An Interesting Conversation Between A Student And Teacher

page: 9
72
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Geological strata, isotope dating, and archaeologic findings dating to over 6000 years of age prove this.

So, because YOU don't believe this claim of the Bible, it doesn't matter if it's contradicted or not? I wish I could pick and chose what I believe in like that without worrying about reality.



Since most of what I said was simply disregarded, I won't bother with much here except to say that most of what you said was "According to you" and the Opinions of other people.

How do we date these archaeological findings? Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to about 3000, maybe 3500 years. Even then its usually way off. There are too many variations with C-14 and its decay rate. You coul simply do a google search and find all the issues with carbon dating, yet we use this as "proof."

I don't pick and choose. The Bible says nothing about men having one less rib. The first man had one rib removed to make woman, but that in no way implies every male after that would have one less rib. You missed the point entirely because of your own biased agenda. The Bible does not make this claim.




posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Pacal Votan
 


Very good post!


I agree with what you just said and you said it well.

On the other side of the coin I don't see anyone splitting seas right now or a person giving water out of nowhere and other such things.

I guess what you are referring to are perhaps small miracles as opposed to the grand ones in the bible.

I am open minded, we might see one day a virgin giving birth, i'm not saying it can never happen, it might. But someone being fully born out of dust or a rib? No I don't think i'll see that.

The Biblical God, Zeus, Ra, Aztec's sun god........... We've been there before, it's not the first and not the last.

Do you know what created the world we now live in?
Decisions! That's what



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I have some pretty serious issues with that...

1) Science is being represented by a philosopher.

While binary relationships definitely have a place in science (existence / non-existence), tons of things in physical science are defined along a continuum. Any serious physical scientist could also tell you that cold is the absence of heat, and not a separate entity - seriously, that's some middle school stuff, and our philosopher should be beaten with a hose for not remembering it. The same with darkness. For fuks sake, when was the last time it was too bright in your* room when you were trying to sleep, so you turned the "darks" on? Nonsense.

2) Science is being misrepresented by the philosopher.

Science is theory shaped to support empirical results. Like religion, it is also based on a few axiomatic assumptions, but unlike religion, there is a constant effort to keep the set of axioms minimal. No, the philosopher cannot prove beyond any measure of uncertainty that he has a brain without opening his head up and letting folks look inside - unless of course you want to perform any of the zillion or so non-invasive medical procedures that can confirm it. Without resorting to that kind of common sense, though, you could simply look at all of the physiological data available to humanity and ascertain that never in our existence has there been someone discovered who was simultaneously alive and not in possession of a brain (including a brain stem in the definition of a brain). From that extremely convincing data set, it is only logical to assume that the philosopher has a brain - even if he wasn't using it in physics class. No such data exists to support any of religion's claims - in fact, the existence of such would fly in the face of the assumptions of faith. When in doubt, though, there are methods indeed available to prove the philosopher has a brain, i.e. the conjecture that he has a brain is falsifiable..

3) Evolution is misrepresented.

There is plenty of data around to support evolution. The fact that certain religiously influenced groups of people don't want to recognize it as such is lamentable. To see evolution in action, the philosopher wouldn't have to do much besides domesticate / breed animals, or introduce a hazardous agent into a colony of bacteria and watch the strains with a mutation making them resistant to the agent take over the population. Maybe middle school physics isn't the only class this dude slept through.

4) This is a Hallmark moment being sold as legitimate debate.

All too common in popular culture. While this conversation may be poignant on some superficial level, it is not at all what could be considered discussion on a serious level. In the end, there's only two possible things I can take away from this: First, you can't get steak out of a chicken, and second, the ex-President of India didn't have a very good philosophy teacher.



[edit on 2-2-2010 by Blackend]

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Blackend]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackend
 


By far, the best post i have read on this thread. Thank you for posting my thoughts.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mykahel
How do we date these archaeological findings? Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to about 3000, maybe 3500 years. Even then its usually way off. There are too many variations with C-14 and its decay rate. You coul simply do a google search and find all the issues with carbon dating, yet we use this as "proof."


No one is suggesting carbon dating. I said ISOTOPE dating. You understand that there are many different isotopes, all with different half-lives and ranges of usability, right?

Radiometric dating


I don't pick and choose. The Bible says nothing about men having one less rib. The first man had one rib removed to make woman, but that in no way implies every male after that would have one less rib. You missed the point entirely because of your own biased agenda. The Bible does not make this claim.


I can grant you that, perhaps the theoretical Adam was the only one who would lack a rib. You seem to ignore my other points, though, which I would assume means you have no explanation.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Hi Modern,
Can you confirm whether this conversation actually took place please?

Your source link doesn't seem to have any actual verifyable source, it's just a copy of exactly what you posted, without reference to the original author, witnesses of the event etc.

Many thanks,
G



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Re Splitting seas...
No, but the miracle of Fatima is interesting - Modern period sightings of the Virgin, with attendant effects. (1917) Lots of witnesses, and of course, up-to-date analysis of the reports come across as a close encounter.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that many biblical 'miracles' were paranormal phenomena, so maybe things don't change so much after all?

"someone being fully born out of dust or a rib? No I don't think i'll see that".

Ahh, but what about cloning? You see my point? re-interpretation.

BTW, I saw Dr House explain the possibility of Virgin birth - if House says its possible, well!



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
That whole conversation reads like a hoax.

Did it really happen? I doubt it. The "prof" would know about hot and cold and would understand that science measures by the absence of heat and not by abundance of cold.

So, that's a flaw.

Also, it is highly uncommon for any academic to challenge religious faith or belief.

Who cares what people believe anyway? If you want to learn how to build a bridge, you must study the scienec of engineering. There is nothing in the bible that tells you anything about how to make an electronic circuit work or how a plane flies or how to set up a cable system in order to have an elevator climb 100 floors safely.

This is all achieved through the humdrum of science on a daily basis.

When's the last time faith grew some food and made you a sandwich?

When's the last time you prayed to a particle collider?

It really doesn't matter and it is the height of stupidity for one to even bother trying to encroach on the other.

a scientist can be faithful to his god and still practice good science.

The argument is moot and has no value. Of course we subscribe to dualism. We have to in order to navigate through this world and this life.

Go sit on a mountain and be one with your god if you're not into it I guess.

Meanwhile, science has afforded us better living, longer lifespans, better hospitals, better technology and it is getting better and better.

what has religion given us? endless wars? intolerance towards others? my god is better than yours. you will never understand my god? what exactly does it give us anymore?

God is fine. God is all around you all the time. Take a breath. That is god. God is in everything.

Religion on the other hand should be done away with as soon as possible. It is corrupted and at the end of it's time of value. There is no value in any church any more. They are breeding grounds of ignorance and intolerance only.

churches, synagogues, mosques and temples should all be converted to soup kitchens for the homeless. Then they would at least be somewhat useful.

communing can be done anywhere. God is everywhere, he doesn't need a priest or imam or rabbi or monk to speak through.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by djusdjus
That whole conversation reads like a hoax.


Agreed - It has to be made up as the responses are too cookie cutter and too intentional just to set up the next part.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Over the years I've seen that same story with both famous people and nobodies as the student. It's attributed to famous people because for people with just a glancing view, it gives that story credibility.

Regardless, the story is a great interpretation of the divide between religion and science.

There are two major differences:

Science is based off of truth and is provable by the repeatable success and confirmation of viewing this proof. It's what turns a theory into a scientific fact. It's relative to the group experience.

Religion is based on faith. Faith is impossible to prove to others and is relative to an individual's experience.

Science also has no choice to admit when it's wrong. That's the scientific process. When something has been observed as a scientific fact, yet that same thing is viewed with a different result, science has no choice but to review the results and adjust the facts.

That same thing is what kills religious faith. When something is seen as absolute truth in a religion and then that same thing is proven to be either untrue or faulty, religion doesn't warrant study of it. They either sweep it under the carpet or invalidate the newer information because it doesn't adhere to the original information, which is canon and can't possibly be wrong.

I don't think it's wrong to have faith in a God. But it's a PERSONAL thing and becomes fair game for anyone wanting to debunk your "religion", whatever it may be. Once you make your "religion" public, you're fair game for anyone. Exactly the same as science.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Agree the post sounds the sort of nothing you would like to hear.

To be fair, it is thought provoking but in the "spiritual" camp not the science camp. Some interesting titbits to add:
- Nature does create clones - they are called identical twins
- Interesting point that you would read an engineering book to build a birdge not the bible; especially as Pi is 3.0 in the bible (Kings 7:23), does that mean that the Pope's wheels will fall off!
- On the point of our sense collecting the information, our world is beautifully constructed by Newtons Laws, but as soon as we go to planet level or atomic level, those laws get a bit silly (relativity & Planck). Is this because our senses are actually making the laws beautiful?

As an Agnostic, I can't use the word God but can use the word Nature (as above). Although I see no duality in Nature although it is savage and brutal and beautiful at the same time. There is randomness which creates order but not intelligent order as suggested by a God



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
This is a hoax, and not a very original one at that. In fact it's pretty much a word for word copy of the one here: www.snopes.com...



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Does any one really think this conversation actually took place? Sounds way too much like propaganda compared to a real conversation.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I've heard this story before. It's always some meaningful figure from history or whatever. Most famously perhaps; Albert Einstein.
The story is always a little bit different, in the Einstein story he used just the points of heat and light and then making the point that evil is just absence of good. What I'm going at here is; that however "nice" these stories sound, they're indeed stories and most likely fake. For what purpose? I can't answer, because I'm not sure.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Do you believe in god if you do have a look here and see how

MAN created god.

www.lowchensaustralia.com...

All over the globe all cultures have god(s) they all have creation stories etc they all have the same right to be believed, the only thing they all have in common MAN created them



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by georgejetson
 


It is a modern Parable.

According to Wikipedia -

A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. It differs from a fable in that fables use animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as characters, while parables generally feature human characters. It is a type of analogy.[1]

Some scholars of the New Testament apply the term "parable" only to the parables of Jesus,[2] though that is not a common restriction of the term. Parables such as "The Prodigal Son" are central to Jesus' teaching method in both the canonical narratives and the apocrypha.


It is often used as a way to get people to listen to an idea or thought by wrapping it up in a story or "parable". It is a very effective method of conveying idea's and is used in most children's books as a way to teach idea's or demonstrate lessons.

The OP would have no way of knowing one way or the other. When these get passed around for a while, whether or not they are a story used for teaching or an actual event which occurred is obscured. It really does not matter as the whole idea is promote discussion and demonstrate.

Hoax in this case would be a misnomer and give an incorrect representation of the OP's intent. A person who is unreasonably biased against people of faith could however use it wrongly to attack them or their point.

The only thing I see in this post is an attempt to convey the idea that no person can honestly say, there is no God. They can say, I believe there is no God, but that would be an act of faith equal to that of those who say they believe there is a God. Neither side can prove their belief one way or the other.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


If it were some unnamed student then yes, it would be a parable. As soon as you claim that student is some public figure, it becomes a hoax.

I don't believe the OP is the source of this hoax, or that he knew it to be one when he posted, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a hoax.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by georgejetson
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


If it were some unnamed student then yes, it would be a parable. As soon as you claim that student is some public figure, it becomes a hoax.

I don't believe the OP is the source of this hoax, or that he knew it to be one when he posted, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a hoax.


Thats why I asked the OP earlier, whether they could provide proof that the conversation actually took place.
If the conversation didn't take place, then surely the thread should be classed as a HOAX and moved accordingly?



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Reminds me of the argument.



Do you love your wife, parents or children?
How much do you love them?

OK, prove it.


Some things you can't quantify or measure scientifically. Yet that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
Reminds me of the argument.



Do you love your wife, parents or children?
How much do you love them?

OK, prove it.


Some things you can't quantify or measure scientifically. Yet that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.



We certainly could put a measure on it.

We could ask if you were willing to perform some sort of sacrifice on their behalf. Hypothetically we could test it by playing the scenario out for real. It wouldn't be a particularly accurate measurement, but it would be a measurement none the less.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by georgejetson]





new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join