Conquer Club

Continuation of Christianity debate.

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby jonesthecurl on Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:29 pm

Gregrios wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
Gregrios wrote:How far back is this pamphlet anyway? :?

I've searched back to page 81 & haven't seen a thing. Talk about digging up ancient history. :roll:

The funny thing is that I have replied to it at length every time it has been posted, and Jenos has never taken me up on even one point.


I just got done looking it up and I'd love to be the one to break it to you. :D

The reason why that debate died so fast is because both you and Jenos are so long winded. [-X

Seriously man, no one wants to read an entire essay especially when there's most likely no chance of anything being accomplished. ;)

I didn't even read it all. It's just not worth it. :roll:


Hey, I wonder why that Jones guy is breaking the debate up into one question at a time?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4603
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby jonesthecurl on Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:31 pm

Gregrios wrote:
naxus wrote:Quick question does the bible mention creation of other worlds?


Why would it? It has nothing to do with us. ;)


Wow, "shallow" can mean "one electron deep".
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4603
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby Mr_Adams on Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:20 am

jonesthecurl wrote:
Gregrios wrote:
naxus wrote:Quick question does the bible mention creation of other worlds?


Why would it? It has nothing to do with us. ;)


Wow, "shallow" can mean "one electron deep".


Well, if you look at it as the Bible being God's communication with us, that's not shallow, it's realistic.
Image
User avatar
Captain Mr_Adams
 
Posts: 1987
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:33 pm

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby Neoteny on Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:32 am

Mr_Adams wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:
Gregrios wrote:
naxus wrote:Quick question does the bible mention creation of other worlds?


Why would it? It has nothing to do with us. ;)


Wow, "shallow" can mean "one electron deep".


Well, if you look at it as the Bible being God's communication with us, that's not shallow, it's realistic.


And if you look at it as a primitive mythology, it's useless.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby protectedbygold on Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:34 am

tzor wrote:The notion that all tribal religions must be equivalent is roughly the same non argument that all forms of government must be equivalent or that all theories in science must be equivalent. That's why we constantly get comparisons to the "flying spaghetti monster" and so forth because it's easier to build a straw man and fun to watch him burn.


Interesting the way you put this. I haven't posted that much in response to your writings but I'm really enjoying everything you're presenting here. I must admit that you articulate your faith much better than any believer I've run into before. Most of them just say you've got to have faith in order to seal the deal, which I've found lame.
User avatar
Private protectedbygold
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:06 pm

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby kletka on Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:41 am

Juan_Bottom wrote: Didn't you just say that you are not of the Christian faith? What faith are you?


As it says on my profile, I am jedi, a member of UK's 4th largest religion. I believe that the world, including its moral dimension, has been created for Force, which is still there but doesnt have a free will. I believe in the multitude of intelligent life in the universe, and that we, humans came to this planet from outer space 60,000 or so years ago, and killed all neandertals, indigenous intelligent lifeform on Earth...

naxus wrote:Honestly the test for christianity...
Quick question does the bible mention creation of other worlds?


The bible is the message from God which is 2000 years old. Humans were not concerned with aliens then, hence the message contains no mentioning of them. If you read the bible carefully, God did send several messages to humans, starting from the very primitive to Adam and Eve, "hang around but dont eat the apple". Just pray that God will send us a new message containing answers to your question!

jonesthecurl wrote:Ok: next question - what colour were Adam and Eve?
More generally, colour of eyes/ hair, did Adam have a hairy chest, what other characteristics would we expect all their descendants to exhibit if in fact they do not evolve at all into different skin tones, eye colours, pre-disposition to allergies, etc?
ANd how come we don't all look like Adam and Eve if they are our only, divinely-created, genetic ancestors?


Well, the bible would not contain answers to these questions as such answers would be dangerous. Using population genetics, one can say with a large degree of certainty that Adam and Eve were black jews... I dont think it is feasible t ask God for their full medical record, though nothing prevents you from trying...
Learning the force to control the dice (highest ever score: 3128, highest ever rank: 40)
User avatar
Major kletka
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Naboo

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby tzor on Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:01 am

MeDeFe, I can't believe I actually not only understood most of what you posted (I'm not going to quote the entire post) but I actually appreciated it.

The notion of space time, invented by Einstien and improved by Hawkings raises an interesting notion to our undestanding of everything (which is more than just the universe). If space and time are a function of our universe what is there outside that universe? Is there non-space and non-time? Are there multiple bubbles of universes and do they have an impact on each other?

More over does quantum mechanics imply a universe that is not "real" (real as in the set of rational and irrational numbers that forms a level of infinity known as aleph one) but rather of the level of infinity of the set of counting numbers (or the set of rational numbers which is aleph 0)? If the space is indeed rational is there a "hyper space" inbeetween the rational space which is in fact both rational and irrational? (Remember the old Dr Who epsiode that used the "Transmission Of Matter Through Interstitial Time" plot McGuffin. The idea is similiar.)

And finally if I may for a moment go out into the really deep end what if the dimensional model of the universe isn't the only model that explains and models it. That one can look at the universe as something that is different from a matrix of space time points in which particles are located, but a matrix of particles themselves with some other criteria being used to define them all?

What is the point to all of this? Well the first point is to note that the universe is far more complex than we can currently imagine.

MeDeFe wrote:Specifically point 8, if a mathematical model were to be developed that explained how dimensions and matter could spontaneously pop into existence, would that process then be "god"?

Or if this universe is the result of processes in a different universe, one with completely different physical conditions that (if observable) actually could be shown to have spontaneously "popped into existence". Would that other universe then be "god"?

To some extent I see the notion of god as a lack of phantasy in one respect and an excess of fantasy in an other, everything has to be just so and there has to be an ultimate fundament to rest things on (lack) and this fundament has to have all these fancy features and love us (excess). And nevermind that the second part goes against everything we have observed so far, practically all of the features ascribed to god have only been observed in evolved biological beings that have comparatively well-developed brains, it's almost as far from essential as you can get. But they're ascribed to this supposedly essential deity; how does that deity by default get those features that are the product of a long process? I might be able to imagine dimensions spontaneously appearing, but that boggles my mind.
That deity might have been creating universes all over the place, ours is, as far as is currently known, about 13.7 billion years old and of unknown size, but at any rate damn large. Yet we're supposed to be special and chosen and loved? To me that looks like extremely wishful thinking somewhere beyond the scale of "she didn't spit at me and hit me when I asked if she'd pass the salt, she must be in love with me".


I'm not really sure I follow you on the last part, but I am reminded of the old torture device in the Hithicker's guide to the Galaxy where one was shown the entire universe and at the same time one's place in it as the insignificant nothing that it really is. No you have to go back to the Hawkings model, the notion of the "creation" of the universe is a distraction, the universe "is." Now given that it's hard to prove anything, but if the universe is, is it not reasonable to assume the posibility of the existance of a being who also is ("I am") who in turn is in turn driven to the notion of caring for the other (or in other words a proper definition of "love") and that other may include us? What about hypothetical others? The fact that I don't know doesn't make me immediately discount the notion.

And that is the fundamental difference here. Once you are open to the posibility that it might be possible, once you avoid the false science of not accepting anything you can't immediately prove (which doesn't mean you automatically accept it either) and once you stop using the false strawmen of relativitism we can discuss the nature and implications of free will (within the static space time model) and how it may be possible for something to propagate in spite of our general idiotic tendencies, such as a higher being's love and concern for us in a way that we might not otherwise be thinking of.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby Neoteny on Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:17 pm

False science? Is that like junk science?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby naxus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:06 pm

So if the bible doesnt mention other life out there then when we find some that proves christianity is wrong?
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class naxus
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:29 pm
Location: In Hel's arms

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby jonesthecurl on Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:08 pm

kletka wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote: Didn't you just say that you are not of the Christian faith? What faith are you?


As it says on my profile, I am jedi, a member of UK's 4th largest religion. I believe that the world, including its moral dimension, has been created for Force, which is still there but doesnt have a free will. I believe in the multitude of intelligent life in the universe, and that we, humans came to this planet from outer space 60,000 or so years ago, and killed all neandertals, indigenous intelligent lifeform on Earth...

naxus wrote:Honestly the test for christianity...
Quick question does the bible mention creation of other worlds?


The bible is the message from God which is 2000 years old. Humans were not concerned with aliens then, hence the message contains no mentioning of them. If you read the bible carefully, God did send several messages to humans, starting from the very primitive to Adam and Eve, "hang around but dont eat the apple". Just pray that God will send us a new message containing answers to your question!

jonesthecurl wrote:Ok: next question - what colour were Adam and Eve?
More generally, colour of eyes/ hair, did Adam have a hairy chest, what other characteristics would we expect all their descendants to exhibit if in fact they do not evolve at all into different skin tones, eye colours, pre-disposition to allergies, etc?
ANd how come we don't all look like Adam and Eve if they are our only, divinely-created, genetic ancestors?


Well, the bible would not contain answers to these questions as such answers would be dangerous. Using population genetics, one can say with a large degree of certainty that Adam and Eve were black jews... I dont think it is feasible t ask God for their full medical record, though nothing prevents you from trying...



Whatever they were, where did the other races come from?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4603
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby CoffeeCream on Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:17 pm

protectedbygold wrote:
tzor wrote:The notion that all tribal religions must be equivalent is roughly the same non argument that all forms of government must be equivalent or that all theories in science must be equivalent. That's why we constantly get comparisons to the "flying spaghetti monster" and so forth because it's easier to build a straw man and fun to watch him burn.


Interesting the way you put this. I haven't posted that much in response to your writings but I'm really enjoying everything you're presenting here. I must admit that you articulate your faith much better than any believer I've run into before. Most of them just say you've got to have faith in order to seal the deal, which I've found lame.


To Gold: I was searching myself awhile ago. Your posts sound like you might also be considering eternal issues. I can just tell you from personal experience that submitting my life to Jesus Christ was the most awesome experience I've had. My life now has a purpose and I have joy on a level that I've never known until now. I would invite you to investigate the Bible for yourself and pm me if you have any questions about the questions I had. Cheers!! :D
luns101 wrote:You should be able to convert a soul from 500 yards away armed only with a Gideon New Testament that you found at a Holiday Inn!!!!


muy_thaiguy wrote:Sir! Permission to do 50 push-ups with the Ark of the Covenant on my back?
User avatar
Corporal CoffeeCream
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:43 pm

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby Gregrios on Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:31 pm

naxus wrote:So if the bible doesnt mention other life out there then when we find some that proves christianity is wrong?


That would be like me reframing from calling you a bonehead.

That doesn't mean I don't think it? ;)
Things are now unfolding that only prophecy can explain!
User avatar
Sergeant Gregrios
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:51 pm
Location: At the gates of your stronghold!

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby Ray Rider on Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:21 am

Gregrois.... :roll:
naxus wrote:So if the bible doesnt mention other life out there then when we find some that proves christianity is wrong?

No, why would it? It doesn't mention any other life out there, but neither does it explicitly state "There is no life anywhere except on planet earth." In my opinion, given the complexity of life and how many factors are required to support life, I find it highly improbable that there would be life anywhere else.
Image
Image
Highest score: 2221
User avatar
Major Ray Rider
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:21 pm
Location: In front of my computer, duh!

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby kletka on Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:27 am

jonesthecurl wrote: Whatever they were, where did the other races come from?


Population geneticists have proved that all humans came from Africa, and that at a certain point 60,000 years there were around 5,000 humns on the earth. Let me try to dig you a reference on internet.

This is what it says on mighty wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
There are 2 different figures quoted there: 2,000 and 15,000. I have read an article in New Scientist a while ago, from which I remember the figure 5,000...

Please, note that this is a mainstream science, not some weird creationism!!
Learning the force to control the dice (highest ever score: 3128, highest ever rank: 40)
User avatar
Major kletka
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Naboo

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby muy_thaiguy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:40 am

kletka wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote: Didn't you just say that you are not of the Christian faith? What faith are you?


As it says on my profile, I am jedi, a member of UK's 4th largest religion. I believe that the world, including its moral dimension, has been created for Force, which is still there but doesnt have a free will. I believe in the multitude of intelligent life in the universe, and that we, humans came to this planet from outer space 60,000 or so years ago, and killed all neandertals, indigenous intelligent lifeform on Earth...

Not quite sure what to make of that, in all honesty. Has a few similarities to Scientology, I must say. :?
"Eh, whatever."
-Anonymous


What, you expected something deep or flashy?
User avatar
Private 1st Class muy_thaiguy
 
Posts: 12746
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:20 am
Location: Back in Black

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby kletka on Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:01 am

muy_thaiguy wrote:
kletka wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote: Didn't you just say that you are not of the Christian faith? What faith are you?


As it says on my profile, I am jedi, a member of UK's 4th largest religion. I believe that the world, including its moral dimension, has been created for Force, which is still there but doesnt have a free will. I believe in the multitude of intelligent life in the universe, and that we, humans came to this planet from outer space 60,000 or so years ago, and killed all neandertals, indigenous intelligent lifeform on Earth...

Not quite sure what to make of that, in all honesty. Has a few similarities to Scientology, I must say. :?


Not a bit. They have all these weird dianetics axioms such as that they live forever, etc... The beauty of jedi is that nobody bothered to formulate foundations yet. Hence, whatever is there fits my personal system of religious beliefs perfectly.

Born a christian, I came to doubt it because of inconsistencies between the books in the new testament (why could not the holy ghost, allegedly written, the testament do a better job with Mathew?) and complete nonsense in the old testament (such as Noah's ark and the flood)...
Learning the force to control the dice (highest ever score: 3128, highest ever rank: 40)
User avatar
Major kletka
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Naboo

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby protectedbygold on Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:01 am

CoffeeCream wrote:To Gold: I was searching myself awhile ago. Your posts sound like you might also be considering eternal issues. I can just tell you from personal experience that submitting my life to Jesus Christ was the most awesome experience I've had. My life now has a purpose and I have joy on a level that I've never known until now. I would invite you to investigate the Bible for yourself and pm me if you have any questions about the questions I had. Cheers!! :D


I appreciate the offer. :D
User avatar
Private protectedbygold
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:06 pm

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby jonesthecurl on Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:50 am

kletka wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote: Whatever they were, where did the other races come from?


Population geneticists have proved that all humans came from Africa, and that at a certain point 60,000 years there were around 5,000 humns on the earth. Let me try to dig you a reference on internet.

This is what it says on mighty wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
There are 2 different figures quoted there: 2,000 and 15,000. I have read an article in New Scientist a while ago, from which I remember the figure 5,000...

Please, note that this is a mainstream science, not some weird creationism!!


Ah, but there are those posting here who are (in case you hadn't noticed) denying the validity of "mainstream science" and upholding "weird creationism", the notion that the Bible is the literal truth. Quite a few of them.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4603
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby kletka on Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:54 am

jonesthecurl wrote: Ah, but there are those posting here who are (in case you hadn't noticed) denying the validity of "mainstream science" and upholding "weird creationism", the notion that the Bible is the literal truth. Quite a few of them.


Not only here bit on the Kansas State Department Education Board ;)

Being a Christian essentially means accepting Nicene Greed. The only part of the creed speaking about the bible is
"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets"
Hence, as soon as you believe that the new testament was told by the holy ghost through the evangelists, you can still remain a Christian. Please, note that old testament is essentially not mentioned, let alone any insistence on its being a literal truth. It is even possible to interpret this sentence that evangelists might have misunderstood the Holy Spirit and get a few details wrong, but this will definitely be some kind of heresy :ugeek:
Last edited by kletka on Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Learning the force to control the dice (highest ever score: 3128, highest ever rank: 40)
User avatar
Major kletka
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Naboo

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby tzor on Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:03 am

Neoteny wrote:False science? Is that like junk science?


No jusk science is just junk that pretends to be science. "False" science is the attempt to insist on a negative, that the lack of proof proves something is wrong. In fact the lack of proof doesn't mean that there is no possible proof, only that we don't have any at hand that we can use.

True science attempts to prove things true. Through observation and experment theories are made and tested. If they are proven correct through further observations and experments they are validated. If not they are modified and the process repeats in a waterfall system of continual observation / experment / propose theory cycles. No theory is perfect but the goal is to make better and better theories and thus refine our general understanding of the problem space.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby Backglass on Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:02 pm

kletka wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:Not only here bit on the Kansas State Department Education Board ;)


Image
Image
The Pro-Tip®, SkyDaddy® and Image are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Backglass
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: New York

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby Neoteny on Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:28 am

tzor wrote:
Neoteny wrote:False science? Is that like junk science?


No jusk science is just junk that pretends to be science. "False" science is the attempt to insist on a negative, that the lack of proof proves something is wrong. In fact the lack of proof doesn't mean that there is no possible proof, only that we don't have any at hand that we can use.

True science attempts to prove things true. Through observation and experment theories are made and tested. If they are proven correct through further observations and experments they are validated. If not they are modified and the process repeats in a waterfall system of continual observation / experment / propose theory cycles. No theory is perfect but the goal is to make better and better theories and thus refine our general understanding of the problem space.


True science attempts to prove things wrong.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby tzor on Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:35 am

Neoteny wrote:True science attempts to prove things wrong.


True science attempts to prove things right.
In trying to prove something right you often look for things that are wrong.
That is because one wrong proves it is not right.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby Neoteny on Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:51 am

tzor wrote:
Neoteny wrote:True science attempts to prove things wrong.


True science attempts to prove things right.
In trying to prove something right you often look for things that are wrong.
That is because one wrong proves it is not right.


You can't prove anything right in science, because there is no way of knowing if something is absolutely right. It's a bit easier to know if something is absolutely wrong. If your hypothesis doesn't match the data, then it is wrong. If it does match the data, then it may not be wrong, but it is not necessarily right. You continue accumulating data and performing other tests until you prove it wrong. If your hypothesis survives a lot of tests, it moves into the realm of theory, and it is likely that you are close to being right, but one never knows for sure ("it's only a theory, after all"). I don't know if we're trying to say the same thing, but in science, when you are trying to prove something right, all you can do is try to prove it wrong.

I think this is one of the most misunderstood (and one of the most important) concepts of science, which is why I'm trying to make sure we're on the same wavelength. It's also one of the more profound and elegant concepts, and it leads a lot of credibility to long-standing theories about our existence (evolution, for one). People have been trying to disprove them for hundreds of years, and have repeatedly failed to do so.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Continuation of Christianity debate.

Postby tzor on Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:24 am

OK I think we may be arguing word play here. My original point was you dont' go about to attempt to prove a negative, but you go about to attempt to prove a positive. You go about it by attempting to look for the one negative which would disprove it and hopefully you don't.

So if Einstien's general theory of relativity says that an observation should produce a certain result you then check to see if it does. You might say that this is trying to prove a negative, but one could also say it's attempting to disprove a positive.

So let me get back to my original argument. Science attempts to propose theories about something in a positive manner and then attempts to disprove those positive theories. Such theories can never be completely proven, in part because they are almost never completely correct in the first place.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users