that before darwin came along with his theory, scientists were happy to believe in creation, but they accept evolution as a new theory. i said that because you were saying science can't accept new ideas...when evolution was a controversial, blasphemous theory...yet science accepted it.



Science is very much shut to certain new ideas, ideas which threaten to overturn long held beliefs.


shut to new ideas? a new idea 150 years ago called evolution...science was very much not shut to this. are you saying science should accept that god created everything...if so which god? the christian one, thor the god of thunder, ra the sun god...which god. why should science accept these theories from loads of different religions? i don't get how that would even help science or scientific study.



but don't dare hold onto illusions that science is "Open" and "Accepting" of new theories. There's a reason why science and skepticism tend to go hand in hand, after all.


surely there are theories upon theories that make up science...therefore science has had to accept all of these theories. i don't see exactly what theories you want science to accept, you're making little, if any sense.



So reread what I said, I said science rejects irrational reasons, often without examination.


what are these irrational reasons that science isn't examining, yet still rejecting them? maybe science should spend their time proving that there is no middle earth where people are living, or that there are people living inside the moon, or perhaps they should spend their time searching for the aliens that built the pyramids? science doesn't do that because matter of fact it is a waste of time.



Hmm. Well, as a perfectly bad example... it is logically assumed the sun will rise tomorrow, because it rises every other day. Repeatability. Or if it doesn't rise, that there's a rational explanation for it. In science, the sun can't just "FEEL" Like not rising today, it has to be affected not to rise, because a ball of gas doesn't have feelings.


yeah you're right it was a bad example because it made no sense. when the sun sets for you, that doesn't mean that it's night everywhere in the world, it means that the sun perhaps is just rising somewhere else. so if the sun doesn't rise one day...it doesn't rise for the whole world, thus 'someone turned out the lights' and we would be dead and not even witness it because it would be so cold!



For a better example, what would happen if measurements of all kinds were no longer reliable? I don't mean "DIFFERENT", I mean every time you measured something, the answer came back different than all the other answers.


that's normally what science does anyway. take more than one measurement and take an average. you seem way in over your head here and aren't making any sense at all. i can't even hold a decent discussion with you.



Or, better yet, what happens if will begins to actively shape reality in more than a subtle way that allows people to change their local phenomena fundamentally?


and this brings down the foundations of science because...



There are a lot of things science NEEDS to be true in order to operate and functionally move forwards. Otherwise everything science is falls apart.


science won't fall apart, and isn't falling apart. i have no idea what you're even getting at. you haven't even got an arguement to back up your irrational claims.



[sarcasm]
I like how you made this ad hominem, it certainly validates your stance and makes me surely look the fool. [/sarcasm]


gee...sarcasm...watching too much 'friends'? anyways, sarcasm is belittling, so i'd like to thank you for trying to belittle me as an attempt to prove your point that you are right, because the rest of your arguement was pretty lame.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
How would you define an outpouring of the spirit, though, Intrepid? If you mean the Spirit coming into the world and suddenly empowering followers of Christ as it had in Acts 2 like Jesus had promised it would, then no, I don't believe there is. If, however, you mean an outpouring of the Holy Spirit through the works and power of Christians who had recieved the Holy Spirit and had the Holy Spirit set upon them, then there are many examples.

That's where I'm looking for clarification



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

as soon as i started reading i knew what it was. whatever fell, whether it be fish, frogs or cows, get sucked up during storms (normally a tornados) and are frozen to death in the air and rained or hailed down. this happened to two pilots in a small aircraft, one of those ones with no roof over your head, they were caught in a storm and were frozen and came back to earth as hail stones...but ones the size of people. it is mostly amphibious creatures if you read because often tornados whilst moving over water pick up a lot of water and what is in the water. there's nothing wierd at play, just some storms, tornados, and hail.


Good job, now how about you go and actually READ the link.



i'd like to see some 'evidence' of all of those happening though. like blood falling from the sky...no pictures, video etc...


Sadly enough, most people don't have cameras handy for random events. Also, most people try to avoid living things raining out of the sky. In most instances of strange rain, the things that fall are not frozen. The BEST explanation is storms swallow masses of fish and such up and rain them elsewhere, but this is far from a rock solid argument.



i was saying that before darwin came along with his theory, scientists were happy to believe in creation, but they accept evolution as a new theory. i said that because you were saying science can't accept new ideas...when evolution was a controversial, blasphemous theory...yet science accepted it.


Just because they accept one idea that fits in with their modality doesn't mean they are ACCEPTING and OPEN.




shut to new ideas? a new idea 150 years ago called evolution...science was very much not shut to this. are you saying science should accept that god created everything...if so which god? the christian one, thor the god of thunder, ra the sun god...which god. why should science accept these theories from loads of different religions? i don't get how that would even help science or scientific study.


No. I'm saying that science should not make preconceived notions about the way things are. SCIENTISTS DO. Don't sit there and tell me that most scientists don't have preconceived notions about the way things work, and THROW OUT any information that doesn't GROK with their understood paradigm.

Quantum Theory, String Theory, and other such cutting edge scientific fields often clash with the erudite and upright classical scientists. Half think the fields are ridiculous, and the other half are a bit scared that it will pull the proverbial rug out form some of the formulas they use to understand the universe, making them have to start over from scratch to explain the universe and everything.




surely there are theories upon theories that make up science...therefore science has had to accept all of these theories. i don't see exactly what theories you want science to accept, you're making little, if any sense.


I am not arguing for the acceptance of any theories, I am arguing that scientists are not inclined to endorse ideas that threaten their understanding of science.



what are these irrational reasons that science isn't examining, yet still rejecting them? maybe science should spend their time proving that there is no middle earth where people are living, or that there are people living inside the moon, or perhaps they should spend their time searching for the aliens that built the pyramids? science doesn't do that because matter of fact it is a waste of time.


That the earth exists on the back of a giant turtle, that taking an axe to someone's head can produce another person, that for some reason buttered toast falls butterside down because evil gnomes are directing butter influencing rays at them.

Like I said, science dismisses the "OBVIOUSLY WRONG" answers without examination. This is true for free energy devices (Which violates the law of conservation of energy), true for past civilizations with current day advanced technology (which overturns ALL of anthropological and archaeological understanding), NDE's.... you know what, this whole site. Mainstream science looks at sites like this and laughs it's collective arses off. Does that mean none of this is TRUE? No, it just means science thinks you're WRONG. Why? Because it doesn't fit in with their methodology to have reptiles from an alternate dimension trying to enslave the human race.



yeah you're right it was a bad example because it made no sense. when the sun sets for you, that doesn't mean that it's night everywhere in the world, it means that the sun perhaps is just rising somewhere else. so if the sun doesn't rise one day...it doesn't rise for the whole world, thus 'someone turned out the lights' and we would be dead and not even witness it because it would be so cold!


You gracelessly and bumblingly missed the point of my analogy. Congrats.




that's normally what science does anyway. take more than one measurement and take an average. you seem way in over your head here and aren't making any sense at all. i can't even hold a decent discussion with you.


Okay, what if for whatever reason, rather than the sun rising over the horizon, a giant glowing wombat decides to take it's place... but only every second tuesday of every third month.

Yes, I am using SILLY examples. Because there is no way to illustrate to a scientific mind what sort of catastrophe this would be to the scientific world if the world ceased to make SENSE to them. People have emotional breakdowns because of such things, in fact, some physicists are having it now over QUANTUM MECHANICS!



and this brings down the foundations of science because...


Ignoring mass and energy rules, I turn you into a newt in front of all the scientists at the nobel prize.

Don't worry, you'll get better.




science won't fall apart, and isn't falling apart. i have no idea what you're even getting at. you haven't even got an arguement to back up your irrational claims.


I am not CLAIMING anything. Have you not even been paying attention?



gee...sarcasm...watching too much 'friends'? anyways, sarcasm is belittling, so i'd like to thank you for trying to belittle me as an attempt to prove your point that you are right, because the rest of your arguement was pretty lame.


You know, you take any fun out of zinging you, since you don't even know you've been zinged.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
In any case.... SpamandHam; while you are on this website, I would likely believe you are capable of accepting paradigms and possibilities that other scientists would laugh at or call ridiculous concepts.

Free energy devices, alternate dimensions, wormhole theory amidst other things.

How would you as a scientist respond if there was a reality breakdown primarily tied to another universal paradigm shift, which would ultimately shift our understanding of the universe back to square one?

Such as that heat warmed some things, cooled others, cold could warm some things. Fire didn't burn everything and didn't always produce heat or die in lack of fuel, water sometimes runs uphills, people could concentrate on archaic gestures and words and effect reality by sheer will alone, these sorts of things.

While I'm not arguing YOU might have a break down, I would also like to know if you personally know some mathematicians/physicists/scientists which would not be able to cope/readjust to such a changed world?



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Shaunybaby

Are you then to believe that all scientists holding doctorates who study creation/evolution believe only in evolution?

And how many scientists would you say have come to the very conclusion that we must have been created therefore God must exist?

Here are some who either believed before hand or discovered after.
www.christiananswers.net...

Seems to me that IQ/education means little when it comes to the subject of God.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
So one explanation that is in line with what you believe is acceptable, while an explanation that isn't in line with what you believe is unacceptable.


Evidence is what really matters. All we have are a few babbling subjects uttering nonsense that neither they nor anyone else understands until they have been exposed repeatedly and effectivly decided what these utterings mean. The phenomenon is not distinguishable from the same thing that has been documented among competing cults (Christians and non).

To say "oh this one is really what they claim, but these others are BS" is special pleading.


Originally posted by junglejake is it really intellectually honest?


Yes.


Originally posted by junglejakeWhat about my other question?


I don't know that the situation you posed happens, but if it does, perhaps they are insane? There's no way to answer generalities with more than generalities.

The question I would ask you is, is it possible that these phenomena have a natural explanation? If so, why do you latch onto supernatural explanations when possible (even likely) natural explanations suffice? Do you do the same thing to explain why your bread turns brown when placed in a toaster, or is a natural explanation sufficient in that case? If so, why is it not acceptable in the other?

If a natural explanation suffices, to reject it is yet another case of special pleading.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Yeah, they're called boring services. I feel ya my friend. My advice is to get a church with a band. You know, bass, guitar, drums, etc.


Having attended quite a few Catholic masses, I know the difference between boredom and what happens with a repetitive high volume soundtrack with a bass heavy preacher, dim lights, and people jumping up and down with the music. Have you ever been to a charismatic/pentacostal style service? It's as freaky as any haunted house.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Free energy devices, alternate dimensions, wormhole theory amidst other things.

How would you as a scientist respond if there was a reality breakdown primarily tied to another universal paradigm shift, which would ultimately shift our understanding of the universe back to square one?


Everything I think I know is held contingently. "Something exists" is the one thing I haven't been able to tear down, although I'm working on it.

I will go wherever the evidence leads. If it turns out I've been deceived and the evidence is somehow far different from apodictic reality (assuming there is such a thing), then oh well. All I can do is what I can do. But I do know this much, faith does not serve me in any aspect of my life where the results are measureable, and so I have no reason to even suspect there is any validity to it in any other case. Could I be wrong on this count? Yes. If I am, is there any way to know it? No.


Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Such as that heat warmed some things, cooled others, cold could warm some things. Fire didn't burn everything and didn't always produce heat or die in lack of fuel, water sometimes runs uphills, people could concentrate on archaic gestures and words and effect reality by sheer will alone, these sorts of things.


If it happens it happens. But, we can examine the history of the earth and see that it at least appears to be consistent over time as far as we can tell. If the laws of physics have changed, they have not left any trace of having been different in the past, excepting possibly the very early universe. If water starts running up hill, we're probably all going to die anyway, so what difference does it make?



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Disclaimer: I moved spamandham's comments around in the way I quoted them. For their original context, click here


Originally posted by spamandham
I don't know that the situation you posed happens, but if it does, perhaps they are insane?


I think, then, we're going to have to define what insane is.

In John 10:20, Jesus is called "demon possessed and raving mad". This was not because he was nuts, as John 10:21 responds with "But others said, 'These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?'" This was not a clinical assertation, but because Jesus so revolutionized the Jew's belief system when He was there. He did not fit in with the norms of the Jewish culture, so those who chose not to believe the things he said claimed he was insane. It was an attempt at shutting someone up because they couldn't handle what that person had to say. On top of that, they were hardly psychologists; do you claim that you are?


Originally posted by spamandham
To say "oh this one is really what they claim, but these others are BS" is special pleading.


I'm glad we agree on that, that's exactly the point I was making.




The question I would ask you is, is it possible that these phenomena have a natural explanation?
Yes. There's reason to believe Jesus healed on several occasions using the placebo effect. Convincing people they were healed of their mentally induced illness, and therefore their mind allowed them to be healed. However, that doesn't account for lepers, people with gamey hands, or life long cripples.


If so, why do you latch onto supernatural explanations when possible (even likely) natural explanations suffice?
Likely? I'm curious as to those. Is insanity likely? They're either insane or lying, and there can be no other option? You do you immediately dismiss the supernatural as not existing when so many others, including scholars and professionals, believe it does?

On top of that, everything is possible. It is impossible for science to prove something is impossible (I love that saying
). However, there is possible, and there is probable. Is it probable that people all over the world all are either liars or insane who believe in what the Bible tells them (or claim to, in the case of the liars)? Is it probable that, despite the testamony of psychologists, paramedics, doctors, and other otherwise trustworthy individuals all are lying about bizzare, unnatural experiences that do not fit into the naturalistic frame of mind? Or maybe they're just insane.


Do you do the same thing to explain why your bread turns brown when placed in a toaster, or is a natural explanation sufficient in that case? If so, why is it not acceptable in the other?
Again, probability, my friend. It is extremely probable that, when I stick my bread in something that gets extremely hot, that it's the heat that turns my bread brown. Does that mean it's impossible that there's actually a chemical reaction taking place on that bread in one instance that dries it out and turns the surface hard and brown in color? No, just very improbable.


If a natural explanation suffices, to reject it is yet another case of special pleading.
But to assume that man and science know all there is to know about this universe, and that knowledge has proven that there cannot be a supernatural, there cannot be any unknowns in our day to day interactions is also special pleading. If you enter into an investigation knowing one explanation is false, you will find that to be true. Going in with an open mind will cause you to select the most probable cause, but realize that there are other possibilities. Being a member of Above Top Secret, I would have expected you to know this.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Good job, now how about you go and actually READ the link.


i did read it. don't take a stupid smart-arse tone because it makes you sound childish. i gave a logical explanation for the various amphibious creatures. as for the blood...it would be nice to have more than a few lines...it's not really conclusive proof. i'm not sure what you're even trying to prove...are you saying god did all this?



Sadly enough, most people don't have cameras handy for random events. Also, most people try to avoid living things raining out of the sky. In most instances of strange rain, the things that fall are not frozen. The BEST explanation is storms swallow masses of fish and such up and rain them elsewhere, but this is far from a rock solid argument.


well the fact that most of them are amphibious would suggest they are coming from the water...wouldn't you agree? the only problem with your fantastic source from the internet is that it says nothing apart from 'it rained frogs'... what about the weather at the time etc...



Just because they accept one idea that fits in with their modality doesn't mean they are ACCEPTING and OPEN.


let me get this straight... just because science accepts and opens it's doors to a new idea, it means it's not accepting or open


the fact that these are called 'theories' means that they are likely to change or alter etc. so science is infact always open to new ideas, even new ideas to old theories.



No. I'm saying that science should not make preconceived notions about the way things are. SCIENTISTS DO. Don't sit there and tell me that most scientists don't have preconceived notions about the way things work, and THROW OUT any information that doesn't GROK with their understood paradigm.


so i shouldn't believe or think i'm sitting at my computer because a preconceived notion? i should be open to the chance that i might be plugged in to a matrix scenario? why bother...we accept the reality which we are presented. even if we were in a matrix...i won't mind, because there's nothing i could do. so this for me, matrix or not, preconceived notion or not, is reality.



Quantum Theory, String Theory, and other such cutting edge scientific fields often clash with the erudite and upright classical scientists. Half think the fields are ridiculous, and the other half are a bit scared that it will pull the proverbial rug out form some of the formulas they use to understand the universe, making them have to start over from scratch to explain the universe and everything.


yeah, but the fact is that some scientists are studying it. maybe it might overturn all we know or thought we knew about the universe. some people are scared of that so they avoid these new theories. some scientist don't, and they study these new theories. science doesn't know it all, it doens't claim to know it all. we are such an insufficient spec on this planet, let alone our solar system or universe...do you think for one second that scientists claim to 'know it all'? because if that's the way you think, then i think you've got too many preconceived notions floating around in your head.



That the earth exists on the back of a giant turtle, that taking an axe to someone's head can produce another person, that for some reason buttered toast falls butterside down because evil gnomes are directing butter influencing rays at them.


yeah, i'm sure science doesn't accept these theories because they might prove science completly wrong. maybe they don't adopt them because they're illogical and don't hold one ounce of truth. by all means...bring me proof that the earth is on a turtles back, but then some say that it was held on atlas' shoulder, or even an elephants back, so maybe you need to disprove those before you prove your turtle theory. ever seen 'mythbusters' they proved there is no preference for toast falling butter or non-butter side down. as for the earth existing on the back on a giant turtle...why bother even studying that, it's a waste of their time, my time, and your time. the same goes for the axe making babies.



You gracelessly and bumblingly missed the point of my analogy. Congrats.


maybe because it had no 'point'. if you perhaps make an actual 'point' i might just listen. so far you're rambling on about nonsense. you say science doesn't accept new theories, when there are scientists who are studying alternate theories like string theory.



Okay, what if for whatever reason, rather than the sun rising over the horizon, a giant glowing wombat decides to take it's place... but only every second tuesday of every third month.


are you saying this is a likely example of what 'could' happen? i know for sure you wouldn't put your life, your work, your house and everything you own on the line for such an occurance to take place. so why should science be open to such a theory of an event ever taking place? you seem to want science to drop everything it's doing and disprove that the earth isn't on a turtles back, and that there isn't going to be a glowing wombat in the sky...what would be the point of disproving these, let alone even studying them.



Yes, I am using SILLY examples. Because there is no way to illustrate to a scientific mind what sort of catastrophe this would be to the scientific world if the world ceased to make SENSE to them. People have emotional breakdowns because of such things, in fact, some physicists are having it now over QUANTUM MECHANICS!


so this tells us that scientists are prone to breakdowns, just like humans. are you trying to say scientists are human! darwin pretty much had a breakdown because of his controversial work and himself trying to understand the implements of what he was saying.



Ignoring mass and energy rules, I turn you into a newt in front of all the scientists at the nobel prize.

Don't worry, you'll get better.


will a scientific break through cure me of my disease...



I am not CLAIMING anything. Have you not even been paying attention?


yeah i have been paying attention. you seem to think that science won't adopt a theory such as the earth on a turtles back because it will mean that science is wrong about everything if it were true. i'm paying attention, i dont think you are.



You know, you take any fun out of zinging you, since you don't even know you've been zinged.


my deepest appologies, i didn't mean to interupt your zinging. maybe if you thought a bit more and come from one angle, rather than changing your statement every 10 seconds we might get somewhere.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gps777
Are you then to believe that all scientists holding doctorates who study creation/evolution believe only in evolution?


um no. should i? some have a preference toward evolution, some toward creation and some are probably 50/50 and don't ever make their mind up.



And how many scientists would you say have come to the very conclusion that we must have been created therefore God must exist?


are we on about how many scientists ever, or just the scientists living today? i would say the number who believe we were created by a god or a higher power is less than the number who believe otherwise. i can't really say for sure, as i have no statistic of every scientist's opinion on this matter.



Seems to me that IQ/education means little when it comes to the subject of God.


my friend never had one science lesson in her life and was tutored at home. she is a christian, and isn't dumb, but she is no educated in science and she believes in god. it's one thing to be christian, it's another all together when children are kept away from something that might harm their parent's belief. only with crystal who was argueing that science doesn't accept other things, when we have two parents who won't let their daughter go to school to learn about science, when evolution makes up about 0.0001% of the whole subject.

as for IQ/education not having an effect on your belief in god, i think is not a valid statement to make, as sometimes it will, yet sometimes it won't. there is no universal right or wrong answer.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

i did read it. don't take a stupid smart-arse tone because it makes you sound childish. i gave a logical explanation for the various amphibious creatures. as for the blood...it would be nice to have more than a few lines...it's not really conclusive proof. i'm not sure what you're even trying to prove...are you saying god did all this?


Alright, I apologize for assuming you hadn't. Your dismissing manner certainly gave off the impression you just glossed over the article and didn't bother actually looking elsewhere for any information on the topic.



well the fact that most of them are amphibious would suggest they are coming from the water...wouldn't you agree? the only problem with your fantastic source from the internet is that it says nothing apart from 'it rained frogs'... what about the weather at the time etc...


I am not asserting that there is anything supernatural about it, I am only asserting that science likes to make up reasons that might sound good, but might also be entirely incorrect. Scientists are human too, as you yourself say.



let me get this straight... just because science accepts and opens it's doors to a new idea, it means it's not accepting or open


the fact that these are called 'theories' means that they are likely to change or alter etc. so science is infact always open to new ideas, even new ideas to old theories.



Riddle me this, Batman... the Pope accepted Darwin's theory of evolution at some level. Does this make the church "Open" and "Accepting"?

Science can both be existing in a perpetual transitory state as well as preferring to keep certain beliefs because it's tradition. These two do not conflict. Science can change and still be ignorant and self-absorbed. Am I saying every scientist out there is? No. Just the greater majority. Fringe scientists are generally considered with scorn, just like heretics.



so i shouldn't believe or think i'm sitting at my computer because a preconceived notion? i should be open to the chance that i might be plugged in to a matrix scenario? why bother...we accept the reality which we are presented. even if we were in a matrix...i won't mind, because there's nothing i could do. so this for me, matrix or not, preconceived notion or not, is reality.


I don't presume to tell you what to believe. I do, however, think that not being certain of the way reality is is healthier than clinging to ideas which may be false. The more a person has vested in "THE WAY THINGS ARE", the more violently they are opposed to someone taking that away from them. It is the way with emotions, thoughts, and anything involving investment of self or precious commodities.




yeah, but the fact is that some scientists are studying it. maybe it might overturn all we know or thought we knew about the universe. some people are scared of that so they avoid these new theories. some scientist don't, and they study these new theories. science doesn't know it all, it doens't claim to know it all. we are such an insufficient spec on this planet, let alone our solar system or universe...do you think for one second that scientists claim to 'know it all'? because if that's the way you think, then i think you've got too many preconceived notions floating around in your head.


There is a large faction, mostly in charge of peer reviewing research, which have a vested interest with old theories. You are right that science can and does change, but don't imagine it changes without difficulty or opposition. Change has and always will be an uphill battle.



yeah, i'm sure science doesn't accept these theories because they might prove science completly wrong. maybe they don't adopt them because they're illogical and don't hold one ounce of truth. by all means...bring me proof that the earth is on a turtles back, but then some say that it was held on atlas' shoulder, or even an elephants back, so maybe you need to disprove those before you prove your turtle theory. ever seen 'mythbusters' they proved there is no preference for toast falling butter or non-butter side down. as for the earth existing on the back on a giant turtle...why bother even studying that, it's a waste of their time, my time, and your time. the same goes for the axe making babies.


There is no such thing as proof, sir. Only supporting evidence. As such, I have little to support the whimsical idea I was throwing out.

I have seen Mythbusters. It is a horrible show, they don't even properly follow scientific formulae in testing theories and myths. Ask around, anyone with half a wit and a science degree will tell you this. Not saying they aren't right, only that they are very bad scientists.



maybe because it had no 'point'. if you perhaps make an actual 'point' i might just listen. so far you're rambling on about nonsense. you say science doesn't accept new theories, when there are scientists who are studying alternate theories like string theory.


My point involved thinking of the sun all of a sudden less as an object in space and more like an entity. If humanity woke up tomorrow, and the sun had a will, and we didn't freeze to death for whatever reason (I would assume there is reason behind why this would occur in whatever new system of "How things are"), that was the question. You responded by dismissing it because the sun is always rising somewhere. What if it rose NOWHERE but still existed? For that matter, how the hell do I talk about a topic involving science losing cohesion without sounding silly doing so?



are you saying this is a likely example of what 'could' happen? i know for sure you wouldn't put your life, your work, your house and everything you own on the line for such an occurance to take place. so why should science be open to such a theory of an event ever taking place? you seem to want science to drop everything it's doing and disprove that the earth isn't on a turtles back, and that there isn't going to be a glowing wombat in the sky...what would be the point of disproving these, let alone even studying them.


Likelihood has no bearing on my question. You don't answer the question because you think it's silly. I asked what if, what, you don't want to answer that because it's silly and ridiculous? What if it really did happen?

And I am not arguing for proving or disproving them. I am saying, flat out, what if they DID happen? All of a sudden? What if nonsense became reality?

I would certainly appreciate a bit of help from other Forum Members in trying to relate the kind of pickle I am imagining such things would be for science, if anyone is following me and willing.



so this tells us that scientists are prone to breakdowns, just like humans. are you trying to say scientists are human! darwin pretty much had a breakdown because of his controversial work and himself trying to understand the implements of what he was saying.


Yes, and Darwin may be a good example of something I'm referring to. Darwin's paradigm was hugely unpopular at the time. It gained momentum as the years rolled on, but initially everyone was too stuck on their ideas of how things were to accept his theory.

I am talking about something similar, but far more violently hard to ignore.




will a scientific break through cure me of my disease...


Nah, you just get better.



yeah i have been paying attention. you seem to think that science won't adopt a theory such as the earth on a turtles back because it will mean that science is wrong about everything if it were true. i'm paying attention, i dont think you are.


At this point, I'm convinced it's a communications break down. You have, however, been idly dismissing to a lot of my points, and you feel I have none. I say you haven't really understood what I've been saying, and haven't really bothered to delve. This results in frustration on both ends.



my deepest appologies, i didn't mean to interupt your zinging. maybe if you thought a bit more and come from one angle, rather than changing your statement every 10 seconds we might get somewhere.


I haven't changed my stance or statement, I have only been attempting new manners to elaborate on a concept that is hard to get through to someone with a solid view of reality and how it functions.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
I am not asserting that there is anything supernatural about it, I am only asserting that science likes to make up reasons that might sound good, but might also be entirely incorrect. Scientists are human too, as you yourself say.


so we shouldn't take for granted that the sun rises every morning...because it might just turn in to a glowing wombat?



Riddle me this, Batman... the Pope accepted Darwin's theory of evolution at some level. Does this make the church "Open" and "Accepting"?


no, it means that the pope is. but then again, when did the church ever accept a new theory? there's even a warning in the bible 'you can't change this book, otherwise you go to hell' is the jist of it.



I don't presume to tell you what to believe. I do, however, think that not being certain of the way reality is is healthier than clinging to ideas which may be false.


but why make such a big deal about being wrong or right? why all this fuss? whatever we think is right now, will probably be wrong in the future...if there is even a future. eventually the human race will be extinct so why worry at all about being right etc.



There is a large faction, mostly in charge of peer reviewing research, which have a vested interest with old theories. You are right that science can and does change, but don't imagine it changes without difficulty or opposition. Change has and always will be an uphill battle.


change in anything is always an uphill battle. even stuff like rules in sports when changed they need years to be changed and even then it's not always going to be passed. the same for changing laws in government, takes quite a long time. all change takes time.



I have seen Mythbusters. It is a horrible show, they don't even properly follow scientific formulae in testing theories and myths. Ask around, anyone with half a wit and a science degree will tell you this. Not saying they aren't right, only that they are very bad scientists.


well i saw the episode on the butter toast myth and they did a lot of experiments, over the top in fact. so im not really sure how much more testing could be done? it's a fact that a piece of toast butter side up pushed off a surface normally turns one and a half times in the air, due to the average hieght on a table or surface, and hence lands butter side down.



My point involved thinking of the sun all of a sudden less as an object in space and more like an entity. If humanity woke up tomorrow, and the sun had a will, and we didn't freeze to death for whatever reason (I would assume there is reason behind why this would occur in whatever new system of "How things are"), that was the question. You responded by dismissing it because the sun is always rising somewhere. What if it rose NOWHERE but still existed? For that matter, how the hell do I talk about a topic involving science losing cohesion without sounding silly doing so?


but what would be the 'point' in thinking that this would ever happen? well when you make examples up of wombats glowing in the sky...it's hard not to sound silly.



Likelihood has no bearing on my question. You don't answer the question because you think it's silly. I asked what if, what, you don't want to answer that because it's silly and ridiculous? What if it really did happen?


that's like saying, 'what if we are plugged in to a matrix'? what if.... 'if ifs and buts were candy and nuts then christmas would be everyday'. i could say what if the earth is made out of edible chocolate. it has no meaning or relavence.



And I am not arguing for proving or disproving them. I am saying, flat out, what if they DID happen? All of a sudden? What if nonsense became reality?


then that doesn't affect just science. it affects just the general way of working everyday things. you seemed like you had a vendeta against science. but if everything was turned upside down, and nonsense became reality i think 'science being wrong' would be the least of our worries.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   


that's like saying, 'what if we are plugged in to a matrix'? what if.... 'if ifs and buts were candy and nuts then christmas would be everyday'. i could say what if the earth is made out of edible chocolate. it has no meaning or relavence.


Yes, it's a what if question. I'm asking what if, that is correct. You are correct in saying I asked a what if. How about answering the question, however ridiculous and irrelevant you feel it is?



then that doesn't affect just science. it affects just the general way of working everyday things. you seemed like you had a vendeta against science. but if everything was turned upside down, and nonsense became reality i think 'science being wrong' would be the least of our worries.


I agree, and that is my point.

[edit on 10/1/2005 by TheCrystalSword]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Yes, it's a what if question. I'm asking what if, that is correct. You are correct in saying I asked a what if. How about answering the question, however ridiculous and irrelevant you feel it is?


but why is it up to science to study that theory? how could they even study it, and is it even possible to study something like that? if there was any evidence whatsoever that science could look in to, i'm sure it would, but there is none, hence why there is no looking. there's no evidence to suggest a glowing wombat might rise instead of the sun, which again is why there's no point studying it, or even accepting it as a plausable theory.



I agree, and that is my point.


yeah but your point is pointless. i don't see why it has any relavence...



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

um no. should i? some have a preference toward evolution, some toward creation and some are probably 50/50 and don't ever make their mind up.

So basically its pointless to just go by what ever scientist`s claim,because their theories are just that theories.But Shauny if they were all to agree one day and come to the conclusion God exists will that be enough for you to believe?i doubt it because it seems that you have built too many walls to protect what you consider your own sanity that it will take God Himself to demolish.Search Him and it will happen.



my friend never had one science lesson in her life and was tutored at home. she is a christian, and isn't dumb, but she is no educated in science and she believes in god. it's one thing to be christian, it's another all together when children are kept away from something that might harm their parent's belief. only with crystal who was argueing that science doesn't accept other things, when we have two parents who won't let their daughter go to school to learn about science, when evolution makes up about 0.0001% of the whole subject.

For an evolutionist such as yourself what would it take for say?apes now days in a jungle having never had contact with humans to suddenly realise they are naked and start wearing covering`s to cover their nakedness?
So what would that take to occur?

I can understand parents being concerned by what and how their children are taught.
Yesterday on the news they were showing new footage of apes using sticks as tools in the wild,scientists believed that apes only did this in captivity when they have learnt from humans,just shows you the it does`nt take much to surprise scientists when countless animals use tools in one way or another.



as for IQ/education not having an effect on your belief in god, i think is not a valid statement to make, as sometimes it will, yet sometimes it won't. there is no universal right or wrong answer.


Using scienctist`s claims will not bring you to God you find him on your knee`s,nor will education,nor will high or low IQ.
So regardless of a persons intelligence or education will have no bearing on accepting God into your life.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777
So basically its pointless to just go by what ever scientist`s claim,because their theories are just that theories.But Shauny if they were all to agree one day and come to the conclusion God exists will that be enough for you to believe?i doubt it because it seems that you have built too many walls to protect what you consider your own sanity that it will take God Himself to demolish.Search Him and it will happen.


so basically you're asking me 'if everyone decided to believe in god, would i therefore believe'. the answer is no, because i'm not a blind follower, or a sheep. why should 'i' search for god? god's supposed to be everywhere, but i have to search out this devine being? the fact is i don't need god in my life, my life is fine, it's not a question of sanity.



For an evolutionist such as yourself what would it take for say?apes now days in a jungle having never had contact with humans to suddenly realise they are naked and start wearing covering`s to cover their nakedness?
So what would that take to occur?


why would they necessarily cover themselves up even if they were aware? i believe human's first wore clothes as an aid to keep warm and to protect themselves, not because adam and eve felt self concious about their bodies.



Yesterday on the news they were showing new footage of apes using sticks as tools in the wild,scientists believed that apes only did this in captivity when they have learnt from humans,just shows you the it does`nt take much to surprise scientists when countless animals use tools in one way or another.


well i knew apes used tools (sticks, rocks) before you just mentioned it there. i think you're using this to further your own agenda that science is wrong, but this statement in no way proves this. scientists, and everyday people already know that apes use tools. we know birds use tools and are skilled craft workers. there is also another species of bird that will find a thin twig to dig out grubs from trees. so to say scientists never knew, or were taken by surprise only recently on the news by apes using tools is BS.



Using scienctist`s claims will not bring you to God you find him on your knee`s,nor will education,nor will high or low IQ.
So regardless of a persons intelligence or education will have no bearing on accepting God into your life.


but your intelligence and education usually differ depending on how you were brought up, where you were brought up, and actually genes have showed to have a big affect on whether or not you believe in god. believe it or not there are many things that can affect a person during their life that might sway them one way or another toward or away from god. but as i said there is no universal answer that is true for everybody.

matter of fact, i didn't learn about evolution in depth until last year, when i started to read up on it myself. so before that i never had a preference and it's not like i avoided church, i just never 'found' god. i still don't have a preference, i am open to suggestions and ideas, but right now i've not seen anything or read anything that makes me think there is a god. my christian friend suggested i read the bible, in turn that was my downfall because i read it and i found no devinity at all. if anything it was worse reading the bible because i found out for myself, firsthand that it was utter rubbish. sure that's my opinion, but i'm aloud to have it because i've read it myself.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join